Episode

[@jasonsomers8224]

So glad I found your channel. I'm loving your style and your focuses. Thank you.

[@nrhoofcare7724]

Thank you so much for your efforts, it's beyond appreciated.

[@ruhisnyder4770]

This is amazing! Thank you!

[@simone222]

This philosopher is very special to me. Used Gramsci's concepts on my college thesis. Thanks as always for another enlightening discussion.

[@MsKarenDavis]

Thank you! This helps me a lot with my finals in Human rights.

[@vampireducks1622]

Positing "communism" and "democracy" as contraries is conceptually confused and confusing. It's a little like suggesting that "French" and "married" are mutually exclusive. Certainly, you can be both both communist and democratic.

[@jerem8584]

Every habit or young tradition, moral agent's act, or person's act isn't concept. Going to work isn't concept even youngsters sell it to you as that. In my country there is exactly one communist in Parlament, don't know the reason but that's the truth. In any case I don't prefer, support or anything like that concerning communism but when Gramsci has thought something through and I agree I do agree. In China and North-Korea Communistic parties (two of them, one in each country) are only one allowed. The most strict gun law is in China, concerning knives. Human rights like right to marry, privacy, Christianity are at least partly taken.

[@SaintJames14]

The liberal conception of democracy is intertwined with capitalism, so yes you can - if you're liberal. Just like a commie can say "certainly you can be a communist and still maintain particular liberal values (like equality)". You can conceptualize it with the frame he repeats in the video: Liberal (moral) capitalist (economic) democracy (state) = current paradigm. Liberal (or not) socialist democracy (to whatever extent or not) = communism. Illiberal (fascist moral) capitalist (to whatever extent) autocracy (or not) = fascism. This is obviously not perfect but it serves to clarify the distinctions made in the 20th century.

[@jerem8584]

@@SaintJames14 First of all you have been polite and correct in ways of commenting here on KZbin. Second of all we are talking about same thing(s) in different words. Being honest to history and declining Gramsci's fear about further Fascism in Italy and Europe, fascists were and still are the certain people in Italy back then party members. In todays world China is in many ways autocracy, N-Korea is and also dictatorship. I am not liberal primarily why people call marginal groups of activists fascists is not right they are idiots in marginal of their countries. Lenin tried to take controll of Europe in 1920's, Mussolini's party was founded in 1921 and that is one reason thanks to later USSR why some people talk about fascists. In Scandinavia where I live market's are controlled so that the downsides are being relieved and unjustable economic actions are being punished. Market economy is the only way that works and in every most wealthiest country there are safe nets. I could reply to my last words in here that in Saudi-Arabia there also is Autocracy, but International finance actions luckily are monitored.

[@chagoriver7159]

@@SaintJames14 the conception perhaps, the reality is that they are at odds.

[@SaintJames14]

@@jerem8584 i would only say in response if you define markets and capitalism near synonymously, as you seem to do here, that the USSR then was state capitalism. Upon analyzing how the USSR worked (and it obviously worked) you'd have to agree with an almost neo-reactionary definition of the USSR as a corporation whose citizens owned stock in the bureaucracy of the state. What matters less is what words we use to define, what matters is that we use definition to describe material manifestations. So yeah I can say "the USSR was communism and it works" in the same sentence as "the USSR was a corporation that hired all citizens forming a sole-state capital entity" and both are fine, internally consistent and externally realizable. In the US we call your Nordic countries "socialism". Are you though? Well, no, according to Marxist definition. But are you though? Well, kind of, according to Hitler. But are you REALLY? Well, yes, according to Warren Buffet. We can just pick one and roll with it. We ought to just observe what happens as we attach different political and ideological mechanisms together and redesign what we need to in order to produce certain materially beneficial outcomes. Words are a tool and truth is pragmatic. I hope that was at least interesting for you.

[@1rudgie]

Hi I have listened to lots of yours shows and enjoyed/learned from all of them!

[@hermanoamericano]

I love you guys, will contribute!

[@dannylinton-c7v]

Great lecture

[@helenachase5627]

I need to listen to this 3 times

[@ntang99]

I came back to this video a few times. It is resonant every time. With this pandemic, both the us and Chinese government don't seem to in a hurry to end it. Just like nobody would blame an earthquake, nobody would blame the pandemic for bad economy. In the same time, the government in power wash away their corruptions, the financial institutes in power wash away their corruptions. The majority of working class have to accept it as a natural disaster

[@WokeBegone]

The Dems were worse, don't forget - I'd rather have DeSantis than Newsome. And it was the leftist media that screamed loudest for lockdowns in the first place, Trump really opposed it but eventually had to give in, as the insane media would lay actual deaths at his door - I'm sure that would have been different under a Democrat President.

