[log in to unmask] wrote:

>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.
>

I appreciate DCENTRO's contribution to this discussion. You may well draw
the conclusion you do from reading Jefferson and/or Mussolini.  Certainly
Pound thought that fascism was good for Italy (and later he argued that it
would be good for the whole of Europe, for Japan, and China, under Japanese
occupation).  In Jeff and/or Muss, he seems to flirt with the idea that
Lenin was an admirable figure. As to the idea that he thought democracy
would be good for America, you could help this discussion along if you could
provide a quote to substantiate this view.  I don't have a copy of Jeff
and/or Muss in front of me.

A number of people have argued that what Pound believed in was an
"aristo-democratic" system of government for the US.  How such a system
would have ended "usury", Pound never explains. I am certain it would make
matters worse.  Pound often praises John Adams, who, as more and more
historians are coming to realize, was the LEAST democratic President we have
ever had.  Pound's favorable view of Adams is consistent with his support
for other anti-democratic figures in world history.  Adams believed in
hereditary government, argued in favor of a hereditary Senate and a
hereditary executive.  Here is one example of his writing on the subject:

<<I do not "consider hereditary Monarchy or Aristocracy as Rebellion against
Nature"  [Adams is attempting to refute Thomas Paine here].  On the
contrary, I esteem them both as Institutions of admirable wisdom and
exemplary virtue . .  and that America must resort to them as an asylum
during discord, Seditions and Civil war.  .... Our country is not ripe for
it in many respects, but our ship must ultimately on that shore or be cast
away.>>

Adams was against the idea of allowing Jews to hold public offices (and he
was responsible for the inclusion of a provision in the Massachussetts
constitution which forbade Jews from holding office, something Pound
approved of.  Pound praised Mussolini's government when they passed a
similar measure in Italy during the 40's).

Here are some other excerpts from Adams opinions on the subject of
government, written in 1790 in a letter to Benjamin Rush

[The letter begins with a long condemnation of the excessive admiration of
Benjamin Franklin, who had advocated universal male suffrage, an end to all
hereditary government].  "Limited Monarchy is found in Nature.  No Nation
can adore more than one Man at a time.  ...  If I said in 1777 that 'we
should never be qualified for Republican government til we are ambitious to
be poor,' I meant to say no Nation under heaven ever was, now is, or ever
will be qualified for a Republican government , unless you mean resulting
from a Balance of three powers, the Monarchical, Aristocratical, and the
Democratical. I meant more, and I repeat more explicitly that Americans are
particularly unfit for any Republic but Aristo-Democratical Monarchy."

Notice that the "three powers" are to be balanced are NOT the Judicial, the
Executive, and the Legislature.  Pound, like Adams, seemed uninterested in
this crucial principle which underlies the US constitution.  Instead, Adams
wants to balance the MONARCHICAL , the ARISTOCRATICAL interests against the
DEMOCRATICAL interests.  Of course, most Americans today (quite rightly, I
think) believe that Paine and Benjamin Franklin were right:  THERE SHOULD BE
NO MONARCHICAL OR ARISTOCRATICAL power in the US form of government.

And what in God's name is an "Aristo-Democratical Monarchy?"  It seems to me
a monstrosity, like the sphinx (part human, part bird, and part beast of
prey).


>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).
>

Are you advocating this view for its "shock value"?  : )

>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).

We can agree here.  And this is the crux of the matter, that Pound sustained
his support for Mussolini beyond the point when it might have easily been
dismissed as mere quirk or publicity game.


>(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.)
>


Yes, that may be true.  And without Stalin, Lenin might have seemed
relatively tame compared with other dictators.

And without the Reagan ordered slaughters of tens of thousands of Nicaraguan
peasants, the Bush ordered slaughter of three to six thousand in Panama
might have seemed relatively tame.  We can make a number of speculations
along these lines.


>Did Pound just "need" a hero for the cantos?

Every epic needs a hero, (or heros), and Pound stated his aspirations to
make the Cantos into an epic (a poem containing history).




>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?

Supporting Hitler and Mussolini was fairly shocking. If he was only
interested in shocking people for the sake of shocking them, he could have
advocated the following view: The US should become a Jewish state, where
only Chinese should be allowed to hold office, where the Koran should be the
Constitution, and where all women should be forbidden to wear clothes in
public.

The fact is that Pound had  a specific vision, not that he simply wanted to
shock people.  He was not a dadaist.  The question is, how should that
vision be characterized?


Respectfully yours,

Wei





________________________________________________________________________
Get Your Private, Free E-mail from MSN Hotmail at http://www.hotmail.com