I want to thank Tim Roman for his recent thoughtful posts on the issue of
Pound’s imperialism and his personal psychology.  I would also like to thank
and to praise both Tim Romano and Charles Moyer for their thoughtful
discussion of Jung, the animus, and the issue of war.

Tim Romano <[log in to unmask]> wrote:

>Subject: Re: Imperialism and Pound's Psychology

>>
Wei,

What I was trying to point out to you, was that you seemed to be talking
about two things simultaneously, and conflating them in your mind:.
Pound's motives, and the tactics of the Axis alliance.
>>

You might want to pose your objection to my position in the form of a more
concrete question.

The fact is that Pound himself conflated his own motives with those of the
fascist alliance.  And this is a strange feature of all totalitarian
thought:  on the political and social level one submits to the ideological
line which is formulated by the ruling elite.  Pound, from the beginning of
the “fascist revolution” maintained his commitment in such a steadfast
manner, that Mussolini could do no wrong, and could not be questioned.  It
is also a fact, as far as I can tell, that as long as Mussolini was alive
Pound NEVER criticized his policies, his first principles, or any of his
strategic or tactical decisions.





>>Your points in the previous posting (I wasn't referring to all of  your
ideas in all prior postings) had to do with Pound's mind and motives ("he
suspected....his next thought....for the sake of Axis solidarity"). As you
have made clear to me in your current clarification, you are indeed
referring to Pound (if obliquely) in your concluding paragraph:
>>

Yes.  But what is the problem with that which your wish to analyze?

>>
>>
"Each member of the Axis, it seems, had its assigned task.  Japan's was to
extend the Empire in
Asia in order to preserve the teachings of Confucius.  Italy's was to
perfect the fascist social
system and confer the benefits on its colonies in Africa.  Germany's role:
to perfect the "breed" and show how racial purity was important in Empire
building.  Japanese Confucianism, Italian social reform and German eugenics
were united only by the collective imperial drive."  [WEI]

That is, the implied subject of this paragraph is Pound's thinking: how he
envisioned the alliance, the complex of associations in his mind. But the
language you use ("each member of the Axis...had its assigned task") turns
Pound into an Axis Fuehrer, does it not?>>
>>

The answer to this question is, No.   I do not how you draw this conclusion.
  Pound proclaimed himself to be a fascist.  In practice, this meant that he
openly advocated the war time aims of the Axis Powers.  He INTERPRETED these
aims in his own way (as did most fascists,  especially those who worked in
the cultural sphere).  In the practical sphere, Pound showed a willingness
to support anything that the fascists were willing to do in their drive for
world conquest (I use the word “drive” in its broadest sense, as motion
towards a goal or destination).



>>It makes him out to be, if only
metaphorically, in charge of the show.

You should consider the possibility that fascism is responsible for the
conflation you are talking about.  Pound is not in charge.  He is a subject.
  In one sense, according to fascist metaphysics, the collective will, and
the individual will of the leader are one.  So, in that limited sense, Pound
and the leader, and the fascist collective are all united (sublated, to use
the Hegelian or Gentilean term).  No one is really in charge; but all are
responsible.  That may seem like a paradox, and in fact it is.  It is worse
than that.  It is philosophical rubish, but it is the kind of rubbish which
permeated the intellectual milieu of fascist Italy, as you probably know.
Pound did not see a clear distinction between the goals “which he assigned
in his own mind” to the Axis powers, and the strategic goals of those
powers.

>>That is one kind of legerdemain.
>>
>>


>Another kind is this:

>Pound was not ONLY concerned about the imperial drive for power.  I never
>said that he was.  His interest in the Axis powers was not ONLY rooted in
>this interest to see Japan and Italy and Germany succeed in their imperial
>conquests.  I never said this was the case either.

>During the war, the ONLY unifying factor for Pound's
>admiration for Italy, Germany, and Japan was the drive for imperial
>conquest.

>You write of these nations as if it they had an _instinctive_ desire to
conquer, similar to the urge to procreate. You call it  "the drive" for
imperial conquest. Once again, this is to conflate individual human motives
with political strategies, AS IF THEY WERE ONE AND THE SAME THING.
>>

I never said anything, or implied anything about an instinctive urge
(similar to the urge to procreation).  We could debate that issue, as you
and Charles Moyer wish to do, in Jungian and/ or Freudian terms.  That is a
different issue.

My point is simply that ---in  Pound’s case--- individual motives and the
motives for poltical strategies are conflated in HIS MIND.   If you can find
any evidence that Pound (especially in the years leading up to and including
the war years) made ANY SEPARATION between his poltical motives and personal
motives, I would like to see it.



>>
There must have been a reason for wanting to extend the empire beyond a
"drive"?
>>

A reason for whom? For Pound?  For Hitler?  For Mussolini?  For Hirohito?
For Chinese Confucians?

I am not sure what you want to focus on here.



>
What about the balance of power in a world where there were other
imperial powers to contend with?
>
>

Whose view of the balance of power?  You want to avoid the conflation of
motives by different people or  different groups acting and thinking in
different spheres.  So are you asking about Pound’s view of the balance of
power?  I don’t think that sort of “realpolitik” was of great interest to
Pound.  Pound genuinely believed his support for fascism was based on a
moral foundation.


>>
Again, I think you should focus some attention on what the benefits of
strong central power as Pound perceived them.  This is what you continue to
leave out.
>>

Pound believed in highly stratified, extremely hierarchical forms of
goverment. He thought fascism was the best form for Europe, and that
Confucian autocracy would be the best form for East Asia. I have
consistently argued that there are NO BENEFITS.  How can one leave out the
benefits when there are none?  If you think there are some benefits (not
simply to “some variety of strong central government”) but to fascism in
particular, and Confucianism in particular, then it might be up to you to
propose them.  It is a difficult argument to make, I think.


>>
What does the consolidation of empire DEFEND against?
>>


Which empire, and in what case.  Pound is very specfic.  We should be also.

We could say that the consolidation of empire DEFENDS against disorder.
That is the standard argument.  In reality the argument for the creation of
any empire is usually a smokescreen for powermongering, diverting attention
away from domestic issues, and weakening those who would make government
accountable (who are criticized as traitors, or as people not dedicated to
the greater cause).  Fascist and Confucianist efforts to consolidate empire
have been for these latter purposes, using the issue of order as an excuse.

>>
What
forces corrode?  What good things does empire bring? _ As Pound envisioned
them_.  Empire, in and of itself, is not THE GOOD THING for Pound, in my
view.
>>

Evidence?  Pound LOVES certain empires:  the fascist Italian Empire, the
Roman Empire, and Imperial China.



>>You may think he was terribly misguided in thinking these things . . . .

Yes, I do.  Don’t you?  Or do you think he was onto something?  And if so,
what?

>>but you haven't really addressed them; empire repeatedly shows up as a
>>kind
of bogeyman in what you have written so far
>>

I live in the hope, perhaps a false hope, that human beings may soon come to
believe that Empire, in all its forms is evil, that it has been evil in
virtually all its formations, and that it should be abolished as a species
of political organization.


>>
With respect to the notions of 'directed-will' versus 'passive antennae':
you ascribe the latter to Pound's late poetry.  I don't think it is as
simple as that.
>>

You are right about that.  Nothing is as simple as the single generalization
we may make in the space of one or two lines.


>>The two principles coexist throughout.

Yes.  Though I think there is much more of the passive tendency in the
Drafts and Fragments than in the earlier work.  This is complex matter which
can be debated later if you wish.
________________________________________________________________________
Get Your Private, Free E-mail from MSN Hotmail at http://www.hotmail.com