Bill Friend writes:
>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,
     kinda agree with yer exasperation
...all that moralize'n drivvel bout fascism/racism,
jes the preposterous self-complacency of the winner.
had hitler won; no doubt,
they'd all be discrete as us bout the palestinians, eh.
 
but, just to satisfy yer request fer lucidity:
fascism is  the reactionary form of populism;
communism,  the progressive.
together they constitute that unitary dialectic called the working class,
and, of course, both stand at war with the bourgeoisie.
 
ww1 had largely destroyed the traditional ruling classes
of europe, so that come the great depression, power
defaulted to the one-eyed man,
the popular classes, who at the instance
of the rump boojwa, employed freikorps lumpen
as death squads ...an old story, eh?
to eliminate their progressive brother
 
both heid and ep had the courage of populism,
recognizing bourgeois culture for irredeeemable;
as both suffered from a provincialism that pre-disposed
them against the progressive form.
their categories of power were limited to
the traditional two, money or guns, maggots or generals.
the via tertium, soviets/sindicats/unions, exceeded their purview.
 
o' course the unfortunate jews were prominent
in both camps, capitalist and marxist, evil and good,
such that, as is customary with things human,
fate inexorably worked the optimal diabolical tragedy
...nso on.
 
bob