I would like to begin with a statement of my agreement with points made by
several participants on the subject of US imperialism.

Joe Brennan says,

>if I was from a Central American country -- particularly from Guatemala or
>Nicaragua -- I'd be hard-pressed to see the difference.  but I can see why
>one might prefer the US brand of Imperialism, the horror of which, like its
>British counterpart, are visited on other countries to the economic
>advantage
>of US citizens.

I think that the attempt to compare imperialisms is wrought with great
difficulty, precisely because a Guatemalan Mayan peasant's view of the issue
would differ sharply from a Polish worker's view.  The former, having
suffered deaths of 200,000 of his compatriots-- at the hands of US backed
regimes run by US trained soldiers-- would be among the harshest critics of
US imperialism.  The latter would tend to view America as the great savior.

Bill Wagner has written:

>
>The one word I do not see mentioned in all of the political discussion is
>Totalitarian.
>

I have mentioned the word "totalitarian" twice.  Pound uses the phrase, I
pointed it out, when he champions a new curriculum containing Confucian
classics as part of the "totalitarian synthesis".

Bill Wagner is right to emphasize the importance of this word.  He goes on
to say:

>The Hitler & Mussolini regimes were totalitarian dictatorships, and bore
>the
>same relationship to Fascism as Stalin's regime did to Communism.  It was
>used as the foundation of the propaganda machine that convinced the people
>in those states that they were living under a system of government that was
>dedicated in one form or another to their well-being.  All were in fact
>systems run by a handful of thugs who ruled by brute force and terror.
>

I agree regarding the definition of fascism and its relation to the fascist
state; however, communism is more complicated.   There are many types of
Communism.  There is council communism, and democratic communism, and there
are many other varieties in addition to Marxism-Leninism or Stalinism, as
followed in the Soviet Union and the People's Republic of China.  There is
basically only one type of fascism:  dedication to following the will of the
Supreme Leader( the Duce, or the Fuhrer).

[For those who don't know:]

Council communism as described by Kropotkin is workers' ACTUAL democratic
control of the means of economic production.  In that system the control of
industry is exercised by democratically ELECTED representives of the workers
in each enterprise, and in each industry.  (It existed in Spain as so-called
"anarcho-communism", and was widespread in 1936-1937).  The Indian province
of Kerala (in the Southwest part of the Deccan) has  been governed through
most of its democratic history by democratically elected communists ("blue",
as opposed to "red" communists).  Kerala has the highest life expectancy,
highest literacy, and lowest infant mortality in all in India; and nearly
the highest in Asia, next to Japan and Singapore.  The Communist Party of
France still has a strong presence in the country, and is now in the
government of the "gauche plurielle" with the socialists; having abandoned
their  Stalinist rhetoric and reorganized, the leaders of the PCF, such as
Robert Hue, are a new breed, working to renovate the movement in support for
working class interests.

> >
> > I for one greatly prefer our current US form of Imperialism for despite
>it's
> > many faults.
> >

Why in this day and age need we prefer ANY form of imperialism.  And if you
prefer US imperialism, what does that mean?  You prefer it to what?  To
Hitlerian or Stalinist "Soviet Social Imperialism"?  Not much of a choice,
is it?   I think I prefer Swiss or Costa Rican imperialism.  The point
being, as long as huge supernations exist, such as the US and China and
Russia, imperialism will always exist.

As Carl Parcelli said,

>
>It also should be remembered that the aforementioned "totalitarian"
>regimes are done for and were relatively short lived, whereas the US,
>though its been in the slaughter business now for over two hundred
>years, is still in its infancy and accelerating its malignancy at a
>breathtaking rate.
>

I could not agree more.

Moving on to the subject of Pound's imperialism, I would like to respond to
some of Joe Brenan's comments about my interpretation of the Cantos.


He said,
>
>For some time now I've harbored the suspicion that there is a cadre of
>Poundian critics whose purpose in commenting on the life (mainly) and the
>work (hardly ever) of the complicated author known as Ezra Pound is to
>discredit not only Pound the person, but the entire breadth and width of
>his
>poetry.

The issue might not be that one critic or another has come to the work with
such and such a purpose.  You have to consider the possibility that some of
these critics (belonging to the alleged "cadre") actually came to the work
of Pound initially with a very favorable view.  Such was my case.  As to
whether one's purpose is to discredit the poetry, you have to ask whether or
not there is much in Pound's work,  an overwhelming amount of material
perhaps, which  serves to discredit or undermine the authors stated
intentions.  Can it be possible that the work discredits itself?


>now comes the hysterical deconstructions of one En Lin Wei, who, it
>seems, can find nothing of merit in Pound's work, nothing but racism,
>anti-Semitism, fascism and raw hatred.

I have never said that I find *nothing" of merit in his work but racsim,
anti-semitism, etc.  Look at my writing on the subject, if you like, and
find one statement which remotely resembles that caricature of my view.  I
have said that Pound's work is seriously marred by the features you mention
(and by several others: imperialism, classism, elitisim, and sexism, for
instance).

[You can read some of it online at

http://www.geocities.com/weienlin/poundindex.html ]

>for Wei, every nuance of Pound is
>nothing but a confirmation these isms, with the implication that those who
>do
>find merit in Pound's work are either ignorant or stupid.  Am I the only
>one
>who thinks it funny that such a critic should indulge in the same dogmatic
>blindness that he accuses Pound of?
>

How can you make such an assertion about my views just from a brief glance
at some posts, or even from a detailed reading of my work?  I would not
presume to accuse you having any fault or defect, such as "blindness",
simply because I did not agree with you.  I do not know you and you do not
know me.  Nor have I ever said that "those who find merit in Pound are
ignorant or stupid."  On the contrary, anyone who can read Pound and
construct a view of that work cannot be accused of being stupid or ignorant.

As to whether I am dogmatic, can you, in all honesty assert I am dogmatic?
On what basis?  Is it because the view I put forward is stated strongly?
What about the substance of the arguments?

>it may be that the progrom against Pound is having its effect.  how else
>can
>one explain Carrol Cox's startling conclusion that, even though he has
>(apparently) enjoyed reading the Cantos for more than 45 years, he could
>not,
>"under current social/political conditions ... in honesty recommend to a
>young person that they devote much time to it."  what a telling remark!

I am in complete sympathy with Carrol Cox's statement.  It is a highly
personal one, I believe, not put forward as an attack on the person of
Pound, or as an attack on those who read Pound.

(continued)


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