Tim Romano <[log in to unmask]> wrote: <<Subject: Re: Pound's Psychology and Empire Wei, You write: >I don’t think that sort of “realpolitik” was of great interest to Pound. > Pound genuinely believed his support for fascism was based on a >moral foundation. <<I would agree with the second statement without qualification.>> Then we both agree on this point. <<But Pound did see the fascists as engaged in a struggle with british imperialism and an imperialist soviet ally, the two enemies of fascism being united by corrupt economic systems.>> Hitler and Mussolini both saw their fascist parties in this same way. The question then is, does Pound view fascism in a way which differs substantially from Mussolni's and from Hitler's? If his view is essentially the same, then is his thinking not just as faulty, and just as defective as the thought of all the fascist propagandists? >Pound believed in highly stratified, extremely hierarchical forms of >goverment. He thought fascism was the best form for Europe, and that >Confucian autocracy would be the best form for East Asia. I have >consistently argued that there are NO BENEFITS. > How can one leave out the >benefits when there are none? <<And I have consistently asked you to described the benefits ONLY AS POUND PERCEIVED THEM. Note my _emphasis_:>> I believe this question has been answered already. But what is the metaphysical or epistemological basis of this question? Are we to say, relativistically, that Pound's views can be explained and understood ONLY in their own terms? And if that is the case, can we not do the same thing for Hitler, Mussolini, and for all the fascist propagandists? Suppose one were to say, <<And I have consistently asked you to described the benefits ONLY AS ***MUSSOLINI*** PERCEIVED THEM. Note my _emphasis_:>> Should we then justify all Mussolini's opinions, and explain them on the basis of the notion that the "benefits" of fascism should only be looked at AS MUSSOLINI PERCEiVED THEM? <<But Pound provides examples over and over again of the 'proper' attitude of rulers to domestic issues. One might consider him obtuse and non-egalitarian . . . .>> If the overwhelming majority of exemplary leaders are fascist, proto-fascist, authoritarian, or imperialist, then what conclusion should we draw? What conclusion do you draw? << but Pound's motives had nothing whatoever to do with WEAKENING ACCOUNTABILITY.>> I am glad you emphasize this point, and I would ask: How is it possible to endorse systems of government in which the rulers are NOT ACCOUNTABLE to the people, without weakening the very idea of accountability? Pound may or may not have been motivated to advocate certain systems of government precisely because the rulers were unaccountable. I do not know how we can attain absolute certainty with regard to Pound's inmost motivations. I have suggested the possibility that Pound's subconscious motivations may be completely opposed to his conscious manner of advocacy. In other words, while he praised fascism, authoritarianism, and imperialism, it MAY BE, that subconsciously, in some almost incomprehensible way, he was in favor of democracy, of egalitarian values, and the freedom of all nations from foreign subjugation. Of course we could make the same assertions about others fascist leaders and propagandists: Mussolini and Gentile, we might say, were all in favor of accountability. The leader was supposed to be accountable to the collective will, because the leader was placed in power by the collective will, and because the leader is the spiritual embodiment of the collective will. The problem is that the consciously stated views of Gentile and of Pound deliberately omit discussion of the ordinary mechanisms which might, in any form of social organisation, ACTUALLY MAKE a leader accountable. This is a very serious omission. <<The Cantos are replete with evidence of what Pound considered, rightly or wrongly, to be the fruits of strong central rule.>> Yes, they are. And when we study his examples, what conclusion do you come to? "Rightly or wrongly" will not do. Should we not judge whether his examples are right or wrong? > <<Even so, you ought to risk a fuller accounting of what Pound perceived to be the benefits of strong central rule by a moral ruler.>> Strong central rule by a moral ruler !!! There we have the essential fallacy of Confucianism, and of fascism. I admit, strong central rule by a moral ruler is better than such rule by an immoral ruler. But that is not the issue, is it? The issue, I think, is that people use the doctrine of the "benefits of strong central rule by a moral ruler" TO ATTAIN POWER. The result is almost always disastrous. Why? Because the "good ruler" is almost inevitably corrupted. Only a SYSTEM which checks power is a guarantee against corruption. Don't you agree with the axiom: POWER CORRUPTS, ABSOLUTE POWER CORRUPTS ABSOLUTELY. Pound, Mussolini, and Hitler clearly did not. And given Pound's assessments regarding the attributes of the "moral leader", we must call into question his formulation of the notion of rule by the "moral ruler." If he chooses Mussolini and Hiter as exemplars, what does that say about his moral and ethical judgement? If you think there are benefits to strong central rule by a moral ruler, then perhaps you should state what they are. For my part, I believe the whole notion is a myth which is used almost exclusively by power grabbers. Pound does a great deal to foster this myth, and while that does not make him guilty of any atrocities personally, does it not cast a terrible moral shadow over his entire poetic and intellectual enterprise? Salut, Wei ________________________________________________________________________ Get Your Private, Free E-mail from MSN Hotmail at http://www.hotmail.com