Gramsci spoke of organizations including churches, charities, the media, schools, universities and “economic corporate” power as organizations that needed to be invaded by socialist thinkers.
The new dictatorship of the proletariat in the West, according to Gramsci, could only arise out of an active consensus of the working masses—led by those critical civil society organizations generating an ideological hegemony.
As Gramsci described it, hegemony means “cultural, moral and ideological” leadership over allied and subordinate groups. The intellectuals, once ensconced, should attain leadership roles over these groups’ members by consent. They would achieve direction over the movement by persuasion rather than domination or coercion.
The goal of the war of position is to shape a new collective will of the masses in order to weaken the defenses that civil society provides to the current capitalist state.
Gramsci further emphasized the role of a political party to assume leadership and philosophical direction of all these civil society alliances. Additionally, and critically, one of the main goals of the party would be to place foot soldiers in the revolutionary war of position in actual state institutions, as well, such as legal institutions, police, councils, and influential bureaucracies. There needs to be established a foundation of socialists upon which to run the apparatus of the state once its overthrow was complete, Gramsci argued.
Ehrhardt looks at Gramsci through a 21st-century lens.
The dominant class is now the statist apparatus and it depends largely on academics to provide the intellectual justification for its rule. He writes, “The 70s ended a long time ago, but Gramsci’s heirs today dominate college faculties, social media, and newsrooms. In short, progressives now control cultural discourse. No matter how much academics cling to their fantasy that they are ’speaking truth to power,’ the counter-culture isn’t ‘counter’ anymore — it’s the status quo.”
Their key contribution is to help make any opposition to “progressive” dominance intellectually disreputable. Anyone who dares to make an argument against our governmental leviathan is apt to receive a barrage of ad hominen, motive-impugning replies. Ehrhardt gives this personal example: “A colleague of mine once told me that those (like me) who applauded Justice Scalia’s jurisprudence did so because we want a return to the racial politics of the 1780s.” Indeed. Defend limited government and you’re called a racist. The leftists aren’t interested in debate, but just in maintaining power.
Ehrhardt concludes optimistically, saying that the leftist hegemonists are so frantic over the election of Trump because he threatens their hold on power
Oh look, it’s Pete Buttigieg’s father’s idol.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Joseph_Buttigieg
Yes. Buttigieg The Elder was from Malta, ardently devoted to Gramsci, his most significant translator to English
Alarming, isn't it?
Gramsci has always been an influence on the cadre that did the Long March Thru The Institutions.
They were patient, methodical,cseized opportunities.
They're not hiding anything now
https://fee.org/articles/antonio-gramsci-the-godfather-of-cultural-marxism//amp?gclid=EAIaIQobChMI2e2IntiB6gIVS4FaBR3eqQyGEAAYASAAEgIbvvD_BwE
https://www.nationalreview.com/corner/academic-marxism-martin-center-article/
Yep. The Socialists hate Christianity for the exact same reason that the Communists hated the Nazis: they're the exact same religion.
But only one can have the Power.
Looking for a good Mussolini quote, can anyone help me out.
Here's a piece about how Fascism, Socialism and the New Deal all echo the same principles
https://www.nationalreview.com/corner/benito-mussolini-quote-misinterpretations/
What all totalitarians despise, including our present Young Emocrats, is that singularly American trait, individualism
https://www.forbes.com/sites/jimpowell/2012/02/22/the-economic-leadership-secrets-of-benito-mussolini/
Italian?..... Jewish
No. Italian and Albanian