[@b166-er2]

Hey Steve.Dave from Perth Western Australia here.Just started listening to your Pod from the beginning in 2019 .Heard about it on Fighter and the kid from B.C .Thanks for all the work/time.Love it.

[@OTPpride]

There are a few fans of Steve in the west!!

[@jacobjordan9609]

I’m done imagining !! I’m going to the dinner party 🎉 !!! Love your work !!! I’ve been a fan for a long time!!

[@Kho_Lee]

This is exactly what is happening in my country India.

[@DutchStar]

It’s happening across the west in preparation for the world government

[@1rudgie]

I hope that the strikes occuring in your country now are fruitful! Solidarity from the uk

[@samkodi7465]

Can you explain. Are you saying western society Is destroying peoples morals?/

[@agctony123]

@@samkodi7465 Cultural hegemony is the bridge some malicious entities with fallacious ideas have been using to topple western values. Gramsci understood that the power of the ruling classes is not only exercised through coercive instruments or economic relations derived from the production process but also through the control of the educational system, religion, and the media and that therefore culture is the terrain of the political fight. So yep, they want to install very fallacious ideas that would ultimately make things worse, not improve them, as history shows time after time.

[@phillipivy9780]

Philosophy can get things right about some things some times and is never wrong about anything all the time.

[@thecelt4807]

brilliant presentation subbed liked appreciated

[@fahimbinfaruque4425]

Thank you.

[@_PanchoVilla]

What happened to videos #74-131?

[@vikingmma]

Are you considering adding video?

[@sarahmaresh1877]

Could you please share with us the references, I need to put the references in My research paper

[@agabrielrose]

Is this a repost?

[@Shadyblues]

Wonderful show

[@marshalllittleton8832]

It's not bias, it is fact!

[@melodybodner7740]

Watching this for SOCI

[@VivaLaSocialismo]

Marx in some passages eludes to the idea that socialism can only come about when conditions are right and gramsci is attempting to explain why conditions aren't right and in doing so is attempting to help them become right. One of the biggest problems for Marxism and Socialism in the West today is the lack founding of new cohesive organizations other than the DSA during a time of popular youth support for socialism as an idea usually at the least in the Social Democratic sense. I disagree about what you said about the formula of giving the impression of freedom without military force in order to retain state power in developed western nations because the racist police are certainly militarized by the executive branch.

[@chagoriver7159]

"wrapped up in the possibility the inevitability of a communist revolution in the West" i thought this was his postion too and it was the reason he wrote the notebooks in prison, to understand why germany and italy didnt become socialists as expected.

[@jonttu617]

I bet there is a philosophical motive for always cutting the audio off mid sentence at the end

[@michaelkessler7545]

Uhh

[@michaelkessler7545]

I’m oh ok f B tho ok

[@michaelkessler7545]

I ok fn ok ok ok

[@aleks5717]

I wonder if Orwell's 1984 drew from Gramsci's ideas about cultural hegemony, as all of that dystopian society was 100% compliant. It's like whatever society you are born and raised in, that is what you grow to accept since it seems like the only possible option.

[@blazearmoru]

Communism? That may turn out to be a fun convo. The best covos are through respectful disagreements.

[@tomio8072]

i suppose Gramsci's ideas can also be seen in gender, and other stuff like that

[@tomio8072]

@Accelerationist ah, you might want to look up a little Judith Butler

[@tomio8072]

Accelerationist because it’s pretty interesting stuff, at least in my opinion anyhow, and it’s all built off of a philosophy of language as well which can be connected to semiotics and wittgensteinian language games

[@tomio8072]

Accelerationist well how do you know a woman when you are walking down the street? Do you check every single persons chromosomes as you walk down the road, to work out what gender you think they are?

[@tomio8072]

@Accelerationist well it is empirically how we determine gender. We don't do it any other way. Gender is constructed socially, and sex is derived from biological factors

[@agctony123]

@@tomio8072 Gender is constructed socially thanks to the biological differences, duh! Each gender adopts roles naturally... It is not a patriarchal ghost telling people what to do. Biology = Facts, and facts don't care about Judith Butler.

[@VivaLaSocialismo]

One single general strike in America could blow a hole of light through the veil of c.h.

