Tim Romano wrote:
>>
In the wartime broadcasts, Pound praises the U.S. political system, as it
was hammered out by the founding fathers, as purty near the best one could
ever hope to get, the culmination of the best of western tradition. But he
thinks the country has gone to hell and that the central tenets of the
Constitution are being violated.
>>
This assertion needs some substantiation. So far I have seen very little
evidence provided which can show that Pound believed in the central tenets
of the Constitution. The basic democratic principle of a government run by
elected representatives and an elected executive is clearly not supported by
Pound. The system of checks and balances, instituted in tripartite division
between executive, legislature, and judiciary is also not supported by
Pound. Supreme power in Fascist Italy was fully vested in the "Duce," who
was unelected, and unaccountable, either to a legislature or a judicial
branch of government, yet Pound gave his full unqualified support to that
political system.
So what Constitutional tenets does Pound support? Would he support any of
the rights guaranteed in the first ten amendments?
1. Pound had little or no respect for the first amendment freedoms.
Freedom of Speech--You recall that in the introduction to his radio
speeches, Pound stipulated that the policy of freedom of speech was accorded
only to those "qualified to exercise it." Pound had no objections to any of
the abridgments of freedom of the press, freedom of assembly, or freedom of
speech. perpetrated by Hitler, Mussolini, or Hirohito. Nor did Pound
support the first amendment rights to freedom of religion. Recall, when a
Jewish acquaintance in Italy was laid off as a result of the new anti-Jewish
law, Pound said the government "Did the right thing."
2. The right to bear arms. Pound had no objections to Fascist Italian and
German efforts to keep arms out of the hands of the people, so as to assure
the power of the dictators' armed agencies.
3. Quartering of soldiers. Under fascism (which was the most severe sort
of "collectivism") people were seen as appendages of the state, possessing
no right to deny access to their home by any public official. Pound did not
object to this.
4. The right against searches and siezures was constantly violated by the
fascists. Did Pound ever object to such actions in private or in public?
5. Right to a jury trial. Countless opponents of fascist rule were
summarily sentenced without fair trials. While Pound was complaining about
"Jewsevelt" he never raised a peep about the widespread policy of
politically motivated arrests in Germany and in Italy.
6. We can say the same about the right to a public trial contained in the
sixth amendment.
7, 8, 9, 10 None of the rights regarding bail, or the prohibitions against
"cruel and unusual punishment" were honored by the fascists or by Pound. Do
you have any evidence to the contrary?
So WHICH central tenets of the constitution does Pound support by any
explicit statements? And which of these central tenets were also supported
by the fascist and nazi dictators, and Chinese emperors, which he so
enthusiatically backed?
>
You mention that he had no problem with
Mussolini's longevity but railed against Roosevelt's. Pound thought R. was
destroying the country, taking it down the road to collectivist ruin . . . .
>
Where does Pound specifically object to collectivism? Mussolini, Gentile,
Odon Por, Hitler, and all the fascists were very clear on this point, and
Pound knew it: Under fascism the will of individual is subordinate to the
will of the SUPREME LEADER, who embodies the general will. This is the most
basic tenet of fascist political thought. (See Odon Por quote below). It is
stated over and over in the Cantos under the rubric of the rule of ONE MAN,
which is represented by the Chinese characters "i jen", (one man). Pound
even spoke well of Lenin on several occasions, and of Mao. He rejected Mao
when it became clear to Pound that Mao was anti-Confucian.
>>Pound regarded the congress as complicit in this betrayal
of the constitution. But to explain this inconsistency--M. can rule for as
long as he wants, but R. cannot-- solely in terms of Pound's "anti-semitism"
is to cross the bridge but halfway.
>>
You are right that to explain Pound's support for the twenty plus year reign
of Mussolini in terms of anti-semitism would be incomplete. In fact, I
would say that anti-semitism plays virtually no part in his support for
Mussolini. Pound supports Mussolini because he believes that Mussolini
acts by "right reason" and "the general conviction that Mussolini is bound
to be right." This is what he says in Jefferson and/or Mussolini. He
supports the fascist philosophy.
>>
Pound associates _collectivist ruin_
with the Jewish bankers and international loan-capital. He thinks of the
american people as having lost the spark, their race-will.
>>
In other words, he is either irrational and easily duped, or he believes
(along with Hitler and other Nazis) that the Jews were a convenient
scapegoat, useful for diverting people from the central structural problems
inherent in the capitalist system. Perhaps you can tell me which. Or is
there a third alternative?
>>He thought that
homogeneity of race was necessary for true cultural cohesion.
>>
How is this any different from saying he was a racist and an anti-semite?
In one radio broadcast he said the Japanese and Chinese were fortunate in
being the only "unbekiked" races. How should we interpret such a
statement?
>>
>>Pound's hatred
of collectivism deserves equal emphasis.
>>
Feel free to emphasize it. But if you do, it requires evidence, and an
explanation about how embracing fascist collectivism indicates a "hatred of
collectivism." State intervention is an integral part of fascist economic
policy, and was this was well understood by Pound. Mussolini engaged in
collectivist economic policy to a far greater degree than Roosevelt ever
did.
If you have any doubts that Pound supported FASCIST collectivism, then
glance at this quote from a work by Odon Por, which Pound himself translated
into English, for publication in the New Weekly (in 1935).
In economic autarchy, the creative will is
transformed from a phenomenon supported by
individual initiative into a **collective** phenomenon --
manifests itself, that is, in the will, in the totalitarian
action of a nation determined to give itself a new and
better order.
Economic autarchy is characterized by a spirit
intolerant of everything passive and indolent, a spirit
which wishes to valorise everything in the nation, all
the material and spiritual forces -- or rather, which
unites the material and spiritual forces in a single
flux of energy. For convenience, (hence consciously)
capitalism neglects certain sectors of production;
autarchy, functioning for collective convenience,
develops all sectors. Capitalism is preoccupied with
organizing and not always with intensifying certain
sectors at the expense of others, while economic
autarchy spurs on the all-round productivity of
every country.
(Por, 27).
________________________________________________________________________
Get Your Private, Free E-mail from MSN Hotmail at http://www.hotmail.com
|
