Part 2 of 2 Posts

Did Pound believe in the Constitution or ever use the word "democracy"? (2)

>I fear that Wei will spread further and more
>ineradicable ignorance among the many (not on this list, of course) who
>really don't know much about Pound and are happy to accept whatever they
>come across as truth certain about that difficult individual.

I trust anyone who hears, or reads anything I say, to read further and
enlighten themselves.  If I am in error, I expect to be corrected.  Do you
distrust "the many" as you call them, and believe they are unable to think
for themselves?

>         No scholar of Pound can begin to come to grips with Pound's views
>on the Constitution without knowing that he obsessively referred (in
>letters, radio talks, and the Cantos (see, e.g., the Pisans)) to the U.S.
>Constitution art. I, sec. 8: "The Congress shall have power ... [t]o coin
>money, regulate the value thereof, and of foreign coin, and fix the
>standard of weights and measures."

YES. YES. YES. This is the sort of evidence I really want to discuss.  I
even confess some gratitude to Pound to pointing to this crucial section of
the constitution.   I recall when I first read the passage.  Now, after some
time has passed,  I am able to look at this reference as it fits into the
larger framework of Pound's thought.  Now, I am more skeptical about Pound's
intentions.  How do you interpret Pound's reference to Art. I, section 8 ?
Does it indicate anything more than Pound's hostility to the placing the
monetary power in the hands of the Fed (The American Fascist Party makes the
same criticism of the Fed, and I am not very sanguine about their
committment to democracy)?  Does Pound cite this part of the Constitution
because he really believed that the ELECTED REPRESENTATIVES of the people
should control the money supply, credit, and coinage DIRECTLY?  I have my
doubts.  And if he does want to vest such power in the hands of the people's
representatives, why does he support Mussolini, Hitler, and the Japanese
imperial government (who never gave any indication that they intended to do
anything of the sort)?  How do YOU interpret that article of the
constitution, and do you believe Pound was literally committed to it?
Please cite a quote where Pound himself gives you that impression.

>If you miss this aspect of Pound's thought--and I don't see how
>anyone actively reading him could--you've missed it all: Our government,
>Pound believed, can remedy the problem of private banking ("usury"), and
>the creation of wars to perpetuate privately controlled money, by
>returning the control of money (read "stamp scrip" or whatever you like)
>to the elected representatives--like the Congressmen Pound lobbied when he
>visited America in 1939.  And--pace Wei--this is Pound's way of affirming
>a belief, deeply though quirkily held, in representative democracy.

Fascists, Stalinists, and Saudi Arabian monarchists are all against "usury."
  That does not mean they believe in democracy.   Lobbying Congress does not
indicate a belief in democracy.  (One example:  Public opinion polls show
that the majority of the people in the US believe that military spending
should either stay the same or be reduced.  A minority, roughly 30 per cent
believe military spending should be raised.  --- see
http://www.pollingreport.com   ----   So what does Congress do this year?
They raise military spending by tens of billions, even more than the
President asked for.  Why?  Because those lobbying for the military and arms
contractors have sufficient money and leverage to persuade key figures to
vote them more money.  Do you think the lobbyists who convince Congressmen
to vote for their proposals actually believe in democracy -- ie , the rule
of the people?  I think not.)

Pound, I know, visited his Congressional representative, and tried to urge
him to adopt parts of his economic program.  Why does this, in and of itself
convince you that Pound supported democracy?  Recall:  when Douglas
denounced Mussolini, Pound said Douglas was wrong, and sided with Mussolini.
   Pound had an opportunity to decide between democracy and dictatorship.
He decided in favor of dictatorship.  He even abandoned his supposed
allegiance to the thought embodied in Douglas "Economic Democracy" and
"Social Credit", by going over to Odon Por, the fascist economist who he
translated.

If this isssue interests you see "Ideograms and Economics":  See
http://www.geocities.com/weienlin/econ.html

The problem for Pound was that the word "democracy" was not actually in his
vocabulary, or if it was it had no meaning for him ( or a very negative
connotation).


>         Of course, that may seem to us inconsistent with his hankering for
>charismatic fascism, but Pound cannot be held to political and ideological
>"consistency" of the ordinary sort and still remain Pound.

Are we talking about the ubermensch here?

>Wei seeks virtuous and homogeneous consistency in ideological thought.

I do not.  On the contrary.  I believe a homogenous, consistent ideology is
an impossibility.  Any ideology must be limited, as it will contradict the
ideology of other individuals, classes, social groups, and societies, and
thus it must be altered, broken, or cracked wide open to undergo further
development.

You conclude by saying,

>         One last snippet:
>
> >   And if he did highly value the US Consitution, as you suggest, why was
>he
> > so interested in China, Confucianism (which is an authoritarian
>doctrine),
> > and in Confucian texts?  And how could he reconcile these interests?
>
>         If, as an interpreter of Pound, you do not see it as your
>task--and Pound would have told you it was your task--to find out how the
>American democratic society of Pound's dreams (an odd-looking America,
>perhaps--one run on a sound and fair money policy, amply patronizing
>worthy artists, and led, perhaps, by Martin Van Buren with an Italian
>accent) converged with the thought of Confucius, the deeds of Malatesta,
>and all his other heroes of history, then Pound is not your man.

How could it be my job to find out anything about "the American democratic
society of Pound's dreams" if no such society existed in Pound's poetry or
in his mind?  Or if such a society did exist (and I suspected at one time
that it might), what if one discovers that the conception of such a society
was weighed down feudal, racist, sexist, imperialist, anti-democratic, and
fascist accretions, which so corrupt and mar the original project as to make
in radically self-contradictory, or even --- in the end --- utterly
antithetical to any form of democracy?

To end on a more positive note, would anyone like to give a brief summary of
Pound's religious philosophy as they conceive it?  It is in this area that I
have a much more positive view of Pound (assuming we separate the purely
religious or philosophical aspects, and aesthetic expressions of these from
his ethical, social, economic, and political views --- which is difficult).

I try to explicate his religious philosophy here:
http://www.geocities.com/weienlin/religion.html

Regards,

Wei


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