EPOUND-L Archives

- Ezra Pound discussion list of the University of Maine


Options: Use Forum View

Use Proportional Font
Show HTML Part by Default
Show All Mail Headers

Message: [<< First] [< Prev] [Next >] [Last >>]
Topic: [<< First] [< Prev] [Next >] [Last >>]
Author: [<< First] [< Prev] [Next >] [Last >>]

Print Reply
bob scheetz <[log in to unmask]>
Reply To:
Ezra Pound discussion list of the University of Maine <[log in to unmask]>
Thu, 27 Jan 2000 23:08:56 -0500
text/plain (63 lines)
Ridiculus as it seems, a whole lotta people
really do buy into the official (parson weems)
version of WW2,... a simple Good vs Evil proposition.
When  even the slightest critical intelligence
can infallibly see it for a class war.
Allies v Axis is bourgeois v prole.
And, an internecine, stalinist v nazi, prole v prole.
The Allies' opportunistic strategy of exploiting
this latter...hoping for a napoleon-ish outcome,
of course, succeeded; and, they got to
put the proles back in their place...etc;
but, quite notable in this regard,
that's to say confirmatory of the class analysis,
is how all the official versions of this titanic drama,
cast the respective characters.
Hitler is always the failed art student,
Stalin, the failed seminarian,
Mussolini... the bombastic charlatan,
(and, o'course our ep would also fit here);
all, of course, certified psychopaths
...and their putative sociopathology
arising thence from their resentment at failure to achieve
membership in the petit bourgeoisie.
While, on the other hand,
Churchill is the last and most quintessential whig, and
Roosevelt, the perpetually benign patrician,
...their class brilliance easily eclipsing all their grotesquery.
Childish as this propaganda construct may seem,
still 50 yrs hence it thoroughly occludes
any kinda depth consideration of the serious culture
of that time.
-----Original Message-----
From: pcockram <[log in to unmask]>
To: [log in to unmask] <[log in to unmask]>
Date: Wednesday, January 26, 2000 10:11 PM
Subject: Re: Bourgeois Fascism
>Leon Surette wrote:
>>  Everything I have read about Fascism
>> and Nazism identifies both movements as entirely bourgeois--petit
>> to be sure, but certainly bourgeois.
>>     The anti-bourgeois movement of the thirties was Communism or
>I tend to think both Communism and Fascism were anti-bourgeois, at least in
>theory -- that is, they opposed middle class liberal individualism.   Both
>championed the agricultural and artisanal classes and claimed to be
>though they were also elitist.  The Fascists considered themselves the only
>rational choice between the two extremes of Communism and Capitalism, but
>inevitably had things in common with both.
>best, Patricia