/lit/ - Literature

>>19943625
Sure, Mussolini translated stuff but even you must notice their are camps of people who’ve read Marx and take bits pieces and drop theories that never arrived or are empirically wrong, here are some basic positions that inevitably emerged out of the revisionist controversies, maybe you could give me some insight on my thoughts here: (1) bourgeois interpretations of Marx, like Engels' and Kautsky's, which then inevitably decay into Machism and Bernsteinism, (2) a radical "return to Hegel" like that carried out by Lukács, Lenin, Trotsky, Korsch, and Luxemburg, but which then become a mythology and eschatology, and has the additional problem that the proletariat at large does not follow it and has to be dragged to its own supposed party by bourgeois Hegelian philosophers, and (3) voluntarist pragmatism, which manifested early as Sorel's eclectic Marxism, but also as the always-eclectic French socialists' return to pre-Marxist French traditions like Proudhon as a way of overcoming paradoxes in Marx's thought, which in turn generates national syndicalism, which is essentially fascism.

I believe Gramsci was pretty damn close to figuring out what had to be done… probably the most interesting Marxist of the 20th century, he falls into camp #3, even though he identifies with camp #2. Gramsci is a voluntarist pragmatist, i.e. he is an irrationalist. His ultimate answer to the "why?" and "how?" of proletariat revolution is not a Hegelian eschatological myth, like Lukács, but the much more Sorelian admission that myth is permissible and that socialist "morality" or “will” precedes dialectical "science." Which I find to be influenced by Nietzsche.