/lit/ - Literature

>>20579689
>Gramski
>>20579501
>as annoying as humanly possible?
yes

In which book does Gramsci best describe his idea of cultural hegemony? Preferably, I'd rather not have to read through his 30 or so prison notebooks.

>dude just subvert your nation and destroy it from within
What the fuck was his problem?

I hear his later works are a vindication of Gentile

“I hate the indifferent. I believe that living means taking sides. Those who really live cannot help being a citizen and a partisan. Indifference and apathy are parasitism, perversion, not life. That is why I hate the indifferent.

The indifference is the deadweight of history. The indifference operates with great power on history. The indifference operates passively, but it operates. It is fate, that which cannot be counted on. It twists programs and ruins the best-conceived plans. It is the raw material that ruins intelligence. That what happens, the evil that weighs upon all, happens because the human mass abdicates to their will; allows laws to be promulgated that only the revolt could nullify, and leaves men that only a mutiny will be able to overthrow to achieve the power. The mass ignores because it is careless and then it seems like it is the product of fate that runs over everything and everyone: the one who consents as well as the one who dissents; the one who knew as well as the one who didn’t know; the active as well as the indifferent. Some whimper piously, others curse obscenely, but nobody, or very few ask themselves: If I had tried to impose my will, would this have happened?

I also hate the indifferent because of that: because their whimpering of eternally innocent ones annoys me. I make each one liable: how they have tackled with the task that life has given and gives them every day, what have they done, and especially, what they have not done. And I feel I have the right to be inexorable and not squander my compassion, of not sharing my tears with them.

I am a partisan, I am alive, I feel the pulse of the activity of the future city that those on my side are building is alive in their conscience. And in it, the social chain does not rest on a few; nothing of what happens in it is a matter of luck, nor the product of fate, but the intelligent work of the citizens. Nobody in it is looking from the window of the sacrifice and the drain of a few. Alive, I am a partisan. That is why I hate the ones that don’t take sides, I hate the indifferent.”

He is totally worth it. Read the books from jail. Read the letters from jail.

What is the legacy of the prison notebooks to marxoids of the non-meme variety in current year?

>the real
>alterity
>capital
>reactionary
>praxis
>hegemonic

>>18009984
your boy

>>17993045
>>17993048
The modern SJW marxist cancer really started with this man

How should one go about obtaining control over the Narrative, according to Gramsci? What does he say about the control of the mythological elements of the collective conscious of society?

“I hate the indifferent. I believe that living means taking sides. Those who really live cannot help being a citizen and a partisan. Indifference and apathy are parasitism, perversion, not life. That is why I hate the indifferent.

The indifference is the deadweight of history. The indifference operates with great power on history. The indifference operates passively, but it operates. It is fate, that which cannot be counted on. It twists programs and ruins the best-conceived plans. It is the raw material that ruins intelligence. That what happens, the evil that weighs upon all, happens because the human mass abdicates to their will; allows laws to be promulgated that only the revolt could nullify, and leaves men that only a mutiny will be able to overthrow to achieve the power. The mass ignores because it is careless and then it seems like it is the product of fate that runs over everything and everyone: the one who consents as well as the one who dissents; the one who knew as well as the one who didn’t know; the active as well as the indifferent. Some whimper piously, others curse obscenely, but nobody, or very few ask themselves: If I had tried to impose my will, would this have happened?

I also hate the indifferent because of that: because their whimpering of eternally innocent ones annoys me. I make each one liable: how they have tackled with the task that life has given and gives them every day, what have they done, and especially, what they have not done. And I feel I have the right to be inexorable and not squander my compassion, of not sharing my tears with them.

I am a partisan, I am alive, I feel the pulse of the activity of the future city that those on my side are building is alive in their conscience. And in it, the social chain does not rest on a few; nothing of what happens in it is a matter of luck, nor the product of fate, but the intelligent work of the citizens. Nobody in it is looking from the window of the sacrifice and the drain of a few. Alive, I am a partisan. That is why I hate the ones that don’t take sides, I hate the indifferent.”

"I hate the indifferent. I believe that living means taking sides. Those who really live cannot help being a citizen and a partisan. Indifference and apathy are parasitism, perversion, not life. That is why I hate the indifferent.

