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.
-
Philosophy Editorial
Posted on 12/29/2000 02:01:41 PST by cayman99
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 however. 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.
1 Posted on 12/29/2000 02:01:41 PST
by
cayman99
[
Reply |
Private Reply |
Top |
Last ]
To: cayman99
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. He
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]
2 Posted on 12/29/2000 02:29:10 PST
by
cayman99
[
Reply |
Private Reply |
To 1 |
Top |
Last ]
To: cayman99
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 power of 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 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).
3 Posted on 12/29/2000 02:34:58 PST
by
Restorer
[
Reply |
Private Reply |
To 1 |
Top |
Last ]
To: Restorer
The Gramsci reference page: (click here)
4 Posted on 12/29/2000 02:36:50 PST
by
cayman99
[
Reply |
Private Reply |
To 3 |
Top |
Last ]
To: cayman99
Thanks!
5 Posted on 12/29/2000 03:28:42 PST
by
Restorer
[
Reply |
Private Reply |
To 4 |
Top |
Last ]
To: cayman99
Thank you for this post.
6 Posted on 12/29/2000 04:52:45 PST
by
Rustynailww
[
Reply |
Private Reply |
To 1 |
Top |
Last ]
To: Restorer
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.
7 Posted on 12/29/2000 04:55:57 PST
by
wjeanw
[
Reply |
Private Reply |
To 3 |
Top |
Last ]
To: wjeanw
I agree 100%. Many people who might otherwise have condemned Clinton were participating in similar activities (or maybe hoped to someday).
8 Posted on 12/29/2000 05:08:16 PST
by
Restorer
[
Reply |
Private Reply |
To 7 |
Top |
Last ]
To: cayman99
bump
9 Posted on 12/29/2000 05:10:53 PST
by
sport
[
Reply |
Private Reply |
To 1 |
Top |
Last ]
To: cayman99
Who is the most significant contemporary follower of this man?
10 Posted on 12/29/2000 06:30:50
PST by
cornelis
[
Reply |
Private Reply |
To 2 |
Top |
Last ]
To: cayman99
"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
11 Posted on 12/29/2000 06:58:22
PST by
boris
[
Reply |
Private Reply |
To 1 |
Top |
Last ]
To: cayman99
Aw yes. The 'prison papers' thing.
12 Posted on 12/29/2000 07:02:15
PST by
blam
[
Reply |
Private Reply |
To 1 |
Top |
Last ]
To: cornelis
hillary.
13 Posted on 12/29/2000 07:15:03
PST by
Rustynailww
[
Reply |
Private Reply |
To 10 |
Top |
Last ]
To: cayman99
Very intresting. Thank you for the post & the links. I am going to bookmark & read later. Could you please spell Gramsci phonically?
14 Posted on 12/29/2000 07:17:09
PST by
Ditter
[
Reply |
Private Reply |
To 2 |
Top |
Last ]
To: cayman99
Here's a link to another Gramsci discussion:
http://www.freerepublic.com/forum/a174123.htm
15 Posted on 12/29/2000 08:00:36
PST by
Darnright
[
Reply |
Private Reply |
To 4 |
Top |
Last ]
To: cayman99
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.
16 Posted on 12/29/2000 08:09:32
PST by
betty boop
[
Reply |
Private Reply |
To 2 |
Top |
Last ]
To: Rustynailww, cayman99
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.
17 Posted on 12/29/2000 08:12:28
PST by
cornelis
[
Reply |
Private Reply |
To 13 |
Top |
Last ]
To: Restorer
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.
18 Posted on 12/29/2000 08:15:10
PST by
cornelis
[
Reply |
Private Reply |
To 3 |
Top |
Last ]
To: cayman99
THE END OF HISTORY (aka politics in conservative drag)
19 Posted on 12/29/2000 08:18:15
PST by
cornelis
[
Reply |
Private Reply |
To 1 |
Top |
Last ]
To: betty boop
Hi Betty!
Shall I nominate you as the best anti-Hegelian on FR?
Now watch out for the anti-anti-anti-Hegelians!
20 Posted on 12/29/2000 08:21:56
PST by
cornelis
[
Reply |
Private Reply |
To 16 |
Top |
Last ]
To: cayman99
Interesting post...I'll have to spend some time exploring Bad Subjects.
21 Posted on 12/29/2000 08:22:25
PST by
beckett
[
Reply |
Private Reply |
To 1 |
Top |
Last ]
To: cayman99
BTTT
22 Posted on 12/29/2000 08:39:13
PST by
SuperLuminal
[
Reply |
Private Reply |
To 1 |
Top |
Last ]
To: cayman99
Psychopolitcs is the method used to propogate these ideas.
23 Posted on 12/29/2000 08:52:32
PST by
ridensm
[
Reply |
Private Reply |
To 1 |
Top |
Last ]
To: cornelis
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.
24 Posted on 12/29/2000 08:54:10
PST by
betty boop
[
Reply |
Private Reply |
To 20 |
Top |
Last ]
To: cayman99
bump,read later
25 Posted on 12/29/2000 09:35:48
PST by
Leper Messiah
[
Reply |
Private Reply |
To 1 |
Top |
Last ]
To: cayman99
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.
26 Posted on 12/29/2000 11:33:10
PST by
Ernest_at_the_Beach
[
Reply |
Private Reply |
To 1 |
Top |
Last ]
To: marker
bump
27 Posted on 12/29/2000 12:11:49
PST by
arcane
[
Reply |
Private Reply |
To 26 |
Top |
Last ]
To: marker
bump
28 Posted on 12/29/2000 12:12:43
PST by
arcane
[
Reply |
Private Reply |
To 26 |
Top |
Last ]
To: cayman99
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.
29 Posted on 12/29/2000 13:27:17
PST by
Makhno
[
Reply |
Private Reply |
To 1 |
Top |
Last ]
To: Ditter
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.
30 Posted on 12/29/2000 13:30:56
PST by
Makhno
[
Reply |
Private Reply |
To 14 |
Top |
Last ]
To: cayman99
From another thread (the award threads)--I came across this reference to an article with a good discussion of Gramci(sp?) in the article:
31 Posted on 12/29/2000 23:39:32
PST by
Ernest_at_the_Beach
[
Reply |
Private Reply |
To 1 |
Top |
Last ]
To: Darnright
Hmm`-- same article but different thread!
