>he doesn't seem willing or >able to think of Fascism as an historical phenomenon . . . On what basis would you say that I do not "think of fascism as an historical phenomenon?" My analysis is premised on the notion that both fascism and Confucianism are fully historical phenonemena, devoid of any "ahistorical essense," as you call it. That is to say they are rooted in contingencies, and in the development of social structures which are MISTAKEN BY POUND as historical evidence of transcendent truth. Pound claims that Confucianism provides us with a "the universal social coordinate", but his argument takes the form of a tautology. Confucianism is sound, because history has proven it has worked. History has proven it has worked because we know (analytically) that Confucianism is sound. Pound uses the same logic for fascism. Fascism is right because it is formulated by Mussolini (the voice of "right reason"). Mussolini is right because he applies the fascist principle (which is merely, in Pound's view, the latest version of Confucianism, discovered by Mussolini independently, but identical in its essence with Confucian thought). Most of what I have written about on this subject is an attempt to show the reader of Pound, that the poet's assumptions, especially about the universal applicability of Confucianism and fascism, is based on historical omission, the precise deliberate effort by POUND HIMSELF, to ignore fascism's roots in contingent historical circumstances, and to EVADE, any evidence which would show that either Fascism or Confucianism are doctrines which have been used to create greater inequality, to stifle human creativity and democracy, to subject humans to greater exploitations, and to authoritarian oppression. >not as some sort >of ahistorical essence, but as a political and cultural formation that >emerged at a specific moment in history, in response to the >circumstances of that moment. Thus I might be interested in the ways in >which Chiang Kai-Shek's Nationalism--which was, I take it, genuinely a >form for Fascism--may have used the Confucian tradition to legitimate >itself, just as Mussolini's Fascism appealed for legitimation to the >Roman imperium. (Did this happen? I don't know Chinese and know little >Chinese history, so I can't say. But I'm curious.) Thank you for the question, which is, I think very pertinent to an understanding of Pound, of Confucianism in China, and of fascism as it has been experienced in the East. The great irony in Pound studies, and in Pound's life, (as far as China is concerned) is that for the vast majority of Chinese intellectuals, Confucius was a dead letter after 1911, the year of the Republican revolution, and of the definitive end of dynastic rule. Yet Pound becomes More and MORE Confucian as Confucius becomes LESS and Less important in China. Sun Yatsen, in leading the new Republic did not make a single reference to Confucius in his public speeches. He and the Nationalists purged Confucius from the curriculum. Pound himself expressed anger towards the nationalists, and toward Chiang Kaishek for "letting Confucius out of the schools". Pound supported the Chinese collaborator with the Japanese (Wang) for being the sort of "gentleman" on "the right side of the line" who would put Confucius back in the academy. During the years leading up to the WWII, there arose the May student movements, and the "Down with the Confucius Shop" movement, which essentially destroyed Confucianism as a dogma (doing for Confucianism, ultimately what the French revolution did for Catholicism in France, only more so). And if that did not bury Confucius forever on the mainland, then the Cultural Revolution did. Since that time, Confucius has been viewed by most Chinese in the way in which the new text critics (late Qing dynasty, about 1840-1911) wanted Confucius to be viewed: as one of many zhuzi (ordinary philosophers) living during the Spring and Autumn period. The rootedness of Confucianism, and of Pound's view of Confucius IN SPECIFIC HISTORICAL CIRCUMSTANCES is explored here: http://www.geocities.com/weienlin.poundindex.html in the essay, the Cantos Collapse. >However, Wei's >tendency to treat Confucianism as in effect the "same thing" as Fascism >seems to me as dogmatic and unilluminating as Pound's conflation of >Jefferson and Mussolini. > If you think Fascism and Confucianism are essentially different in any significant way, you might want to point to some special feature. Of course they are not precisely identical (except perhaps in Pound's mind). They are much more similar than "Jefferson and Mussolini". (For those who want a list of the similarities briefly: fascism and Confucianism are both close to being secular philosophies which allow religion to have a significant role in maintaining social control; they both elevate the belief in the state, and the moral obligation to serve the state, to the status of prime imperative; they both teach and enforce obedience to a clearly defined hierarchy, and to ONE MAN (never a woman), who has supreme power; they both reject the view that law should restrict the leader (on the contrary, the ruler is a law unto himself, whose actions are the model of virtue, never to be subjected to standards defined by an inferior). They both oppose the pursuit of personal profit, as something tawdry and opposed to the state interest. Both also reject any kind of egalitarian philosophy, or redistribution (whether based on Taoist principles in the East; or anarcho-syndicalist, communist, or Christian socialist doctrines in the West). Both look to antiquity for authentification (Fascim looked to Imperial Rome; Confucianism to the Zhou dynasty). The list goes on. But that will do as a brief sketch. Of course fascism differs from Confucianism, perhaps in the same way that fascism differs from Roman Imperial ideology (and in several other less significant ways, with have to do with the surface structure of culture, and not its deep structure). While it may be correct to say that only one out of one hundred readers of Pound have read the China Cantos, or have studied Rock Drill, paying attention to the Chinese historical material in relation to Pound's other concerns, this in no way ( I feel )invalidates my approach. It was Pound HIMSELF who said he thought his "translations" of Confucian texts into English was his most important work. Pound, when asked what he believed said on numerous occasions, "Read Confucius." Even after world war two was over, Pound said that Hitler and Mussolini were in error only insofar as they did not follow Confucius more closely. (A sentence subject to interpretation, but indicative that Pound thought Confucianism was the BASIS of his method of making moral valuations, and that fascism was a contingency, which did not succeed). One may study Pound, and not interest oneself in his use of Chinese materials. But I think Pound himself would say that one is neglecting to look at one of the most significant dimensions of his thought if one does not interest himself in Confucius. Recall that when asked to compose a sort of universal american curriculum, Confucius and the Four Books of Confucianism were at the top of the list. Pound said in the Guide to Kulchur that all other books on the list (including the US Constitution) were merely "amenties" and that all first principles were to be found in Confucius. So I would argue that studying Confucius, and Pound's reaction to Confucius is even more important than studying Pound's fascism, if one really wants to get at the essence of what Pound himself believed he was saying. Regards, Wei ________________________________________________________________________ Get Your Private, Free E-mail from MSN Hotmail at http://www.hotmail.com