Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.
GRAMSCI AND THE U.S. BODY POLITIC
By: Alberto Luzárraga
Why the interest in Gramsci? Certainly, he is not a household name for most people, but nonetheless he is relevant enough to be mentioned the editorial page of the Wall Street Journal. In a recent piece (12/19/00) by George Melloan, the columnist refers to an article published by John Fonte in the Policy Review of the Hudson Institute.
According to the WSJ writer, "[Fonte] defines the ideological split in America as a contest between present-day Tocquevillians and disciples of the 20th-century Italian philosopher Antonio Gramsci, who drew on the ideas of Friedrich Hegel and Karl Marx. The Tocquevillians incline toward individualism, religious belief and patriotism. The Gramscians see any society, including America, as an arena where the "marginalized" are necessarily at war with the privileged classes. Good old-fashioned class warfare, in other words."
As we know, political events do not happen in a vacuum. There are always causes. Ideas that were deemed a failure decades ago can be successfully implemented today. In the world of ideas, decades are often only an incubation period and today Gramsci s ideas are very much alive in the political arena.
Born at Ales, Italy on January 1891, Antonio Gramsci was the fourth son of Francesco Gramsci, a clerk in the local registrar s office. He suffered through a difficult childhood, eventually received a scholarship, and graduated from the University of Turin. In 1921 he became a founding member of the Italian Communist party. In 1922 he traveled to Moscow as a member of the Communist International and remained in Moscow for a year. It was the beginning of the Stalinist period.
Gramsci, a bright man, thought that Stalinist methods would not work in western societies. Violence and revolution, in his opinion, would generate a fatal reaction against the communist movement. He returned to Italy with more subtle and long term ideas and began to develop them. Shortly upon his return, Mussolini jailed Gramsci. The fascist regime saw his ideas as a danger to the State. It was from prison (where he died in 1937) that Gramsci wrote his 33 books. They contain very shrewd insights on how a "capitalist, bourgeois society" works and how it can be taken over peacefully and dominated through a systematic change of its ideas.
His methods became in fact, the "field manual" for the many that followed. If you understand Gramsci, you will understand the "peculiar" and "weird" theories that are in vogue today. And you will understand that they are not the work of "weird crazy people" but rather of calculating and quite intelligent operatives.
One word of caution howeve. Followers of the Gramscian doctrines are a mixed lot. It would be a service rendered to the socialists to call every Gramsci follower a full fledged socialist although many certainly are that. Socialists love absolute accusations in order to label people "extremist", one of their preferred epithets. Part of the methodology is to deviate attention by accusing others of what they are or do. We should not give them that chance. Moreover, although the Gramscian proposal demands from the common follower consent and acceptance of its ideas, this does not necessarily imply that all rank and file followers have a clear understanding of where they are going.
And then, many of the more adept Gramscian operators may not fully support his economic ideas. His relevance lies in the fact that for many ambitious and opportunistic political operatives Gramsci is seen as a modern Machiavelli with a good method to achieve power. And to them this is more important than a specific economic model. The important point to understand is the method. It is a road map that shows one of the favored strategies used by persons with an unlimited lust for power to climb and acquire notoriousness, while advancing their ideas.
So what is Gramsci all about? Well, let s start with his concept of "hegemony" a word frequently used by people not noted for their love of hundred dollar words. For Gramsci ,"hegemony" is not mere dominance by force. Rather, it is the set of ideas by which dominant groups in a society secure the consent of subordinate groups to their rule.
Note the emphasis on consent. A governing class must succeed in persuading the governed to accept the moral, political and cultural values suggested by those in power. Gramsci noted that this is the way "bourgeois societies" ruled. Extreme measures were only used when there was rebellion against the established mores.
Therefore his conclusion was: Let s do the same and capture the minds of the population, as well as the institutions of the bourgeoisie and do it with ideas that we will present as "common sense". The implementation will be through intellectuals and figures of influence gained to the cause by vanity, convenience or ambition and a by a new element, intellectual operatives that work with the people. All of it, coupled to constant use of the media.
In his words: "the mode of being of the new intellectual can no longer consist in eloquence & but in active participation in practical life, as constructor, organizer, "permanent persuader" and not just a simple orator&"
Gramsci understood what Marx did not understand: Economic crises by themselves would not subvert capitalism, because capitalism always managed to overcome the crises and emerged stronger. Another theory was necessary for a different reality. One that recognized the importance of culture and ideology, and methods that went beyond the coarser forms of Marxist class struggle. Methods that would be efficient in capturing power in a western society. Methods that would fit the use of mass media because they were subtle and persuasive. If you gain the minds you gain the bodies. Even a partial victory is useful, because it weakens and diminishes your opposition.
Gramsci perceived that in a western society, the bond between the ruler and the ruled was what kept it together and this bond was what created "hegemony." And where was that bond? How was it cemented?
In the classical institutions, and through them of course. The family, the church, the schools, the civil society and its organizations, none other than the building blocks of the State.
The revolutionaries who wished to break the "hegemony" had to build up a "counter hegemony" to that of the ruling class. It was necessary to change the minds, to change the popular consensus, to change the way institutions work. In sum, to make the people question the right of their leaders to rule in the accepted way.