Excellent discussion on both threads!
32 Posted on 12/30/2000 00:23:51
PST by
Ernest_at_the_Beach
[
Reply |
Private Reply |
To 15 |
Top |
Last ]
To: Ernest_at_the_Beach
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."
33 Posted on 12/30/2000 00:31:46
PST by
corsair
[
Reply |
Private Reply |
To 32 |
Top |
Last ]
To: cayman99
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!!
34 Posted on 12/30/2000 00:49:37
PST by
Ernest_at_the_Beach
[
Reply |
Private Reply |
To 4 |
Top |
Last ]
To: corsair
Thanks -- Nasty guy!
Take a look at the link on Ethnomathematics.
Not quite sure what to make of it!
35 Posted on 12/30/2000 00:56:37
PST by
Ernest_at_the_Beach
[
Reply |
Private Reply |
To 33 |
Top |
Last ]
To: cayman99
#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.
36 Posted on 12/30/2000 10:05:53
PST by
Slingshot
[
Reply |
Private Reply |
To 2 |
Top |
Last ]
To: Slingshot
Good points! BTTT
37 Posted on 12/30/2000 10:40:56
PST by
SuperLuminal
[
Reply |
Private Reply |
To 36 |
Top |
Last ]
To: SuperLuminal
Thank you.
I am new here. What does BTTT mean?
38 Posted on 12/30/2000 11:14:02
PST by
Slingshot
[
Reply |
Private Reply |
To 37 |
Top |
Last ]
To: Darnright
Good link Darnright. I was trying to find it to post myself.
More mandatory reading folks, don't forget to visit the link.
39 Posted on 12/30/2000 11:30:20
PST by
chickenlips
[
Reply |
Private Reply |
To 15 |
Top |
Last ]
To: Slingshot
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!
40 Posted on 12/30/2000 12:03:21
PST by
Ernest_at_the_Beach
[
Reply |
Private Reply |
To 38 |
Top |
Last ]
To: betty boop
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?. . .
41 Posted on 12/30/2000 12:19:46
PST by
MtnMover
[
Reply |
Private Reply |
To 16 |
Top |
Last ]
To: Ernest_at_the_Beach
I'll have to read this one later. Thanks.
42 Posted on 12/30/2000 16:23:43
PST by
Diago
[
Reply |
Private Reply |
To 34 |
Top |
Last ]
To: cayman99
bump
43 Posted on 12/30/2000 16:47:38
PST by
jadimov
[
Reply |
Private Reply |
To 1 |
Top |
Last ]
To: betty boop, cayman99
.....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.
44 Posted on 12/30/2000 17:15:16
PST by
jadimov
[
Reply |
Private Reply |
To 16 |
Top |
Last ]
To: betty boop, cayman99
.....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.
45 Posted on 12/30/2000 17:15:33
PST by
jadimov
[
Reply |
Private Reply |
To 16 |
Top |
Last ]
To: Ditter
Gramsci is pronounced Gram shee/ Ciao,\Max
46 Posted on 12/30/2000 17:15:53
PST by
max epr
(maxepr@webspan.net)
[
Reply |
Private Reply |
To 14 |
Top |
Last ]
To: Slingshot
I am new here. What does BTTT mean?
Bump To The Top.
Not to be confused with Banish To The Tundra.
47 Posted on 12/30/2000 17:30:55
PST by
Kevin Curry
[
Reply |
Private Reply |
To 38 |
Top |
Last ]
To: all
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.
48 Posted on 12/30/2000 17:41:53
PST by
arepublicifyoucankeepit
[
Reply |
Private Reply |
To 46 |
Top |
Last ]
To: cayman99
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.
49 Posted on 12/30/2000 18:27:04
PST by
Leper Messiah
[
Reply |
Private Reply |
To 1 |
Top |
Last ]
To: cayman99
How does Gramscism differ from Fabianism? Both are tactical implementations
of steady, stealthy, relentlessly incremental socialism.
Great post in any case. Bookmarked.
50 Posted on 12/30/2000 20:21:24
PST by
RightOnTheLeftCoast
[
Reply |
Private Reply |
To 1 |
Top |
Last ]
51 Posted on 12/30/2000 21:28:25
PST by
meta
[
Reply |
Private Reply |
To 1 |
Top |
Last ]
52 Posted on 12/30/2000 21:33:26
PST by
meta
[
Reply |
Private Reply |
To 1 |
Top |
Last ]
To: beckett
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?!
53 Posted on 12/30/2000 21:37:16
PST by
cayman99
[
Reply |
Private Reply |
To 21 |
Top |
Last ]
To: meta
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!
54 Posted on 12/30/2000 21:42:58
PST by
blam
[
Reply |
Private Reply |
To 52 |
Top |
Last ]
55 Posted on 12/30/2000 23:40:52
PST by
meta
[
Reply |
Private Reply |
To 1 |
Top |
Last ]
56 Posted on 12/31/2000 00:03:10
PST by
meta
[
Reply |
Private Reply |
To 1 |
Top |
Last ]
57 Posted on 12/31/2000 00:14:21
PST by
meta
[
Reply |
Private Reply |
To 1 |
Top |
Last ]
To: cayman99
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.
58 Posted on 12/31/2000 00:52:26
PST by
PRO 1
[
Reply |
Private Reply |
To 1 |
Top |
Last ]
To: cayman99
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 word. I had never heard it used in church before. Now I know where it came from.
I came away from the service knowing that I had just lost my church home. It didn't feel like a church as much as a "political discourse center". We were married in that church and I didn't recognize it.
59 Posted on 12/31/2000 01:00:23
PST by
motherlydia
[
Reply |
Private Reply |
To 1 |
Top |
Last ]
To: cayman99
Great post. Gramsci is da man! He is the dominant thinker behind
multiculturalism. For years, I was familair with the phrase, "the long march
through the institutions," but had no idea where it came from.
Not that I hadn't tried reading the guy.
Has anyone here tried that?! IMPOSSIBLE! In the context, I couldn't even
understand the meaning of "and" and "the." And I'd spent a lot of time
reading Marxists.
