just a footnote: This book just came out. Marx and Russia: The Fate of a Doctrine. It is also about Gramsci's contribution, at least about the roots of his theory of ideology, consciousness, and cultural revolution. The book fills the most important crack in near history: https://www.amazon.com/Marx-Russia-Doctrine-Bloomsbury-History/dp/1474224067
best On Tue, 11 Sep 2018 at 12:53, ari <[email protected]> wrote: > I never got this argument. > Gramsci was an open Marxist, thus open to the abuse of all the closed > Marxists around. He kept his ear to the ground and during the rise of > Fascism, he was quite isolated and marginalised by his contemporary > closed Marxists because, amongst other things, he was trying to > seriously understand the phenomenon without jumping to facile > conclusions about the working class and its true destiny or false > consciousness. He could see well that there was no true destiny: the > revolution didn't happen, or rather, a revolution was happening, but not > of the sort Marxists like him wished for. And all their careful work of > political agitation was ultimately serving the wrong causes. But > analytically, Gramsci was in agreement with Lenin that all you have is > class formations. Nothing is static or prefigured. Everything > historical. This earned him enemies from both sides, but the genuine > sensitivity to changing subjects around him also earned him followers on > the ground. There is no notion of hegemony, in Gramsci, that isn't > rooted in class. > Jump from the 1930s to the 1980s and you have the Laclau and Mouffe > travesty. The pair put forward their celebration of identity politics on > the back of this open Marxist. What I am reading wherever I see this > evisceration of Gramsci's notion of hegemony is really a commentary on > Laclau and Mouffe. I can join critics of Laclau and Mouffe anytime. They > were useless to Marxism and quite pernicious influences on the new left, > precisely for allowing all considerations on the political economy of > class formation to fall out of view and interest. But when I see their > ugly painting of Gramsci as a post-class cultural theorists I must > object. There is no such thing. > > > > > > Today's Topics: > > > > 1. Re: Quick Review.. (Florian Cramer) > > 2. Re: Quick Review.. (David Garcia) > > > > > > > > ---------------------------------------------------------------------- > > > > Message: 1 > > Date: Tue, 11 Sep 2018 00:58:33 +0200 > > From: Florian Cramer <[email protected]> > > To: Brian Holmes <[email protected]> > > Cc: a moderated mailing list for net criticism > > <[email protected]> > > Subject: Re: <nettime> Quick Review.. > > Message-ID: > > < > cadcyihqamjs1sngy00odb4ickenw+-rx2esboezxbuz6jhw...@mail.gmail.com> > > Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8" > > > > Thanks, David - as I said in the discussion in Berlin, Stewart and I > > ended > > up > > in a weird place where we practically taught the "Alt-Right" its own > > history. > > One shouldn't read too much into its grasp of Gramsci though. This is > > what > > Milo > > Yiannopolous wrote about him in the original manuscript of his book > > 'Dangerous' (that Simon & Schuster ended up not publishing): > > > > And so, in the 1920s, the Italian Marxist Antonio Gramsci decided > > that the > > time had come for a new form of revolution -- one based on culture, > > not > > class. According to Gramsci, the reason why the proletariat had > > failed to > > rise up was because old, conservative ideas like loyalty to one's > > country, > > family values, and religion held too much sway in working-class > > communities. > > If that sounds familiar to Obama's comment about guns and religion, > > that's > > because it should. His line of thinking, as we shall see, is directly > > descended from the ideological tradition of Gramsci. Gramsci argued > > that as > > a > > precursor to revolution, the old traditions of the west -- or the > > 'cultural > > hegemony,' as he called it -- would have to be systematically broken > > down. > > To > > do so, Gramsci argued that "proletarian" intellectuals should seek to > > challenge the dominance of traditionalism in education and the media, > > and > > create a new revolutionary culture. Gramsci's ideas would prove > > phenomenally > > influential. If you've ever wondered why forced to take diversity or > > gender > > studies courses at university, or why your professors all seem to > > hate > > western civilization ... Well ' ..new you knew who to blame Gramsci. > > > > (Because of the lawsuit, the manuscript is publicly available here: > > > > > https://www.dropbox.com/s/bjc0n5dll244o2w/Milo%20Y%20book%20with%20edits.pdf?dl=0 > > ) > > -F > > -- > > > # distributed via <nettime>: no commercial use without permission > # <nettime> is a moderated mailing list for net criticism, > # collaborative text filtering and cultural politics of the nets > # more info: http://mx.kein.org/mailman/listinfo/nettime-l > # archive: http://www.nettime.org contact: [email protected] > # @nettime_bot tweets mail w/ sender unless #ANON is in Subject: >
# distributed via <nettime>: no commercial use without permission # <nettime> is a moderated mailing list for net criticism, # collaborative text filtering and cultural politics of the nets # more info: http://mx.kein.org/mailman/listinfo/nettime-l # archive: http://www.nettime.org contact: [email protected] # @nettime_bot tweets mail w/ sender unless #ANON is in Subject:
