| red_rebel2 Posted on 4/1 15:31 | |
| Trotsky or Gramsci? | |
When it comes to building a revolutionary working class vanguard with an accessible analysis of capitalist society that is accessible, flexible and fit for purpose? | |
| The_Lizards_Jumpers Posted on 4/1 15:32 | |
| re: Trotsky or Gramsci? | |
Barry Chuckle. | |
| the_broken_fridge Posted on 4/1 15:34 | |
| re: Trotsky or Gramsci? | |
John Major for me. | |
| Revol_Tees Posted on 4/1 16:02 | |
| re: Trotsky or Gramsci? | |
I learned pretty much all I know about Marxism from Gramsci and his acolytes; by contrast, Trotskyism is still largely unfamiliar territory to me. No wonder I don't feel comfortable haning around with the CWI. Peter Taaffe's just written a book, 'Marxism in Today's World' where he talks about the official Party position on everything from the environment to the Middle East and race/gender issues, all from a supposedly Trotskyist position. It's very interesting, but also quite iffy in parts. r_r, did you ever used to read Marxism Today back in the late 70s/80s? I've heard a lot about, so I'm delighted to have discovered that the entire back catalogue is now online (see below). Personally I find that stuff far more interesting that anything that comes out of the Socialist Party. Two excellent articles sum up the difference, both by Stuart Hall: "The Great Turning Right Show" (January 1979) and "Gramsci and Us" (June 1987). Far, far better than any theoretical explanation for Thatcherism that Taaffe could come up with IMO. | |
| Link: Marxism Today | |
| papa_smog Posted on 4/1 16:57 | |
| re: Trotsky or Gramsci? | |
Idealism's the way forward for me. Peppered with a smattering of Champagne socialism and Bob's jahr uncle. | |
| UndercoverElephant Posted on 4/1 17:02 | |
| re: Trotsky or Gramsci? | |
I love the thought of Stuart Hall discussing Marxism, bursting into laughter every time someone in a Trotsky suit falls into a bath of cream. | |
| red_rebel2 Posted on 4/1 17:15 | |
| re: Trotsky or Gramsci? | |
revol: If you come from a Gramscian background you will find what is essentially a sectarian organisation stifling. Wait until you raise questions that can't be easily answered and get invited to discuss them with the regional full-timers. Just for 'clarification' you understand. I was involved on the periphery of the whole Marxism Today Gramscian explosion. I was just new to academia then but had some polemical dialogue with Hall, Hobsbawm and Mason over the direction of what was to become New Labour. I went charging in with a fiery orthadox Trotskyist perspective and to be honest they made mincemeat of me, but in a kindly uncle way that gave me great encouragement. For a couple of years Marxism Today was massively important because it allowed the old Marxist intellectual establishment to ease themselves away from Stalinism, the USSR and various degrees of support for the Soviet experiment. There was some fantastic, innovative writing and thinking too. | |
| onthemap Posted on 4/1 18:45 | |
| re: Trotsky or Gramsci? | |
Neither, Albert Camus. | |
| The_Commisar Posted on 4/1 19:40 | |
| re: Trotsky or Gramsci? | |
sorry, I'm a Garibaldi bloke, unless theres hobnobs on offer. | |
| bungydinsdale Posted on 4/1 21:00 | |
| re: Trotsky or Gramsci? | |
Gramsci is a great band, but I don't think I've heard Trotsky. What are they like??? | |
| Trotsky4u Posted on 4/1 21:07 | |
| re: Trotsky or Gramsci? | |
As an ex-Militant member Trotsky for me, no surprises there then... | |
| Revol_Tees Posted on 4/1 22:06 | |
| re: Trotsky or Gramsci? | |
Thanks for that info, rebel. The book by Taaffe that I mentioned is quite an interesting read. The whole thing is 120 pages long and takes the form of an interview with Taaffe by some Italian activists who want to know more about Trotskyism, Militant and the CWI. I get the overwhelming impression that their heart is in the right place, but intellectually it's still 1970. Having said that, their views on a number of issues (eg terrorism) are a refreshing change from some of what I hear from the SWP. One of the things I noticed was that Taaffe and co. tend to talk about "consciousness" quite a lot, in a very ambiguous way. We just need to re-awaken everybody's sense of class consciousness and everything will be fine. But we can't give too much support to unpopular causes like women's rights and immigrant rights because these issues haven't yet figured in the consciousness of the working class. At one point in the book he criticises the American SWP for "emphasising the question of gays, women and racism, while not giving sufficient emphasis to work in the trade unions and the working class as a whole." What kind of an approach is that? That's when it occurred to me that Hall's more refined cocktail of feminist/postmodern/Gramscian/Althusserian Marxism might not be welcomed with open arms in these circles... You might disagree, but I honestly don't think it's possible to overemphasise the importance of race/gender/sexuality, and we should be pointing to the way they're constructed and contested within cultural frameworks determined (ultimately) by the capitalist system. That's how you win people to the ideas of socialism. It's as if Taaffe wants people to renounce aspects of their identity that don't fall into his old-fashioned idea of a fixed, immutable, hyper-masculine class identity which renders everything else irrelevant. He doesn't seem to have fully grasped that the changes in the economy in the last quarter-century have changed not only the way people view themselves but also (as a consequence) the way people mobilise. This is heavy shhit. Sorry to ramble, I'll take it elsewhere - I've decided to write this into a blog entry. --- Post edited by Revol_Tees on 4/1 22:19 --- | |
| red_rebel2 Posted on 4/1 23:57 | |
| re: Trotsky or Gramsci? | |
Revol: Militant were notorious on the left for their puritan stance on homosexuality. Not that they were against it, just that they didn't recognise it as an issue. Likewise feminism. And drugs. And rock and roll. And football. Christ I had some vitriolic arguments about football. They saw everything that wasn't directly related to the individual's relation to capital as a bourgoise diversion. The problem with Trotskyist groups is not the Trotskyism. That is a lively and comprehensive engaging methodology that remains a valid analysis of the Soviet Union, of capitalism and imperialism and of the role of revolutionaries in advanced socities. The problem with Trotskyist groups is that they are enmeshed in the notion of the revolutionary vanguard party and see it as the ONLY route for the working class to political consciousness. In fact working class movements are almost always spontaneous. They arise out of strikes, out of starvation, out of war, out of reaction to taxation, oppression and poverty. They do not arise out of a withering critique of the Pabloite heresy within the Fourth International. They do not arise out of a small intellectual elite group galvanising the masses with rhetoric. That means revolutionary groups tend to miss moments of genuine potential in which millions of people become suddenly open to politics. They are always trailing the masses rather than being part of the leadership. The SWP organised Rock Against Racism and the ANL but really have a clue how to engage with the 100,000 punks and skins and rowdy working class youth who joined. The idea that the party alone is the conduit to revolution and anything else falls short, or is tainted, or represents false consciousness is an abslutist position that reminds me of the catholic church where only the priest can interpret the dialectic. In fact socialism should be more like the radical movement where everyman is encouraged to be his own priest. At the root of this is the systematic abuse of the Marxist method. Marxism is a living intellectual tool, not just of economics but of socio-political relations, culture and history. It is the most exciting and vibrant philosophy of the modern age but it has been bastardised and turned into a staid form of monolithic mysticism by the sects. The vanguardists of every stripe start from this assumption: Marxism 'is' scientific socialism. Science presupposes there is a 'right' answer. The revolutionary party represents he highest political consciousness of the working class. The party embodies scientific socialism. Therefore the party has the right answer. That is why revolutionary parties are prone to splits, because even a subtle difference over tactics or strategy let alone philosophy implies that the party leadership is wrong. If you oppose the party leadership, which by definition embodies highest consciousness, then you are anti-science and anti-socialist and must be driven from the workers movement. This dialectical mysticism is mechanistic, absolutist and elitist beyond belief. As a political method it is madness. And it is completely undialectical. Marxism revolves around the notion of contradiction, a unity of opposites and the tension between form and content. That matter, thought and society are in constant flux. Yet these 'revolutionaries' have devised rigid systems of thought and organisation. Continues in similar vein for several dozen more pages... Revol, my old yahoo account has expired so I have lost your e-mail and blog address. can you give me them again at red_rebel_2 at yahoo? | |
| Spartakus Posted on 5/1 0:08 | |
| re: Trotsky or Gramsci? | |
Weren't the Marxism Today crowd too enthralled by 'Thatcherism' to actually fight it though. A 'Trotskyist' organisation with a healthy Anarchist section could be the way forward. But then look what Trotsky did to the Konstadt sailors. | |