Whether consciously or intuitively, I believe the Nazis also made use of a lot of Gramsci's ideas. They would set up counter-institutions, parallel to established ones, and after the seizure of power, shut down the established ones.
60 Posted on 12/31/2000 01:08:01
PST by
mrustow
[
Reply |
Private Reply |
To 1 |
Top |
Last ]
To: arepublicifyoucankeepit
I heard a good quote a few days ago: "Apathy is the glove that evil puts its hand into."
61 Posted on 12/31/2000 01:36:29
PST by
TakeBack
[
Reply |
Private Reply |
To 48 |
Top |
Last ]
To: cayman99
bump
62 Posted on 12/31/2000 03:17:54
PST by
meta
[
Reply |
Private Reply |
To 1 |
Top |
Last ]
To: Ernest_at_the_Beach
Thank you for the info on BTTT.
63 Posted on 12/31/2000 08:47:19
PST by
Slingshot
[
Reply |
Private Reply |
To 40 |
Top |
Last ]
To: cayman99
Now, what are we going to do about it?!
Respect the gods. Remember Bilbo in Lord of the Rings? He was on a mission to destroy the ring of evil? And at the end power prevented him?
64 Posted on 12/31/2000 08:52:01
PST by
cornelis
[
Reply |
Private Reply |
To 53 |
Top |
Last ]
To: Kevin Curry
Ah So. Thank you and so glad I am not on my way to the tundra. That's why we don't have tundra in Texas. No one here likes it.
65 Posted on 12/31/2000 09:00:25
PST by
Slingshot
[
Reply |
Private Reply |
To 47 |
Top |
Last ]
To: cayman99
bump
66 Posted on 12/31/2000 10:04:01
PST by
Red Jones
[
Reply |
Private Reply |
To 1 |
Top |
Last ]
To: Ditter
Gramsci: gram-shee ("shee" with a long 'e' as in sheep)
67 Posted on 12/31/2000 13:56:56
PST by
NeoCons
[
Reply |
Private Reply |
To 14 |
Top |
Last ]
To: NeoCons & max epr
Thanks.
68 Posted on 12/31/2000 14:01:49
PST by
Ditter
[
Reply |
Private Reply |
To 67 |
Top |
Last ]
69 Posted on 12/31/2000 16:32:41
PST by
meta
[
Reply |
Private Reply |
To 66 |
Top |
Last ]
70 Posted on 12/31/2000 17:49:33
PST by
meta
[
Reply |
Private Reply |
To 66 |
Top |
Last ]
To: MtnMover; cc: Phaedrus, Romulus, beckett, logos, OWK, Lev, Vade Retro, cornelis, OWK, Askel-5
Hi MtnMover! You ask three great questions -- the answers to which have preoccupied human intelligence for millennia, and still do to this day. I have no handy-dandy doctrine to give you capable of answering such questions with certainty, definitively and for all time. How could I?, since (a) I am mortal, and won’t last long enough to learn absolutely everything that Is; (b) I am a not-disinterested part in what I observe; and (c) nor can I observe everything that Is from my own little vantage-point in that whole which comprehends me. But I can share my thoughts on these subjects as they have evolved in experience and contemplation til now, for whatever they’re worth in your estimation.
I’d like to begin with your third question, the easiest one IMHO: Where is the limit [on the exercise of human power]? The limit takes many forms. Marcus Aurelius captured its most obvious manifestation in these pithy lines:
“Consider how quickly all things vanish away – their bodily structure into the general substance; the very memory of them into that great gulf and abysm of past thoughts. Ah! ‘tis on a tiny space of earth thou art creeping through life – a pygmy soul carrying a dead body to its grave.”
Another example of the limit, this one a limit on what the mind “reliably” can adduce from purely sensuous experience, has been well-articulated by Walter Pater:
“…[T]he due reception of [Heraclitus’ philosophy] must involve a denial of habitual impressions, as the necessary first step in the way of truth. His philosophy had been developed in conscious, outspoken opposition to the current mode of thought, as a matter requiring some exceptional loyalty to pure reason and its ‘dry light.’ Men are subject to an illusion…regarding matters apparent to sense. What the uncorrected sense gives is a false impression of permanence or fixity in things, which have really changed their nature in the very moment in which we see and touch them. And the radical flaw in the current mode of thinking would lie herein: that, reflecting this false or uncorrected sensation, it attributes to the phenomena of experience a durability which does not really belong to them. Imaging forth from those fluid impressions a world of firmly outlined objects, it leads one to regard as a thing stark and dead what is in reality full of animation, of vigor, of the fire of life – that eternal process of nature, of which at a later time Goethe spoke as the ‘Living Garment,’ whereby God is seen of us, ever in weaving at the ‘Loom of Time.’”
To put it another way: Subjective consciousness itself operates as a limit on what can be known about the truth of reality. Subjectivity “deforms” the objective reality apprehended by means of sense perception. Heraclitus maintains that limit can be pushed back by the exercise of the “dry light” of pure reason; but seemingly, it cannot be evaded entirely. And, sooner or later, pure reason must engage “objects” that do not have their origin in the empirical world – the world of sense perception.
Heraclitus, in short, had a strong supposition that the data of experience given to the mind via sense perception in reality cloak and disguise the nature of the Reality we are trying to penetrate. As he put it elsewhere, “Nature loves to hide.” What is cloaked is precisely the spiritual reality that constitutes and lies behind all manifested phenomena. This, of course, is the sort of speculation that the serious materialist/skeptic/atheist/“gnostic” (pick one!) of our own age absolutely rules out as impossible, in advance. Which strikes me as a great demonstration of the principle of subjectivity “scaling down reality” to its own level (so to speak)-- the ancient sophistical notion that “man is the measure of all things” taken as First Principle, not as mere hypothesis subject to test.
You asked: . . . 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? . . . My answer: None – BUT: Some interpretations appear to me to be more adequate than others in describing and anticipating the nature of things as they actually are or will be. Let me give an example: Hegel’s theory of the State, which he saw as the absolute apotheosis or incarnation of the divine idea on earth. Any state that has subsequently been built on that theory – and there have been very many, notably Hitler’s and Stalin’s – has resulted in inhuman and barbarous societies productive of enormous human suffering.
