>Subject: Re: Labor, progressive economic theories, China trade, and
>Poundian economics


Joe Brennan says,

Any connection [between Pound and the China trade debate]

>is certainly not demonstrated in your remarks on this
>subject . . .

One would have to work it out, of course.  I think Pound would have been
deeply interested in the question.

Such an analysis might require the serious consideration of these
propositions:

1.  That an understanding of China is essential to an understanding of Pound

2. That an understanding of the laborer’s plight is essential to
understanding the nature of Poundian economics (assuming, additionally that
one is interested in that subject).

3.  That Pound’s reading of history (since Cantos is , in his words, “a poem
which contains history”) has some relevance to our interpretation of
contemporary events.

4.  That Pound’s desire to see Fascism victorious over Communism and
Capitalist “democracy” --in the West and the East ---   is one central facet
of his work.

If one is not willing to consider the validity of these assertions, then, of
course, there will be no relationship between the issues.

>
>
>I suggest above, it's not as if these issues
>aren't widely discussed.  no one that I know relies on the Official Media,
>having abandoned that venue years ago.
>
>

I am sincerely glad that no one you know relies on the official media.
However, since the vast majority of Americans (and Chinese) still get their
news about such things from the corporate-controlled or official media, a
balanced view will be impossible for most.

I wonder if any of the media you are exposed to, or if the mainstream
media--as far as you know--broadcast a single interview by a Chinese worker
(who was not under the thumb of the government).

How often was the view of an ordinary working man in the US presented on TV,
as regards “normal trade relations”?

This relates to Pound (as I see it) in the following way:  Pound is a member
of the old school, in that he presents political and historical reality from
the point of view of the elites, not from the point of view of the working
man (or woman).

Pound presents history in way which is diametrically opposed to the
methodology of such historians as Michelet (whom Pound had read) and
Kropotkin, and Marx, all of whom wrote about history not as it were made
solely by aristocrats, emperors, dictators, or statesmen, but by the broad
masses of “ordinary” people.

[Can I assume you agree, in part, with this last statement?]

Thus I concur with Carrol Cox, who says that there is a sort of congruence
between Pound’s fascism (in the way it deceives the worker by promising
benefits, while it expoits the majority) and modern capitalism.  Both bring
the nation into needless wars, and form trade and economic patterns to
benefit an elite which is basically unaccountable to the people as a whole
(Of course there is not an exact equivalence between fascism and modern
capitalism, but there are similarities, I believe, in the areas I just
mentioned).

More to the point, I  believe the careful study of Pound’s ideology is
beneficial for many reasons, one being that his fascism is a sort of
“grotesque”, an exageration of views held by many members of the elite
class, an exageration which reveals in the broadest strokes, or sheds light
by virtue of its extreme glare on both historical and contemporary
realities.  Of course, the study of Pound is beneficial for many other
purposes, as well.

Regards,

Wei
________________________________________________________________________
Get Your Private, Free E-mail from MSN Hotmail at http://www.hotmail.com