It would contribute to clarity and perhaps even coolness of thought if
everyone concerned were to respect the difference between "Fascism" and
"fascist"; more exactly, in the current context, between "Mussolini's
Italian Fascism" and whatever might be meant by "fascism".  The former can
be defined; the latter in common and academic usage is so indefinite as to
be useless, unless one has a use for selfserving abuse.   To give Fascism
the capital letter is of course not to endorse it--it is simply a way of
trying to keep clear what it is one is talking about.  Pound wrote
propaganda in support of Mussolini and of what he took to be his Fascist
programme--the writings exist, the evidence is available.  But it is quite
another matter to call him "fascist" or "a fascist"--that's down to
intepretation, not evidence.  "Interpretation"? -- well, given the
unthinking usage of "fascist", that might not be the precise word for it.

David Moody

----- Original Message -----
From: "Carrol Cox" <[log in to unmask]>
Sent: Friday, June 01, 2001 4:31 PM
Subject: Re: Pound studies and Kerry


> Aww come on. "Fascist" has never meant merely (or even primarily) party
> member. Too much can be made of Pound's fascism (and more often than not
> too much is made of it), but you can't fully discuss the Cantos unless
> you confront the fascist threads in it. (Note that "themes,"
> "attitudes," "images" can't be party members, but we can still call them
> communist, fascist, social democratic, whiggish, etc.)
>
> Carrol
>
> Jennifer Wilson wrote:
> >
> > I stand by my prior comment.  To share beliefs with party members is
separate and distinct from being a member of the party.
>