[@superiguana1]

I'm confused, was Gramsci a staunch Marxist-Leninist? Because at the beginning of this I first thought you were building an analogy for cultural/ideological hegemony by exposing the typical (American) layman's utter misconception about what the terms "communism" and "Marxism" mean, and how the all-too-common inability to separate those concepts from "Marxist-Leninism" in practice, or our highly constructed "idea" of the USSR gets in the way of recognizing solid theory. Please ignore my profile picture lol

[@jenm1]

Yes, he is an ML but a theoretical one.

[@manwithbrain1044]

Reminds me of current American culture and it's dominance

[@chrissermoon4156]

The main problem for Gramsci seem to me to be, that his ideas about hegemony have all the characteristics of unfalsifiabilty as accordding to Popper. Not that Popper was right about everything. The theory is necessarily unreviewable, because all results would be tainted be the existing culture. And there will always be some culture, even if it is a counter culture, because that is a kind of culture. And then it would be tainted by the counter culture's culture and so on into eternity. So you might say, that Gramsci might be right, but that we can not (as in litterally impossibly) know if it is the case. Not even in principle, because we can not be culture-free-

[@slippp3r67]

i don't think you have to propose or give examples of any culture-free ideas or arguments to believe in the idea that everything is tainted by culture. it's not contrary to gramsci's concept hegemony to say that any conception of a world without our social norms would inevitably be marred by current social norms. it reminds me of the debate between foucault & chomsky on human nature, with gramsci obviously on the foucault side. the reasons that you give for saying we wouldn't be able to prove his theory also imply that we can't 100% prove anything, which is not egregious in itself

[@thezeronelite]

There's a presumption here that Karl Popper's conception of falsifiability is devoid of politics.

[@SocietalDefibrilation]

Your Nietzsche references are all the more relevant given.the corporate bombast with regards to AI

[@EarlofSedgewick]

To me it seems that Gramsci's theories have been studied gradually by every corporation, because every Gramsci student grew up and eventually needed a job. There are organic intellectuals everywhere who understand very well how efficient it is to have a market that continuously adapts to every form of counter-culture, subsuming it into mainstream culture. It isn't immediately clear to me that anything today lacks a counter-culture, but rather that the act of being counter-cultural has become just another piece of the cultural hegemony. People pose as organic intellectuals to make a buck or a fortune off of podcasting, or a KZbin channel. But this just provides data to Google, which increases its capital. And all that a cultural hegemon needs to do is to promote its own organic intellectuals within the algorithm recommendations, and the rest is lost to the giant pile of information spewing out every second. Every thoughtful analysis can be drowned by a mountain of derivative drivel, and so the key to power becomes "who can afford to keep their messaging afloat?". This clearly favours the rich, and by trying to create further counter-cultural intellectual content, we ensure that their wealth continues to grow. Does that wealth outpace the earnest intellectual endeavors of unsupported thinkers? Probably. Would love to hear a different opinion.

[@elliottjames671]

I agree 👍🏽😀

[@scottthomas5819]

🎉🎉🎉

[@ArminaM]

I think this discussion is hugely mistaken when it comes to the definition of intellectuals from Gramsci's pov. First of all, according to Gramsci, the definition of intellectual is kind of distorted, or at least deviated from its familiar meaning. By "intellectual" he really is referring to a social function other than a state of loving mind-related things. An intellectual is someone who is occupied with a profession in a specialized field, so a poet and a priest and a physician and an entrepreneur are all considered intellectuals. Then it comes to the distinction between organic and 'traditional' (as I have read in the English translation of Prison Notebooks) intellectuals. Trads are those which were referred to in the discussion; isolated class-free individuals who devote themselves to mind work and think social struggles don't exist to them, while organic intellectuals are those who actually "serve and work towards the benefit of the class they come from", whether it's the dominant class, or the oppressed one. So the entrepreneur we talked about is by definition an organic intellectual, working toward the interests of its class of origin, ie. the ruling class. Gramsci believes that "all" intellectuals serve for the maintanance of current order, and the debate goes further into concluding how the oppressed class doesn't have an organic intellectual of its own (they either don't have intellectuals because they don't have the previlages and the leisure of the dominant class, or if they do, they most likely becone 'traditional' ones, again because it's either physical labor in hometown or mind work in the city for them). If the oppressed class had "organic" intellectuals, they'd also be able to work toward the benefit of their class of origin, here being the oppressed. Yeap, that's pretty much it. Of course there are further debates, but a comment section isn't really the place. Routledge published a perfect guide to Prison Notebooks, that helps loads.