Unless you were to hold the theory that the basic structure of reality is supposed to conduce to the production of human woe on a vast scale you would have to conclude that Hegel’s theory is utterly false. Sometimes natural and moral laws are things we “back into,” simply by clearing the decks of that which is false about our understanding of the natural and moral universe, according to experience, insight, and (I hesitate to say it) spiritual vision.
And so, you ask: . . . 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. . . As noted earlier, I think that both physical and moral laws are implicit in the structure of the natural world. The natural world itself was designed “to be what it is, and not some other way.” Man, too, has a given nature that has persisted over time. Observing the natural order, it seems obvious (to me at least) that such things did not and could not arise by chance. We frequently see that when man attempts to evade the laws of nature and moral responsibility, he pays a penalty, and moral infractions frequently “disorder” both himself and the society of which he is a part. Fire burns. Gravity reliably pulls us down from high places if we’re not careful. Sexual promiscuity often leads to diseases of the body and mind. Etc., etc. I won’t belabor the point further.
So ultimately, we are speaking of divine law operating in the world, itself the creature of the Divine Mind. Man may discover these laws – he was given reason and free will in order to do that. But what man cannot do is make laws that are binding on the universe – which has a given, immutable structure wholly independent of human will. Nor will any human law “work” in the purely human social realm that violates the just laws of human nature as constituted in man by God Himself.
And so you see I have reason (I would say on the basis of observation and experience) to believe that there is more to the universe than “matter in motion.” “Something” “made” the matter, put it in motion, and gave it the laws by which it behaves.
Today it is fashionable, even intellectually respectable, to claim that the order we observe all around us is the result of some kind of freak accident at the very beginning of the universe. (Which, because that insight begs the question of how a beginning BEGAN, some people say we can do without a beginning altogether, that the world as we know it just “always was….” More trimming of reality down to the level of our arguments here, I suppose….)
To my way of thinking, that line of reasoning absolutely strains credulity. It also happens to explain, well, not very much at all of what we actually see all around us, if we would but open our eyes and stop “editing reality down” to the premise that inert matter is utterly self-sufficient in expressing the myriads of life forms we observe all around us, all by itself as if on some kind of automatic pilot. Which supposition either drains the world of all intelligence, or manages to beg yet another question: How did matter become so “wise” in the first place? Where did it get its “program?”
Well, I’ve maundered on with my speculations long enuf for now, MtnMover. I don’t know how well I’ve answered the points you raise. Please understand that this is a “work in progress.” Thank you so much for writing. best wishes, bb.
71 Posted on 12/31/2000 18:57:47
PST by
betty boop
[
Reply |
Private Reply |
To 41 |
Top |
Last ]
To: betty boop
Ahh, what a way to end the year!... A treatise from betty boop, and a good one, I might add!
Consider this, betty, Mt. We are capable of perceiving only the very recent past, for if an event occurred more than a few milliseconds ago, the sensing is lost to us directly, yet we are incapable of sensing the exact present! So, we actually sense the recent past, implying that the incriment of temporal dimensionality we call the present is yet unknown to US because of our limitation in sensory input processing.
BTW, we have absolutely no sensory input from the future of the temporal dimension, and none from the past, beyond the immediate impulses presented in a bubble of reality we define as *the present* ... we (our reality link through our sensing soul) actually exist in the present only (as definable within the limits of electromagnetic flow in spacetime, yet experience the past only, because of the millisecond-style lag time between event and energy transfer to our senses.
Every particle of matter, from the quark to a giant molecule or collection thereof, has three basic components: an aspect of dimension space, an aspect of dimension time, and energy held in a continuum defined by the woven variables of dimensions space and time which continuum exists in a greater spacetime-manifesting-only gaussian field we have defined as the present reality of the universe. Had I not experienced others from beyond our present morass, I would not claim, as I do, that there are beings who inhabit this universe who are not so limited in their expression or sensing of energy and the continuums in which that energy exists ... we are a bit lower than the angels.
Sorry about that!... I got carried away for a sec. Happy New Year, betty boop!
72 Posted on 12/31/2000 19:29:26
PST by
MHGinTN
[
Reply |
Private Reply |
To 71 |
Top |
Last ]
To: cayman99
I mentioned this on another post, but again I urge everyone to acquire and read cover to cover the book "America's Thirty Year War."
73 Posted on 12/31/2000 19:50:58
PST by
redangus
[
Reply |
Private Reply |
To 2 |
Top |
Last ]
To: MHGinTN
We are capable of perceiving only the very recent past, for if an event occurred more than a few milliseconds ago, the sensing is lost to us directly, yet we are incapable of sensing the exact present!
Hey there, MHGinTN! Great to see you! WRT the above italics: The discipline of meditation or contemplation seeks to orient consciousness in the Present. The Past is "gone," but can be made available to the Present through recollection or memory. Of the Future we have no certainty at all. From that standpoint, it is acts of consciousness, engaged in the present moment, that are "the only places in the world where we can catch new fact in the making." On that basis, I believe I must give the Present pride of place in the flux of time that we humans usually perceive as inexorably flowing away from us...if we bother to think of this subject at all.
Plato had the insight that man lives in two orders of time: the order pertaining to the world of created things, and the universal, eternal order that lies back of manifested reality. To say that man "lives" in the two orders is to say that the human mind can become consciously aware of both of them. And then see how they relate to each other. This sort of thing came fairly easily to the great ancient Greek thinkers who I so admire -- Plato, Aristotle, Heraclitus especially -- not to mention to the Gospel writers (John especially, IMHO) and to all thoughtful Christians....
Yep, we humans fall a good deal short of the angels. But, like the angels, we possess the attributes of reason and free will. And just as with the angels, we are invited -- nay, called -- to devote those gifts to the love of God and neighbor. Some angels "fell," prefiguring the fall of man. But unlike the fallen angels, man has been given another chance. His opportunity lies in the Present moment or nowhere at all: the Present moment being the intersection of the two orders of Time alluded to above.
I'm not exactly clear that the above is at all responsive to your insights. But hey, it's New Year's Eve!!! I feel I may take some liberties in honor of the occasion!
Along those lines, let me wish you the happiest of New Years, and may you and yours prosper in 2001. best wishes, bb.