| zaphod Posted on 5/1 5:29 | |
| re: Trotsky or Gramsci? | |
You'd be better off discussing strategies for Whitby Town to win the Premiership. | |
| Huan_Kerr Posted on 5/1 7:25 | |
| re: Trotsky or Gramsci? | |
Marxism Trotskyism Socialism Gramsci Lenin Stalin Communism? None work. The disciples are as relevant today as the Star Trek fan club. Try a dose of realism and relax. | |
| red_rebel2 Posted on 5/1 7:51 | |
| re: Trotsky or Gramsci? | |
What's more realistic than the nuts and bolts of the global economy? | |
| joseph99 Posted on 5/1 7:53 | |
| re: Trotsky or Gramsci? | |
Some people never quite graduate from University. | |
| Huan_Kerr Posted on 5/1 8:00 | |
| re: Trotsky or Gramsci? | |
Capitalism runs the global economy. Even the Chinese have cottoned on. Is there currently a successful socialist state? Has there ever been one? The vision of every man being equal is nice but never has and never will be practical. The bigger and brighter, as a rule, will always be richer than than smaller and dimmer. | |
| red_rebel2 Posted on 5/1 8:27 | |
| re: Trotsky or Gramsci? | |
Ah yes, 'grow up', shut up and learn to be a hypocrite. Abandon principle, ethics and morality. Never mind the quality, feel the width. Revel in the consumer products but shusssh, don't ask why they are so cheap. Blind yourself to the illiterate teenagers chained to a machine 16 hours a day in "special economic zones" and policed by brutal regimes in our corporations' pay. Capitalism isn't working. It is the global system - but two thirds of the world live in poverty and starvation, illiteracy and disease. Just so we can have cheap jeans and trainers. | |
| towz Posted on 5/1 8:42 | |
| re: Trotsky or Gramsci? | |
Ignorance is bliss eh? | |
| Huan_Kerr Posted on 5/1 8:50 | |
| re: Trotsky or Gramsci? | |
The bigger and brighter, as a rule, will always be richer than the smaller and dimmer. That explains why people struggle to make a living and are exploited elsewhere. Thats the nature of the beast. Cheap jeans and trainer are pretty poor example. Try good housing, healthcare and education. The richer nations generally have had the better natural resources. Those resources have been managed with a combination of government and business and dressed up with a dose of pretend democracy and used to subjigate and bully the poor nations. "Ah yes, 'grow up', shut up and learn to be a hypocrite." I hope that wasnt aimed at me. I have no problem with your socilaist hobby in the same way that I have no problem with a kid that glues airfix planes. If you want to do something about kids rummaging through rubbish in Brazil for 16 hours a day or 12 year olds being worked to death in the garment slums of Calcutta get on with it and well done. But Brother, coming from a Gramscian background never fed anyone. Stalin, Lenin, Pol Pot. To a simpleton like me thats the lesson learned. | |
| papa_smog Posted on 5/1 8:50 | |
| re: Trotsky or Gramsci? | |
You can have your beliefs and most realise globalisation has it's downsides. But if any confangled idea worked it would be dominant. Therefore they are idealistic and only really work in a textbook. And are promoted by champagne socialists in the main. | |
| red_rebel2 Posted on 5/1 9:08 | |
| re: Trotsky or Gramsci? | |
The rich nations aren't richer because they are brighter or have the best culture or sytem of government. It is because they bigger guns and a greater willingness to use them. | |
| towz Posted on 5/1 9:13 | |
| re: Trotsky or Gramsci? | |
Huan_Kerr, your username is very apt. | |
| zaphod Posted on 5/1 9:22 | |
| re: Trotsky or Gramsci? | |
It's all very well moaning about two-thirds of the world living in poverty, but 200 years ago, when capitalism was in its infancy, 95%+ lived in poverty. Nowadays, abject poverty is mostly confined to countries which have only embraced capitalism fairly recently. Established capitalist countries don't have high rates of poverty. What I find incredibly frustrating about threads like this is that people like red_rebel are intelligent, thoughtful, well-meaning and committed, but are wasting all their gifts and energies pursuing a fantasy. Fringe leftist groups are ignored by politicians and voters alike, so even if they have a good idea, it will not be adopted. I think it's true that the Monster Raving Loony Party has seen more of its policies adopted than the fringe leftist groups. Politics is the art of the possible, so please guys, try to achieve what's possible through effective organs and forget about the fantasies. All well-intentioned people have to recognise that a better future is built a brick at a time. It's not a cop-out to be pragmatic and do a little good, rather than dreaming the impossible dream. | |
| Huan_Kerr Posted on 5/1 9:30 | |