[@johnwilsonwsws]

What does Gramsci add to the following from Karl Marx “… Ruling Class and Ruling Ideas The ideas of the ruling class are in every epoch the ruling ideas, i.e. the class which is the ruling material force of society, is at the same time its ruling intellectual force. The class which has the means of material production at its disposal, has control at the same time over the means of mental production, so that thereby, generally speaking, the ideas of those who lack the means of mental production are subject to it. The ruling ideas are nothing more than the ideal expression of the dominant material relationships, the dominant material relationships grasped as ideas; hence of the relationships which make the one class the ruling one, therefore, the ideas of its dominance. The individuals composing the ruling class possess among other things consciousness, and therefore think. Insofar, therefore, as they rule as a class and determine the extent and compass of an epoch, it is self-evident that they do this in its whole range, hence among other things rule also as thinkers, as producers of ideas, and regulate the production and distribution of the ideas of their age: thus their ideas are the ruling ideas of the epoch. For instance, in an age and in a country where royal power, aristocracy, and bourgeoisie are contending for mastery and where, therefore, mastery is shared, the doctrine of the separation of powers proves to be the dominant idea and is expressed as an “eternal law.” “ Karl Marx The German Ideology Part I: Feuerbach. Opposition of the Materialist and Idealist Outlook B. The Illusion of the Epoch -- If Karl Marx thought workers taking power was mechanically inevitable, why was he so actively involved in politics and political struggle? Did he not understand or believe his own philosophy? Or do those who followed him not understand his philosophy? What did Antonio Gramsci have to say about Marx’s thesis on Feuerbach, especially the following: “II The question whether objective [gegenständliche) truth can be attributed to human thinking is not a question of theory but is a practical question. In practice man must prove the truth, that is, the reality and power, the this-sidedness [Diesseitigkeit) of his thinking. The dispute over the reality or non-reality of thinking which is isolated from practice is a purely scholastic question. … XI The philosophers have only interpreted the world, in various ways; the point, however, is to change it.” (Written by Marx in the spring of 1845) Those who like to claim that Marx’s forecast of inevitable socialist revolution failed, fail themselves to appreciate the class struggle has two sides. Quote mining Marx to bastardise and misrepresent his philosophy only serve the interest of capitalism. That is why it is so common The world is now facing another world war as the contradictions of capitalism assert themselves. The ideas of the rolling class, their old propaganda, are losing their efficacy as social reality cut up path to social consciousness. The capitalist class realise the danger which is why they are turning into the methods of dictatorship and even fascism, so they can rule by force, terror and violence. Watch the following to understand Marx: Two Hundred Years Since the Birth of Karl Marx kzbin.info/www/bejne/m5LQpZxpab1-i9U

[@phillipivy9780]

If you destroy the engine the wheels aren't of much use

[@user-ve9xl9uo2c]

Except the engine is not destroyed. Its the human in charge is swapped for a better driver.

[@muuhpropertyyy2465]

"Religion" - that's what was going on.😆😆

[@mukhtarhussain5590]

Modi is todays mussolini ... But i wonder who,s is todays gramsci?

[@deandalton8482]

@Accelerationist Today's Gramsci is on the right? That doesn't make any sense

[@deandalton8482]

@Accelerationist I understand what you're saying but I dont see how you could be a modern Gramsci whilst being on the extreme right wing.. The cultural hegemony Gramsci speaks of is still dominated by capitalist ideas.

[@deandalton8482]

@Accelerationist thats like saying what makes you think the radical left is pro-socialism

[@deandalton8482]

@Accelerationist the idea isnt really nonsense since all the far right parties I know of are pro capitalist.. No never heard of the Third Position

[@deandalton8482]

@Accelerationist I have done so today. Struggling to understand what proponents of the Third Position intend to do with large corporations if they got into power?

[@fakejasonlawless]

This is basically the argument for manufacturing consent, right?

[@jenm1]

Yes.

[@christinemartin63]

Yeah ... sounds a lot like Marcuse. (I hope this guy wasn't the grand hypocrite Marcuse was.)

[@darrylgoodwin7947]

Capitalist realism

[@elijaguy]

Gram Shi

[@smhsophie]

some of your ideas don't really follow from gramsci's work lul

[@engiidville]

The video sounds a bit like this... " The NBA is oppresive to short people" the only reason michael jordan and lebron are praised is because they are tall and athletic. Maybe we should change everything so the handicapped and the blind benefit from the league. We are going to tie michael jordan from the legs and hands and give the handicapped a 75 point lead...maybe then it will be more just and fair". I guarantee the amount of people who would want to watch would be zero. Im done with this gospel of envy cringe-fest.

[@phillipivy9780]

Any one notice how they are now blaming civilization for the hurricanes.

[@user-ve9xl9uo2c]

Well climate change = human activity

[@TheAlison1456]

14:58 leftism be like