[Ombrageux]

The cultural hegemony will be commercialized.

[Okonkwo]

What a shame. It was so very useful. Surely there must be an alternative?

[Classicliberal]

Your link doesn't go to a specific article but rather a home page, so I'm assuming your URL got messed up.

However, if I may ask, what cultural hegemony do mean? Traditional Western culture, which Gramsci was speaking to: Church, nationalism, nuclear family, the "common sense" values that the high-brow bourgeoisie perpetuated to cloak their fundamental exploitation of the proletariat seems to be all but dying or dead. In its place has come the rise of hyper-materialistic "mass culture" and with it, a bourgeoisie on steroids--as evidenced by the massive rise in income inequality. The exploitation thus has become more and more overt and contemporary Western politics, which has typically been bridled by the aforestated cultural values, is now reflecting the increasing awareness of the systemic inequality inherent in Western capitalist system. Moreover, I couldn't think of a better generation than the (Western) youth today: post-modernist, egalitarians wholly disconnected from Church, and increasingly, State (national) identities, to be receptive to and supportive of social democracy and/or possibly Marxism in order to find a common 21st century identity.

I may be overstating the case and generalizing but I think the cultural hegemony of the West has evolved and now sits on a much less stable platform than it did on the past--hyper-materialism/consumerism can't really provide a lasting or as effective identity than religion or nationalism imo.

A good example of this in United States specifically has been the stable shift in attitudes of Americans towards China, as the first of the millennial gen began to enter adulthood/electorate. And while China has certainly gone against traditional Communist orthodoxy on economic matters--via liberalization--it has nonetheless still maintained a majority of state control over its economy and its position as the vanguard party with total political hegemony. Thus, the serious significance of the historically, and dogmatically, anti-Communist United States' public not holding overwhelming negative views of China.

[Andrea_Chenier]

Moreover, I couldn't think of a better generation than the (Western) youth today: post-modernist, egalitarians wholly disconnected from Church, and increasingly, State (national) identities, to be receptive to and supportive of social democracy and/or possibly Marxism in order to find a common 21st century identity.

I wouldn't overestimate today's youth, it's more of a product of new bourgeois culture than an opposing entitiy. Not that it's any worse than previous generations, though.

[Dagoth Ur]

What's funny is that Gramsci can't be read online either because of translation copyrights. Oh and Gramsci didn't limit cultural hegemony to old western culture, but rather one class having a total monopoly (ie hegemony) over all outlets of culture. All that you describe is a changing array of culture outlets which are all still firmly under the hands of the bourgeoisie and pumping out their propaganda, namely liberalism.

[Classicliberal]

What's funny is that Gramsci can't be read online either because of translation copyrights.

That's incredibly annoying...

Oh and Gramsci didn't limit cultural hegemony to old western culture, but rather one class having a total monopoly (ie hegemony) over all outlets of culture. All that you describe is a changing array of culture outlets which are all still firmly under the hands of the bourgeoisie and pumping out their propaganda, namely liberalism.

Yeah, I grasped the concept of "hegemony" meaning every aspect of culture not just the ones I've stated. To be clear, I've only read summarizations of his theories off wiki pages, not his actual work. However, why I expounded on religion being so relevant, even today, and not simply an outmoded part of bourgeoisie culture that can or has been replaced with something else, was from this quote:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gramsci Gramsci stated that bourgeois cultural values were tied to folklore, popular culture and religion, and therefore much of his analysis of hegemonic culture is aimed at these. He was also impressed by the influence Roman Catholicism had and the care the Church had taken to prevent an excessive gap developing between the religion of the learned and that of the less educated. Gramsci saw Marxism as a marriage of the purely intellectual critique of religion found in Renaissance humanism and the elements of the Reformation that had appealed to the masses. For Gramsci, Marxism could supersede religion only if it met people's spiritual needs, and to do so people would have to think of it as an expression of their own experience.

Thus, I found the parallel to the younger generation today and their historically significant levels of disbelief to be a beneficial trend towards that end; that is, Marxism superseding religion as the spiritual provider for a largely secular humanist generation

Also, whats your take on the changing cultural outlets; what are the new bourgeoisie cultural values that have replaced the old, in your view?

[Dagoth Ur]

That's incredibly annoying...

Quite in fact.

Yeah, I grasped the concept of "hegemony" meaning every aspect of culture not just the ones I've stated. To be clear, I've only read summarizations of his theories off wiki pages, not his actual work. However, why I expounded on religion being so relevant, even today, and not simply an outmoded part of bourgeoisie culture that can or has been replaced with something else, was from this quote:

[...]

