EPOUND-L Archives

- Ezra Pound discussion list of the University of Maine

EPOUND-L@LISTS.MAINE.EDU

Options: Use Forum View

Use Monospaced Font
Show Text Part by Default
Condense Mail Headers

Message: [<< First] [< Prev] [Next >] [Last >>]
Topic: [<< First] [< Prev] [Next >] [Last >>]
Author: [<< First] [< Prev] [Next >] [Last >>]

Print Reply
Content-Transfer-Encoding:
7bit
Sender:
Ezra Pound discussion list of the University of Maine <[log in to unmask]>
Subject:
From:
Leon Surette <[log in to unmask]>
Date:
Wed, 31 May 2000 16:35:05 -0400
Content-Type:
text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1"
MIME-Version:
1.0
Reply-To:
Ezra Pound discussion list of the University of Maine <[log in to unmask]>
Parts/Attachments:
text/plain (58 lines)
    I have been out of town for several days--hence the tardiness of this
response.

Luca Gallesi wrote:

" I am quite sure that Pound read Proudhon during the Repubblica Sociale
Italiana.I remember having read something about Proudhon his letters to the
Minister of Popular Culture Mezzasoma and in his letters to Ubaldo degli
Uberti.
One of these letters is translated in Heyman's "The Last Rower" (page 336,
Citadel Press), where EP states: "We must remember that Mussolini and Gesell
both preferred Proudhon to Marx"
 Again, we may infer Pound's reading of Proudhon in his obituary for Orage
(Selected prose, pag 410):  "Proudhon will be found somewhere in the
foundations of perhaps all contemporary economic thought that has life in
it"."

    I don't agree that this letter counts as evidence that Pound read
Proudhon. We know--at least I know from unpublished letters--that he was
reading Gesell at the time he wrote the sentence quoted. And anyone who
reads Gesell's NATURAL ECONOMIC ORDER will discover that Proudhon is
everywhere in that text. And, of course, Pound mentions the two together in
the Heyman printed letter.
    I can't begin to comment on the vigorous debate that En Lin Wei has
occasioned by his provocative articles. I don't agree with his conclusions
on the whole, but I think his position deserves more respect than it has
always received in posts.
    The question of Fascism vs Communism was not very clear-cut in the
thirties. It is true that Fascist thugs and Communist thugs battled one
another in the streets, but it is also true that the Commnist, Sorel, was
read and admired by both Lenin and Mussolini. And-- we should
remember--Fascism claimed to be a variety of socialism. Proudhonian
socialism/communism was almost entirely eclipsed after the Spanish Civil
War. The Republicans were Proudhonians, but they were completely swamped by
the Leninists sent to help from the Soviet Union. To the extent Pound was a
Proudhonian, he was Communist.
    My view is that Pound was the farthest thing from an ideologue--partly
because he was constitutionally incapable of abstract thought.--by his own
admission, I might add. He was a thorough-going pragmatist, picking up
whatever he thought would be useful to improve the world. He picked up a lot
of stuff one would wish he had never encountered. But if you put a sponge in
dirty water, it will absorb dirt.
    I have written a good many articles on this subject over the
years--being one of those academics listers love to hate. The latest is a
book from Illinois University Press called POOUND IN PURGATORY. It traces
Pound's economic and political thought from his adoption of Social Credit
about 1917 to the St. Elizabeth;s years. The account is based on
unpublished--and mostly previously unread--correspondence.  I think that En
LIn Wei would modulate his position a good deal if he could find time to
read that work--as so many of us have found time to read his pieces.


Leon Surette
English Dept.
University of Western Ontario
London, Ont.
N6A 3K7

ATOM RSS1 RSS2