Gavin wrote:
 
> He was a fascist.
 
One of my biggest gripes about the studies of literature and fascism is that
almost no one bothers to define the term. Pick up any history of generic fascism
and a number of pages will be dedicated to discussing what -- if anything --
fascism actually is. To take a simple example: Italian fascism is radically
different in 1922, 1933, 1938 and 1942. Mussolini drew his support from an almost
bizarre collection of people: socialists, revolutionary syndicalists, the arditi
(Italian shock troops), the Futurists, conservative nationalists, etc. Later, he
drew at least nominal support from the Vatican and big business. If Italian
fascism is complicated, throw in German National Socialism, the various French
varieties, the authoritarian governments in Spain, Portugal, Hungary, and even
Juan Peron in Argentina and then come up with a definition.
 
Did Pound support Mussolini? Of course. Does that make him a "fascist?" Not
necessarily. Pound seems to disregard or perhaps willfully ignore many of the
central tenets of fascism, especially  its emphasis on war and its nationalism.
The core of Pound's political beliefs is an idiosyncratic Confucianism which makes
him value the "insight" of certain powerful political leaders. That's why at the
same time he's celebrating the Duce, he's corresponding with Bronson Cutting,
Upton Sinclair, Huey Long, etc. etc. etc. Tim Redman uses the term "philofascist,"
which seems right to me.
 
A final polemic: too many of the studies of literature and fascism try to reduce
fascism to a manageable bogeyman. As excellent as Casillo's book is on EP's
anti-Semitism, it's an utter disaster on his politics: Casillo seems to want to
make Pound a garden variety fascist, despite the fact that it's arguable whether
such a thing even existed.
 
Bill Freind