Thus, I found the parallel to the younger generation today and their historically significant levels of disbelief to be a beneficial trend towards that end; that is, Marxism superseding religion as the spiritual provider for a largely secular humanist generation

To begin I thing Gramsci was wrong that religion has to be out-competed. We should seize it for our own ends instead and dismantle it over time, much like the state itself. Next I'll totally disagree that religion itself is in any danger. Old style, largely feudal, religion is dying in a big way. Fundamentalists have no pull with young people except in the darkest parts of the world and even there their rule is falling apart. But I think this is just the transfer over to fully liberal-capitalist religion. Things like Live-Church are a good example of this phenomenon and they represent the fastest growing type of church in the west (and far-east). That said I think this could help us in our own attempts to force religion into the new epoch right along with us.

Also, whats your take on the changing cultural outlets; what are the new bourgeoisie cultural values that have replaced the old, in your view?

Liberalism of the Euro/Democrat variety. Lots of self-serving moralism coupled with amazingly brutal imperialism.

[Andrea_Chenier]

Couldn't agree more with Dagoth! Instead of serving as a platform for revolutionary marxism, secular humanism became a tool of the ruling ideology. Christopher Hitchens was the epitome of said phenomenon. His cause was socially progressive only on the surface, behind that you had pure bourgeois-moralistic self-righteousness, coupled with individualistic, permissive liberalism and imperialist warmongering.

[Ombrageux]

Moreover, I couldn't think of a better generation than the (Western) youth today: post-modernist, egalitarians wholly disconnected from Church, and increasingly, State (national) identities, to be receptive to and supportive of social democracy and/or possibly Marxism in order to find a common 21st century identity.

I am not sure this is the best basis for anything great in politics. Our pampered millenials are too soft, conformist and disconnected from their peers/superiors to form part of a decent revolutionary or political movement. The old days of dreaming of the general strike or the mass party are apparently over. Politics also remains deeply ethnicized, in fact more so than ever in many Western countries, which make are populations unconscious ethnocentric chauvinists, which is the worst kind of chauvinist. Certainly this population is very receptive to Nanny-Statism and multikulti, but I don't know that this is the best form social democracy and Marxism can take.

More generally, I think this sort of individual, caught off from his past, any value system and any kind of group identity, is more harmless to plutocracy than one who is not. Looks more like loneliness, apathy and depression than "liberation" from the tyrannical systems of the past.

[Varax]

Disappointing, but not surprising. My nemesis strikes again. They haven't won yet though, marxists.org may be the biggest and best archive for Marxist writings but you can bet your ass you'll still be able to find Marx's works if you look for them elsewhere. They cannot stop us.

Instead of serving as a platform for revolutionary marxism, secular humanism became a tool of the ruling ideology. Christopher Hitchens was the epitome of said phenomenon. His cause was socially progressive only on the surface, behind that you had pure bourgeois-moralistic self-righteousness, coupled with individualistic, permissive liberalism and imperialist warmongering.

Secular humanism or anything like it was never going to serve as a platform for revolutionary Marxism in itself. Capitalism is itself very inherently materialistic and this lends itself well to secular humanism. One should not bemoan this however because as I like to point out change isn't all or nothing. We must again take the dialectic approach to this and realize the formation of the new society grows out of the old - and the phasing out of much of the reactionary and traditionalist structures that comes with the changing attitudes today including secular humanism especially among younger generations is another development that is ultimately taking us closer to where we need to be. I feel that so many Marxists seem almost pessimistic and defeatist with the weak state of the left today especially in the heart of the developed capitalist western countries that they fail to see the underlying potential in these things and how it fits in with the big picture.

[Dagoth Ur]

I think this is a change in religion we were unprepared for. New Atheism itself is a fundamentalist style of atheism. I think it is a logical extension of bourgeoisie atheism which is what is actually taking root, not rationalist or marxist atheism. Really the lesson of the 20th century was why make enemies of religion when they can be your friends. The best part is we both win. Religion is removed from actual power, their followers can keep attending as much as they like, and over time their religion will evolve to socialism/communism or it will cease to exist like the old Hellenistic mythologies.

Instead of serving as a platform for revolutionary marxism, secular humanism became a tool of the ruling ideology. Christopher Hitchens was the epitome of said phenomenon.

He's going to be remembered unfortunately as one of those great traitors to Marxism. And even though fuck Bernstein, Hitchens does not deserve to be remembered beside him.

