 willhelm says: "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." I IMPLORE all Right-thinking people to educate themselves on the ideas of Materialists. They are more prevalent now than they ever have been. You need to know what is behind the trends in HIgher Education, Political Correctness, Environmentalism, The thousand or so political action, interest groups that tear the fabric of America (ACLU, NEA, Think Progress, Moveon.org) and a thousand others. They are founded in Progressive/Marxist/Materialist views. 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.In social theory, this is why Gramsci is actually considered somewhat of an anti-materialist--he emphasized the importance of ideas and culture over social structural factors, which is a significant deviation from Marx. -he emphasized the importance of ideas and culture over social structural factors, which is a significant deviation from Marx.That certainly would not make him anti-materialist. I think Gramsci's philosophy differed from Marx in the sense of how to achieve the ends. One revolution and one subversion. For example, was it not Gramsci that suggested art should be distasteful? Didn't he suggest cultural deviance as an alternative to making arguments against Faith and Theism? That certainly would not make him anti-materialist.anti-materialist was the wrong choice of words. Substitute 'not a Materialist'. That certainly would not make him anti-materialist. I think Gramsci's philosophy differed from Marx in the sense of how to achieve the ends. One revolution and one subversion.Not really. Marx argued that economic conditions would make revolution inevitable--the rise of factories would throw workers together and they would inevitably organize and overthrow capitalism. Gramsci pointed out, correctly in my view, that the overthrow of capitalism was not inevitable. According to him, communists needed to do the cultural work to make people aware that an alternative to capitalism is possible and desireable. Once the cultural work was in place (once the communists had won the... I don't understand where I am wrong. I suggested that Gramsci's motives were for the subversion of Western-Capitalist Society, which in itself suggests that the demise of Capitalism is not inevitable, but requires subversive measures. According to him, communists needed to do the cultural work to makeThe above sounds like a direct quote. Cultural work being, as I stated above: was it not Gramsci that suggested art should be distasteful? Didn't hePerhaps there is a semantical quirk that is causing... Concepts of hegemony, Althusser's work on the relative autonomy of culture, Lacanian and feminist psychoanalytical theory etc etc are all pretty well absorbed into mainstream cultural studies (though it is true that individual theorists such as Gramsci do play a part in praxis of strands of the Left, as do the marxian - and other - approaches to art as challenging dominant ideology). Much of it is diluted and 'made safe' or commodified in much the same way that for many the writings of the Frankfurt School now act as vehicles for expression of spirtual alienation in materialist society. I don't understand where I am wrong. I suggested that Gramsci's motives were for the subversion of Western-Capitalist Society, which in itself suggests that the demise of Capitalism is not inevitable, but requires subversive measures.I was pointing out the problem with your comparison of Gramsci to Marx. The above sounds like a direct quote.It wasn't. As evidenced by your interest, it is clear Gramsci is an icon on the Left.If my comments on this clip constitute your evidence for this claim, you have an awful lot of more work to do. Evidence requires no "work" on my part. That is your paradigm. And Gramsci's. Abailart, Frankfurt School? You are way to smart for me. Though, I do know the purpose of the Frankfurt Institute to be the opposite of what you seem to be suggesting. .... too smart for me, that is. Evidence requires no "work" on my part.Obviously. Why work to gather evidence when you can just make things up? people, please do not forget to POP, the game must come first  lyotard?  no, Fast T It is always nice to have a simplistic box into which one can place modern days. Especially when that box tends to favor the cultural assumptions of the target population. Propaganda lives! willhelm, the point Josh was making (as I understand it -- I'm no expert though) was that Marx believed that ideas were primarily false consciousness. Ideas fundamentally don't matter in historical events, according to Marx, only material conditions do. Ideas are fundamentally a manifestation of underlying material conditions. Gramsci argued the opposite. OK. whatever. I don't disagree with that. I also do not see where I asserted that unless it is simply under the paradigm of my inclusion in materialism. However, there is a thing called cultural materialism, which is outside the condition of economics and that is primarily my ultimate point in this clip. I illustrate that with the quote and my remark in my initial comment. Materialism is not confined to economic conditions only. Materialism is source by which Marx draws, as well as Gramsci. But thanks, Enbar. I am more clear, I think, on the distinction JK was pointing out. A side question, is not the need for an ever lasting soul a form of materialism? It is in the realm of Christian Materialism, but "the need" is not the point of Christianity. But one hears constantly of the afterlife and people asking if you know what happens to ones soul after death. This soul-centric approach to evangelism seems based in the ego and the need to control. At least to this outsider. I'd like to add a few points here which I believe are very important to understand Gramsci's standing. The essential part of his thoughts was the situation of the intellectuals in a capitalist society, where Gramsci defined a concept he called "the historical block". Unlike Marx, he thought the "subjective factor" was at least as important as the material conditions and he underlined the fact that the dominant class in an "economic system" takes an important part of his strength from the culture that was being produced everyday by the mechanisms of the production system - specifically he studied on capitalism. According to him, the dominant system was being benefited by the "historical blo... He was a very important philosopher of the 20th century, according to my opinion, along with Louis Althusser. And he was a great anti-fascist in the heydays of Benito Mussolini. Willhelm, you should read the thoughts of Gramsci directly from his own works, most of his works are available in English, some are in public domain. There's also a good analysis and compilation edited by Jacques Texier. Willhelm, you should read the thoughts of Gramsci directly from his own worksI have, Invictus, thank you. And thank-you for your comment. |
View the Top Clips from December 10, 2007
Embed This Clip In Your Site...
|
||
|
|
|||
|
New from the makers of Clipmarks: Amplify.com - Don't just share the news...Amplify it!
|
|||
