Gramsci in 21st century

>>127422533
He'd get back into his tricks again. Jewkikes always be whilin. Kew Za White Man! Kew Kew!

shameless bump

One might think he would recognize and denounce academic/corporate hegemony over culture and thought, but publicly he would support the system as it is because deep down he'd believe it leads to the eventual erosion of bourgeois western society. He's only opposed to ideological control over the masses if it takes the form of assertive self-interest, capitalism, traditionalism, family-orientedness, etc. He'd be perfectly fine with ideological control if the power was held by marxists.

In a nutshell he'd approve of the chaos. He wouldn't support rabid feminism, trans nonsense, sjw nonsense, etc but he wouldn't publicly denounce it either.

File: chart.png (17KB, 480x400px) Image search: [Google]

17KB, 480x400px

>>127422533
>posting on /pol/ about useful marxist intellectuals
Shiggy diggy. The average pollack doesn't even understand the concept of cultural hegemony and how to subvert it.

>>127422533
Gramsci would be proud. The leftists used his exact method of praxis, that being the long march through the institutions, to shift the cultural hegemony into one that is hostile to capitalism and supportive of communism.

Of course he, like all leftists, would not be fully satisfied. He would say something along the lines of, "comrades we should take a day to celebrate all our great achievements. We have come a long way. But never forget that there is still farther to go. Tomorrow we must redouble our efforts to abolish capitalism and bring about our global worker's paradise."

>>127424547
>He wouldn't support rabid feminism, trans nonsense, sjw nonsense, etc but he wouldn't publicly denounce it either.
I don't think so. I think he would be supportive of it. He would say that those are useful idiots that are helpful as the leninist revolutionary van, able to be activated and make the final push to collapse the capitalist state. After the revolution, of course, those are the first people with their backs against the wall. But for this phase of transition they are necessary for his cause.

>>127424678
Who cares about averages so long as there are some individuals who do understand? Those are the ones you want to have a conversation with anyway, aren't they Hans? So go on then, tell me of your deep insight into ideological subversion of cultural hegemony. What do you, as a learned person who understands these concepts, think Gramsci would say of our current geopolitical status quo?

File: 39479fa02faa5e4cef2b1da378b16248cc2d127607a4b69081043892f349b2d0.jpg (16KB, 421x399px) Image search: [Google]

16KB, 421x399px

Marxist here.

Gramsci is a shit.

That's all you need to know.

>>127422533
Ive read some interview with one professor who was a student of Horkheimer and some other Frankfurters. The guy basically said that looking and the situation today, the original Frankfurters never imagined such massive destruction of culture and that they were into such extreme measures as seen today. They probably thought the west will crumble to communism much sooner. After all they want to destabilise a country and install communism. Not have a country perpetually falling into endless spiral of shit with corporate power growing every day.

File: oIbvnYWT8Aw.jpg (39KB, 579x521px) Image search: [Google]

39KB, 579x521px

>>127422533

He would be blamed by (((neoliberal leftishes))) by muh radicalism, so as he would be blamed by (((cuckservativs))) as unpatriotic blah-blah-blah

Look at libtards reaction when it is REAL left politicians like Chavez, Duterte, Un, Assad or Ghaddafi, muh radicalism blah-blah, fucking neoliberal society of white collars, they should die or it would be shit

>>127425193
Why?

File: BoB11nSIMAA0S4S.jpg (24KB, 600x450px) Image search: [Google]

24KB, 600x450px

>>127425222

Literally this, modern degenerate culture is Reagan`s child not frankfurters, neither Gramsci nor Lukács

File: hissmile2.jpg (68KB, 848x848px) Image search: [Google]

68KB, 848x848px

>>127424953
I don't think that Gramsci would necessarily be pleased given that what we have now is social liberalism instead of social collectivism. I could see him argue that identity politics as a form of cultural hegemony subverts the revolutionary impetus of the proletariat.

The whole problem stems from the development since 1968. Capitalism reabsorbed the discourse of the Frankfurt school and the student revolutionaries and repurposed their ideology as "social liberalism", so as to not conflict with market economics.

This of course led to the alienation of leftists and their traditional voting base, the working class and the unemployed, thereby furthering the exploitation of these classes.

As for the way to overcome this, rightwing populism in European politics can only be a short-term solution as it is highly volatile and dependent on crisis situations to effectively change society. What we need is indeed a long counter-march through the liberal institutions. For Germany the basis for this networking lies within the current rightwing populist parties and national conservative student fraternities (Burschenschaften). Furthermore transnational cooperation with more conservative European societies is needed. Here I am especially thinking of Poland and Hungary.