Success would consist in permeating throughout society a whole new system of values, beliefs and morality. A system that would become accepted by all in a way that would appear to be the normal thing to do.
How is it done? Besides the traditional intellectuals (those who see themselves as such) there must exist the "organic intellectual", i.e. the one that grows with a social group, and becomes its thinking and organizing element. The role of informal "educators" in local communities becomes essential. The educator must not be seen as a distant "brainy" figure but as "one of us", one of the neighborhood, another one of the group.
The same applies to the schools which Gramsci sees as a means used by social groups "to perpetuate a function, [namely] to rule or to be subordinate". Ergo, schools and curriculums must be controlled either directly or indirectly.
Once organized these groups would engage in incessant political activity and use massive means of communication. No armed conspiracies, just unrelenting propaganda. The introduction of Gramscian methodology in society, produces a constant clash for supremacy of ideas and a patient but persistent subversion of the building blocks of that society. Subversion is a many faced endeavor played by different people with different objectives but the modern method has a substantial Gramscian content.
Take a case in point. Why it is that we must often suffer a way of thinking that attempts to coerce us intellectually? Look around. How many times have you heard: You must not be "judgmental" or "intolerant." What does that mean in Gramscian terms? It means: You must accept our values and not argue. If you do not you are out the mainstream. Remember the Gramscian objective of turning their ideas into "common sense"?
Do you now understand, why we have political correctness?
Why we have neighborhood groups that look more like agitation and propaganda entities than neighborhood associations?
Why we have schools that push a peculiar curriculum and ignore parents, school budgets that make available funds for incredible courses, and teachers unions that often do not appear to represent teachers true interests?
Why we have churches that have become political discourse centers?
Why we have a myriad civil associations with goals that appear to be destructive and divisive?
Why we have mass media that often operate as propaganda machines rather than reporters of events?
The Wall Street Journal article continues: "Mr. Fonte says the Gramscian view has special currency in higher intellectual circles, particularly on elite college campuses. The plight of women, minorities, gays and other victims of cultural hegemony is a favorite subject of student indoctrinations, not to mention speech and thought control, in such places. The federal Violence Against Women Act produced a Supreme Court case in which a 10-year-old boy was charged with harassing a fifth-grade female classmate. It is no accident that the Gramscian New York Times editorial page thought that the most important thing Al Gore said in his eloquent concession speech was that he would continue to fight for people "who need burdens lifted and barriers removed." How he might have conducted his fight if he had been elected has never been clear; certainly not by cutting their taxes."
The only way to gain absolute power in the United States is through long range Gramscian tactics. There is hope however, if we don t take for granted what we now enjoy and fight to maintain power divided. The true strength of the American Republic is the division of power. This is why the would be revolutionaries so hate the Electoral College, States Rights, local self government, etc. The system devised by the Founding Fathers complicates their life tremendously. As the quoted article notes:
"Over and above these structural features, there are the multiplicity of interests and interest groups, the immense diversity of American society and the excessive rhetoric that characterizes the conflict of those separated in fact by minor differences." Underlying it all, however, "is the sheer power of the idea of freedom an idea so powerful that not even those opposed to freedom condemn it . . . ."
The last sentence is crucial. Even those that seek to destroy the system must pay lip service, at least, to the idea of liberty. They must talk about the people s right to vote while they work against it and seek to discredit the process.
The Gramscians in the United States cannot wage a war of conquest. They must wage a war of attrition and position. If we understand their tactics we can stop them and win. But it won t happen by staying at home and watching the game. We must all become involved. In the same way they become involved. To use a Gramscian term, each one of us must become an "organic intellectual" of sorts, one that explains and convinces. Gramsci was right when he said that all men have intellectual concerns outside their field of activity. The problem is that most citizens are so busy with their lives that they do not have the time to think things through. They need help and those who understand must help, each in his own way.
We have in our favor truth and true common sense. If they succeed it is only because we allowed the party with the harmful product to sell it to an unsuspecting public.
International Gramsci Society Newsletter
Number 6 (August, 1996): 11-15 < prev | toc | next >
» translate
Gramsci Rush: Limbaugh on the "Culture War"
Charlie Bertsch
When you hear about "the Culture War," ladies and gentlemen, know that this is what it's all about. It's a war of competing ideas and worldviews. On one side, you have people who believe in living by a set of divinely inspired moral absolutes--or, at the very least, they believe that following such a moral code represents the best way to avoid chaos and instability. On the other side, you have people who insist that morality is simply a personal decision. Any attempt to enforce it is viewed as oppression.