The indifference is the deadweight of history. The indifference operates with great power on history. The indifference operates passively, but it operates. It is fate, that which cannot be counted on. It twists programs and ruins the best-conceived plans. It is the raw material that ruins intelligence. That what happens, the evil that weighs upon all, happens because the human mass abdicates to their will; allows laws to be promulgated that only the revolt could nullify, and leaves men that only a mutiny will be able to overthrow to achieve the power. The mass ignores because it is careless and then it seems like it is the product of fate that runs over everything and everyone: the one who consents as well as the one who dissents; the one who knew as well as the one who didn’t know; the active as well as the indifferent. Some whimper piously, others curse obscenely, but nobody, or very few ask themselves: If I had tried to impose my will, would this have happened?

I also hate the indifferent because of that: because their whimpering of eternally innocent ones annoys me. I make each one liable: how they have tackled with the task that life has given and gives them every day, what have they done, and especially, what they have not done. And I feel I have the right to be inexorable and not squander my compassion, of not sharing my tears with them.

I am a partisan, I am alive, I feel the pulse of the activity of the future city that those on my side are building is alive in their conscience. And in it, the social chain does not rest on a few; nothing of what happens in it is a matter of luck, nor the product of fate, but the intelligent work of the citizens. Nobody in it is looking from the window of the sacrifice and the drain of a few. Alive, I am a partisan. That is why I hate the ones that don’t take sides, I hate the indifferent."

I know more about Marx and Marxism than the average man, but I’m not expert by any means. I’ve have a copy of Gramsci’s prison notes and I’m unsure whether to jump straight in or work my way through Capital first

Is he based and redpilled?

when will Marxists admit that the course pursued by them under the influence of pic related and his writings was a failure and probably delayed the revolution in the West by some 200 years? if my understanding is correct he wanted to challenge the Leninist model of vanguard party and instead focused on broader cultural conditioning to achieve class conciousness of the proletariat. if that's the case then the history of last 50 years should provide sufficient evidence that this was just wrong. what actually happened was that even though there has been some infiltration of institutions of power by the Marxists (Frankfurt school or what right wingers call cultural "Marxism") it ultimately achieved nothing since their message had to be watered down and capitalism proved to be be able to internalize pseudo-Marxist "critiques" of bourgeois sexuality, bourgeois morality etc. so that we now live in a society that in many ways (especially culturally) reflects the ideal of May '68 but is further economically right wing than ever. Meanwhile, right-wingers have coopted the Leninist message (Rothbard praised Lenin's pragmatism throughout his life and in the 90s formed an alliance with nationalist populist Pat Buchanan, Steve Bannon's strategic thinking inherits directly from Lenin's "State and Revolution") and have achieved considerable success with its aid (USA, Poland, Hungary, Austria etc.). when will Marxists admit that economics > culture and go back to their Leninist roots?

*solves Marxism*

*solves Marxism*

i miss this lil nigga like you wouln't believe

What are some good books on cultural hegemony, media manipulation, propaganda, and other sorts of media/cultural control?

pea brain
>the prince is good advice that was meant to be taken seriously
regular brain
>the prince is satire
dimly glowing brain
>the prince is bad advice that was meant to be taken seriously
resplendent brain
>the prince is good advice for the subaltern classes to establish hegemony and reunite italy

>The public "believes" that the external world is objectively real, but it is precisely here that the question arises: what is the origin of this "belief" and what critical value does it "objectively" have?
>It might seem that there can exist an extra-historical and extrahuman objectivity. But who is the judge of such objectivity? Who is able to put himself in this kind of "standpoint of the cosmos in itself" and what could such a standpoint mean? Objective always means "humanly objective" which can be held to correspond exactly to "historically subjective": in other words, objective would mean "universal subjective".

Has anyone ever attempted to refute this? This goes for every epistemology emphasising the limits of human perception, be it that of Kant, Nietzsche, etc. How do you argue with this? The only way out I can imagine is going full Wittgenstein and saying you can't make meaningful statements about this, but this again just points to the limits of human existence. Do any of the contemporary "speculative realist" philosophers talk about this or do they just conveniently ignore the problem?

Read Gramsci's prison notebooks.