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 >>