I see this fella Antonio Gramsci posted around here a lot and I guess you can call me a newfag for only now just...

He's sardinian

Albanian origins

>implying that intellectualism is anything more than a means of creating hierarchy in egalitarian movements
Pol Pot was right. Take the rougepill.

Retarded lil shit.
Capitalism is immortal, Communism is a ghost.

Go rot in the sewers you communist nigger

Gramsciism is actually-existing Western Marxism, so it's worth reading to see what actually happened in the world.

I've seen a lot of posters pin modern "liberal socialism" or SJW-ness on Gramsci and his "Long march through the institutions" but I see literally no evidence that the liberal hegemony on colleges and such was blueprinted or even influenced by Gramsci; or even further, that it was even a conscious effort to shift the ideology of academia and not just a "natural" process. Only looking at the results can anyone raw any comparisons between Gramsci's thought and the existing state of colleges.
Moreover, this seems to imply that anti-capitalist thought wasn't entrenched in these institutions before which is complete bullshit. The '68 revolution was spearheaded by intellectuals and college students, and Schumpeter was talking about the "unanimous hostility against capitalism" amongst intellectuals in 1942, only 5 years after the notebooks were written and LONG before they were even translated outside of italian (i don't even think all of them are translated yet right?)

"The notebooks were smuggled out of prison in the 1930s. They were not published until the 1950s and were first translated into English in the 1970s, by the Scottish poet and folklorist Hamish Henderson."

as I said, long before. and unless you want to imply that the "Long march" was accomplished in the span of around 10 years (implying they were translated into french by then), then you also can't pin the '68 events on them

Whether they were directly inspired by Gramsci or not I think they ended up operating on a Gramscian model.

>since I tend to associate anyone that seems to have similar thoughts as Karl Marx to be a dumb nigger
That just confirmes you as a dumb “nigger”
Read on. It’s curable

I would say that if anything, socialists revolutionaries of the early XXth century got replaced by capitalist liberals who pose no threat to the system.
The institutions didn't become less left-wing but the left-wing itself became less left-wing. You see Marx and Marxists get taught in a limited way in colleges just enough to strip them of their revolutionary potential (Marx is little more than a history teacher and a sociology curiosity nowadays in colleges).
And as I said, I haven't really seen any convincing evidence that colleges became more leftwing today than they were in the 50s, that just seems to be pure fiction and alarmist /pol/paganda

What a time to be alive that we having people referring those that disagree with Marxism to it's core as dumb niggers. Actual clown society

This guy was a hell of a man, who prefered to die in prison rather to ask pardon to Mussolini.

The general trend has been leftward moverment as most people sees it (and as most people from the past would see it, certainly based on the left-right standard when it came into existence), evidently an ordering of the political spectrum derived from Marxism is highly questionable.

Compare to Bordiga who was so useless that he was let free iirc. Ironically Bordiga is probably a more serious Communist due to his rejection of democracy and emphasis on the Party.

>The general trend has been leftward moverment as most people sees it
what do you even mean by this?

Imagine going back to 1950 and show them the current government in the US. They would say "Wow, they're so left wing. What happened?" Repeat this exercise for 1900, 1850, 1800 and 1750.

>Wow, they're so left wing. What happened?"
No they would say "All according to kekaiku.". Threadly reminder that the marxists were purged in the arts and humanities during the Soviet Union era/Second Red Scare and replaced with idpol and post-mordernists

that would be an extremely narrow way of looking at it. If you look at market freedom (something that I think is fair to say is NOT a left position), it was extremely low in the 1700s, then went up up to the early 20th century, then was more heavily regulated, then the new feal came up, and now it's freeing again in the era of neoliberalism. Hardly a "leftwards trend economically".
If you're talking about the welfare state, you could talk about how the biggest leftist projects in this regard failed (china and russia) and reverted back to privatization, or how outside of certain parts of europe (most notably the US) it doesn't exist. Aid for the poor doesn't count and was a thing even back in the 30s, though I guess it's a minor point for a leftwards trend.
One victory you could call for the left is cultural progressivism becoming increasingly the norm against traditionalism and conservatism, but it's an extremely dubious claim, considering how traditionally leftist (and even non-leftist, see Schumpeter again) theory attributed the accelerating destruction of culture to capitalist progress itself; first the village, then the guilds, then religion, and then the family. The counterclaim to call progressivism as something caused by leftwing politics is very weak.
so what is this "leftwing shift"? sure if you expand the definition even more it can mean the fact that republics prevailed over monarchism, or that humanism is (in theory) uphelp over elitism, but then you're limiting heavily what the "right wing" even is.

> outside of certain parts of europe (most notably the US)
I hope the wording doesn't come up as me thinking the US is part of europe

>"See this? It's far right, deeply reactionary."
>Any historical monarchist, conservative: "What. That's clearly a bunch of Jacobins gone mad."
>"No, you see, according to the theories of Marx-"
>"Who?"

By this logic absolutist royalism is left-wing relative to liberalism because all property is state-owned (it's the King's, after alll) and not private in the sense it's currently understood.

I think defining "the left" and "the right" loses cohesion generally once you start talking about a yearspan longer than about 50 years or so. But you started it so I followed.
Tell me your personal definition of left and right if you wanna, they're such loose terms anyway.

Read the Bible

The ghost of Christmas Yet To Come...

based

I think left-right is a bad model. I would say the following:

>the political spectrum only exists within the context of liberal society
>within that context, there exists a center, a margin, and a "middle"
>the general trend is that the center mobilIzes the margin to expand its power, which has reached its highest point thus far with American-style postmodernism which invents new categories of marginalized people while denying that the center exists
>this arises from a backwards, liberal conception of authority in society where it comes from the masses and thus can be dissolved at any moment

So Progressive-type parties are elite+margin centralitst.

The real long march was facilitated by the Roosevelt government by providing positions for fleeing European in order to defeat fascism intellectually. People like Carnap and Hayek are just as guilty as any Marxist.

> And as I said, I haven't really seen any convincing evidence that colleges became more leftwing today than they were in the 50s, that just seems to be pure fiction and alarmist /pol/paganda
The fact that cultural studies came into existence later is enough to prove that. They’re fields that exist as idea incubators for the broader left.