74 Posted on 12/31/2000 20:23:59
PST by
betty boop
[
Reply |
Private Reply |
To 72 |
Top |
Last ]
To: cayman99
A fine, enlightening essay. I had no sooner finished reading it when a new thread popped up entitled "The Year in Queer" describing the gay activist agenda in Gramiscian terms. Its fit to the Gramiscian model was so perfect that it almost appeared to have been written to satisfy a textbook example of subversive politics.
I prepared a reply to that thread but when I tried to post it, I discovered the thread had been deleted. It appears the Gramiscians are hard at work at FR.
75 Posted on 12/31/2000 21:12:27
PST by
Kevin Curry
[
Reply |
Private Reply |
To 1 |
Top |
Last ]
To: All
Gramscians, Gramscians, Gramscians. There. Now I've got the spelling down.
In any event, this revelation of Gramscian strategy and tactics of subversion is so compelling and profound it has permanently changed how I view politics in America.
This is important information. It should be reposted and discussed regularly.
76 Posted on 12/31/2000 21:20:27
PST by
Kevin Curry
[
Reply |
Private Reply |
To 75 |
Top |
Last ]
To: Kevin Curry
FYI: The End of History (politics in conservative drag)
77 Posted on 01/01/2001 07:25:45
PST by
cornelis
[
Reply |
Private Reply |
To 76 |
Top |
Last ]
To: betty boop
Lovely essay, BB. Perhaps MacIntyre should read your stuff rather than you reading his. He might learn a few things from you!
78 Posted on 01/01/2001 10:59:19
PST by
beckett
[
Reply |
Private Reply |
To 71 |
Top |
Last ]
To: cayman99
Looking for a column I had for months(seems to have misplaced)titled "Gramsci in the White House" I will try again to locate. Its interesting because Balint Vazsonyi book"America's 30 years War" does not speak of Gramsci but does speak of the same kind of agenda> very interesting, very scary, because we can see it happening but not enough people are paying attention, or not enough people think we are correct!
79 Posted on 01/01/2001 11:13:17
PST by
Burlem
[
Reply |
Private Reply |
To 1 |
Top |
Last ]
To: cornelis
What else would you recommend that I--or any other interested person--read to gain a fuller understanding of Gramsci and his subversive politics?
80 Posted on 01/01/2001 12:05:01
PST by
Kevin Curry
[
Reply |
Private Reply |
To 77 |
Top |
Last ]
To: Kevin Curry
to gain a fuller understanding of Gramsci and his subversive politics . . I don't know if I am the best qualified to answer your question, but I'll try to express my thoughts.
There is no book that will convert one to become "wise as serpents, harmless as doves." I know near nothing about Gramsci and I don't especially care to see him popularized. Instead, I would prefer to see the name of Eric Voegelin who has slaved away at diagnosing the disease of disorientation created by philosophers producing Second Realities. After all, Gramsci follows Hegel and Marx. And of the two, Hegel is the more potently deceiving. (Fukuyama follows Hegel, and is alive and publishing). The literature contra Marxism is available. The unmasking of Hegel is a feat that requires more than a cursory dabbling. Hegel is a sorcerer, and the best mantra of the sorcerer is the lie, and the best lie is the one most near the truth. Understanding the face of evil is not exactly the most delightful activity. If the motivation is power over evil, perhaps we are better off just reading Lord of the Rings
Kevin, I am just beginning to recognize some of the difficulties in dealing with our search for truth. One concerns the nature of language. Things said, or propositions, are both yes and no or true and false at the same time. While logic permits us to analyse aspects as positive and negative, we are seduced to thinking it must be one or the other. We are seduced in doing this for the sake of simplicity. A resolution is reached with a definition that allows affirmation or negation. Yet considered in relation to a manifold reality, each proposition is subject to new meaning. While it is false in one way, it is true in another. Most of us don't have time or patience to consider the implication of this. Chameleon deceivers make it the stuff of their charms. What is the deception of the Hegelian kind of thinking? One, the use of words that function, as Voegelin describes it, on the level of existential rhetoric. Our vocabulary of freedom, liberty, law, are "pre-analytic." Consider these words as exchangeable coinage, currency, which is with or without backing. The speaker doesn't know--it just seems to work, in some way or other, for the exchange of thoughts and ideas. The fact of communcation appears to give evidence of a world of meaning. But that is so much surface phenomena. Does the Hegelian know where it really leads? I don't think so. I just think it is motivated by a rejection of First Reality (First and Second reality are terms introduced to me by Voegelin--a search will give you a thread on that).
To preempt subversion, one must attempt to know First Reality. One may learn how contraband is produced, but the only way to really tell counterfeit from a dollar is by understanding the qualities of a dollar.
But with language there is no pure way. One must perceive that the general direction is toward rather than away.
In short, I suggest reading Eric Voegelin. (And he gets his stuff from Plato, who was acutely aware of the same) Plato then?
81 Posted on 01/01/2001 13:18:52
PST by
cornelis
[
Reply |
Private Reply |
To 80 |
Top |
Last ]
To: cornelis
. . . Eric Voegelin . . . Plato then?
Thank you for your thoughtful, painstakingly honest, and careful reply.
82 Posted on 01/01/2001 13:28:11
PST by
Kevin Curry
[
Reply |
Private Reply |
To 81 |
Top |
Last ]
To: jadimov
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.
These methods are tools. Tools can be used for moral and immoral purposes. You can wreck something with a screwdriver, or you can fix something. You can use a gun to commit a crime, or to defend life and property.
This is a very interesting thread. Kudos to the original poster.
83 Posted on 01/01/2001 14:23:33
PST by
Tony in Hawaii
[
Reply |
Private Reply |
To 44 |
Top |
Last ]
To: betty boop
To put it another way: Subjective consciousness itself operates as a limit on what can be known about the truth of reality. Subjectivity “deforms” the objective reality apprehended by means of sense perception. Heraclitus maintains that limit can be pushed back by the exercise of the “dry light” of pure reason; but seemingly, it cannot be evaded entirely. And, sooner or later, pure reason must engage “objects” that do not have their origin in the empirical world – the world of sense perception.