Rush Limbaugh's second book of political commentary, See, I Told You So, shows every sign of being as big a hit as his first, The Way Things Ought To Be. Like Pearl Jam's second album, Vs., it was shipped in massive quantities prior to release--its initial print run of two million copies set a publishing industry record--and rushed to the top of the charts after its first week out in stores. In other words, the book is exactly the sort of "success" American leftists have traditionally dismissed out of hand. Since we at Bad Subjects try to fly in the face of conventional leftist wisdom, however, I made a point of picking it up while waiting in an airport this past December. Imagine my surprise when I opened the book to read that "in the early 1900s, an obscure Italian communist by the name of Antonio Gramsci theorized that it would take a 'long march through the institutions' before socialism and relativism would be victorious." I read on to learn how "Gramsci theorized that by capturing these key institutions and using their power, cultural values would be changed, traditional morals would be broken down, and the stage would be set for the political and economic power of the West to fall" (p.87). I was taken aback and felt much the same way I had two years earlier upon learning that Nirvana's Nevermind had topped the Billboard charts. "When did the Left get so big?" I wondered to myself. [END PAGE 11]
I continued reading to find that although "the name Gramsci is certainly not a household name...his name and theories are well known and understood throughout leftist intellectual circles," that "leftist think tanks worship at Gramsci's altar," and that "Gramsci succeeded in defining a strategy for waging cultural warfare -- a tactic that has been adopted by the modern left, and which remains the last great hope for chronic America-bashers" (p.87). After my initial shock, my first intellectual response to Rush's argument was that he was right about a lot of things, but was, for obvious reasons, grossly overestimating the Left's power and influence. I mean, after all, the people who practice the sort of "cultural studies" the Bad Subjects Collective admires really do "worship at Gramsci's altar." Famous names in the field like Stuart Hall and Lawrence Grossberg have devoted article after article to updating Gramscian arguments for contemporary situations. Indeed, quite a few of our own articles in Bad Subjects have strongly echoed both the style and content of Gramsci's writings. My question, however, was why a best-selling author like Limbaugh felt it necessary to point this out to his public. Why bother with the "obscure Italian communist" and his devotees?
Throughout See, I Told You So Rush binds together arguments familiar from his radio and TV shows and The Way Things Ought To Be into a comprehensive strategy for the American right. He tries to alarm his readers by arguing that America is moving "toward socialism and statism" because conservatives "have lost control of...cultural institutions" (p.87). He goes on to note that "the left has been very successful because it understands the importance of culture--of framing the debate and influencing the way people think about problems." Rush wants his readers to know that "the Culture War is a bilateral conflict" in which conservatives can take part: "Why don't we simply get in the game and start competing for control of these key cultural institutions? In other words, why not fight back?" In Gramscian terms, Rush is claiming that the liberal left is the "dominant fundamental group" in the sphere of civil society, where the masses are not militarily or legally coerced, but convinced to give their "spontaneous" consent to the "general direction imposed on social life" by that dominant group (An Antonio Gramsci Reader, pp. 306-7). He agrees with Gramsci's argument that the power of the ruling class must be understood both as the "direct domination" enforced by state power and the "hegemony" that class wins by achieving the spontaneous consent of the masses in civil society, but shares with many contemporary leftists a desire to emphasize the primacy of "hegemony" over "direct domination." His argument implies that the liberal left is the United States' true ruling class, regardless of its hold on state power, because it controls the nation's cultural institutions. What sets him apart from "the so-called 'conservative movement,'" he concludes, is that he does not have "some personal political agenda," and has no "political goal" for his radio and TV shows, books, and newsletter, but only wants to "open people's minds" and "encourage them to be confident in themselves and the principles and values they have always held sacred" (p.88). In other words, he is not interested in [END PAGE 12] the narrowly-defined field of electoral politics, but the vast plain on which the Culture War is being waged.
About a week ago I was leafing through magazines at a local newsstand and came across an article in a socialist publication offering an explanation of why the "left" was losing the "Culture War." Curiously, the author's conclusions were a mirror image of Rush's: this time it was the "left" that was losing ground because it had allowed its enemies to take control of cultural institutions. I suddenly realized that it was not only Rush's reference to Gramsci that had shocked me, but the fact that it was embedded in the sort of argument about culture made by leftists who "worship at Gramsci's altar." What we have in See, I Told You So is another example of a conservative learning to beat the left at its own game. Just as pro- lifers have schooled themselves in the aggressively non-violent tactics honed in the 60s and 70s by left-liberal demonstrators for civil rights, environmental causes, and the peace movement, Rush is schooling himself and his readers in the construction of a Gramscian argument about culture while explaining who Gramsci is and why he is so dangerous. He is thus acknowledging, perhaps unconsciously, that he has turned Gramsci on his head and made him useful to the right.
This still doesn't adequately explain Rush's intentions in naming Gramsci. Most right-wing movements that have borrowed from the left have tended to do so in a general way, adopting useful tactics without acknowledging any specific source. Rush, on the other hand, informs his readers that he is acquainted with the theoretical source for the notion of "cultural warfare." Does he want them to know that he is well-read, that he has done his homework? After all, most of them will have never heard of Gramsci. Or does he have some other motive? Superficially, of course, he is merely following in a whole line of red-baiters who seek to impart to a mass audience the secrets they have unearthed about dangerous lefties. On this level, Rush's reference to Gramsci is no different from J. Edgar Hoover's elaboration of Marxist thought in Masters of Deceit: What the Communist Bosses are Doing to Bring America to its Knees (1958). What's different about Rush, however, is that, unlike Hoover, he concedes the terms of debate to his enemy's argument. Indeed, throughout large portions of See, I Told You So, particularly in chapters like "Are Values Obsolete? Or How to Win the Culture War," "The Politically Correct Liberal Lexicon," and "The Many Purposes of Culture," Rush elaborates a notion of "Culture War" that he admits to having found in the theories of that "obscure Italian communist."
