I want to thank David Moody for his extensive post, and detailed reply to my arguments on the relationship between Pound and the concept of democracy. I want to give it the detailed response that it deserves. >En Lin Wei's problem seems to be that he cannot conceive that an emperor, >or >king, or any kind of absolute ruler, might rule well. He believes in >elective democracy, and only in elective democracy. The second statement is true. I believe in elective democracy, and only in elective democracy, as the best system. The first statement is not correct. I can conceive of situations in which emperors and kings might rule well. But that is beside the point I am trying to make. I believe that when ANY PERSON no matter well intentioned, overthrows a democratic or republican system, disaster ensues. The "good tyrant" is a fiction, because even if he is perceived as doing well by his subjects, the good he achieves is only short term; because he is depriving his people of the opportunity for self-improvement, self-government, and ensuring that an entire generation grows up without the skills necessary cultural, political, and social development. The good tyrant, or the benevolent dictator, is like the parent who keeps his child in his room on a continuous basis, giving the food, safety, and protection, but denying the child one of the basic goods: freedom. >Any alternative, it >seems, must be anti-democratic and tyrannical. What alternatives are you imagining? Of course, by definition, any system which is not an elective democracy is anti-democratical. Any system which allows the will of an individual to prevail over the will of the vast majority of the people, by definition, tyrannical. Some slaveowners are good people, that does not mean we should tolerate the institution of slavery. Likewise some emperors are good people; but that does not mean we should celebrate the institution of absolute monarchy. >He cannot accept that under >emperors, kings and even dictators, the burning question has not always >been >how to overthrow a tyrant, but rather how to ensure that the ruler shall >rule well--that is for the good of the people. If the issue is to ensure that the ruler shall rule well, what system does this better than one which makes the ruler accountable to the ruled, and to the elected representatives of the people, and to a judiciary? A constitutional democracy, to a certain extent, does this. An imperial system does not. >Democracies have the same >problem with their elected representatives. Yes. Indeed they do. But with elected representatives in a democracy there are institutional safeguards, and moral pressures. In an imperial system, there are only moral pressures, which may be insufficient. In an elective democracy with sufficient guarantees of free speech, the citizens can criticize their leaders; in an imperial (or fascist system) critics can be silenced through threats, jailed, or even put to death. >Pound's concern in the Cantos >is not to favour one form of government over another, but to affirm the >idea >that whatever the form of government it should serve the people as a whole. Can you provide any evidence to sustain this assertion? Pound stated his belief in Mussolini, and in fascism time and time again. When he was asked, at the outbreak of World War 2, and the US declaration of war against the Axis Powers, to return to the US, he refused to go, saying, "I BELIEVE IN FASCISM". I do not see how it can be argued he was indifferent to the form of government, unless by this you mean he had no preference whatsover for any type of institution, but prefered the rule of ONE MAN, in whom was vested supreme power. (A virtuous man of course, but the "virtues" of the men he favored and praised ---Hitler, Mussolini, and Genghis Khan, among others---are subject to question). I assume you have not read the Radio Rome speeches all the way through, or you could not say that Pound was indifferent to the form of government (and mean by that, that he would just as soon have a democracy as a fascist "government"; he clearly favored the latter) >So in the Chinese history cantos, given that China had an imperial system, >he follows the discriminations of the Confucian historians between >constructive emperors and disastrous ones. I am curious about what exactly you think Confucianism is? And what do you think the Chinese imperial system is? And why, for goodness' sake, do you think a 20th century intellectual should find lessons in Chinese imperial history which could benefit Western framers of thought, ideology, and policy? If Pound was the least bit open to democratic institutions and ideals, then he would have entertained the possibility that the Taoists might have had something valuable to contribute to history. Instead, Pound consistently celebrates numerous instances when the Confucians wipe out, oppress, and destroy their Taoist oponents. Allow me to say something in a later post about your interpretation of the passage from the Chou King [Shou King, or ---in pinyin, the Shu Jing). And also, in a later post, a word about John Adams. A final question: Do those who defend Pound on this political question believe or not believe in the maxim: POWER CORRUPTS, ABSOLUTE POWER CORRUPTS ABSOLUTELY ? A reasoned answer to that query, in relation to Pound's belief system, would go a long way toward sorting this issue out. Regards, Wei ________________________________________________________________________ Get Your Private, Free E-mail from MSN Hotmail at http://www.hotmail.com