>Date: Sat, 20 Nov 1999 07:35:00 -1000 >From: David Centrone <[log in to unmask]> >Subject: Re: Integer vitae scelerisque purum > >An excellant book on the subject of the formation of Italian fascism is >Alastair Hamilton's:. _The Appeal of Fascism_. After reading it, I'm not so >sure that I would characterize it as the "working class. . . at war with the >bourgeoisie"; many of the most pronounced supporters (against the violence >of the communist, syndicalist, maximalists) were the people who had actually >made money during the war (I). This group included Italian Jewish people as >well. Thanks for the reference. I, for one, will certainly be interested in looking at this. But since our interest in this list is with Pound, and with what we really mean when we say, "Pound was a Fascist," and with the question of whether Pound's poetry and literary criticism can be seen as a justification for Fascism in the same way that Nietzsche and Heidegger's writings can be read as a justification for Naziism.... Since this is our concern, the relevant question is: What was *Pound's* understanding of Fascism? And strangely enough, considering how quick we are to label Pound a Fascist, it seems rather difficult to find much of an answer to this in Pound's writings. If one reads JEFFERSON AND/OR MUSSOLINI, one sees that he admired Mussolini and admired the spirit of Italy under Mussolini. He doesn't, however, say anything about the repressive aspects of that Mussolini's government except where he denies that some of them exist. From the conversations I heard at St. Elizabeth's, I remember only that he liked the idea of the Corporate State, i.e. that members of the legislature would represent the various business and labor interests instead of representing geographical regions. (To some extent, our own government functions according to this same structure, inasmuch as a lot of the real legislative debate is carried on by lobbyists more than by the actual Senators and Congressmen, who could probably not function without the information supplied by lobbyists.) Pound was typical of many people in that his feelings about the political figures he liked were based more on their words than their actual policies. He liked the fact that Mussolini (and also Hitler) denounced munitions manufacturers, bankers, and financiers in their speeches. He didn't seem to have much understanding of the fact that these speeches were designed merely to appeal to people like himself (many many people at that time shared Pound's sentiments) and were not a reflection of actual policy. I will be very interested in seeing what's in Alastair Hamilton's book, but I suspect that the level of discussion there is far more sophisticated than Pound's own understanding of Fascism. -- Lee Lady <Http://www2.Hawaii.Edu/~lady>