I think Rush concedes the terms of debate to Gramsci for a very specific reason. As a leftist, the most frustrating thing about reading See, I Told You So is the way leftists and liberals are lumped together as "left liberals." "Wait a minute," I kept wanting to say, "we leftists spend the vast majority of our time offering scathing critiques of liberal ideology: how can you pretend that we're part of the same bloc as liberals?" Now obviously in the realm of electoral politics the differences between liberals and leftists are glaring: vast numbers of liberals hold political office; all [END PAGE 13] but a few leftists do not. In the world of culture, on the other hand, the distinction is a lot blurrier. Self- proclaimed leftists do have positions in cultural institutions like NPR, PBS, the movie and music industry, and, above all else, universities. They frequently share the same taste-preferences with liberals: glossy, expensive paperbacks -- think Vintage -- by multicultural and Modernist authors that are the wrong size for the shelves at Waldenbooks or B.Dalton; folk and "world" music; natural fibers and other L.L. Bean-ware; and nouvelle or ethnic cuisine of the sort not easy to come by in Peoria. And they often do share with liberals a "moral code" predicated on a tolerance for difference as such that actually does aspire to the cultural relativism Rush and his readers fear. By focusing all his attention on the cultural sphere, Rush is thus able to transform mild-mannered liberals into leftists and take advantage of the residues of anti- communism that still saturate American society to discredit liberal ideology.
But he's also able to transform "radical" leftists into liberals, which should give the American left pause. Do we who call ourselves leftists really want to be functionally equivalent to liberals? On the one hand, it would mean that we're winning the Culture War Rush is talking about, the one in which tolerance for difference, heartfelt condescension towards those "poor" oppressed people whose lives make for vivid fiction, and an unwillingness to thwart "diversity" by deeply probing any argument because "everything's relative" all are winning out over the old ways, however much the right-wing backlash might have slowed them down. On the other hand, however, it would mean that we're letting things be as the ideology of "laissez-faire" capitalism would like us to. So what other options do we have? While there are some aspects of Rush's critique of left- liberalism that a seriously radical left might do well to adopt, there are others that are antithetical to the most fundamental leftist principles: we can't just change sides in the Culture War. What we could do, however, would be to work out a position that synthesizes elements of both the right and liberal-left and, yes, I do mean thinking dialectically.
Arguing against the educational reformers who transformed the Italian educational system in the early 1900s, Gramsci states in the prison notebooks that the new curricula will bring about a situation in which "we will have rhetorical schools, quite unserious, because the material solidity of what is 'certain' will be missing, and what is 'true' will be a truth only of words: that is to say, precisely, rhetoric." He laments the "degeneration in the secondary school" where "previously, the pupils at least acquired a certain 'baggage' or 'equipment' (according to taste) of concrete facts" but now "the pupil does not bother with concrete facts and fills his head with formulae and words which usually mean nothing to him, and which are forgotten at once" (p.313). Gramsci goes on to argue the virtues of a classical education, noting that "it will always be an effort to learn physical self-discipline and self-control" (p.320) but that such effort is necessary if pupils are to learn the skills serious study requires. This is not the argument of the hyper-tolerant liberal-left Rush rails against. Indeed, it actually sounds similar to arguments made by conservatives like Allan Bloom, [END PAGE 14] Bill Bennett, and Rush himself. But in the end, it is fundamentally irreconcilable with such arguments' intentions, because Gramsci's aim is "to produce a new stratum of intellectuals" from the proletariat in order to make possible the overthrow of capitalism. The point here is that it is quite possible to critique the left-liberal notions Rush attacks without ultimately adopting a conservative position. Just as Rush argues that the left has no monopoly on cultural warfare, we must assert that the right has no monopoly on the "critique of pure tolerance" that questions the virtues of the "freedom" made possible by letting things be.
I could have written an article detailing the ways in which Rush distorts the "facts", noting how he makes the mistake of equating leftists with liberals, how he misrepresents Gramsci by turning him into an atheist above all else, and how he grossly underestimates the power conservatives already have in cultural institutions. This would have been the sort of article Noam Chomsky writes, a rational accounting of the ways in which conservatives distort the truth. And I wouldn't want to argue that there is no place for such an article. However, as members of the Bad Subjects on-line collective recently argued in a thread on Chomsky and intellectuals, there is a way in which the absolute conviction Chomsky has in his own correctness and the confidence with which he debunks mainstream conceptions can come across as self-righteous, or even paranoid, and thereby serve to further discredit the left. Not to mention the fact that, if the right is busy learning from the left, while the left is convinced that the right has nothing to offer, the right is going to end up with a lot more useful knowledge about contemporary society. My conclusion, then, is that serious leftists should borrow from the right in order to transcend it. As you may know, this is not a new thesis for Bad Subjects. The editor's column in issue #1, Steven Rubio's "Dan Quayle Was Right," our manifesto in issue #7 this past September, and numerous other pieces have argued similar points. However, as Gramsci says, when a group challenges notions people take for granted, such as the idea many left-liberals have that the right should merely be denounced or dismissed, it is necessary for that group "never to tire of repeating its own arguments (though offering literary variation of form)," for "repetition is the best didactic means for working on the popular mentality" (p.340).
