Daniel Pearlman <[log in to unmask]> wrote:

<< There is no question in my mind that Pound was thoroughly elitist
and had no interest in the common folk.  His hatred of Usury focuses
on its effects on the arts, not on the little guy's lifestyle.
I am amused to recall an instance of his total insensitivity to the
workingman.  Sometime in the 20s he offered the suggestion that
music be piped in to the factory floor to enable the worker to be
more productive by reducing the monotony of his job.  (He was his
own sort of Taylorite!)>>

An interesting anecdote.  I recall reading that suggestion too.  Thank you
for reminding us of this.

<<By the way, I do not denigrate Pound for being unconcerned with the
mass of humanity.  >>

"Being unconcerned with the mass of humanity" (?)  In the previous paragraph
you said, "total insensitivity to the workingman."  Which do you really
think properly characterizes Pound's view?

The reason I ask is to clarify this point, because I believe reasonable
disagreement can occur on this issue.  When I think of "unconcerned," I
think of James Joyce, who was essentially apolitical and totally devoted to
his craft and to aesthetic pursuits.  Such people are unconcerned, but not
hostile toward the working man.  Pound it seems to me WAS concerned about
the mass of humanity.  He was concerned that they be put in their proper
place, that they be subjected to the proper discipline.  He thought the
truth should be kept from them, or given to them by certain people ("Freedom
of the Speech for those qualified to exercise it") and that they should be
dazzled by ritual ("Mass should be in Latin or in Chinese, or any language
the Masses cannot understand").  He applauded the ceremony of the rural
Italian women submitting to having their labors "blessed" by ordained
priests, though he rejected such priestly ceremonies for himself.

So I would say, that in one sense he was "unconcerned with the mass of
humanity", in the sense you mean.  But in another sense he was concerned
about their fate, and about their subjection under the fascist yoke,
especially in Europe, and in China.  I would say that he was "insensitive to
the worker" in the sense you mean.  But he was very "sensitive" to the fact
that the worker could rebel, and that fascist order was needed to prevent
the advent of widespread democracy. Perhaps this is what he meant when he
said, "Total democracy was bilge."  Pound might have meant merely that
democracy needed to be limited.  I am sure some may wish to argue that.  But
Pound's political commitments lead me to believe that limited democracy
means "fascism" , or it means "aristo-democracy" in the style of Adams.
This essentially signifies the silencing of all independent presses, the
move toward aristocracy and AWAY from any meaningful democracy, and toward
the establishment of an executive, a monarchy, or a DUCE, who will arrogate
all power to himself.


<<His stance is perhaps a needed corrective to
today's PC downgrade of all elites in favor of the always-oppressed
little guy of every stripe and color.>>

This is puzzling to me.  How can "insensitivity" or a "lack of concern" be a
corrective?  Where is there an alleged "PC downgrade of all elites"?  What
elites are being downgraded?  Are there any elites who deserve their elite
status, that are in danger of being deprived of that status?  I wonder if
you could be specific.

Please explain the phrase "in favor of the always-oppressed little guy of
every stripe and color."  You believe that there are "always-oppressed
little guys" who are undeserving of restitution or justice.  Who are these
people of "every stripe and color"?  Are they oppressed single mothers who
being compelled to work two or three jobs, which do not provide a livable
wage?  Are they workers who are losing health insurance, or being made to
work longer hours for less pay measured in real wages, than the work force
as a whole did in 1979?  Are they the employees who receive one dollar for
every two hundred dollars received by the average CEO in a large company
(while in 1980 the ration was 1:150, and in 1960 the ratio was 1: 14).   Are
these "always oppressed" people the children living in poverty, who now
constitute one in five of all children born in the US?

I think you need to say who these "little guys" are.

<<(But of course, today's humane
democratism is itself partly a reaction to Modernism's insensitivities.)>>

Which "humane democritism" are you referring to?  The new welfare policy?
The new policy that allows health insurance companies to dump millions of
subscribers to enhance the bottom line?  The new trade policy that allows
factory owners to fire all their workers and move to Mexico to pay workers
under a dollar an hour, or to China where they can pay as low as three cents
per hour?  Or is it the new banking policy which guts the anti-trust laws
and makes it possible for banks, brokerage firms, and insurance firms to
merge, guaranteeing higher prices for all services and oligopolistic
collusion of a kind not seen since the 1920's?

Perhaps it is the new landscape on which our democratic elections are
fought.  Is it this landscape which you would say is rife with "humane
democratism", an arena in which candidates are compelled to raise
unprecendented amounts of money, and the vested corporate interests have
greater power than ever in calling the tune?  Is this the system which
inordinately favors the "little guy" (whose campaign contributions mean
virtually nothing)?


<<It is true that EP later became interested in certain minority cultures,
but only for their symbolically interesting rituals and myths.>>

We agreed on this last point completely.  We can cite in this connection the
Nakhi (or Naxi) of southeast China.

Regards,

Wei

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