----- Original Message ----- From: Michael Pugliese <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Sent: Friday, May 26, 2000 6:53 PM Subject: Re: The Gramscian Roots of America's Culture War [Free Republic] > Ralph Reed, formerly the brains in the Christian Coalition, and now > making beaucoup bucks as a political consultant (has a snazzy website), > reads Gramsci. Wacko William Lind (not Michael, different guy, saw him on > CSPAN at a Accuracy In Media conference a while back on the Kulturkampf) who > works for Paul Weyrich at the Free Congress Foundation, says Gramsci, > Marcuse and Adorno, along with Marx, Freud and Dewey have corrupted American > youth. (LaRouche is more specific, he just blames the Frankfurt School. I'll > dig up his screed, if anyone wants, on how Adorno caused Littleton.) > The cover of the John Birch Society back in 1997, featured a cover story > on Gramsci. And here, though I think months ago I might have sent this, is a > paper from some student philosophy journal from Oregon on the right and > Gramsci. > Michael Pugliese > ............................................................................ > ................. > > ----- Original Message ----- > From: Alain Kessi <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > Sent: Wednesday, March 29, 2000 10:26 AM > Subject: [right-left] Whose Gramsci? > > > > Here comes another icon of the left that we should probably start having > > a critical look at - Gramsci. I've been tempted (and still am) to quote > > Gramsci in a fundamental critique I'm planning to write of the current > > discourse on "civil society" (another right-left topic) with which the > > New Center would like to make us believe that their powerful attack > > against people's autonomy (after the neoliberalist attack had come to a > > stop because it didn't manage to further break up people's resistance) > > with the help of NGO elites and a thoroughly elitist concept of "civil > > society" is "for the good of everyone". Gramsci's concept of civil > > society (societa civile) is definitely more political than the > > social-democratic blabla that Habermas and Giddens have gotten us used > > to. But there's a problem... > > > > You see this problem in the article below: Why is Gramsci attractive to > > the racist right-wing? But if you read his works, maybe you'll discover > > problematic points independently of the empirical fact that De Benoist > > and other racists love Gramsci. > > > > The point, and this brings Gramsci close to "leftists" like Juergen > > Habermas ("the bombs of reason"/Kosovo, or was that particular quote > > from his buddy Ulrich Beck?) or Max Weber ("the primitive Slavs in the > > way of German efficiency"), is that Gramsci despises "primitive > > peasants" and other barriers to capital accumulation. His position, it > > seems, is not far from that of the capitalists. He just disagrees with > > them on who should be the one to destroy people's autonomy and lives and > > incorporate their working power into the effectiveness of capitalist > > production and profit-making, and wants to challenge them on the field > > of hegemony (of civil society). They find it should be private > > capitalists. Gramsci thinks it should be the communist party. Much like > > Stalin thought when he killed them peasants in the Ukraine and > > elsewhere. (Stalin was an expert in breaking up the "backwardness" of > > peasants and creating favorable conditions for the accumulation of > > capital. Wonder whether he had read Joseph Schumpeter and his amazingly > > accurate description of capitalist attacks as "creative destruction"... > > now more fashionable than ever in mainstream business analysis papers, > > see Paul Krugman et al., more and more with open references to the full > > brutality of the process of "progress", sometimes to Nazism as a good > > example of how to proceed.) > > > > I surmise that many of the "former leftists" are "former" because even > > when they were "leftists" they were "progressive", meaning they felt > > uncomfortable with a fossilized "old system" that didn't provide them > > with enough opportunities to exercise their innovative spirit. At the > > beginning of their struggle, they seem to agree with the "left" in that > > they are fighting the oppressors. But the only reason they do is in > > order to install a new oppressive regime in which their innovation will > > dictate the force and the speed of the destruction (more forceful and > > faster than that of the "old system", a new cycle of capitalist attack) > > of the "backwards people" who are to be made available for exploitation. > > Joseph Fischer (some think he's still their friend and persevere in > > calling him "Joschka") is a prime example of that process. Listen to his > > war rhetoric and see behind the rhetoric the overall innovative attack > > (of technology, finance, culture, philosophy), primarily against Eastern > > Europe whose societies need to be broken up and made useable, > > integrateable into a process of sucking off "surplus" value. > > > > Any thoughts anyone? > > > > Cheers, > > > > Alain > > > > P.S.: Does anyone have the writings of Marc Spruyt at hand (even in > > Dutch I'd like to have them)? See footnote [7]. > > > > ------------------- > > > > http://darkwing.uoregon.edu/~ucurrent/uc6/6-gramsci.html > > > > -------------------------------------------------------------------- > > > > Whose Gramsci? > > > > Right-wing Gramscism > > > > Rob Van Craenenburg > > > > > > We are in the proces of losing our foremost thinker of and on concrete > > historical scenarios, Antonio Gramsci, to a reactionary right-wing > > cause. Gramsci himself has become entangled in a position that he has > > given much thought about, Ceasarism. Ceasarism can be said to express a > > situation in which the forces in conflict balance each other in a > > catastrophic manner: But Ceasarism "does not in all cases have the same > > historical significance. There can be both progressive and reactionary > > forms of Ceasarism; the exact significance of each form can, in the last > > analysis, be reconstructed only through concrete history, and not by > > means of any sociological rule of thumb. Ceasarism is progressive when > > its intervention helps the progressive force to triumph, albeit with its > > victory tempered by certain compromise and limitations. It is > > reactionary when its intervention helps the reactionary force to triumph > > in this case too with certain compromises and limitations, which have > > however, a different value, extent and significance than in the > > former."[1] > > > > Although Gramsci makes it very clear that Caesarism is "a polemical > > ideological formula, and not a canon of historical interpretation" > > (220), that "a Caesarist solution can exist even without a Caesar, > > without any great, `heroic' and representative personality" (220), we > > may well add Gramsci's own name to his very own list compiled of Caesar, > > Napoleon I, Napoleon III, and Cromwell, to name but a few. For although > > Tony Bennett wrote a decade ago that : > > > > It is always tempting these days and especially at the > > end of long essays to wheel on Gramsci as a > > `hey-presto' man, as the theorist who holds the key to > > all our current theoretical difficulties [2] > > > > nevertheless his `hey-presto' qualities seem to have faded somewhat in > > the progressive positions in cultural studies; unfortunately, however, > > not in extremely right-wing circles where his fundamental notion of > > hegemony is being hailed as a politically effective and productive way > > of gaining influence and political power. This seems to me to be one of > > the foremost fundamental productive questions in literacy studies: to > > what extent is Gramsci's notion of hegemony politically neutral, and if > > so to what extent are we willing to let it be compromised? Not only is > > Gramsci misunderstood, as in the new elitist focus of McGuigan who > > blames the uncritical embracement of mass consumption on the hegemony > > theorists who have closed their eyes to an economic grounding of all > > cultural production, a position which can be easily refuted within > > Gramsci's own framework: > > > > Can there be cultural reform, and can the position of > > the depressed strata of society be improved culturally, > > without a previous economic reform and a change in > > their position in the social and economic fields? > > Intellectual and moral reform has to be linked with a > > programme of economic reform indeed the programme of > > economic reform is precisely the concrete form in which > > every intellectual and moral reform presents itself. > > [3] > > > > But within the progressive framework of cultural studies, his concept of > > hegemony is questioned as well, especially because "there are problems > > with distinguishing hegemony theory from the dominant ideology thesis; > > [4] the feminist perspective does "not accept such a privileging of > > capitalism over patriarchy as the determinate structure of ideological > > relations," and ethnic studies claims that " the national-popular > > concept is in danger of suppressing specific dynamics of black and > > ethnic struggles" [5]. Moreover, "the problems of reconciling it > > [hegemony] with a theory of pleasure are insurmountable" [6]. > > > > Unfortunately, the French Nouvelle Droite mouvement headed by Alain > > DeBenoist and the Flemish extremely right political party Het Vlaams > > Blok have no such insurmountable problems whatsoever with Gramsci's > > notion of hegemony. On the contrary, they use it to their utmost ability > > and they're not being shy about it. The Nouvelle Droite was founded as > > an ideological perspective in the midsixties by the French theorist > > Alain de Benoist. Ironically, it is inspired as an active movement by > > Gramsci's Quaderni del Carceri, and it literally calls the metapolitical > > struggle for cultural hegemony the Gramscism of the Right. I was first > > confronted with this rightwing theft of Gramsci by the journalistic > > writings of Marc Spruyt, who has since published a very necessary, clear > > and precise account of rightwing party (meta)politics [7]. His book > > surely ought to be translated into English, especially given the > > specific French and Belgian context within which