_______________
Charlie Bertsch is a member of the Bad Subjects Collective. He is a graduate student in English at UC-Berkeley. aHe does work on leftist politics, cultural theory, mass culture, American literature and Modernism. He can be reached via e-mail at the following Internet address: cbertsch@crl.com.
This article first appeared in electronic form in BAD SUBJECTS: POLITICAL EDUCATION FOR EVERYDAY LIFE, issue #12. It is reproduced with the permission of the author and the Bad Subjects Collective (website URL: http://english-www.hss.cmu.edu/BS; e-mail address:badsubjects-request@uclink.berkeley.edu) [END PAGE 15]
a contest between present-day Tocquevillians and disciples of the 20th-century Italian philosopher Antonio Gramsci... The Tocquevillians incline toward individualism, religious belief and patriotism.
I think this is an over-simplification of Tocqueville. I'm in the process of reading him now, and he is eloquent on the overwhelming powerof public opinion in a democratic society. All Gramsci added to his insights, as far as I can see, is tactics appropriate to delude and corrupt this public opinion. Tocqueville did not have the same desire for power at any cost. Also, in Tocqueville's day the technology necessary to provide incessant propaganda wasn't really available.
Luckily, Gramsci's tactics are mostly value-free, usable to promote good as well as evil. But all that is necessary for evil to win is for good people to do nothing (to coin a phrase).
The Gramsci reference page: (click here)
Thanks!
Thank you for this post.
The problem with the current political climate being defined in these terms is that it overlooks that the side that supposedly believes in "absolutes" has been substantial subverted by one of the most powerful tools of the other side: the sexual revolution. [Which is why we lost in the confrontation with Clinton. Our side had a Trojan horse(s)] For a superb analysis of this aspect of the culture war, read E. Michael Jones' books: MONSTERS OF THE ID, LIVING MACHINES, and DEGENERATE MODERNS. The music component is covered in DIONYSOS RISING.
I agree 100%. Many people who might otherwise have condemned Clinton were participating in similar activities (or maybe hoped to someday).
bump
Who is the most significant contemporary follower of this man?
"The Gramscians in the United States cannot wage a war of conquest. They must wage a war of attrition and position."
As someone else once said, "We were playing Poker; they were playing Chess (or Go)."
--Boris
Aw yes. The 'prison papers' thing.
hillary.
Very intresting. Thank you for the post & the links. I am going to bookmark & read later. Could you please spell Gramsci phonically?
Here's a link to another Gramsci discussion:
http://www.freerepublic.com/forum/a174123.htm
My conclusion, then, is that serious leftists should borrow from the right in order to transcend it.
Great post, cayman99. The operative word in the above italics is "transcend." Bill Clinton excels at this maneuver, which is an explicit exercise in dialectical thinking: Take as your thesis a principle that is important to your "enemy," then "transvalue" it into its own antithesis (which is really your own position, but keep it quiet!). Your "enemy" is probably completely unaware that you have undermined the principle he holds dear, because you are using language that he is comfortable with and thinks he understands. Well, he understands how he thinks of it, he just doesn't understand how the other side (i.e., the dialectician) may think of it or be using it. But he will continue to find the familiar use of terms -- even if their meanings have been stood on their head -- reassuring, giving a false sense of "consensus." This "consensus" becomes the basis for the synthesis -- which locks in the subversion of the original principle and makes it the foundation for the next subversive operation.... Few people ever notice what's really going on with such operations -- which is why they tend to be so successful in terms of transforming existing cultural understandings over time.
Rush is right, IMHO, to point out that we Conservatives need to adopt the tactics and strategies of the Left in defense of the culture and institutions which we hold dear. But frankly, I don't see much value in dialectical "science" -- it begins with an abstraction, which it then labors to make "real." But the result, it seems to me, is always a completely bogus "reality" because it is a reality that has little or nothing to do with natural or moral law -- which I happen to believe are in-built into the very structure of the world in which all human beings live. Inevitably, man is constrained to operate within the given order of things. He is free to discover the laws that operate in the world of which he is a part, but not to make them up as he goes along. Man is a contingent being, not an absolute, wholly self-willed, wholly self-directed one. Inevitably, "the laws of nature and of nature's God" limit the exercise of human power.
But that's the part the Left will not accept. The Left believes it has unlimited power to transform the world at will along lines more to its satisfaction. In the last analysis, who's really fooling whom here? Thanks again for the post, cayman99. best wishes, bb.
Pfft. I can't tell if your answer is serious or not.