And just to prove that I put my money where my mouth is I'll tell you that I am currently a government employee in charge of organizing political education events. That is the ideal environment for small and subtle redpills.

>>127425222
>professor who was a student of Horkheimer
Well no shit. That's what someone like that *would* say. But you must remember they always speak out of both sides of their mouths. They would like the current state of affairs as a matter of course.

>>127425743
>what we have now is social liberalism instead of social collectivism.
I don't know that I agree with you.
>>127425743
>I could see him argue that identity politics as a form of cultural hegemony subverts the revolutionary impetus of the proletariat.
But Gramsci was not a cultural marxist. He was an actual marxist. He wasn't of the sort that thought one must exacerbate the pain of the proletariat in order to force them into revolution. He believed it was essentially inevitable, although his first hand experience taught him that marxist praxis was impossible as Marx envisioned it.

>Capitalism reabsorbed the discourse of the Frankfurt school
I think the Frankfurt School itself is the exact opposite. The Frankfurt School philosophers abandoned the economic side of marxist theory because they did not believe it worked. They reabsorbed capitalism, in a sense. Not the other way around.

>This of course led to the alienation of leftists and their traditional voting base, the working class and the unemployed, thereby furthering the exploitation of these classes.
Well, yes, that's the main idea of cultural marxism. They believed that the lumpenproles were blinded by the fruits of capitalism, and so would never start the revolution. However, they looked to other traditionally marginalized groups that they could activate as useful idiots instead, specifically racial minorities since you could give them as much material wealth as you want, but their grievances will never be appeased.

>it is highly volatile and dependent on crisis situations to effectively change society.
I think the current rise in right wing populism is a coopting of leftist politics that have been used effectively since the 1960s. So it is not so much that right wing populism is dependent on crises, but that left wing advancement has been for a long time and it has worked. All the rightists are doing is mimicking and synthesizing what their enemies have been doing for decades.

>>127422533
>Would he just chimpout
Why when he and the Frankfurt school are responsible for this?

>>127427801
Nevermind he would probably hate the neoliberals and socdemocrats.

>>127425743
>>127427595
>What we need is indeed a long counter-march through the liberal institutions
I agree entirely. However the necessary consequence is that meaningful right wing success cannot occur for a generation at least, and possibly will take longer than that. That's a big problem because it does not take into account the speed with which politics changes in the internet era, which Alinsky, Gramsci, et al. could never have anticipated. We cannot simply mimick their techniques. We must form a Hegelian synthesis with them.
>>127425743
>For Germany the basis for this networking lies within
If you say so, but I have long ago lost hope for Deutschland. In another generation the muslims will be the majority, and then any efforts you have made will be no use. Even if you are not outnumbered, you will not be able to expel the invaders. To say nothing of the number of (((Germans))) who welcome them and insist YOU are to blame for muslim attacks.

>Furthermore transnational cooperation with more conservative European societies is needed.
Some time ago I had the idea to form a group of American young men (especially military veterans) to move to Germany in support of your political right. Of course I did not go through with it, because it would be taken as an example to further demonize PEGIDA and similar groups by calling them foreign and American influenced. They've got you in a catch-22 on that one. If you rely on Germany alone, there are too many leftists who call everything racist and Nazi. If you go abroad, then you are globalist and anti-German.

>small and subtle redpills.
The time for small and subtle passed when you reunified the GDR and brought in millions of no shit marxists.

>>127427595
>But Gramsci was not a cultural marxist. He was an actual marxist. He wasn't of the sort that thought one must exacerbate the pain of the proletariat in order to force them into revolution. He believed it was essentially inevitable, although his first hand experience taught him that marxist praxis was impossible as Marx envisioned it.
Maybe he wasn't. But he correctly identified cultural hegemony as something that could undermine class struggle.

>I think the Frankfurt School itself is the exact opposite. The Frankfurt School philosophers abandoned the economic side of marxist theory because they did not believe it worked. They reabsorbed capitalism, in a sense. Not the other way around.
I disagree. The Frankfurt school is hardly relevant in any social context. Its last survivor, Habermas, is merely a milquetoast liberal nowadays. The Frankfurters gave up economics and integrated themselves into mainstream social liberal thought. The political force most at ease with their surviving ideology are the contemporary Green parties in Europe.

> However, they looked to other traditionally marginalized groups that they could activate as useful idiots instead, specifically racial minorities since you could give them as much material wealth as you want, but their grievances will never be appeased.
Plus these groups lack any collective impetus because they are necessarily minoritarians.

>I think the current rise in right wing populism is a coopting of leftist politics that have been used effectively since the 1960s. So it is not so much that right wing populism is dependent on crises, but that left wing advancement has been for a long time and it has worked. All the rightists are doing is mimicking and synthesizing what their enemies have been doing for decades.
Agreed. And I'd argue this is good.