Hi Betty. Read your piece. Haven't read any Walter Pater, but if you've read any Hume you would recognize the same flux view of the world. Hume also says so much: "nature hides itself." And then what does he do? He tries to carve out a piece of reality that he can call certain, which is obvious and common and self-evident etc. etc. and then turns his blind eye to all the rest. This, to me, is the arrogance of man against the universe, when "subjectivity deforms objectivity," when the operations of the mind are the ultimate standard for what passes as legitimate, when those standards close out aspects that are real, and, in the end, retract into the self like a snail into a shell, never to see the light of day.
What is cloaked is precisely the spiritual reality that constitutes and lies behind all manifested phenomena
Yes, and so cloaked by a decisive retraction of the self to refuse evidence that falls outside of the selected and preferred domain of legitimate knowledge.
84 Posted on 01/01/2001 15:34:16
PST by
cornelis
[
Reply |
Private Reply |
To 71 |
Top |
Last ]
To: MHGinTN
we have absolutely no sensory input from the future of the temporal dimension, and none from the past, beyond the immediate impulses presented in a bubble of reality we define as *the present*
One must depend on memory and then trust the better judgement. Hume thought the predictions of science were just a matter of probability, and then said that truth should fall within what is most probable. This, of course, is only half a science. If probability were the end all they would never have discovered America. As if there are no singular events!
85 Posted on 01/01/2001 15:40:39
PST by
cornelis
[
Reply |
Private Reply |
To 72 |
Top |
Last ]
To: betty boop
Hi, Betty;I enjoyed reading what you just wrote, because that sums up exactly what I was thinking. Thank God, some things are immutable - even with the leftists present on earth.
86 Posted on 01/01/2001 18:44:33
PST by
Constitution1st
[
Reply |
Private Reply |
To 24 |
Top |
Last ]
To: cayman99
I don't think that Gramsci or any Socialist minions from other countries are a threat to us here. They've had their heyday, and it ended 10 years or so ago.
I can recall in College and graduate school reading a lot of his works. In fact, somewhere around here I've got a copy of his writings that he wrote while in prison in one of Mussolini's prisons. I recall that he wrote on toilet paper.
Mussolini should've shot him.
87 Posted on 01/01/2001 19:00:09
PST by
TKEman (Why worry about Gramsci?)
[
Reply |
Private Reply |
To 1 |
Top |
Last ]
To: TKEman
You better re-think your position,,Gramsci is the play book the Clinton left-winger operates with. They will be around until defeated....2004 you'll get another chance to defeat a Clinton. So far,they are 2 wins ,no losses.
88 Posted on 01/01/2001 19:51:00
PST by
cayman99
[
Reply |
Private Reply |
To 87 |
Top |
Last ]
To: cayman99
So far,they are 2 wins ,no losses. Look far enough back, and the klinton's have a few losses. But, damn, I sure could have used a few more carefree days, before having to think about what you wrote ... you've thrown a sour pickle into my otherwise blissful though temporary ignorance. I'll return the favor one of these days. LOL
89 Posted on 01/01/2001 21:59:39
PST by
MHGinTN
[
Reply |
Private Reply |
To 88 |
Top |
Last ]
To: cornelis; cc: Kenneth Curry, atheist_joe, Vade Retro
This, to me, is the arrogance of man against the universe, when "subjectivity deforms objectivity," when the operations of the mind are the ultimate standard for what passes as legitimate, when those standards close out aspects that are real, and, in the end, retract into the self like a snail into a shell, never to see the light of day.
Hello cornelis! And Happy New Year! I greatly admire your snail analogy. Heraclitus says somewhere (can't quote as my source isn't handy here at work, so must paraphrase from memory): Those who are "awake" have a logos one and common; but "the many" turn aside as if asleep, into their own little private worlds. There is a great intellectual temptation to sacrifice the Real in its fullest manifestation in order to secure some bogus sense of "certainty." One wonders how a great thinker like Hume could have achieved the insight he did into the dynamic flux of the natural world, and then proceed to "fix" the perceived phenomena and their relations as if these were so many specimins to be pinned down in a display case, like a butterfly collection....
People seem to prefer their little "certainties" -- even the "certainties" of false systems, such as Second Realities -- rather than deal with the dynamism and apparent complexity of the world as it actually is. "Reconstructors of Reality" like Hegel are engaged in a god-like process: To refashion the world as a purely human image, "aping" the original creation of God, who fashioned the Cosmos (according to the ancient Greeks) as an image of the Divine. The irony of all this is that such puny attempts to "transform nature" by making it subject to the operations of the human mind -- although absolutely doomed to failure from the get-go because Second Realities have no correspondence whatsoever with the true nature of things -- have been so socially effective, dreadfully effective, in our own time. The Gramscis and Hegels of this world are busily converting it into one vast insane asylum, and filling the cemeteries in the process....
On a more cheerful note -- your reply to Kenneth Curry at #81 above is simply outstanding, c! I especially appreciated your remarks WRT the abuses of rhetoric. We are living in an age of sophism, just like ancient Athens. And it is destroying our civilization (just as it destroyed Athens' in time).... Sorry, I'm actually feeling pretty cheerful today, though you'd probably not guess it from that last remark!!! :^)
warm regards, cornelis -- bb.
90 Posted on 01/02/2001 08:40:08
PST by
betty boop
[
Reply |
Private Reply |
To 84 |
Top |
Last ]
To: cayman99
Didn't Hitlery do a masters thesis on this guy at Welsley?? This is the thesis that she and the college will not release to the public. It is the blueprint of the Clinton administration.
91 Posted on 01/02/2001 08:49:21
PST by
A. Patriot (|| || ||| |||| || ||||
|| ||| ||||@slave.NWO.gov)
[
Reply |
Private Reply |
To 1 |
Top |
Last ]
To: beckett
Thank you, beckett, for the kind words. I'm really looking forward to After Virtue -- it should arrive today!!! Have a wonderful New Year, beckett! (And thanks so much for referring me to Alisdair MacIntyre.) best wishes, bb.
92 Posted on 01/02/2001 08:56:20
PST by
betty boop
[
Reply |
Private Reply |
To 78 |
Top |
Last ]
To: A. Patriot
Didn't Hitlery do a masters thesis on this guy at Welsley?? This is the thesis that she and the college will not release to the public. It is the blueprint of the Clinton administration.