Gramsci is (mis)used in > > this manner. The lack of a translation enables the otherwise extensive > > works about Gramsci to completely miss this > > development: for example, Antonio Gramsci, A New Introduction (Paul > > Ransome, Harvester Wheatsheaf, 1992). Moreover, Ransome's very last > > words > > in the conclusion now become ominous: > > > > To the extent that Gramsci's ideas provide Marxism with > > a new degree of flexibility and adaptability, it is > > likely that his influence will be felt for some time to > > come. Gramsci it seems has not been "relegated to the > > attic". > > > > This conclusion about "adaptablity" acquires a very different and > > altogether uncomfortable dimension if we become aware whose attic it is > > that we may be speaking about. Gramsci's notes on hegemony in his prison > > writings are spread out throughout his text, deeply imbedded not > > infrequently within concrete historial situations and events as his was > > no > > disinterested academic exercise but a genuine attempt to understand the > > elements of a triumphant Italian fascism. We would however, not > > misrepresent him if we take his notion of hegemony to mean that in > > between > > forced consent and active dissent we find passive consent, that cultural > > change precedes political change, and that changes must connect to an > > audience that is ready to respond. As Gramsci notes, > > > > the supremacy of a social group manifests itself in two > > ways, as `domination' and as `intellectual and moral > > leadership'. A social group dominates antagonistic > > groups, which it tends to `liquidate', or to subjugate > > perhaps even by armed force; it leads kindred and > > allied groups. A social group can, and indeed must, > > already exercise `leadership' [hegemony] before winning > > governmental power (this indeed is one of the principal > > conditions for the winning of such power); it > > subsequently becomes dominant when it exercises power, > > but even if it holds it firmly in its grasp,it must > > continue to `lead' as well.[8] > > > > Gramsci's notion of hegemony, or rather on how hegemony is procured, is > > literally restated by the leader of the reactionary Het Vlaams Blok, > > Filip Dewinter: "The ideological majority is more important than the > > parliamentary majority, the former actually mostly always precedes the > > latter [9]. The theft of Gramsci by the Nouvelle Droite becomes > > especially unseemly in the case of the extreme right wing Flemish > > organization, Were Di, which finds its inspiration in the views of the > > Nouvelle Droite for three axiomatic foundations: "hereditary inequality, > > hierarchic society, elitist organisation [10]. Now I will not overstate > > my case in claiming that most evidence in any court can be read both > > ways, that the corruption of notions and concepts has been reevaluated > > as appropriation or excorporation, but whenever there's a line to be > > drawn, it is most certainly in this particular moment when Gramsci's > > painstaking labour is turned against him in all he ever stood for. And > > in as much as this is a moral stand I plead firmly guilty. Because > > theoretically there is very little ground upon which to conclude that > > hegemony is not a poltically neutral concept. There is but one moment in > > the Quaderni where Gramsci suggests that hegemony can only be understood > > in relationship with democracy: > > > > Of the many meanings of democracy, the most realistic > > and concrete one in my view can be worked out in > > relation to the concept of `hegemony'. In the hegemonic > > system, there exists democracy between the `leading' > > group and the groups that are `led', in so far as the > > development of the economy and thus the legislation > > which expresses such development favour the (molecular) > > passage from the `led' groups to the `leading' groups. > > In the Roman Empire there was an imperial territorial > > democracy in the concession of citizenship to the > > conquered peoples, etc. There could be no democracy > > under feudalism, because of the constitution of the > > closed groups estates, corporations, etc (56). > > > > But of course this will not stop anti-egalitarian, totalizing users of > > his ideas as they work within parliamentary democracy towards a > > dictatorship in which any of these considerations become ineffective and > > academic. So we are experiencing Ceasarism with "Gramsci" as the > > discursive battle field, a catastrophic moment where a sound, productive > > concept "hegemony" is being abandonded by progressive positions and > > revitalised by reactionary forces. And again it is Gramsci himself who > > gives us the basic clue from which we have to try to start our > > understanding of his contemporary position. For his remarks on > > Machiavelli can now be read as referring to his current position: > > > > The habit has been formed of considering Machiavelii > > too much as the man of politics in general, as the > > `scientist of politics', relevant in every period [11]. > > > > This is exactly what has happened with Gramsci's notion of hegemony in > > progressive positions, they have overstretched its