Tim Romano asks about the phrase "seeking an exit."

I think there is much to consider in Carrol Cox's interpretation of the
meaning of the line.  I must contemplate her interpretation.

When I originally looked at the passage in the context of the discussion of
Pound's imperialism, I was examining it in relation to the slaughter of
barbarians, which he appears to endorse.  The soldiers, after the massacre
of the native North African women, are


      seeking an exit
  To the high air, to the stratosphere, to the imperial
  calm, to the empyrean, to the baily of
      the four towers
  the NOUS, the ineffable crystal. . .
       (40/201).


I think Pound is trying to accomplish here what Schiller described as
creating the aesthetic moment which foreshadows a future utopia.  We move
from the political act of extending empire, to the "stratosphere" to a state
of mind, which nonetheless has a political dimension "the imperial calm,"
and we end in contemplation of the divine mind, NOUS.

The difference between Pound and Schiller in this instance, is that Pound's
utopia, as is frequently the case, requires acts of imperialistic conquest
and the slaughter of "barbarians" to be achieved. He often expresses
approval of such acts performed in the past and the present.

>
>Tim Romano wrote:
>
> > [snip]
> > I have a clear sense of the ideological foundations of Pound's racism.
>But
> > the man does not seem to me to have been capable of this kind of
> > monstrosity. Has someone assembled convincing evidence that Pound was
>truly
> > this inhumane in his race-thinking?

What does it mean to say that Pound was "incapable of this kind of
monstrosity"?  Which monstrosity?  The monstrosity of slaughtering innocent
women?   Or, the monstrosity of glorifying, praising, and eulogizing the
most savage conquerors?  He was capable of the latter, I would maintain, and
he did so frequently.

Pound's praise of Mussolini, Hitler, Genghis Khan, and many other
dictatorial figures in Chinese and Western history is well documented.  His
racist remarks are strewn througout his prose, his poetry, and the
recordings of his speeches for Radio Rome.

[for some examples see www.geocities.com/weienlin/raceandempire.html]

Ms. Cox writes

>While I am not ordinarily a political proponent of the worse the
>better, I could see an argument for honoring the *Cantos* the more
>if one saw *ego, scriptor cantilenae* as indeed this inhumane. Surely,
>Mussolini in Ethiopia was no more inhumane, and far less hypocritical,
>than the U.S. in (for example) Haiti up to and including the present.

I agree with this completely. It is a point which could be worked out in
much more detail.  This issue is potentially far more exlosive than the mere
argument over whether Pound's poetry is racist or imperialist, or to what
degree it is.  Pound has no propensity toward self-censorship or moderation.
  Arguably, his work-- and many of its most virulently imperialistic
features-- embodies or expresses the cruelest aspects of the contemporary
American spirit of conquest.

Mussolini was the first to use poison gas to subdue the peoples of Africa.
Pound gave his whole-hearted support to the effort to conquer Ethiopia
(Abyssinia).  Nor did he ever repent any of Mussolini's atrocties in Africa
(as he partially did repent the nazi extermination program).  This is a
significant fact, and as far as I know, it passes entirely unremarked upon
in critical studies of Pound.  Why?  I think Carrol Cox has the answer:


>If the *Cantos* is the "American Epic" (i.e., the epic of imperialism),
>such fundamenal features of the nation as Haiti must at least be in
>it at least implicitly.

Yes.  As America has continued to commit atrocities in its "semi-colonies,"
so has American culture and the American critical apparatus been rendered
ideologically compliant. Critics of Pound can focus on certain aspects of
his racism, but they cannot encompass such racism and imperialism in its
totality, largley because America is still fundamentally racist and
imperialist.

Many of the "implict" features of the Cantos persist in the dominant
ideology of the United States, and are--for all intents and
purposes--unquestionable.  Thus, just as Pound could criticize British
imperialism while supporting Italian imperialism, so does America condemn
some acts of agression while perpetrating others. When Saddam Hussein
invades Kuwait killing about 700 people, the US counters by killing tens of
thousands, destroying the entire infrastructure of Iraq, with the ultimate
death toll -- to date -- of over one million civilians, half these being
children under the age of five.  Noriega double crosses George Bush, and he
orders the military invasion of Panama, resulting in the deaths of over
5,000 civilians.  A civil war in Yugoslavia, resulting in the deaths of 2000
(1400 ethnic Albanians and 600 ethnic Serbs in Kosovo) "compels" NATO to
intervene.  Result--two thousand Serbs, mostly civilians are killed, and the
violence continues in Kosovo, with a death toll in Kosovo alone of one
thousand since NATO forces occupied the region.  These are just a few
examples.

The analysis of such an issue as "American imperialism" is crucial to our
attempt to analyze Pound in relation to his own milieu and in relation to
our own global political environment.  Pound's fascist testament to
Mussolini--the China Cantos--is, in one sense, merely an exagerated
reaffrimation of the goals and dreams of all imperialists. ("fascist
testament" is Pound's phrase, not mine--he sent a copy to Mussolini, and
dedicated it to the fascist cause).  I think such a view would be consonant
with Carrol's willingness to look at Hanno passage as one which may be
deliberately inhumane.  It is perhaps in this sense that I too "honor the
Cantos", to use your phrase.  I honor Pound's work as the most explicit
statement of imperialist commitment produced by any poet of high stature
during the 20th century.

Rather than put it this way though, I might ask:  What does it say about
American culture, and American ideology, that the most successful--or the
greatest -- attempt at a universal epic by an American is a fascist
imperialist epic?  This question is almost unaskable, and I have not seen it
addressed.

Caroll ends by asking,

>
>P.S. Did Pound ever refer to Proudhon or indicate he had read him?
>What I describe above is the core of Proudhonist politics.
>


I have tried to look this up again, but as of yet, I have no evidence that
Pound read Proudhon.

Again, I find this suggestion very interesting, because, in a way, I am
contructing a quasi-Proudhonist interpretation of Pound. I would endorse a
Proudhonist, or let us say, libertarian socialist, interpretation of the
Cantos.  I have composed a detailed article on Pound's economic theories, as
they are related to the confluence of his Confucianism and his fascism.  I
could post it on the web, if you are interested.

The critical apparatus is quasi-Marxian (but best thought of as libertarian,
since I oppose the strongly centralized state, unlike Marx, who fell out
with Bakunin on this issue.  Bakunin, as you may know, was the first major
historical figure to predict that any state based on Marxist philosophy
would end up as fully totalitarian and undemocratic).


Pound largely sees history as a battle between three forces--Western
capitalism, Marxism-Leninism, and Fascism.  He favors the latter, of course.
What he neglects is the possibility of a system which is neither
capitalistic, nor centrally planned by a totalitarian bureaucracy: he
ignores the option of libertarian socialism, the democratic control of
industry by the workers, and the federation of syndicates, unions, workers
committees, etc.  This rejection on Pound's part is understandable, since he
is contemptuous of any form of democracy, economic or political.

More later.


Regards,

Wei.

I will try later to reply to some of the other remarks posted on the list by
different participants.

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