I think you and I may be talking at cross purposes. We agree, to a large degree, on the issue of American culture. Where we may strongly differ is on the relationship between Pound and American culture. Carlo said, >1) As Joe Brennan has tried to point out to you ad nauseam and as the >Cantos should clearly indicate, Pound did not ignore American democacy >as the Jefferson/Adams Cantos indicate. I would like someone to point out how the Jefferson/Adams Cantos show that Pound did not ignore democracy. They express admiration for many aspects of historical personages Thomas Jefferson and John Adams, but I do not see how they express any support for any of the ideals of democracy. Evidence please? >As for the "ideals" of said >democracy, those are better left to campaign slogans and Madison Avenue >borrowing the epistemology of the idealization of the physical world >established by the physical sciences and technology. > What you imply here about Madison avenue, about the sloganeering of corrupted politicians, and about the misuse of scientific epistemes is, I believe, absolutely correct. I am talking about something else. Rather than campaign slogans, I am calling for meaningful literary, poetic, or philosphical expressions of the ideals of democracy. What troubles me about Pound (and many, many other modern and contemporary literary figures) is that they eschew any expression of belief in democracy as expressed so eloquently by Livy, Plutarch (in some works, like the lives of the Gracchi), Locke, Rousseau, Jefferson, Thomas Paine, Franklin, B.F. Bache, Lincoln, the French revolutionaries, Proudhon, Kropotkin, Chomsky, and countless others. Too many have despaired of the possibility of democracy; others (like Pound) firmly rejected it. >2) Let's address your ever so important question as regards American >culture. (Incidentally wise choice to change the agenda from political >history to culture.). In fact there is no connection between American >culture and Pound. American culture is Disney, Coca Cola and pontoon >bridges and airstrips by Bechtel. If you define culture this way, I can understand your point of departure, and many of your conclusions. However, Jefferson, Melville, Twain, Walt Whitman, (and Pound, in a different way, and to a lesser extent) are parts of American culture. Frankly, I see Coca Cola, Disney, and Bechtel airstrips as the NEGATION of American culture. If culture is seen as the sum total of customs, moral principles, beliefs, ideals, religious practices, and philosophical principles which help to constitute society, then capitalism, by its nature is destructive of culture. >Pound didn't arise from this culture >of corporate kleptocracy that was born manipulating the delusion that >the US has or ever had ideals. The people who do the manipulating as >elaborated bu Mills, Bernays, Lippmann etal stand above these cultural >concerns. They form an elite. They don't read Pound either. > Why do you say that Pound did not arise from this culture-- reverting to your definition of culture---, i.e. the culture of corporate kleptocracy. The names of the kleptocrats were different (J.P. Morgan, Rothschild, Carnegie), but wasn't the corporate manipulated ideological superstructure similar in its basic tenets in Pound's time? > >No one is participating in American culture through reading Pound's >poetry. > Apparently a small number are (for better or worse). Aren't you doing so? Isn't Pound affecting the way you view reality? And are you not an integral part of American culture? > >The money just isn't there and when we speak of a Pound industry >we are largely flattering ourselves as being part of some valuable mode >of production vis a vis the general culture. Who precisely is flattering whom? Who is speaking of a Pound "industry"? I am not. I am merely speaking of the influence which Pound may have on those who study and read him OR ---and this is more important--- the relationship between Pound himself and the culture he lived in (and fled). >Clearly, crystal clearly, >Pound was against the corporate manipulation of public sensiblity as >well as the cooption of their labor. He was, I agree, against the "the corporate manipulation of public sensibility." However he was FOR the manipulation of public opinion by a fascist bureaucracy. That is measureably worse, in my view, and a very sad fact about Pound. In so many respects, and in other circumstances, Pound may have had the potential to be a one of the truly greatest opponents of the exploitation of man by man. As to Pound being against the co-opting of labor (presumably the labor of the average member of the public), I cannot say that you are correct without qualification. He was against the co-opting of the labor of the working man by the private corporation, but he WAS NOT against the co-opting of labor by a fascist elite. Pound strove to his utmost to promote fascist approaches to the labor problem (via Odon Por), and medieval Chinese solutions, feudal "land reforms" and "labor reforms," which would have even made Mussolini pale. [If you are interested in a detailed analysis of Pound's views on labor, in relation to the Chinese dimension of his work and relation to fascism, and his translations of Odon Por, you can visit the site, and read the article called "Ideograms and Economics" http://www.geocities.com/weienlin/poundindex.html ] >So please don't insist we tar the >Cantos as an expression of American culture. I am afraid I must insist. The Cantos are an expression of American culture. They are one expression. What they have in common with corporate culture is extremely troubling. I will try to explain this point briefly. Noam Chomsky gave a fascinating lecture several years ago called "Madisonian Democracy." In this presentation he pointed out that the Bolshevik, the Fascist, and the Corporate philosophical premises were essentially the same, despite their facades of mutual antipathy. Each of these "philosophies" held the view that an elite group (the politburo; the fascist leader and his close advisors; or the CEO and his board of directors) should hold absolute power in their own spheres. Each outlook holds that the other philosphies are evil and pernicious. Each is antithetical to democracy. [When asked about the relationship between Corporations and Democracy, Chomksy said the relationship was analagous to that between the lion and the lamb, or between metal and acid. Corporations, because they do not practice democracy, must work to undermine it, or even destroy it]. Pound's fascism is, from the broadest cultural perspective, simply one of many possible false reactions to the defects of capitalism and corporate culture. The cure proposed by Pound is worse than the disease (and the disease is pretty damn bad, I think you will agree). Thus what Pound has in common with the corporate culture of America is his belief that a select elite should rule --- thus the social form of his proposed solution is in its essence the same the social form he decries: it is hierarchical, anti-democratic (in the most meaningful sense of the word), anti-labor, racist, and imperialist. > >I should make you go on house buys with me as I buy books >from the good citizens inhabiting a world that is supposed to consider >Pound part of its culture. That would cure you of your delusions. > Which delusion do you mean ? I do not have any delusion that the vast majority of American citizens are striving to seek out and discover the truths contained in the Chicago Great Books Series, if that is what you are implying. I am sure I do have some delusions (Don't we all?). I applaud your efforts to destroy the all-to-prevalent delusion that our current corporate controlled system embodies a genuinely meaningful principle of democracy. May you continue energetically, with confidence, and self assurance in that struggle---through whatever means are at your disposal. Regards, Wei ________________________________________________________________________ Get Your Private, Free E-mail from MSN Hotmail at http://www.hotmail.com