| re: Trotsky or Gramsci? | |
Towz of course it is. And thats never been said before by the way.  But if you'd like to add anything with a bit more weight to it?Rebel, so you agree with the 'bigger' picture. It must be co-incidence then that the countrys that have had the greatest natural resources are richer. Is there or has there ever been a successful Socialist state? | |
| red_rebel2 Posted on 5/1 9:38 | |
| re: Trotsky or Gramsci? | |
Zaphod: That is exactly right. If you read the posts above you will see that both Revol and myself - both sincere committed socialists - are saying exactly that: however 'good' the idea, the structure and methodology of vanguard revolutionary groups is flawed. That is why Gramsci is important on the 'new' left. We live in a complex world where capital binds people to it by not just economic ties but also cultural, ideological ones, through crown, church, nation and even race. The battle needs to be fought on dozens of layers, dozens of fronts and at dozens of different points of conflict with capital simultaneously rather than an all out frontal assault by highly trained Leninists. The Gramscian project that started in the 80s here (and in the 60s in most of Europe) has seen the focus shifted from trade union activity to all aspects of civil society, local government, the media, academia and NGOs. Little steps, small victories, gradually moving the bar higher on social housing, inclusion, race and gender, employment law challenging the dominant ideology in a thousand ways. It is a low intensity war of manoevere. We recognise that at times there will still be all out conflict, strikes, popular movements but that generally the economic front has now been exported and globalised. Here in the developed world we have grown fat on comfort and there won't be Soviets until the system is in severe crisis - but that crisis will come about because of the internal contradictions of capital, not because we organise a general strike. The bottom line is that although the revolutionary left groups are dwindling the progressive coalition is stronger than ever, if dissapated. We have not gone away you know. | |
| Link: Marxism: "Not dead" | |
| zaphod Posted on 5/1 10:29 | |
| re: Trotsky or Gramsci? | |
But, red_rebel, you're not challenging the dominant ideology. You're saying you're doing what everybody wants to do, including most Tories, which is to tweak the system to improve it and to reduce the impact of the drawbacks of the existing system. It sounds like your Gramscian vision is just a way to believe you're still Marxists, despite behaving like Social Democrats, but I still think you can't achieve anything if you call yourself by such extremist names. The internal contradictions in capitalism have been handled and softened pretty well over the past 100 odd years, though at the time Marx was writing, social conditions and abuse of the ordinary working man were so appalling that they seemed too great to be dealt with by incremental change. There are countries where those conditions still prevail to some extent, but not the UK. | |
| red_rebel2 Posted on 5/1 12:25 | |
| re: Trotsky or Gramsci? | |
Zaphod: There is something in what you say about Gramscism being used as a mask for accomodation to capital. Certainly a lot of the big hitters in the old CP used it as an escape pod from Stalinism to reposition themselves in new labour. Several are now MPs. But in essence it is not about reformism. It is about building coalitions that are cultural as well as economic in character and about recognising different people and organisations entering a struggle against the system for different reasons, at different times and with a different consciousness and devising forms of revolutionary activity that can intervene in them all. It is an important change in ideology and methodiology because it does not start from a demand that would-be dissenters fillin a 100 page questionaire to decide if they really are revolutionary enough to support or escalating every wage strike for a penny an hour into a demand that the TUC organise a general strike. It allows people to operate as revolutionaries within organisations or movemnets that are not in essence revolutionary, to get involved in smaller struggles over bus routes being scrapped, the pension short-fall or the crisis in the NHS. You coudl argue that they are reformist strategies - and in form they are - but in content they can be also revolutionary in two ways. Firstly you can fight for popular political demands raise questions about capital's ability to deliver (save the NHS, index linked pensions for all, nationalise public transport) and so move the people involved onto a higher level of consciousness. And secondly socilaist can be seen to be involved in real struggles, getting their hands dirty, and