Wei,
Thanks for the quotations from Adams.  They shed more light on the
discussion of Pound's of aristo-democracy.

You assume that monarchical and aristocratical interests will coincide or
tend to coincide, and line up against the democratical:

> .... Instead, Adams
> wants to balance the MONARCHICAL , the ARISTOCRATICAL interests against
the
> DEMOCRATICAL interests.

Certainly there are instances in British history where the aristocracy
aligned themselves with the commoner against the crown, if only out of
enlightened self-interest, and not out of any idealistic sense of
egalitarianism.

Tim Romano



----- Original Message -----
From: "En Lin Wei" <[log in to unmask]>
To: <[log in to unmask]>
Sent: Sunday, July 16, 2000 11:03 AM
Subject: The "shock value" of supporting Mussolini and Hitler


> [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
>
>