I took from _Jefferson and / or Mussolini_ that Pound applauded democracy
for the US and communism for Russia.  I got the idea that he thought that
"Fascism" was good for Italy because of the unique set of problems that the
country was experiencing at the time.

And at the risk of becoming the devil's advocate, there may have been some
good reasons why Mussolini was so successful in bringing fresh order to a
government that was being flanked from all sides (actually from mostly
"left" sides).

Of course, I don't doubt for a second that the man was clearly an
opportunist, he began his political career as a communist and a syndicalist
(at odds with the futurist Marienetti).  And I am not surprised that he
wound up hanging by his heels and beaten by the people who must have felt
betrayed by the man (as a result of having kissed Hitler's ass in '36).
(Even so I have a tendency to believe that without a Hitler, Mussolini [&
Fascism] would seem relatively tame in comparison to your Stalins and Maos.)

Did Pound just "need" a hero for the cantos?  Did Mussolini provide a juicy
enough (controversial enough) figure to fit Pound's quantum description of
world history?

Does anyone think that Pound was acting for shock value?  I read through
"Ezra Pound Speaks," and as much as I wanted to attempt to endure in my
appreciation and admiration for the father of high modernism (sincerely), I
confess that I found it rather difficult keep reading for any length of time
without resorting to a defense of unconditional humor.

Would anyone buy an "any publicity" notion for explaining Pound's propensity
for outrage? Though I'm sure that the reductionist tendancies of the
assertion would offend Pound.  But Pound's full-hearted attempts at clearing
_Ulysses_ in the US from censors woul tend to suggest that Pound would have
to have recognized the value of notoriety and "shock"--especially in view of
"resuscitating" a waning medium.



At 07:05 AM 7/15/00 GMT, you wrote:
>JB wrote:
>
>
><<Subject: Re: Name five people who died in throes of democracy....
>
>this is a serious question!  I don't want a lot of sympathetic glop, I want
>someone to defend democracy -- and not some utopian notion of it.  if one is
>going to accuse someone of being against democracy, then one should be
>prepared to point out the democracy that this someone is against....
>
>"but democracy and my democracy?"  in a pig's ass...  "....spoiled in an
>american climate...."  >>
>
>
>Yes.  I must applaud you once again, for putting the point forward so
>urgently and succinctly.  An answer to this question is sorely needed.
>
>---Wei
>
>________________________________________________________________________
>Get Your Private, Free E-mail from MSN Hotmail at http://www.hotmail.com
>
>