not demanding other people "join the party". There is no short term opportunism. Instead there is a long term project of first being present at every area of main-stream extra-Parliamentary political life and second helping shape the context and language of the debate. The point is not just to have little victories and squeeze concessions. It is to build layers of activists, networks of small campaigns of every shade of red (and green) that have learned how to organise politically and how to win. It is laying the building blocks of a new consciousness and fighting back in a society that has moved beyond the simplicity of unions activity. In some ways it is new fangled Gramscian hegemonic struggle. In other ways it is just a return to the pre-Labour work of the early socialists who set up workers libraries, co-ops, welfare institutes and later their own parties. | |
| onthemap Posted on 5/1 12:36 | |
| re: Trotsky or Gramsci? | |
Huan Kerr "It must be co-incidence then that the countrys that have had the greatest natural resources are richer". South Africa has the "greatest natural resouces" so I'd say that exploitation has something to do with the current balance of riches. | |
| littlejimmy Posted on 5/1 12:40 | |
| re: Trotsky or Gramsci? | |
towz - the expression you're looking for is "Ignorance is Strength", I think. zaphod - things may have improved for many in the last 100 years, but that doesn't mean we shouldn't want to make further improvements. And I would question your assertion, or at least implication that abject poverty and poor working conditions don't exist in the UK. As the effects of Thatcher's brand of capitalism have taken hold and reverberated through the last 2 decades, so big business has grown in power and has been able to buy influence and curry favour with the politicians whose parties they "donate" to. Trade union power has been neutered and the least favourable aspects of EU social policy have been vetoed or opted out of. I think we're in danger of moving closer to the US model of almost undiluted capitalism where the poorest have no access to decent public health provision / transport / education, etc. Anyway, I think that the continued presence of sink estates in the inner cities and larger towns and the whole benefit dependency culture are quite telling. So, personally I think it's good and healthy to have a progressive left-wing movement who will highlight and challenge the negative aspects of capitalism and pr ick people's consciences. Not all of us are happy to sit at home with our 42" plasma watching Celebrity Big Brother and work in dead-end jobs with little security. --- Post edited by littlejimmy on 5/1 12:49 --- | |
| red_rebel2 Posted on 5/1 12:43 | |
| re: Trotsky or Gramsci? | |
Happy New Year Comrade Jimmy. | |
| The_Commisar Posted on 5/1 12:49 | |
| re: Trotsky or Gramsci? | |
twas in the pages of Marxism today that I first encountered "post Fordism" and with all these debates, it depends where your viewpoint is orientated from and your underpinning beliefs, as to what your conclusions will be. And to paraphrase your just a bunch of middle aged scruffy oiks who are communists | |
| littlejimmy Posted on 5/1 12:52 | |
| re: Trotsky or Gramsci? | |
Happy New Year to you and your, rebel. Of course, I don't have a valid opinion any more, cos I live in a place that Jim Davidson describes as being "a right-winger's dream". LOL @ commi. 
| |
| zaphod Posted on 5/1 12:59 | |
| re: Trotsky or Gramsci? | |
LJ, I agree with you that improvements are still needed and will always probably be needed, as perfection is unattainable. I know that abject poverty (as well as poor working conditions, which I never mentioned) still exists in the UK. That's why I said "mostly". Political swings always go too far and the Thatcherite response to the disasters of 1970s socialism was OTT. Corrective action is now needed and will occur sooner or later. What worries me is the risk of overshooting in the opposite direction, with new self-defeating "bash the rich, even though it doesn't benefit the poor" attitudes. "Progressive" left wing movements (ie those married to 19th Century solutions for 19th Century problems) are politically irrelevant. They are distrusted and ignored even when they're right. People who want to solve real 21st Century problems by non-ideological initiatives are what's needed. | |
| red_rebel2 Posted on 5/1 13:11 | |
| re: Trotsky or Gramsci? | |
Progressive movements have been declared out-dated and redundant for centuries. The Chartists were told they would never change anything because the system was 'as good as any we can ever get' and people aren't interested in politics. | |
| littlejimmy Posted on 5/1 13:15 | |
| re: Trotsky or Gramsci? | |