[Classicliberal]

Next I'll totally disagree that religion itself is in any danger. Old style, largely feudal, religion is dying in a big way. Fundamentalists have no pull with young people except in the darkest parts of the world and even there their rule is falling apart. But I think this is just the transfer over to fully liberal-capitalist religion. Things like Live-Church are a good example of this phenomenon and they represent the fastest growing type of church in the west (and far-east). That said I think this could help us in our own attempts to force religion into the new epoch right along with us.

I think your missing the point here, religion, and if were focusing on the West, Christianity is, indeed, dying rapidly because, as you pointed out, traditional Christianity is be replaced by a liberal-capitalist prosperity theology i.e. Live-Church and other non-denominational MegaChurches. In other words, Christianity has become marketized and capitalized and this, therefore, dooms it to all the inherent faults of the capitalist system--it has ceased to be "religion". Why do you think Gramsci saw the traditional Church as a such a force against the Marxist revolution? Because it preceded the Capitalist order and thus was much more difficult to penetrate or dismantle, as its source of power lay in non-materialistic, otherworldly goods, namely, salvation. Marxism has no alternative for salvation because it's explicitly rooted in the material world; it denies the very possibility of an afterlife and this was the challenge Gramsci saw in Western culture being dominated, as you stated, by feudalistic, non-material, old-style religion. However, with Christianity being replaced by a commoditized pseduo-Christian MegaChurch "religion", contemporary churches are now increasingly rooted in the Capitalist system not only due to their distinctly capitalist organization--impersonal, industrial-scale mass worship--but also in their focus. MegaChurches, like Joel Osteen's Lakewood church, are increasingly devoid of emphasis on the future, the otherworldly, and on salvation; and instead, focus on using one's faith to derive material well-being for themselves. Yet, this is highly destructive model for the Church because it connects religion to material-well being and unlike salvation, prayer and faith can certainly fail to bring someone material wealth and thus it can act to definitely discredit the Church's theology. In short, MegaChurches now provide and focus more on providing material goods than otherworldly ones and therefore Marxism can compete more effectively in providing an alternative.

In a larger sense, its rather ironic that Western culture seems to be in nihilistic vertical integration of itself around the Capitalist model. When Gramsci wrote about Western culture hegemony it was rather horizontal in organization and thus had non-material elements like traditional religion and nationalism that made it difficult for Marxism to supersede it. The current course seems, in contrast, like a perfect example of dialectical materialism at work, as the capitalist order is destructively consolidating itself, materializing its culture and leaving itself no options once it inevitably burns itself out. To put it more bluntly, once inequality grows so great that the middle and lower classes consolidate, the now secular masses won't turn to the capitalist-style worship houses to pray to their bourgeoisie god to give them their fair share--he will have already, tangibly, failed them. Nor will national politicians be able to rally around arbitrary geographical borders. No, the enemy will be clear and the solution: simple.

[Donna]

The correct thing to do would be to purchase these publications legitimately so that you can use highlighter-to-paper and carefully study the social scientific program. Reading these materials online is not the correct way of studying Marxism.

[Decky]

[KlassWar]

Sorry to bust your decadent petty-bourgeois mystic bubble, Donald, but the correct way of studying Marxism is that which incurs less expense on the penniless working-class student. Which in this day and age involves reading Marxist theory from free ebooks in your PC or tablet.

Copyright restrictions in the distribution of Marxist theory are objectively counter-revolutionary and should be treated as such. Marxist theory is the working masses' weapon against the class enemy, so putting its distribution behind paywalls is a Crime Against The People.

[Ombrageux]

Copyright restrictions in the distribution of Marxist theory are objectively counter-revolutionary and should be treated as such. Marxist theory is the working masses' weapon against the class enemy, so putting its distribution behind paywalls is a Crime Against The People.

+1 Contempt for copyrasty is a revolutionary act.

[Goldberk]

Copyright restrictions in the distribution of Marxist theory are objectively counter-revolutionary and should be treated as such. Marxist theory is the working masses' weapon against the class enemy, so putting its distribution behind paywalls is a Crime Against The People.

This

On a related topic, i was in a revolutionary bookshop recently and witnessed a comrade shoplifting, the volunteers manning the bookshop gave chase

[Donna]

Decky, help?

The anarchists are saying we should study Marxism on tablets.

[Potemkin]

Sorry to bust your decadent petty-bourgeois mystic bubble, Donald, but the correct way of studying Marxism is that which incurs less expense on the penniless working-class student. Which in this day and age involves reading Marxist theory from free ebooks in your PC or tablet.

Lol!

[fuser]

Klasswar is not anarchist and I agree with him.

One should of course prefer book but still lack of study materials on "tablets" is a loss.