It seems that the Hegelian Francis Fukuyama poses a greater threat than anyone who can be passed of as "Marxist" or anti-capitalist. Being pro-capitalist is deceptively good? Yes, because the economics is not the issue anymore.
I think this is an over-simplification of Tocqueville.
You might be interested to know that the Hegelian Fukuyama has a way of claiming Tocqueville for himself. Allan Bloom does this too. Many people, like the author of this piece, consider them "conservative." A misnomer happily embraced by Hegelians.
THE END OF HISTORY (aka politics in conservative drag)
Hi Betty!
Shall I nominate you as the best anti-Hegelian on FR?
Now watch out for the anti-anti-anti-Hegelians!
Interesting post...I'll have to spend some time exploring Bad Subjects.
BTTT
Psychopolitcs is the method used to propogate these ideas.
Now watch out for the anti-anti-anti-Hegelians!
Hey cornelis!!! Ouch! You're making my head spin! It gets a little silly, doesn't it? best wishes and warm regards, bb.
bump,read later
More Reading!!
Thanks for the post. Even with a cursory first reading this seems to make the current craziness of our "political correctness" more understandable.
bump
bump
Gramsci is just a more accessible version of Max Weber. Shorn of sociological jargon, Gramsci bottom-lines the notion of "legitimate" authority. A good guy to toss at those who question the legitimacy of the current President-Elect.
Based on my (limited) Italian, it would be "Gramsh" as in "Proshutto" (a smoked ham variety).
BTW, a great post. Looking at Gramsci explains a mystery to me, how a raving monetarist like Greenspan ends up being the pillar of Leftist economics. Marxist monetarism...ugh, I'm feeling seasick.
From another thread (the award threads)--I came across this reference to an article with a good discussion of Gramci(sp?) in the article:
Hmm`-- same article but different thread!
Excellent discussion on both threads!
III.Antonio Gramschi, 1891-1937
A.The New Order (L'Ordine Nuovo)
1.Italian Communist newspaper, founded 1919
2.Co-founder of Italian Communist Party, 1921
3.Pre-Prison Writings, ed. Richard Bellamy (Cambridge, 1994)
4.Selections from the Prison Notebooks (Intl. Publishers, 1971)
B.Lenin was wrong, and the Leninist revolution will fail
1.The workers will see the revolutionary government as a new boss
2.When the revolution fails, the west will re-import Capitalism
C.Gradual revolution through infiltration & subversion by revolutionaries
1.Infiltrate the State: elective & appointed office; judgeships
2.Infiltrate the military: enlist & subvert from within
3.Infiltrate justice: undermine and discredit state constitutions
4.Infiltrate education: professors & administrators
5.Infiltrate & discredit religion: scoundrels as clergymen
6.Register, then license, then confiscate all privately held weapons
D.Form or infiltrate international organizations to promote goals such as
"global understanding," "economic development," "transfer of resources"
E.Both Capitalism and Judaeo-Christian culture must be destroyed before a
Communist revolution can succeed
1.Religious sentiment cannot be destroyed through legislation, as
Lenin believed, but must be redirected from the divine to the state
a.Terror will only drive Religion underground
b.Religion will then reemerge when Leninism fails
c.So Religion must be destroyed in the minds of men
2.Infiltrate religious academies and become priests and clergymen
a.Subtly promote heresy within religious organizations
b.Infiltrators must act so as to discredit the church
(1)Cause financial and sexual scandals
(2)See that this is given a high profile in the news
(3)Like-minded infiltrators in the media will cooperate
3.Once religion is discredited from within, continuously promote the
idea that only the state can solve the problems that have been
traditionally brought before the church
F.When propagating revolutionary ideas, cloak them in polite terms
1.National Consensus
2.Popular Mandate
3.National Pacification
4.Pluralism
5.Global Community
6.Economic Justice
7.Economic Democracy
8.Liberation Theology
9.Direct Action
G.Marxists "must enter into every civil, cultural, and political activity
in every nation, leavening them as yeast leavens bread."
Thanks for the link to the Gramsci reference page!
Very surprised to find this article :
Got to do some more reading -- connection is not clear .
Never could understand why the Leftists were mucking around with the Mathematics curriculum promoting such ideas as Fuzzy Math, Connected Math , etc!!
Thanks -- Nasty guy!
Take a look at the link on Ethnomathematics.
Not quite sure what to make of it!
#2
Excellant post in response. Restorer in #3 brings out the very point I would make.
Western Thought is based on an effort to determine the Truth of any matter by using a system we call logic. The logic of Western thought has rules to be followed or it is stated that an argument is illogical. Therefore, the premise of any argument needs to be understood to start with because the premise does not need to be proven.
At the center of Socialism and Communism it is stated there is no God. At the center of Capitalism it is stated that there is no controlling moral authority when dealing with money. Socialism says there is No God and Capitalism ignores God.
When People such as Rush speak of Socialism and Capitalism they don't use the term Capitalism they use Conservative.
Socialism and Capitalism are economic systems to generate wealth. The term Conservative encompasses a much more broad outlook than mere economic system. But Conservative implies there is a God whether He is followed or ignored. He is the moral imperative.
