I want to thank Tim Romano for his recent postings on the issue of Pound's
reasons for supporting Mussolini and fascism.

He wrote:

<<One might read the
following statements in light of the excerpt from Pound's letter to Hubert
Creekmore, which I posted a day or two ago.  Often Pound will refer to his
family when he wishes to establish his sincerity, his _bona fides_.>>

I find this argumentative device difficult to understand.  Isn't it a
fallacy?  My father, or my grandfather was a good man; therefore what I am
saying about Mussolini is true (?)  At the very least it seems to be a non
sequitor.  At worst, it constitutes an attempt at emotional manipulation of
a sort used by the most dishonest politicians.  Its a bit like Nixon's
"Checkers Speech":  I like my dog, therefore I am a good guy, and my
positions must be correct.

George Bush Junior used a similar argument the other day:  "Did you see
wonderful my wife's speech was, how beautiful her smile was; you know how
good I am by the company I keep-- Cheney married a good wife too."  What
does this have to do with Bush's poltical program??  And what does Pound's
grandfather have to do with Pound's argument about Mussolini?

Pound is clearest when he says it is a matter of "faith."  Recall that Pound
said Christian faith was incomprehensible to him, but "Confucian faith I can
conceive."  Similarly, he said much of his poetry was a "testament to his
faith in fascism."

<<Perhaps this belief in the goodness of his ancestor is mere
self-deception.>>

I do not think it is either self-deception, or at all relevant.  The belief
in the goodness of Mussolini, that was the self-deception.

<<Wei
might be able to tell us whether Pound grand-père paid his workers a living
wage. . . >>

I have no idea.  If we looked at all Pound's ancestors, particularly his
Quaker ancestors, I am sure we would find some interesting facts.  Quakers,
on the whole, were more progressive politically and socially on many issues.
  They were among the first relgious groups to reject the institution of
slavery (even prior to the American revolution).  They were more open-minded
on religious and ideological matters (it was a Quaker who agreed to bury the
body of Thomas Paine, after virtually all other Christian groups castigated
Paine, and ostracized him for his work on "Natural Religion," which
questioned the divinity of Christ.  )

But Pound rejected the more liberal social and political aspects of his
Quaker heritage.  (Once he did say, "Quakerism and Greek mythology could
serve as the basis of good religious hypothesis."  I imagine the Quaker
concept of the "inner light," always remained attractive to Pound is some
sense.)

Pound said,

    "Any thorough treatment of MUSSOLINI will be in a measure an act of
faith, it will depend on what you _believe_ the man means, what you believe
that he wants to accomplish."

Faith, irrespective of the acts of the man, seems to be the watchword.

" I have never believed that my grandfather put a bit of railway across
Wisconsin simply or chiefly to make money or even with the illusion that he
would make money, or make more money in that way than in some other."

That may be true.

"I don't believe any estimate of Mussolini will be valid unless it _starts_
from his passion  for construct-ion. Treat him as _artifex_ and all the
details fall into place. "

But why treat Mussolini rather than anyone else as an "artifex"?  And does
it not matter WHAT he was trying to construct?

Is it not important that Mussolini is an "artifex" who creates a particular
kind of state?  A state in which the "Leader" need not be restrained by any
law, regulation, constitution, or legislative body.

"Take him as anything save the artist and you will get muddled with
contradictions. Or you will
waste a lot of time finding that he don't fit your particular
preconceptions or your particular theories."

Isn't this simply a roundabout way of saying Mussolini is infallible?  He is
an artists, so you should not examine him closely.  Think of him as
inspired.

"The Anglo-Saxon is particularly inept at under-standing the Latin clarity
of 'Qui veut la fin veut
les moyens.' Who wills the end wills the means."

The racist remark against Anglo-Saxons simply turns on its head the maxim,
"The ends never justify the means".  Pound thinks whatever Mussolini does is
justified---  destroying legislative authority, emasculatilng trade unions
and peasants federations,  denying equal status to women, making himself the
supreme unquestioned leader---  al these things are justified because "the
end" which Mussolini has in mind is just and right, and must be so, as a
matter of faith.

Such statments of Pound as those which Tim Romano has put forward--- what
are they if not complete abrogations of  REASON itself?  How are such
proclamations any different from the statements of faith made by Christians,
of whom Pound is so critical?  Is faith in an Unseen Good  (The Deity) worse
than faith in a Seen Evil  (The Fascist Dictator)?

"There is Lenin's calm estimate of all other Russian parties: They are very
clever, yes, they can do EVERYTHING except act."

So any dictator is justified in usurping power, whether it is Lenin or
Mussolini SO LONG AS THEY CAN ACT.  In Pound's view HOW THEY ACT appears to
be irrelevant.  He does not consider the possibility that several parties
and groups acting at cross purposes, preventing any individual from gaining
total ascendancy, would be preferable to dictatorship.  It's messy, and
often corrupt, but not as corrupt or corruptable as the one party rule which
came from Mussolini's and Lenin's dictatorships.

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