I hadn't heard this before -- but it sure makes sense!
Any published source for that! Be really nice to have!
93 Posted on 01/02/2001 21:09:45
PST by
Ernest_at_the_Beach
[
Reply |
Private Reply |
To 91 |
Top |
Last ]
94 Posted on 01/02/2001 21:43:33
PST by
meta
[
Reply |
Private Reply |
To 93 |
Top |
Last ]
95 Posted on 01/03/2001 02:19:16
PST by
meta
[
Reply |
Private Reply |
To 93 |
Top |
Last ]
To: Ernest_at_the_Beach
This was published here on FR http://www.freerepublic.com/forum/a3883a222798a.htm
96 Posted on 01/03/2001 02:40:38
PST by
dixie sass
[
Reply |
Private Reply |
To 93 |
Top |
Last ]
To: cayman99
Wow! I just read the whole post and the excerpt from the newsletter and got the best education I've had for a while. What an insight into the Culture War which obviously is a lot more real and intentional than most conservatives seem to believe. Thanks for posting this, cayman99!
97 Posted on 01/03/2001 02:57:22
PST by
Singapore_Yank
[
Reply |
Private Reply |
To 1 |
Top |
Last ]
98 Posted on 01/06/2001 00:17:55
PST by
meta
[
Reply |
Private Reply |
To 95 |
Top |
Last ]
99 Posted on 01/06/2001 01:12:37
PST by
meta
[
Reply |
Private Reply |
To 95 |
Top |
Last ]
To: cayman99
|
Gramsci |
Henry From Eraserhead |
100 Posted on 01/06/2001 02:12:49
PST by
Cavalry
(deficit@usa.net)
[
Reply |
Private Reply |
To 1 |
Top |
Last ]
To: cayman99
bump
101 Posted on 01/06/2001 09:00:14
PST by
cayman99
[
Reply |
Private Reply |
To 1 |
Top |
Last ]
To: Cavalry
|
Gramsci |
Freddie Prinze Jr. |
Scan the faces in this order: lips, nose, eyebrows, hairline.
Ladies and germs, we've found our first documented communist vampire (pending results on that Hillary! bloodtest)
102 Posted on 01/13/2001 21:41:41
PST by
enixus
[
Reply |
Private Reply |
To 100 |
Top |
Last ]
To: enixus
YEP - time for a bumP!!
103 Posted on 01/14/2001 14:24:10
PST by
Ernest_at_the_Beach
[
Reply |
Private Reply |
To 102 |
Top |
Last ]
To: cayman99
bump!
Everyone ought to have this in their bookmarks!
Many people do!!
104 Posted on 01/14/2001 14:28:11
PST by
Ernest_at_the_Beach
[
Reply |
Private Reply |
To 101 |
Top |
Last ]
To: Ernest_at_the_Beach
BTTT!
105 Posted on 01/15/2001 00:06:35
PST by
Ernest_at_the_Beach
[
Reply |
Private Reply |
To 104 |
Top |
Last ]
To: Nick Danger
Gramsci is pronounced Gram shee/ Ciao,\Max
106 Posted on 01/15/2001 00:13:32
PST by
Askel5
[
Reply |
Private Reply |
To 46 |
Top |
Last ]
107 Posted on 01/15/2001 00:46:00
PST by
meta
[
Reply |
Private Reply |
To 81 |
Top |
Last ]
To: Askel5
Merci Beau-shoo.
108 Posted on 01/15/2001 06:31:51
PST by
Nick Danger
[
Reply |
Private Reply |
To 106 |
Top |
Last ]
To: Nick Danger ... lol ... thanks again, btw!!
109 Posted on 01/15/2001 08:08:48
PST by
Askel5
[
Reply |
Private Reply |
To 108 |
Top |
Last ]
To: Ditter
Gramisci. Emphasis on the second syllable. In Italian the "sci" is "shi".
(If "schi" it would be "ski". The "h" makes the "c" hard. "H" makes "g" hard, too. As in Ghiradelli.)
110 Posted on 01/16/2001 09:01:30
PST by
Havisham
[
Reply |
Private Reply |
To 14 |
Top |
Last ]
To: Havisham
Thanks for the note!
And a bump for the newbies!
111 Posted on 02/04/2001 12:08:04
PST by
Ernest_at_the_Beach
[
Reply |
Private Reply |
To 110 |
Top |
Last ]
To: Ernest_at_the_Beach
rebump
112 Posted on 02/10/2001 23:49:46
PST by
meta
[
Reply |
Private Reply |
To 111 |
Top |
Last ]
To: Ernest_at_the_Beach
bump
113 Posted on 02/11/2001 22:52:15
PST by
meta
[
Reply |
Private Reply |
To 111 |
Top |
Last ]
To: cayman99
"To use a Gramscian term, each one of us must become an "organic intellectual" of sorts, one that explains and convinces."
I think Sartre also uses the term "organic intellectual". It was a bust! In the late 60's in France students were encouraged to associate with factory workers, but were (obviously) never accepted. I think they even experimented with student (Marxist) intellectuals becoming e.g. waiters, but they never really fit in: they would stand and hold themselves differently than genuine workers. We definitely don't need some concept of "organic intellectuals"!
114 Posted on 03/03/2001 20:17:13
PST by
jshankles
[
Reply |
Private Reply |
To 1 |
Top |
Last ]
To: cayman99
The only reason academics are hot for Gramsci now (and for about the past decade) is that he's "exotic". (Notice the number of posts wondering how to pronounce his name!)
Marx and most of the German Marxists who were once considered "exotic" (like the Frankfurt School, Benjamin, etc.) are now pretty passe. The spotlight is now on Gramsci because - simply because he's Italian - he comes from a tradition far different than the traditional Marxists.
In discussing Gramsci's Italian intellectual heritage, many posters recognize his Machiavellian roots, but there were other Italian thinkers that influenced him as well. Unlike the German ones (like Weber and Hegel who - unlike a lot of the posters here - I believe are conservatives), all the Italian thinkers (e.g. Pareto and another guy whose name I've forgotten) emphasize the power of ELITES. If history is the "graveyard of elites", then elites are all that really matter, and hence the underlying nihilism of Gramsci's enterprise. I don't think he's anymore of a threat to American culture than spaghetti is. The Italy of the interwar period that influenced his thought (very impoverished, pretty backwards) is very different than modern America.