As you probably know Marx was Against God. He knew of God's existence but he desired to go directly against him.
My point is that Gramsci and others are following Marx when they constanly find new methods to thwart or circumvent their opponent by changing tactics to further their cause. The Conservative thinks he must defend his cause not circumvent his opponent. This is basically why Conservatives can be runover so easily.
Strategy used by Generals in warfare must have a logic but look illogical to the opponent. Conservatives need to learn this Point. Conservatives wonder why Clinton takes on their programs as his. He wants to win the battle but the war is for the Hearts and Minds of the People who will support him more strongly at the next battle.
I believe it was Lenin who said something to the effect the the hammer is swung at a nail and then rebounds to then strike again. In other words the hammer does not imbed the nail in one blow but appears to retreat after each blow.
Good points! BTTT
Thank you.
I am new here. What does BTTT mean?
Good link Darnright. I was trying to find it to post myself.
More mandatory reading folks, don't forget to visit the link.
Bump To The Top -- i.e. Bump for Visibility -
There is so much traffic that many people come to Free Repulic and just look at the Latest Posts!
Way I work -
I consider this my newspaper and by clicking the
"latest post button "
you get a pretty good feel about the hottest topic at that time of day!
But frankly, I don't see much value in dialectical "science" -- it begins with an abstraction, which it then labors to make "real." But the result, it seems to me, is always a completely bogus "reality" because it is a reality that has little or nothing to do with natural or moral law -- which I happen to believe are in-built into the very structure of the world in which all human beings live. . . . what evidence of natural law that is in-built into the very structure of the world do we have that has not been provided to us except through human interpretation? . . . Inevitably, man is constrained to operate within the given order of things. He is free to discover the laws that operate in the world of which he is a part, but not to make them up as he goes along. . . . are these 'laws' the physical laws of nature, the moral laws of man, the political laws of man, or the divine laws of god? Please embellish. . . Man is a contingent being, not an absolute, wholly self-willed, wholly self-directed one. Inevitably, "the laws of nature and of nature's God" limit the exercise of human power. . . . where is the limit?. . .
I'll have to read this one later. Thanks.
bump
.....The Left believes it has unlimited power to transform the world at will along lines more to its satisfaction.....
It is important that people understand that the Left believes in achieving its goals through any means. I have never heard of Gramsci, but I have heard his theories it bits and pieces. It is great to know the source.
Gramsci appears to be a Machiavelli type at first glance. He is more concerned with HOW to accomplish GOALS than with the whether or night it is RIGHT.
.....The Left believes it has unlimited power to transform the world at will along lines more to its satisfaction.....
It is important that people understand that the Left believes in achieving its goals through any means. I have never heard of Gramsci, but I have heard his theories it bits and pieces. It is great to know the source.
Gramsci appears to be a Machiavelli type at first glance. He is more concerned with HOW to accomplish GOALS than with the whether or night it is RIGHT.
Gramsci is pronounced Gram shee/ Ciao,\Max
I am new here. What does BTTT mean?
Bump To The Top.
Not to be confused with Banish To The Tundra.
We deal daily with a brainwashed public. We must be harmless as doves and wise as serpents. Always give a little tidbit to chew on. Sowing seeds everywhere and at every opportunity. Getting people to reconsider the PC solutions is a never-ending process.
I have found the "spoonful at a time" method has it's successes.
This is a great post, very important to know this stuff in order to win the game, first you must define how it is played. Know the opposition.
How does Gramscism differ from Fabianism? Both are tactical implementations of steady, stealthy, relentlessly incremental socialism.
Great post in any case. Bookmarked.
Who are the Real Radicals?
by Jennifer King
kingfish@ucnsb.net
Featured Rightgrrl December 1998
November 09, 1998
When Nikita Kruschuv banged his shoe on the table and declared, "We shall destroy you from within" during the infamous "Kitchen Debate" - he knew what he was talking about.
There is a famous parable, in which an American family of the 1950's is suddenly deposited in America, circa 1998. Violent criminal offenses have exploded upward by 700%. Premarital sex among 18 year olds has jumped from 30% of the population to 70%. Tax rates for a family of four have skyrocketed 500%, consuming a fourth of their income. Divorce rates have quadrupled. Illegitimate births among black Americans has soared - from approximately 23% to more than 68%. Illegitimacy itself has jumped from a nationwide total of 5% to nearly 30% nationwide - a rise of 600%. Cases of sexually transmitted diseases have risen 150%. Teen age pregnancies are up by several thousand percent and teen suicides have risen by 200%. Between 1950 and 1979 - serious crime committed by children under 15 has risen by 11,000%. Our typical American family of the 1950's, finding their society in hopeless disarray, flees back to the 1950's - posthaste!
Most Americans would agree that our society has changed for the worst over the last 30 years. Pundits have discussed the obvious failures and expense of the New Deal and Great Society programs adopted by FDR and LBJ, but they argue that our current situation is an unfortunate, unforeseen consequence. This is naive. Enlightenment arises when one reads the writings of a 1920's era socialist, Antonio Gramsci.