Like you say though, zaph, perfection is unattainable. It seems destined to swing from one extreme then another then back again. Like with wars, we never seem to learn the lessons of history. People can't get past labels and their connotations, unfortunately. Being a "do-gooder" is a bad thing, which I find quite strange, personally! | |
| zaphod Posted on 5/1 13:15 | |
| re: Trotsky or Gramsci? | |
That's because political movements that die are defined ex-post-facto as not progressive and get forgotten. | |
| Trotsky4u Posted on 5/1 13:25 | |
| re: Trotsky or Gramsci? | |
I still believe in the Trotskyist vanguard party idea, tweak as much as you like you will still need a revolutionary party to lead the final shove to topple capitalism. France '68 demonstrates that quite clearly. Yes we are small at the moment, tactics always vary. Someone earlier mentioned Militant's attitude towards gays, the SWP et al always misrepresented our position, even when we were supposedly at our anti gay height we had lesbian and gay comrades in our leadership. In the 80's and 90's I was involved with many LGB campaigns with the Militant in London. | |
| Huan_Kerr Posted on 5/1 14:23 | |
| re: Trotsky or Gramsci? | |
Fair point onthemap. Although nowhere have I said that exploitation does not go along with riches. Jimmy, "Ignorance is strength". I am ignorant and politically uneducated. As I've stated before I take things at face value. Ignorance again. But I'm not about to be educated by reading essays filled full of mumbo jumbo. Give me names, dates, events. I've asked two simple questions twice which if answered simply may help me understand this Socialist utopia that some people find so appealing. I've wandered past you fellas stood on street corners flogging Socialist Worker pamphlets, where have you gone? Are you flogging the Big Issue now? Again, is there or has there ever been a successful Socialist state? "Building layers.... little victories......laying building blocks..." Fk me, are you in the masons? | |
| red_rebel2 Posted on 5/1 14:37 | |
| re: Trotsky or Gramsci? | |
There has never been a socialist state. There have been revolutions that have either been ruthlessly crushed by imperial powers or have failed because they took place in backward semi-feudal economies that have ended as centralised military states. You can say they represent socialism but I could counter and say Hitler's Germany, Pinochet's Chile or the slave economy of Burma represents capitalism. | |
| littlejimmy Posted on 5/1 14:53 | |
| re: Trotsky or Gramsci? | |
It's a quote from "1984", Huan. It's full of mumbo-jumbo.  Anyway, how long before someone mentions that Hitler brought us "National Socialism". | |
| Kilburn Posted on 5/1 14:58 | |
| re: Trotsky or Gramsci? | |
Most citizens of Venezuela would say that from their point of view their country is more successful since electing an essentialy socialist government. This interestingly ties into the other point about natural resources - Venezuela have plenty of oil to pay for their social programmes. | |
| Huan_Kerr Posted on 5/1 16:40 | |
| re: Trotsky or Gramsci? | |
Vive le revolution! You lot want to be careful, its a bit like Turkeys voting for Christmas. The first thing the 'Great Leaders' (eg Mao, Stalin Pol Pot) did was get rid of you lot the Inteligensia. You'll be packed off to a Gulag in Wales with an idiot like me in charge of it. | |
| red_rebel2 Posted on 5/1 17:16 | |
| re: Trotsky or Gramsci? | |
Yes, that's why we socialists have to fight tooth and nail to make sure those counter-revolutionary tyrants never get into power. Hoof for revol | |
| Downilson Posted on 5/1 17:59 | |
| re: Trotsky or Gramsci? | |
"There has never been a socialist state." That old canard. Even if it were true, it still shouldn't be used in defence of socialism because capitalists can come back and say there's never been a true capitalist state either. America is quite protectionist, for instance, as we saw for steel. So why not say that its time pure capitalism was given a go, instead of the skewed perverted version we have now? For me, I think its good to have a left-wing, but as zaphod seemed to allude to, their isolation isn't very helpful. A lot of communists and socialists can't get past the Capitalist nature of Britain to actually moderately criticise and change it gradually, preferring instead a total collapse of the whole system. This is what Communism is all about though, revolution, so it isn't surprising. On the other hand, in my experience they are useful allies in fights like anti-racism and anti-fascism, if the latter ever needed to be fought in this country it'll be the red boys first to the front line. Yeah they dropped the ball on Iraq but that'll be forgiven in time. | |
| Revol_Tees Posted on 5/1 18:00 | |
| re: Trotsky or Gramsci? | |
