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