Ezra Pound stands out as one of the greatest and most controversial figures of our century, both for his art and his intellectual legacy. In particular, his anti-interest ideas, which he put forward with a courage unparalleled in the Western world, make him not only a poet but also a profound critic of civilisation. In this context, we spoke with Guilherme José about Ezra Pound’s approach to the issue of interest, his intellectual legacy in this field and its repercussions in the modern world. José, who conducts research on metapolitics and ideological theories, is currently working on Martin Heidegger’s eschatology.
Ezra Pound was a controversial and striking figure in the century he lived, both for the innovations he brought to literature and for his intellectual and political discourse. What exactly sets him apart from his contemporaries and makes him unique? How does the connection between Pound’s poetry and his political-economic thought highlight his originality today?
It is not easy to define who Ezra Pound’s contemporaries are, as it is difficult to determine his time. Of course, in biographical terms, this is possible, but given the peculiarities of the poet, it is indecent to confine him to a chronological time. I would argue that Pound’s time is that of all the classics, a temporality that does not adhere to Χρόνος (chronos), for genius is defined precisely by transcending profane time and participating in the sphere of the great minds. Therefore, I would answer that his contemporaries are Ovid, Dante Alighieri, William Blake.
It is from this determination that I begin to answer you, stating that what made him unique was precisely his ability to follow the paths of all the classics he admired, without succumbing to the present era, from which he held a deep repulsion. It was a post-Victorian era, one that promoted a denial of traditions, which quickly proliferated into a cultural and nihilistic void. The first Dadaist movements also flourished, under the guidance of Tristan Tzara, blindly exalted for their irrationalism and absurdism. Therefore, he was highly critical of all that modernity, which, in his view, expressed only relativism and anarchism. In this way, we can conclude that his irreverence stemmed from his ability to remain standing against it all.
Indeed, we can draw a parallel between his poetry and what we might call economic critique. The most accurate statement would be that Pound opposes the mercantilist logic, as this logic began to influence subjectivities and determine utilitarian modes that affected personal relationships. This is evident in the poem “A Girl” (1910) and in the much-celebrated “Canto XLV – The Canticle of Usura”.
Today, we find ourselves at the peak of unrestrained capitalism, and, in fact, capitalism, like a great octopus, has taken control of our lives, with its tentacles present wherever we go. Therefore, it is important to read Pound and bring his work into the present.
When Ezra Pound is mentioned, one immediately thinks of his “anti-interest” discourse and his struggle in that domain. What exactly does the concept of “usurocracy” (rule by usury), as coined by Pound, signify? How did Pound treat interest not only as an economic issue but also as a cultural, political, and civilizational crisis? Furthermore, considering the tragic consequences he faced due to this stance, what ethical, philosophical, and political questions do they raise about the legitimacy or illegitimacy of his views on interest?
Usurocracy is a system of government in which usury – understood as the charging of interest on money – exerts control over the social structure. To better understand this concept, these interest charges were applied through compound interest, which, in turn, highlighted the financial intermediation of banks. This is the classical definition of usury. However, Ezra Pound’s conception goes beyond this strictly economic formulation.
Within the framework of usurocracy, governments inevitably resort to borrowing from private investors and banking institutions. This remains a contemporary phenomenon. With the progressive accumulation of interest over time, states become captives of the financial system, finding themselves deprived of their economic sovereignty. This is the principal critique that Pound formulates – and justifiably so – in denouncing the subjugation of states to the interests of bankers.
In his attempt to conceive an economic alternative that would break with the hegemony of banks and the financial elite, Pound was particularly concerned with the systematic diversion of resources intended for production and the development of agriculture, commerce, and the arts. The poet found inspiration in Silvio Gesell, a theorist who advocated an alternative monetary system based on the circulation of money and the elimination of financial speculation. Gesell’s influence is evident in Pound’s essay “What is Money For?” (1939). However, even earlier, in “Jefferson and/or Mussolini (1935)”, Pound had already expressed sympathy for fascist economic policies, which he viewed as a possible response to the dominance of usury.
Obviously, Pound was not an economist, and in the formulation of some of his theoretical attempts, he ended up mixing orientalism, esoteric terms, and radical terminology. Nevertheless, he had vision, especially when asserting that usury is not merely an economic problem but a highly corrosive force that degrades culture and, subsequently, social relations.
The logic underlying usury, of a utilitarian nature, discreetly imposes a new civilizational model, in which everything is reduced to mere financial and mathematical calculation, corrupting sensitive areas such as the arts, morality, and the social structure. In essence, everything becomes confined to the Kingdom of Quantity, even in the Guénonian sense.
As one might easily predict, it did not take long for this entire logic of usury to be associated with anti-Semitic thought. However, Pound did not appear concerned with this, strongly attacking figures such as the Rothschilds and the Warburgs during his radio broadcasts (1941-1943). For him, there was a clear “Jewish-financial conspiracy,” as they were directly associated with the banks, as is well known. The ethical criticism later directed at him by academics and critics is precisely based on this anti-Semitism, and these criticisms persist to this day.
