The poet in this passage appears to me to accept without blinking the class
construct "mandarin" ... "merchants" ... "people" and to identify the source
of the economic problem with a failing in human nature ("greed"). This
passage culminates with a punishment of the greedy person, which we're to
recognize as apposite to the crime. We call it "poetic justice". While a
practical political theorist might propose a political system that removed
opportunities for the exercise of greed, Pound's view is that no matter how
many checks and balances there may be in the system, the betrayal of the
public trust is to be expected until leaders begin thinking like good men.
Pound the moralist is at home in the pulpit, even though his subject matter
may seem to be politics.

In the wartime broadcasts, Pound praises the U.S. political system, as it
was hammered out by the founding fathers, as purty near the best one could
ever hope to get, the culmination of the best of western tradition. But he
thinks the country has gone to hell and that the central tenets of the
Constitution are being violated. You mention that he had no problem with
Mussolini's longevity but railed against Roosevelt's. Pound thought R. was
destroying the country, taking it down the road to collectivist ruin, while
arrogating power to himself which the consitution had denied to the
executive branch. Pound regarded the congress as complicit in this betrayal
of the constitution. But to explain this inconsistency--M. can rule for as
long as he wants, but R. cannot-- solely in terms of Pound's "anti-semitism"
is to cross the bridge but halfway. Pound associates _collectivist ruin_
with the Jewish bankers and international loan-capital. He thinks of the
american people as having lost the spark, their race-will. He thought that
homogeneity of race was necessary for true cultural cohesion. Pound's hatred
of collectivism deserves equal emphasis.

This brings us back to the question of government "by the people". American
Democracy looked to Pound as if it were sliding during the 'thirties into
Communism. Isn't that why we find him praising the U.S. Constitution while
supporting the fascist cause in the 'forties? Because he thought fascism was
the 'proportionally good' antidote to communism?

Tim Romano


----- Original Message -----
From: "En Lin Wei" <[log in to unmask]>
To: <[log in to unmask]>
Sent: Saturday, July 08, 2000 4:49 AM
Subject: Of, for, through, bye, and beyond the people . . . .


> I can see why you read the Ouang passage as you do.  Looked at in purely
> moral terms, your interpretation is extremely plausible.
>
> <<Tim Romano wrote:
>
> By (or not by) the people. A people may accept to be ruled by an
individual,
> or by a group, or by some combination thereof. A people may or may not
> choose the rulers they accept. Even in situations where rulers are chosen,
> by popular election, government "by the people" is a matter of degree>>
>
> I concur.
>
> << if
> every decision, great or small, were subject to a vote by all of the
people,
> rule "by the people"  would still be rule "by most of the people" since
> unanimity is rare.  >>
>
> This is true, but perhaps not very relevant, since the word "democracy" is
> rarely used in modern times in the sense of total direct democracy.
> Nevertheless, I follow your logic to this point.
>
> <<To the extent that a people is willing to accept the
> rulings of an appointed judiciary (appointed and confirmed by rulers they
> may have voted against) they are not purely self-governed.>>
>
> You are correct.  No nation is  (or really can, in practical terms, be)
> PURELY SELF GOVERNED.
>
> Now here is where you lose me.  I think that what follows is a bit of a
> leap.
> In the next sentence you ask,
>
> <<What, then, is
> government "by the people" but a chimera?>>
>
> I think something like the fallacy of the excluded middle is being
committed
> when you pose this question.
>
> As you said before, such government is a matter of degree.  Athens was
more
> a government of the people than its rival Persia.  (Even though in Athens
> slaves and women had no right to vote; in Persia NO ONE had such rights).
>
> Currently the US is more of democracy, a government "by the people" than
> either Saudi Arabia or North Korea.  Though arguably, Finland and France,
> where the electorates are more empowered, where people are more likely to
> vote, are more democratic than the US (only some 35% of eligible voters in
> the US actually vote, the lowest turnout for the industrial democracies).
> It is a matter of degree.
>
> The trouble with Pound is, I think, that he did not limit himself to being
a
> moralist, as you say he was.  He quotes Adams approvingly in the Cantos as
> saying that not enough people take the time to study government.  Pound
> agrees with Adams and does (perhaps unfortunately) take the time.  A huge
> portion of the Cantos is devoted to the subject of political philosophy;
> perhaps there is more political philosophy in Pound than in the work of
any
> other poet who wrote in English.
>
> True government "by the people" may be virtually impossible.   But let us
> look at Pound's life, his commitments, and the fate of some of his
exemplars
> (Mussolini, Hitler, and Franco, for instance,--- who are all praised in
the
> Cantos--- as well as the Chinese Emperors, most of whom were little better
> than dictators and tyrants who offer scant lessons to our era) They
> illustrate one very important point:  A bad democracy is on principle
better
> than most so-called "good" dictatorships, especially those praised by
Pound.
>
> In one part of the Cantos, Pound quotes Confucius as complaining about
> political figures who get themselves into power and do everything they can
> to "retain" power.  The strange thing is that Mussolini did exactly this
> from 1922 til 1943, quite a long reign for anyone.  Equally strange is
that
> Pound did not see this as excessive.
>
> Regards,
>
> Wei
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> ________________________________________________________________________
> Get Your Private, Free E-mail from MSN Hotmail at http://www.hotmail.com
>
>