>Date:  Sat, 20 Nov 1999 07:35:00 -1000
>From:  David Centrone <[log in to unmask]>
>Subject:      Re: Integer vitae scelerisque purum
>
>An excellant book on the subject of the formation of Italian fascism is
>Alastair Hamilton's:. _The Appeal of Fascism_.  After reading it, I'm not so
>sure that I would characterize it as the "working class. . . at war with the
>bourgeoisie"; many of the most pronounced supporters (against the violence
>of the communist, syndicalist, maximalists) were the people who had actually
>made money during the war (I).  This group included Italian Jewish people as
>well.
 
Thanks for the reference.  I, for one, will certainly be interested in
looking at this.
 
But since our interest in this list is with Pound, and with what we
really mean when we say, "Pound was a Fascist," and with the question of
whether Pound's poetry and literary criticism can be seen as a
justification for Fascism in the same way that Nietzsche and Heidegger's
writings can be read as a justification for Naziism....   Since this is
our concern, the relevant question is:  What was *Pound's* understanding
of Fascism?
 
And strangely enough, considering how quick we are to label Pound a
Fascist, it seems rather difficult to find much of an answer to this in
Pound's writings.  If one reads JEFFERSON AND/OR MUSSOLINI, one sees that
he admired Mussolini and admired the spirit of Italy under Mussolini.
He doesn't, however, say anything about the repressive aspects of that
Mussolini's government except where he denies that some of them exist.
 
From the conversations I heard at St. Elizabeth's, I remember only that
he liked the idea of the Corporate State, i.e. that members of the
legislature would represent the various business and labor interests
instead of representing geographical regions.  (To some extent, our own
government functions according to this same structure, inasmuch as a lot
of the real legislative debate is carried on by lobbyists more than by
the actual Senators and Congressmen, who could probably not function
without the information supplied by lobbyists.)
 
Pound was typical of many people in that his feelings about the
political figures he liked were based more on their words than their
actual policies.  He liked the fact that Mussolini (and also Hitler)
denounced munitions manufacturers, bankers, and financiers in their
speeches.  He didn't seem to have much understanding of the fact that
these speeches were designed merely to appeal to people like himself
(many many people at that time shared Pound's sentiments) and were not
a reflection of actual policy.
 
I will be very interested in seeing what's in Alastair Hamilton's book,
but I suspect that the level of discussion there is far more
sophisticated than Pound's own understanding of Fascism.
 
-- Lee Lady <Http://www2.Hawaii.Edu/~lady>