My best compliment fot what Bill Freind wrote: to me it looks that he got to
the point.
 
Fabio Franceschini
CCU Eruditio
Universit` di Trento
http://student.gelso.unitn.it/~eruditio
 
 
 
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