Re: Gramsci nettime-l Digest, Vol 132, Issue 6
Both are non sequitur, Alex. 1. No reason I should attack Stuart Hall. In fact, he's produced much that is both useful and open, for instance: https://www.birmingham.ac.uk/Documents/college-artslaw/history/cccs/stencilled-occasional-papers/1to8and11to24and38to48/SOP01.pdf 2. I have not talked about fables but point taken, I should have prefixed political economy with "critique of" - I thought it was obvious. As for the breadth and scope of it, there's a great series by Marx I'd recommend. Thanks for the book recommendation, Orsan. I agree with you, Matze. On Tue, 11 Sep 2018 13:08:37 +0200, Alex Foti wrote: your caricature of gramsci's postwar reception should then also include an attack on Stuart Hall and any kind of cultural Marxism. Also i would like to know what is this fabled political economy that we should never violate - the falling rate of profit? On Tue, Sep 11, 2018 at 12:52 PM, ari 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 To: Brian Holmes Cc: a moderated mailing list for net criticism Subject: Re: Quick Review.. Message-ID: 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 : no commercial use without permission #is a moderated mailing list for net criticism, # collaborative text filtering and cultural
Re: Gramsci nettime-l Digest, Vol 132, Issue 6
your caricature of gramsci's postwar reception should then also include an attack on Stuart Hall and any kind of cultural Marxism. Also i would like to know what is this fabled political economy that we should never violate - the falling rate of profit? On Tue, Sep 11, 2018 at 12:52 PM, ari 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 >> To: Brian Holmes >> Cc: a moderated mailing list for net criticism >> >> Subject: Re: Quick Review.. >> Message-ID: >> >> >> 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 : no commercial use without permission > #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: nett...@kein.org > # @nettime_bot tweets mail w/ sender unless #ANON is in Subject: # distributed via : no commercial use without permission #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 #
Re: Gramsci nettime-l Digest, Vol 132, Issue 6
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 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 > > To: Brian Holmes > > Cc: a moderated mailing list for net criticism > > > > Subject: Re: 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 : no commercial use without permission > #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: nett...@kein.org > #
Re: Gramsci nettime-l Digest, Vol 132, Issue 6
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 To: Brian Holmes Cc: a moderated mailing list for net criticism Subject: Re: Quick Review.. Message-ID: 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 : no commercial use without permission #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: nett...@kein.org # @nettime_bot tweets mail w/ sender unless #ANON is in Subject:
