Wei, Thanks for the quotations from Adams. They shed more light on the discussion of Pound's of aristo-democracy. You assume that monarchical and aristocratical interests will coincide or tend to coincide, and line up against the democratical: > .... Instead, Adams > wants to balance the MONARCHICAL , the ARISTOCRATICAL interests against the > DEMOCRATICAL interests. Certainly there are instances in British history where the aristocracy aligned themselves with the commoner against the crown, if only out of enlightened self-interest, and not out of any idealistic sense of egalitarianism. Tim Romano ----- Original Message ----- From: "En Lin Wei" <[log in to unmask]> To: <[log in to unmask]> Sent: Sunday, July 16, 2000 11:03 AM Subject: The "shock value" of supporting Mussolini and Hitler > [log in to unmask] wrote: > > >I took from _Jefferson and / or Mussolini_ that Pound applauded democracy > >for the US and communism for Russia. I got the idea that he thought that > >"Fascism" was good for Italy because of the unique set of problems that the > >country was experiencing at the time. > > > > I appreciate DCENTRO's contribution to this discussion. You may well draw > the conclusion you do from reading Jefferson and/or Mussolini. Certainly > Pound thought that fascism was good for Italy (and later he argued that it > would be good for the whole of Europe, for Japan, and China, under Japanese > occupation). In Jeff and/or Muss, he seems to flirt with the idea that > Lenin was an admirable figure. As to the idea that he thought democracy > would be good for America, you could help this discussion along if you could > provide a quote to substantiate this view. I don't have a copy of Jeff > and/or Muss in front of me. > > A number of people have argued that what Pound believed in was an > "aristo-democratic" system of government for the US. How such a system > would have ended "usury", Pound never explains. I am certain it would make > matters worse. Pound often praises John Adams, who, as more and more > historians are coming to realize, was the LEAST democratic President we have > ever had. Pound's favorable view of Adams is consistent with his support > for other anti-democratic figures in world history. Adams believed in > hereditary government, argued in favor of a hereditary Senate and a > hereditary executive. Here is one example of his writing on the subject: > > <<I do not "consider hereditary Monarchy or Aristocracy as Rebellion against > Nature" [Adams is attempting to refute Thomas Paine here]. On the > contrary, I esteem them both as Institutions of admirable wisdom and > exemplary virtue . . and that America must resort to them as an asylum > during discord, Seditions and Civil war. .... Our country is not ripe for > it in many respects, but our ship must ultimately on that shore or be cast > away.>> > > Adams was against the idea of allowing Jews to hold public offices (and he > was responsible for the inclusion of a provision in the Massachussetts > constitution which forbade Jews from holding office, something Pound > approved of. Pound praised Mussolini's government when they passed a > similar measure in Italy during the 40's). > > Here are some other excerpts from Adams opinions on the subject of > government, written in 1790 in a letter to Benjamin Rush > > [The letter begins with a long condemnation of the excessive admiration of > Benjamin Franklin, who had advocated universal male suffrage, an end to all > hereditary government]. "Limited Monarchy is found in Nature. No Nation > can adore more than one Man at a time. ... If I said in 1777 that 'we > should never be qualified for Republican government til we are ambitious to > be poor,' I meant to say no Nation under heaven ever was, now is, or ever > will be qualified for a Republican government , unless you mean resulting > from a Balance of three powers, the Monarchical, Aristocratical, and the > Democratical. I meant more, and I repeat more explicitly that Americans are > particularly unfit for any Republic but Aristo-Democratical Monarchy." > > Notice that the "three powers" are to be balanced are NOT the Judicial, the > Executive, and the Legislature. Pound, like Adams, seemed uninterested in > this crucial principle which underlies the US constitution. Instead, Adams > wants to balance the MONARCHICAL , the ARISTOCRATICAL interests against the > DEMOCRATICAL interests. Of course, most Americans today (quite rightly, I > think) believe that Paine and Benjamin Franklin were right: THERE SHOULD BE > NO MONARCHICAL OR ARISTOCRATICAL power in the US form of government. > > And what in God's name is an "Aristo-Democratical Monarchy?" It seems to me > a monstrosity, like the sphinx (part human, part bird, and part beast of > prey). > > > >And at the risk of becoming the devil's advocate, there may have been some > >good reasons why Mussolini was so successful in bringing fresh order to a > >government that was being flanked from all sides (actually from mostly > >"left" sides). > > > > Are you advocating this view for its "shock value"? : ) > > >Of course, I don't doubt for a second that the man was clearly an > >opportunist, he began his political career as a communist and a syndicalist > >(at odds with the futurist Marienetti). And I am not surprised that he > >wound up hanging by his heels and beaten by the people who must have felt > >betrayed by the man (as a result of having kissed Hitler's ass in '36). > > We can agree here. And this is the crux of the matter, that Pound sustained > his support for Mussolini beyond the point when it might have easily been > dismissed as mere quirk or publicity game. > > > >(Even so I have a tendency to believe that without a Hitler, Mussolini [& > >Fascism] would seem relatively tame in comparison to your Stalins and > >Maos.) > > > > > Yes, that may be true. And without Stalin, Lenin might have seemed > relatively tame compared with other dictators. > > And without the Reagan ordered slaughters of tens of thousands of Nicaraguan > peasants, the Bush ordered slaughter of three to six thousand in Panama > might have seemed relatively tame. We can make a number of speculations > along these lines. > > > >Did Pound just "need" a hero for the cantos? > > Every epic needs a hero, (or heros), and Pound stated his aspirations to > make the Cantos into an epic (a poem containing history). > > > > > >Did Mussolini provide a juicy > >enough (controversial enough) figure to fit Pound's quantum description of > >world history? > > > >Does anyone think that Pound was acting for shock value? > > Supporting Hitler and Mussolini was fairly shocking. If he was only > interested in shocking people for the sake of shocking them, he could have > advocated the following view: The US should become a Jewish state, where > only Chinese should be allowed to hold office, where the Koran should be the > Constitution, and where all women should be forbidden to wear clothes in > public. > > The fact is that Pound had a specific vision, not that he simply wanted to > shock people. He was not a dadaist. The question is, how should that > vision be characterized? > > > Respectfully yours, > > Wei > > > > > > ________________________________________________________________________ > Get Your Private, Free E-mail from MSN Hotmail at http://www.hotmail.com > >