The socialists are still sure that a true Earthly Utopia can be arrived at through collectivism and redistribution of wealth. Gramsci theorized that the average citizen of the West would never voluntarily embrace the "revolution" and reject their own faith and culture. Therefore, the citizens of the West must be systematically demoralized by the erosion and destruction of their culture from within. Mass media would be slowly transformed from a news gathering device to a tool of subtle propaganda. In place, it would encourage the demise of education, history, traditional heroes and religion. The loss of a common culture would result in immorality, rising crime and the seperation of people into small subgroups. According to Gramsci, the next phase would be the installation of totalitarian control when the people would cry out for an end to the chaos.
Interestingly enough, Gramsci's plan was somewhat implemented during the 1930's, in Nazi Germany. The Germans, wracked during the 1920's by inflation and instability, elected Hitler. Hitler confiscated the guns of the populace and divided the people by blaming various groups for Germany's troubles. In an act of stunning audacity, SS thugs burned the Reichstag and then blamed the Communists - allowing Hitler to grab still more authoritarian control. We all know what happened next.
America's founders were men who were highly educated in Western thought and philosophy. They founded this country under strong Judeo-Christian tenets. In order to undermine this culture, the populace would have to be taught to discard Biblical teachings and mores. How was this done?
Paganism, animism and gnosticism (New Age) belief systems were promoted. Humanism reigned supreme. While the people were debauching under the "sexual revolution" and "drugs as enlightenment" movements, American culture was taking a revisionist beating. The Founders, our schoolchildren are still taught, were nothing more than rascist, sexist, evil white male overlords. The Puritans weren't heroic settlers, seeking freedom of religion - no, now they're Evil White European Invaders squatting on the Noble Native American's land and giving them all syphyllis, to boot. The "melting pot" gave way to the "salad bowl", which is even now giving way to the "individual condiment jars sitting side by side on the same tray" theory.
Our movies, TV shows and pop music continue to mock traditional American values, patriotism and the family. Christians come in for special contempt - derided as "fascist", "oppressive", "totalitarian" and blamed for the murders of gays and abortion doctors. Feminists, unbelievably, still stand behind serial harasser Bill Clinton - sacrificing their credibility on the alter of partial birth abortion. Black "leaders" spew outrageous rhetoric about conservatives, and stop just short of exhorting blacks to riot if the Republicans win elections. Republicans, proposing to balance the budget and streamline big government, are denounced as "hating gays, hating women, hating minorities and hating the environment". Ridiculous and hysterical, to be sure, but dutifully reported by the mainstream media. Interesting that a recent March for Justice, comprised of 5000 people who want to fight corruption in our government and uphold our Constitution was not. But, they're conservatives.
Interesting, also, that "right wing" and "fascist", although misused deliberately for political reasons, essentially describe the same type of regime as "left wing", "socialist" and "communist". NAZI was an acronym for National Socialists. Hitler and Stalin were both socialist monsters who favored strong, central federal control.
Orwell was right. The agenda is exposed, for those who will open their eyes. The core of the Democratic Party is an extremist one - the radical, religious left. After all, there is no proof that a leftist/socialist/fascist/communist philosophy works. It has failed in every regime that has tried it. The only thing that keeps it going is a religious "faith" that somehow it will work, if only enough money is thrown at it. James Carville has come out and proclaimed the effort to save Bill Clinton and savage Ken Starr a "war". Indeed it is to the extreme radical religious left. This is why they lie to their own constitutents - this is why they scare black voters with outrageous and bigoted election eve commercials - this is why they can't fairly discuss the issues and instead resort to lying, distortion and actual voter fraud in order to maintain their status.
The radical religious left is hysterical, because they have come so far in 30 years, only to see a tidal wave of conservative, increasingly savvy middle Americans rising up to take back their country from the Sociocrats. They left's anxiety results from the fact that their indoctrination hasn't worked that effectively, and it has been blown out of the water by the unbiased news available through talk radio and the Internet.
The Democratic Party has been exposed as the one on the fringe: supported by radical, men-hating feminists, militant gays pushing their indoctrinist agenda and goofy "green" types who want to abolish private property rights and the internal combustion engine. The Democratic Party has even become the party of the rich - Clinton, while attending only 2 Cabinet meetings this year, has found the time to attend 102 Fundraisers - mostly among the Hollywood crowd, who keep supplying us with anti-American rhetoric, glorified drugs, violence and casual sex.
Now, what are we going to do about it?!
Gram shee. I could not, for the life of me, figure out how everything could be falling apart at the same time. Then, I found Gramsci, now I know!
You know this post would be good to spoon feed to SIMON_JESTER on another thread. He's the maggot leftist who wants to "smoke a piece pipe" with the FRepubs. I think he needs to get a good dose of what his legacy is founded upon.
This certainly explains something to me. My church has a new interim pastor, he'll be there for about two years while the search committee finds a permanent replacement for our retired ministor. So last week my husband and I are sitting in church and the new guy quotes the director of World Council of Churches. He shows great admiration. I start to boil. Earlier in a prayer someone used the word "marginalized". I recognized the trendiness of the w