115 Posted on 03/03/2001 20:54:41
PST by
jshankles
[
Reply |
Private Reply |
To 1 |
Top |
Last ]
To: betty boop
"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."
You're right, of course. However, you can have subsections of "world" or "society" where the normal rules of existence are suspended. I think academia works a bit like this, hence thinkers like Marx will ALWAYS have a measure of acceptance, because academia and the logic of scholasticism suspends normal rules of practice. That is the "given order of things" in education.
116 Posted on 03/03/2001 21:00:38
PST by
jshankles
[
Reply |
Private Reply |
To 16 |
Top |
Last ]
To: jshankles
...you can have subsections of "world" or "society" where the normal rules of existence are suspended. I think academia works a bit like this, hence thinkers like Marx will ALWAYS have a measure of acceptance, because academia and the logic of scholasticism suspends normal rules of practice. That is the "given order of things" in education
Well said, jshankles. Still, you can't repeal the world just because you don't like the way it is. All you can do is separate your consciousness from any real engagement of it. This is the tiny problem that our friends in Academe usually overlook. Thanks for writing, bb.
117 Posted on 03/04/2001 11:21:20
PST by
betty boop
[
Reply |
Private Reply |
To 116 |
Top |
Last ]
To: betty boop, cornelis, jshankles
Thanks for all the posts. I like you guys/gals.
118 Posted on 03/04/2001 11:33:49
PST by
gjenkins
[
Reply |
Private Reply |
To 117 |
Top |
Last ]
To: cayman99
Another thread that deserves a resurrection...
BTTT!
119 Posted on 03/08/2001 12:38:01
PST by
freefly
[
Reply |
Private Reply |
To 1 |
Top |
Last ]
To: ScreamingFist,phenrykid
Here is another one you should read...
120 Posted on 03/08/2001 12:38:40
PST by
freefly
[
Reply |
Private Reply |
To 1 |
Top |
Last ]
To: freefly
time for a bump!!
121 Posted on 03/16/2001 11:00:35
PST by
Ernest_at_the_Beach
[
Reply |
Private Reply |
To 120 |
Top |
Last ]
To: Ernest_at_the_Beach
Right you are...
122 Posted on 03/16/2001 13:39:27
PST by
freefly
[
Reply |
Private Reply |
To 121 |
Top |
Last ]
To: FreeMom
BUMP for you (and your daughter's) attention.
123 Posted on 03/16/2001 13:41:19
PST by
freefly
[
Reply |
Private Reply |
To 121 |
Top |
Last ]
To: FreeMom
BUMP for you (and your daughter's) attention.
124 Posted on 03/16/2001 13:45:21
PST by
freefly
[
Reply |
Private Reply |
To 121 |
Top |
Last ]
To: FreeMom
BUMP for you (and your daughter's) attention.
125 Posted on 03/16/2001 13:45:27
PST by
freefly
[
Reply |
Private Reply |
To 121 |
Top |
Last ]
To: freefly;Betty Boop; all
Amazing to me the number of responses that take the position that Gramsci is irrevelent to our culture and its present state.
To my minds eye, Gramsci is all around us and his theories have been adopted, (silently) and put into action which has been increasingly escalating and its effects. Politics, education at every level. Revisionist history, political correctness, i. e. "1984".
I tend to bring things to simple posits; anything we learn, it is first the basics then adding flourishes and complexities ad infinitum. Name a field where that is not true. Cooking. Medicine. Science. Music. Philosophy. Politics. Communication in all its forms. I am not declaring the basics are not a bit atilt at times or often. Only that we learn in a step by step process. Adopting new hypothesis and discarding as we go. Where, what, who, when,why are the questions and we determine our answers in the beginning by surroundings and input. Sorry. Too simple. Not condenscending.
To question is very threatening in myraid ways.
Thanks to all the contributors in this interesting thread.
126 Posted on 03/25/2001 12:17:33
PST by
Countyline
[
Reply |
Private Reply |
To 125 |
Top |
Last ]
To: Countyline
"Amazing to me the number of responses that take the position that Gramsci is irrevelent to our culture and its present state."
Guilty as charged! The other Italian thinker who stressed the role of "elites" was Mosca (sp?), as well as Pareto and obviously Machiavelli.
127 Posted on 03/28/2001 18:17:12
PST by
jshankles
[
Reply |
Private Reply |
To 126 |
Top |
Last ]
To: jshankles
I'll be back for this one.
128 Posted on 03/28/2001 18:20:47
PST by
diotima
[
Reply |
Private Reply |
To 127 |
Top |
Last ]
To: mrustow
bump
129 Posted on 04/22/2001 19:04:54
PDT by
TLBSHOW
[
Reply |
Private Reply |
To 60 |
Top |
Last ]
To: TLBSHOW
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.
Thanks for the bump. It's good article,
excepting one point. If we are to imitate the Gramscians, and thus undermine
them, each one of us may not become an "organic intellectual" -- alone.
These guys work through groups -- cells, committees, you name it. Let an
individual start trying to convince people of what is wrong in society
without any comrades, and he will find himself out of a job, a profession,
and maybe his health, in short order. Imagine walking around a place like
New York City, as a lone intellectual. I believe the phrase is, "You can't
fight City Hall." I know; I fought City Hall ... and lost.
So, even if you're arguing
constitutionalism, you have to have buddies.
Another problem -- which makes imitating
these guys in the interest of a free society impossible -- is that LYING is
central to their m.o. What are we supposed to do, promise a life of
collectivist, socialust bliss, while secretly angling for a world of
individual rights and small government?
Understand Gramsci? Yes! Unmask his latter-day acolytes? Most definitely! Ape him? Not on your life!
130 Posted on 04/23/2001 01:26:09
PDT by
mrustow
[
Reply |
Private Reply |
To 129 |
Top |
Last ]
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.
[
Top |
Latest Posts |
Latest Articles |
Self Search |
Add Bookmark |
Post |
Abuse |
Help! ]
|
|
|