productive capacity > > to the extent that its inability to reconcile it with specific > > historical (contemporary) positions such as a theory of pleasure, a > > recognition of ethnic or feminist struggles has become to be viewed as a > > drawback of the original concept, an intrinsic inability that produces > > `insurmountable' difficulties. But Gramsci of course would have been > > among the first to recognize that these are genuine critical > > contemporary problems that have to be taken into account in any reading > > of our concrete historical scenario, he, unfortunately, was concerned > > `only' with his specific situation and his specific reading of the > > mechanisms of the making of Italian fascism. The position that suggests > > that the problems of reconciling hegemony theory with a theory of > > pleasure are insurmountable, has not understood Gramsci at all, does not > > acknowledge the plain fact that contemporary hegemony theory if it wants > > to be effective would include pleasure and a theory of pleasure as an > > important contemporary factor and yet another disguise of economic > > imponderables dressed up as cultural critique. Currently, it seems as if > > these self-proclaimed progressive positions still hold on to a > > teleological natural essentialism, trying to find an essence, a > > particular system, but the system as a whole can be looked upon, > > muddying the waters to such an extent that this looking upon is mistaken > > for explaining these mechanisms. And in the meantime, while we were > > talking, Gramsci has suddenly become an obscure man who died of > > pneumonia in a prison somehow, somewhere, and hegemony is something that > > has to do with the way the Nouvelle Droite sees things, right? Wrong: > > > > Now they were walking down a narrow street, with old > > men on wicker chairs, and grandmothers playing with > > balloons to amuse their grandchildren. At the end of > > the street was suspended another gigantic portrait: a > > great domed head, like a beehive of thought, wearing > > glasses. That's Gramsci. He put his arm round her > > shoulders so that she could lean her head against his > > damp flannel shirt. Antonio Gramsci, she said. He > > taught us all. You wouldn't mistake for a horse dealer! > > he said [12]. > > > > --------------------------------------------- > > NOTES > > > > 1. Selections from the Prison Notebooks of Antonio Gramsci, Quintin > > Hoare, Geoffrey Nowell Smith (ed), Lawrence and Wishart, London, 1971; > > p.219 > > > > 2. Tony Bennett, "Marxism and Popular Fiction" In: Popular Fictions, > > Essays in Literature and History Peter Humm, Paul Stigant & Peter > > Widdowson (ed.) Methuen, London and New York, 1986; p.263 > > > > 3. Notes, p. 133 > > > > 4. Mercer, "Complicit Pleasures", In T. Bennett, Mercer, Popular Culture > > and Social Relations, Milton Keynes, Open University Press, 1986, p.66. > > > > 5. Ibid., p.66 > > > > 6. Ibid., p. 67 > > > > 7. Grove Borstels, Stel dat het Vlaams Blok morgen zijn programma > > realiseert, hoe zou Vlaanderen er dan uitzien?, van Halewijck, 1995. > > > > 8. Notes, p.254. A very similar passage in his notebooks reads: "A > > social group can, and indeed must already `lead' [i.e. be hegemonic] > > before winning governemental power (this indeed is one of the principal > > conditions for the winning of such power)". (Notes, p.47). > > > > 9. Filip Dewinter in Zwartboek `Progressieve leraars', cited from > > MarcSpruyt: Grove Borstels, p. 164. > > > > 10. Nationalistische Grondslagen, Were Di, 1985, p.3. > > > > 11. Notes, p. 140. > > > > 12. John Berger in the story "Play Me Something" in his book Once in > > Europa Granta Books, London, 1991; p.189. > > > > For a look at the American rightwing use of Gramsci, see Charlie > > Bertsch's Gramsci Rush: Limbaugh on the 'Culture War' > > > > --------------------------------------------- > > > > Gramsci, the then thirty five year old leader of the Italian Communist > > Party and democratically chosen member of parliament was illegally > > imprisoned on November 8 1926, on the evening of Mussolini's final coup > > towards total fascist control. He died on April 27 1937, six days after > > his prison term had officially ended. In these eleven years, under > > extremely harsh conditions, he wrote 2848 pages. He died as a direct > > result of medical neglect, and not as De Benoist writes of `pneumonia'. > > For a clear and biographical and theoretical story of his life and > > writings see GiuseppeFiori, Vita di Antonio Gramsci, Gius Laterza & > > figli Spa, Roma, 1966. See also Gramsci and Marxist Theory, Routledge & > > Kegan Paul, London, 1979. > > --------------------------------------------- > > © Copyrights for contents revert to the authors upon publication. > > Downloading, copying, and printing of this text for personal use is > > allowed and encouraged. However, no republication or commercial use in > > any form is permitted without prior arrangements with the authors. > > > > > > _______________________________________________ > > Right-left mailing list > > [EMAIL PROTECTED] > > http://coyote.kein.org/mailman/listinfo/right-left > > --- from list [EMAIL PROTECTED] ---