>>127427987
Well, my perspective is national, so I have to work with what I'm given. Transnational cooperation must come in the form of ideological cooperation.

>>127425497
Kek is this picture real?

>>127425743
Good job lad, one of the few things we can do is infiltrate organisations and nudge them in a direction that suits our cause.

File: how_it_happened.jpg (967KB, 4621x2914px) Image search: [Google]

967KB, 4621x2914px

>>127424866
>He would say that those are useful idiots that are helpful as the leninist revolutionary van, able to be activated and make the final push to collapse the capitalist state.
That's leftism 101
The rub is that the commies are useful idiots themselves and don't realize their strings are being pulled by the secular globalist jews

File: apparently.png (498KB, 614x723px) Image search: [Google]

498KB, 614x723px

>>127428381
Apparently, it is. Zizek knows that the contemporary left is fucked up. That's why he is an accelerationist. He almost said he'd vote for Trump if he could so as to fuck America up even further, thereby increasing class struggle.

>>127428775
Zizek is extremely funny especially when he drops bombs like "Gandhi is more violent than Hitler" and gets banned from liberal newspapers.
https://youtu.be/bwDrHqNZ9lo

>>127422533
He's a cuck so he'd probably like it.

>>127429078
Hes right considering Hitler wouldnt have the balls to do what Gandhi does , and the fact that Gandhi was a hands on guy, rather then a leader who had left his violent life behind and become a beurocrat

>>127428283
>Maybe he wasn't. But he correctly identified cultural hegemony as something that could undermine class struggle.
Well he literally invented the notion of cultural hegemony, so that's hardly a point in his favor. His pet peeve was the thing that he was peeved about? I am just shocked. Shocked, I say!

>The Frankfurt school is hardly relevant in any social context.
Yes, this is the common argument from the political left. The problem is not that the Frankfurt School is influential on modern society per se. The problem is that they influenced successive generations of leftist thought, which themselves evolved somewhat, until they eventually wound up with what we have today. On top of this, there is the influence of the Soviet KGB in subverting Western societies by exploiting a version of marxism that was acceptable to Western people. They understood that Russian Leninism was strongly opposed, so they used a somewhat more native form of communism to spread demoralization.

>The political force most at ease with their surviving ideology are the contemporary Green parties in Europe.
I don't know anything about European Greens. My understanding is that they're something like the gun lobby in Germany: they have one niche issue that has some form of support, but most everyone else thinks they're nuts.

>Plus these groups lack any collective impetus because they are necessarily minoritarians.
Yes, I quite agree. The focus on minorities was both the success and the failure of the cultural marxists. They were able to activate specifically blacks based on race hatred, but their ideology failed to metastasize to the rest of the population because they weren't black.

>Agreed. And I'd argue this is good.
Yes, it certainly seems that way. Until you realize that it took sixty years for the left to use those tactics to get to where we are today. If you want to play a long game, well I suppose you can do that. But you're racing the clock of demographic replacement.

>>127428283
>Well, my perspective is national, so I have to work with what I'm given.
Playing by the rules is why you're losing the game.

>>127428712
At our level of engagement, does it matter? Will it unbash those bike lock attack victims?

>>127425497
>Soviet flag
>"Your leaders are your true enemies"
>propaganda photo
It all czecks out.

>>127430332
...Hitler literally fought in the most devastating war in human history. Ghandi let himself get caned by some British soldiers so they would look cruel. Later, he made a habit of sleeping naked with underage girls and """"allegedly"""" not having sex with him. Because of religion, you understand.

You really think Gandhi was a harder motherfucker than Hitler?

>>127429975
>Gramsci is a cuck

Didn't the guy go to prison just so that he could prove his point about the bourgeoisie?

>>127425193
>Marxist here
>Sweden

Kill yourself pls

File: eternal jew 8.png (200KB, 396x408px) Image search: [Google]

200KB, 396x408px

>>127425193
>marxist
>sweden
>weebshit faggot

It's like pottery

>>127432275
Hilter "fought", you mean his men did? And then he blamed them for losing too? Of course gandhi was more refined in Every way. Hitler was even less of a man then Che, both murderers but Atleast one fought in the front lines aswell as being a leader

Hitler was once a man in ww1, but became a faggot in ww2

>>127435205
>Hitler became a faggot in WW2

Hitler is the reason national socialism because as big of a thing as it was, how is that being a faggot?

>>127435205
Hitler was a very low rank in his war. What men do you suppose he had? He was shelled, gassed, and shot at. What did Gandhi face? Mean insults and a bit of corporal punishment that didn't last.