r_r: Cheers for that excellent overview of the sectarian vanguardist approaches. It definitely all makes sense. I probably have more questions about the Turn to Gramsci of the 1980s, and its consequences for the Left and New Labour, but I can't think of them now. I'll be in touch by email shortly - is your email .co.uk or .com? | |
| Huan_Kerr Posted on 5/1 18:17 | |
| re: Trotsky or Gramsci? | |
Looks like you lot are clutching at straws. Correct me (and I'm sure you will) but this Gramsci reckons that the working classes have failed to 'rise' because their core ideology has been taken over imperceptively by ruling class values, paticularly in the more advanced societies? I've been brainwashed, and beneath my consumerism and my drive for 'cheap jeans and trainers' I really was revolution! What a load of bollox. | |
| red_rebel2 Posted on 5/1 18:56 | |
| re: Trotsky or Gramsci? | |
Gramsci wrote extensively on a wide range of subjects but the issue that still gets him the gig today is the notion of hegemony and the question of cultural and ideological ties that go beyond classical Marxist notions of class consciouness. His writing on hegemony stemmed for being intrigued that dedicated socialists in post-war Italy could work hard building the party all week then go to church on Sunday. He realised it was a cultural rather than ideological act but one that had an incredible grip on otherwise rigid revolutionaries and set about a theory of this cultural contradiction. The mechanistic Marxists believe that once workers see that they are exploited and that they are in an economic struggle with the capitalists then a little light bulb goes on and they suddenly become 'revolutionary'. Of course it is more complex than that. In 1914 trade unions acted as recruiting sergeants for capital. During the miners strike Arthurs lads were being hailed as the vangaurd of the revolution but they were still chanting 'get yer tits out' to women comrades, using racist and homophobic language. Rural workers are among the most exploited in teh country but they still sided with their bosses in the Countryside Alliance when they felt their "way of life" was threatened. People have layer upon layer of cultural ties that create their consciousness: trade or profession, town, religion, union, family, race, sexuality, football club, ... these are part of the cocktail of consciouness that binds individuals to the their nation, which is an imagined community of millions. The task for socialists is to learn to engage with different elements of consciousness, see how they are linked, defuse the reactionary elements and reconfigure the recipe to promote a new, progressive whole. It is about pressing different buttons. It is strange having this dialgue on here because obviously we leftist organic intellectuals are discussing a method of analysis and strategic thought while some others rather than read and engage with what is being written set about rolling out a set of cultural symbols designed to smear a challenge to the the capitalist order. It is a good illustration of the way hegemony works. revol... I'm co.uk --- Post edited by red_rebel2 on 5/1 18:57 --- | |
| Lefty3668 Posted on 5/1 20:01 | |
| re: Trotsky or Gramsci? | |
I used to think I had a reasonable idea about some of them, but I can honestly say I do not know what any 'ism' actually is. | |
| Huan_Kerr Posted on 6/1 10:15 | |
| re: Trotsky or Gramsci? | |
Lefty, you aint alone. Rebel, thanks for replying. The whole tone of your reply reeks of elitism, IMO. "Leftist organic intellectuals"....any idea how royal that sounds? "It is a good illustration of the way hegemony works." No its not hegemony its realism. "others rather than read and engage with what is being written" I know its your ball, and I'm not as good as you, but please let me play. "rolling out a set of cultural symbols designed to smear a challenge to the capitalist order." I'm not clever enough. Thats the stuff of organic intellectuals. I asked you for dates events etc and you came up with the miners strike and hunting. I can relate to both but disagree with your theory. In both cases those involved were prepared to act in extreme because they beleived that THEIR way of life was threatened, not because of any hegemonistic influence. Again, thats realism. You are unable to engage with the workers. Maggie Thatcher had more in common with the populace of this country than the theorist warriors who now march under the banner of "leftist organic intellectuals." What can you do to put that right? What do you do to put that right? I dont doubt for a second your sincerity or intellect and I've read with interest over the years your verbal sparring, but TBH with this one, you've lost the plot. Cheers, I'm off with the other 4000 to ask Barmby who shagged his mrs in a non Gramscious sort of way. --- Post edited by Huan_Kerr on 6/1 10:16 --- | |
