I want to thank Charles Moyer for his very thoughtful post on Pound,
philosophies of government, fascism, Spengler etc.


charles moyer <[log in to unmask]> wrote:


>Subject: The fasces as symbol of what?
>
>     Wei, "Do you have another view?" you ask. "But of course", I answer;
>and
>it is not entirely unrelated to Pound's view also. I mean his real view,
>not
>the demonic one you have designed for him.

I can appreciate your personal reasons for saying this, given the totality
of the thoughts expressed in this post.  Your views are expressed, as ever,
in a forthright and well-delineated manner, which is both personal and
philosophical.

Nevertheless, it would probably be no more fair to say that I "demonize"
Pound than to say that you "angelize"  (or idealize) him.

>If you wish to know I, like
>Pound, am disappointed in many ways in my government for forsaking its
>original purpose to be a democratically elected government "of the people,
>by the people, and for the people" and evolving into something else.

I have looked very hard in Pound's writings to see if he ever endorsed
anything like a belief in a government "of the people, by the people, and
for the people."   I have not found it yet.  This is not for lack of effort.

When I first read the Cantos I was very attacted to Pound's interest in
Douglas.   I thought it boded well for an exploration of his concern for
economic inequality, resulting from undemocratic institutions.  That was a
blind alley, I realized, when the overwhelming number of endorsements of
strong men, fascists, and Confucian monarchs shoved everthing else aside.
So far no one on this list has --in my opinion-- produced any evidence that
Pound was concerned about democracy.  A few general quotes about the
Constitution do not suffice.


>Pound
>and I are not the only ones who feel this way at times.
>I'm sure you do too.

You and I might.  But Pound seldom did, if ever.  If he did, his LONGTIME
support for Mussolini would have been impossible.


>     Your problem is that you take everything Pound said at face value. I
>do
>not. I do not also believe everything in the Bible. Still this does not
>prompt me to throw out either Pound or the Bible in their entirety.

It's not a question of throwing things out or not.  For me it is important
to come to terms with what a thing is.  Much of the Bible could be thrown
out, though, maybe everthing written by St. Paul.   We could keep the
sayings of Jesus Christ and do without almost all the rest, if we want
something really valuable.

What does it mean to "take Pound at face value?"

I think taking Pound at face value might be saying that when Pound says, a
dynasty LING2, rose on a 'great sensibility', he meant we should have good
government.  Leaving it at that would be taking Pound at face value.
Pretending, as some critics do, that Pound uses Confucian sayings just to
convey general political philosophical principles would be to take him at
face value.  For Pound Fascism was Confucianism revivified, alive again on
earth; and the 2,500 year history of Confucianism was proof that fascism
could succeed in creating a new empire.  He said this time and time again.
If we just take him at face value, when he says he wants good government we
should just roll over and repeat, " he says he wants good government."

The government he envisioned was of a specific type, with definable
features.  The contradictory views he appears to express on occasions, are
SPECIFIC types of contradictions, which are thoroughly compatible with the
contradictions existing in fascist philosophy.  Virtually all fascists are
upset with the corruptions inherent in Parliamentary systems, virtually all
fascists believe the financial oligarchy evinces signs of the decay of
cultural values; virtually all fascists want to see a renovation of the
NOBILITY of the ancients.  The all want the strong ruler as an antidote to
the petty squabbles inherent in any democratic system.  Pound's criticisms
of Parliamentary democracy are identical with those made by Mussolini.


>The same
>can be said of Confucius. Remember the admonition of St.Paul to consider
>everything but only keep the good.

Yes, in principle we can agree.  But how far do we take this?  I imagine
that there are passages in Mussolini's and Hiter's writings which, if taken
in isolation, might appear to be very sound.

You are right in saying, surely we need not reject everything in Confucius.
For instance.  When Confucius said, "Do not treat others in a way which you
would not wish to be treated, " he appears to have anticipated Christ's
Golden rule.  This saying is good enough in isolation.  But when we take it
in connection with his strong belief in hierarchies, and his deprecation of
women, it loses some of its power.


>     As an American whose ancestor fled religious oppression in 1751 and
>settled in this country to later fight in the Revolutionary War for
>freedom,
>and whose ancestors and relatives have fought in every war since then, I
>would be a disappointment to them all if I were affraid to exercise my
>freedom to criticize the government which is intended to be built on the
>principals for which they fought.

I applaud such sentiments as this most heartily.

>     But it is one thing to believe in an ideal and another thing to be
>blind
>to the reality around you. And in the former instance I ask you to consider
>the words of a severe critic of democracy who contends that it is not what
>it purports to be. It is from Oswald Spengler and although he was not a
>Nazi
>and rejected them, they used his criticism nonetheless.

When you bring up thinkers like Spengler, I am a bit troubled.  For one
thing, did Spengler withhold his support of the Nazi's because they were
undemocratic?  I believe he said, "I do not support Hitler because Germany
needs a Hero, not a heroic tenor . . . ", or words to that effect.  Spengler
believed, did he not, that Western civilization needed a Caesar for the
twentieth century to set things straight, and that Germany would be (and
should be) the nation to produce such a figure.  Is it not also true that
Spengler did as much as almost any writer to foster the intellectual climate
which made fascism a viable option in Germany?

We can see the tendencies in the passage you cite, I believe.

(continued in next post)


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