It is argued that Ezra Pound’s perspectives on interest have not been brought to the forefront today, and may even be deliberately overlooked. Are there any individuals, movements, or schools of thought in the contemporary world that adopt, prioritize, and develop a Poundian critical stance on interest and usury? Or what is the reason behind the silence concerning both Pound and this matter of interest?
There are no movements – at least to my knowledge – that strictly follow Pound’s economic ideas because, as has already been stated, he was far from being an economist. However, within Poundian criticism regarding usury and the mercantilist logic, there are indeed some groups that identify with and share this perspective. All of them reject the left-right political dichotomy, with notable examples including the Italian movement CasaPound, Nova Resistência in Brazil, and, in Portugal, Hostil – a group of which I was co-founder and vice-director until 2024. These three deserve the attention of anyone interested in the aforementioned themes.
The reason for the silence, which undeniably exists, lies primarily in the fact that the parliamentary right is not anti-capitalist. On the contrary, it is one of the main drivers of neoliberalism which to a large extent fosters usury. This phenomenon stems directly from British “Thatcherism” in the 1980s which influenced conservative and liberal parties across Europe, particularly in economic terms through deregulation and the privatization of state-owned enterprises, thereby reducing the role of the state in the economy. For this reason, the parliamentary right, even the so-called conservatives, fits entirely within Whig-liberalism. If you were to present Pound’s ideas to their electorate they would quickly label you as far-left.
On the other side, the left has become entirely bourgeois, obedient to this logic and equally complicit in promoting it, incapable of presenting a robust anti-capitalism. In this case, introducing any of Pound’s theories would be impossible, as you would immediately be labeled a fascist or far-right.
This is the current scenario and, without a doubt, it explains the silence surrounding this kind of approach. In the end, we continue to live under a usurocracy.
These questions are undoubtedly very good and relevant. The issue is that I don’t know how to answer them without occupying ten pages; indeed, it will be a challenge for me.
First and foremost, I am a great admirer of Heidegger’s critique of modern technique (τεχνη) and I even developed an academic paper on the subject. Let’s try to view all of this from the perspective of an idea of nature that has been distorted. Today, the model we have is exclusively an approach to nature within purely utilitarian molds. And yes, the entire logic of usury fits into that promotion.
In essence, when the separation between nature and artifice, between physis (φύσις) and techne (τέχνη), ceases to exist, this issue becomes more pronounced. Initially, the distinction was clear, and we can find it well defined by Aristotle, especially in his work Metaphysics (Book IV), where he distinguishes technique as a form of practical knowledge. This framework begins to shift with the Renaissance period and scientific discoveries, as well as with magic itself, which came to view nature as a set of forces that, to the extent they condition us, conceal knowledge. From then on, technical artifices were constructed to overcome these conditions and force nature to “reveal itself.”
But the tragic event occurred with modernity, with Francis Bacon and the creation of the “Novum Organum”, which, at first, did not make a distinction between the natural and the artificial, as it understood that the artificial is composed of natural substances. In this case, artifice is not seen as violence, but rather as an extension, an evolution of nature through human logos (λόγος).
Still in Bacon, nature begins to take on a perspective that is not only mechanistic but also the ideal setting for the “instauratio”, that is, the stage for the creation of a paradise on Earth. In essence, it was the conditions of nature that prevented the necessary conditions from being gathered to return to a state prior to the Fall. Thus, all violence and resource exploitation aimed at improving human conditions came to be justified in order to recreate the “paradise.”
All of this has much to be explored, especially when we introduce Descartes’ “Discourse on the Method”, where nature begins to be understood solely as “res extensa”, ready to be exploited. However, I do not wish to give a lecture on the philosophy of nature, and I feel I am deviating from the topic. Perhaps we can discuss all of this further later on.
Finally, to justify what Heidegger proposed, it is necessary to understand that he offered an idea of physis (φύσις) quite distinct from the Western metaphysical tradition, which I briefly summarized earlier. The relationship that humanity today has with nature is one of provocation, for all that belongs to it is viewed by modern technique as a mere reservoir from which accumulable energy can be extracted and, subsequently, converted into capital. For example, a river is no longer a mere body of water where we can refresh ourselves or seek food, but is now seen, or rather, used, as a source of electrical energy, accumulated for other purposes. These facts are related to modern economic life, a situation already heavily influenced by usury and technique.
Now, I will be very honest with you: in Heidegger, there is not really a human solution to this, as becomes clear in his “Black Notebooks” (Schwarze Hefte). It involves a purification of Being, which entails the annihilation of beings. This idea largely aligns with the concept of ἐκπύρωσις (ekpýrosis) from the Stoics and Heraclitus. The cosmic fire that destroys and renews appears in Heidegger’s philosophy as the consummation of technique, leading to the destruction of humanity. This is indeed a complex subject, which touches on Heideggerian eschatology.