Fabio Franceschini wrote:
I was of the belief that Ol' Ez was more smitten with the economic ideas
which he thought were being put forward by Il Duce in Roma und Der Fuhrer
in Berlin.... but all of the posts in this particular thread have been
educating --
No comments on the Social Credit Theory (Douglas) which Pound found so
intriguing ? ...or would that be too far off topic ?
 
        FF has tempted me to entry the fray once again. The question of Pound's
affiliation with Italian Fascism is a biographical one which can readily be
answered. He was a loyal and life-long supporter and defendrer of Mussolini
and his German ally, Adolf Hitler. One need only consult the Pound-Agresti
correspondence for confirmation of this claim.
        A more interesting question is why? FF is right to ask about Social
Credit. I demonstrate the matter very thoroughly in my forthcoming POUND IN
PURGATORY. I have given advance notice to this list before, but, of course,
one cannot read a book not yet released.
        Pound's enthusiasm for Mussolini was initially motivated by his belief
that he could capture il Duce for economic reform. His enthusiasm for that
project had been in abeyance since he left London, but it was rekindled by
the Crash and the Depression. He decided that he could solve the world's
problems by converting Mussolini to his views, and he had Odon Por to
encourage him.
        Unfortunately, Pound was converted to Fascism. Il Duce ran a conservative
economic ship of state, and no one in his administration exhibited the
slightest interest in Major Douglas's underconsumpionist solutions to the
world's economic problems.
        Of course, it is not easy to say what it means to be converted to Fascism.
What we know without doubt about Pound's conversion is that he took sides
with Mussolini against Spain, Ethiopia, France, England, and the United
States--pretty much in that order.
        He also wrote many, many articles extolling what he believed Fascist
political philosophy to be. It seems to me that whether his version of
Fascism was orthodox or not is of minor interest when we are concerned with
his political affiliations.
        However, the accuracy of his version of Fascism IS of interest if we are
concerned with his own political philosophy--as we should be. It is to
pursue a will-o-the-wisp to attempt to discern the degree of his
orthodoxy--particularly when Italian Fascism was such a heteroclite and
shifty body of "thought." One would be better occupied attempting to figure
out what he thought the ideal state would be. I can assure you that it
would not be a liberal or postmodern politically correct society that he
would have us create. Nor would his political musings support the view that
he was a democrat or egalitarian. He tended to characterized his position
as Confucian--that is, an hierarchical state governed from above by moral
authority. Such as state would be quite different that Clinton's USA.
 
Leon Surette
 
Leon Surette
English Department
University of Western Ontario