you have used the word "astonish" here, and I, too, am astonished, but for
quite different reasons.  your claim that "To be against big  money, as Pound
is, has almost always, *in practice*, led to  racism and one or another form
of authoritarian thought" goes against every social experience I've ever had.
 to the contrary, in my experience, it's always been the elites who have
promoted racism, usually as a way of keeping the various elements of the
general population at each other's throats.  indeed, in current observations,
it's the aspiring classes who're most likely to denounce others -- that is,
those who'd like to join the privileged elites.  it's true that racism, in
particular, has been widespread in the lower economic classes, but frequently
-- I'm tempted to say usually -- it becomes intensified over economic issues.
 Pound's opposition to the devastating policies of the moneyed class were not
predicated on racism, but on the effects of these policies.  he was
particularly opposed to high interest rates, as you no doubt know.  as far as
I'm concerned, he was absolutely correct in associating big money with social
misery, a topic that has some relevance to our times.  I don't accept your
premise that, "Placed in J. P. Morgan's social position,  you or I or Pound
would act exactly as Morgan did (or soon find ourselves displaced by someone
who would)."  Pound never aspired to the social position of J. P. Morgan, and
would never have done what Morgan (and the rest of the robber barons) did to
attain his social position.  neither would I, although apparently you might,
given your remarks above.  Pound may well have been in error regarding the
control of capitalism through social action, but his error was not one of
sincerity or ethics.

In a message dated 05/29/2000 11:19:56 AM Eastern Daylight Time,
[log in to unmask] writes:

<< You introduce here an astonishingly complex issue of both theory
 and history. I am not opposed to money; I am opposed to the
 social relations that make money important. To be against big
 money, as Pound is, has almost always, *in practice*, led to
 racism and one or another form of authoritarian thought. It also
 leads, usually, to one or another form of conspiracy theory.
 The feature of Pound's poem that most directly links to its
 fascist thrust is its ascription of social misery to the individual
 evil of "money men." Placed in J. P. Morgan's social position,
 you or I or Pound would act exactly as Morgan did (or soon
 find ourselves displaced by someone who would). Hence Pound
 is trying to sweep back the ocean in that beautiful passage
 from Canto 41 beginning with "That they were to have a
 consortium" and ending with "because you are all for the
 *confine*." The great illusion of populist thought (and Pound
 writes in that tradition) is that one can maintain the basic
 social relations of capitalism but control the results of those
 social relations.

 You can, incidentally, see the same dynamic at work in what
 is called "deep ecology," the logical (and all too often the
 actual) results of which are arguments for genocide.

 Carrol

  >>