Tim Romano <[log in to unmask]> wrote:


<<Subject: Re: Pound's Fascism did NOT stem from anti-communism; the REVERSE
is
         true>>

<<Wei,
You suggested several days ago that Pound was a "subject"  -- that is, under
the thumb of fascist  totalitarian mind-control>>

I did not say that Pound was "under the thumb of fascist totalitarian mind
control . . ."  My consistent position has been that Pound CHOSE to believe
in fascism and CHOSE to believe in the party line.   His commitment to
fascism, as a system of belief was freely selected; the general assent to
fascist propositions and policies was made as a free will decision.

When I say that,

>Pound's numerous denunciations of Stalin, during 1943 and 1944 were the
>simple reflex actions to the dictates of fascist centers of propaganda in
>Berlin and Rome.

I describe a well known psychological phenomenon, which occurs in many
individuals who begin to think with ideological blinders.  Thought becomes
REFLEXIVE, rather than reflective.


<<I had written that "Pound would have been content to remain an
'aristo-democrat' had the threat of world communism not arisen. He found
communism abhorrent, and his anti-communism was integral to the support he
gave the fascist cause.">>

So are you implying that Pound would have remained an Aristo-Democrat and
that he would NOT HAVE BECOME A FASCIST if he had not been worried about the
threat of World Communism?

This is an important point I think.  I stated,

>>I defy anyone to find any quote prior to 1940 where Pound expresses any
>>strong anti-communist sentiments, in the form of a reasoned argument, or
>>even in an off hand comment.

I apologize that this was stated somewhat beligerently, and I also admit
that I was wrong to imply that nothing anti-communist was written before
1940.

You replied:

<<Let me address first my claim that  Pound was, at heart, an
"aristo-democrat" who would have been content to remain so had it not been
for the threat of world-communism, and its effect upon his native land. He
writes in a letter of February 1939 to Hubert Creekmore:

   ' I don't have to __try__ to be American. Merrymount, Braintree, Quincy,
all I believe in or by, what had been  "a plantation named Weston's."
    Vide also the host in Longfellow's "Wayside Inn." Wall ornament there
mentioned still at my parents'.  Am I American? Yes, and buggar the pres-
ent state of the country, the utter betrayal of the American Constitution,
the filth of the Universities, and the  -  -  -  - system of publication
whereby you can buy Lenin, Trotsky (the messiest mutt of the lot), Stalin
for 10 cents and 25 cents, and it takes __seven__  years to get a set of
John Adams at about 30 dollars. Van Buren's autobiog not printed till
1920.>>

That quote is significant in the context of our conversation, and it is one
I have not encountered before. It does prove that, in 1939, at least, Pound
was apprehensive about the fact that Lenin, Trotsky, and Stalin were
available in print at such low prices, whereas Adams and Van Buren were not.
  But does it prove your thesis:

<<Pound would have been content to remain an
'aristo-democrat' had the threat of world communism not arisen.>>  ???

I do not think so.

You went on to say,

<<This quotation -- we can agree that it is an "offhand comment" and not a
"reasoned argument---  indicates to me that Pound's anti-communism was not
merely the result  of his having lately adopted the fascist party line>>

If that is so, then we have a number of questions which remain unanswered:

1.  When did Pound become a fascist?  (Would you not agree that by 1933,
when Pound published "Jefferson and / or Mussolini," Pound had become a
committed supporter of Mussolini?)
2.  When does Pound begin to make consistent objections to communism? (OK, I
asked you to produce a quote before 1940, and you produced one from
1939---but don't you agree, that by then Pound was TOTALLY  immersed in the
Italian fascist milieu.
3.  If Pound's anti-communist statements are, as you suggest, derived from

" intimately bound up with his sense of who and what he who is
  --or WAS--   as a "native" american of old Quaker stock."

another problem arises:  How could a quintessentially anti-communist
"American" have made the large number of sympathetic remarks he did about
Lenin between 1917 and 1934?   Jefferson and Mussolini is full of such
statements.  I produced a few pro-Lenin quotes in the last post, you will
recall (and you neglected to comment on these).

Your thesis seems premised on the notion that Pound becomes an
anti-communist BEFORE he becomes a fascist.  Yet we have pro-communist
quotes (or pro-Lenin quotes) made well before Pound is thoroughly committed
to Fascism (1924), and even during the early period of Pound's solidified
commitment to fascism (say, 1932-1934).

I think you will have to produce more than the one 1939 quote to prove that
Pound's anti-communism is integral to his decision to support fascism.  You
have yet to produce any evidence to show that Pound even used any such
phrase as "the threat of world communism" prior to Hilter's invasion of
Russia.

Another separate point which is raised by the quote you produced.  You have
before asserted that Pound was what we might call an Adams
"Aristo-Democrat".  I produced a large number of quotes from Adams to show
that his "Aristo-democratic" ideology was, in reality, a gross perversion of
democracy, akin in many ways to proto-fascism.  The most charitable view of
it would be to say that it was an attempt to return to monarchy and
aristocracy.  I produced quotes (which I will show you again, if need be)
which indicated the following:

1.  Adams wanted the Presidency to become an "inherited position", and hoped
that eventually a full transition to Monarchy could be effected.
2.  He wanted the Senate to become a House of Lords, with all the members
holding hereditary positions.
3.  He conceived of the doctrine of the Checks and Balances as between the
Monarch, the Lords, and the People (not between the Executive, the
Legislature, and the Judiciary).
4.  His was the most conservative view on property qualifications, opposed
to Franklin and Paine, who advocated universal male sufferage.
5.  He worked to destroy the First Amendment guarantees on freedom of the
press, by pushing the Alien and Sedition Acts through Congress, and
rigorously enforcing them by jailing the most prominent journalists who
opposed him, and deporting "aliens" who were "too radical"  (supporters of
Jefferson in the period leading up to the election  of 1900).  The most
prominent of the journalists, Bache, editor of the American Aurora, died in
jail.


These historical facts are of great interest for two reasons, at least.
Right now, we have the "Bush dynasty" making the most serious attack on the
non-hereditary nature of our government since the (s)election  of John
Adams' son, John Quincy.  Second, as regards Pound studies, we have to
wonder why Pound would have been so enthusiastic about the most reactionary
of America's "Founders"  ?  It is no coincidence, I have argued.  And as I
recall, you did not comment on the quotations I produced from Adams
writings.  What is amazing is not that Adams was so reactionary, but that
any twentieth century intellectual would choose Adams as his American
historical paragon, the American who is most celebrated in the Cantos.
Does that not make Pound triply reactionary:  Mussolini, Adams, and
Confucius.  He could not have found many figures who have been more
destructive to the cause of liberty in their respective countries.


Down with all dynasties!!

Up with Liberty!!

Salut et Fraternite,

Wei

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