http://www.charm.net/~vacirca/

Are there particular areas of Marxist though that you are interested in; it makes a difference for recommending other authors to look at. Without knowing what you are interested in I would recommend “History and Class Consciousness” by Lukács, because it is the greatest book ever written. OK, it can’t be the greatest ever written because that title belong to “The Grapes of Wrath”, however it quite good.

[ 04 August 2004: Message edited by: Rand McNally ]

By far the best introduction to Gramsci is Roger Simon's.

Extremely helpful are the introduction and glossary in David Forgacs' Gramsci reader, which contains as much as anyone probably really wants to read of Gramsci in the original. However, if you want that little bit more, the standard English translation is Nowell-Smith's.

Ralph Miliband probably fits the "Gramscian" label and his standard works are "Marxism and Politics" and "The State and Capitalist Society". I would recommend "Marxism and Politics". His student Leo Panitch continues in the same vein, and I guess his most general work is "Renewing Socialism". The most famous neo-Gramscians are probably Chantal Mouffe and Ernest Laclau and their major opus is "Hegemony and Socialist Strategy". If Mouffe is writing without Laclau, however, it is much easier to read.

[ 04 August 2004: Message edited by: rasmus raven ]

[ 04 August 2004: Message edited by: rasmus raven ]

[ 04 August 2004: Message edited by: skdadl ]

quote:

---

Is there a particular areas of Marxist though that you are interested in

---

Gramscian Marxism - dealing with analysis of the mass media, ideology, hegemony and the like.

I have a background in critical labour process theory, which included coursework I would describe as "Marxism 101." My friend also identifies himself ideologically as a Marxist, but he had not heard of Gramsci when I mentioned him. I read a bit about Gramsci in university when I did a research project on the Frasier Institute. I strictly read secondary sources, and it was long enough ago that I don't remember which ones they were. I remembered enough, though, that when I heard my friend was planning to study journalism, I wanted to steer him in this direction. I'd been giving a lot more thought to the mass media myself, lately, and wanted to read some more anyway.

English translations would be preferable. I'm not sure about my friend, but its the only language I am really comfortable enough to read in.

EDIT: Thanks Rasmus! Thanks everyone else, too, and please keep it coming if you think of any other suggestions. I am going to steer my friend to this thread. I don't know if he will post, but I am sure both of us will make use of any info here.

[ 04 August 2004: Message edited by: robbie_dee ]

quote:

---

Originally posted by CrazyMiranda:
Marxism is pretty out-dated

---

Habermas's "Legitimation Crisis" is a good book on political ideology from the view point of the Frankfurt school.

quote:

---

Originally posted by rasmus raven:

We are so fortunate that you are bestowing your profound insights upon us.

---

It's a truth. In the western societies Marxism exists in the ideological/intellectual ghettos, often closely linked to our universities, and as a political message is not something the common people in west can relate to.

quote:

---

Originally posted by rasmus raven:
Hm. Are you able even to give a thumbnail sketch of Gramsci's main ideas, which you so cavalierly dismiss?

---

quote:

---

In the western societies Marxism exists in the ideological/intellectual ghettos, often closely linked to our universities

---

[ 04 August 2004: Message edited by: rasmus raven ]

Marxism lives in the intellectual ghetto close to our universities, because of social pressure. People outside of this ghetto, the mainstream, the people we should be targeting in our fight for alternative globalization cannot relate to it. Clearer now?
Marxism is in the marginal, and will remain there.

quote:

---

Originally posted by Rand McNally:
I would advise you to check your premises.

---

My premises are environmentalism and fight for global social justice and well being.
I don't feel Marxism is helping us to progress in that walk in todays world. In fact I feel it is holding some of our more passionate and energetic sections back.
Because they remain in the ghetto and don't reach the mainstream.
It's wasting time and resources.
I don't judge the Marxist, nor blame him individually, but I would hope him to eventually see this situation.
It's my stance on it.

[ 04 August 2004: Message edited by: CrazyMiranda ]

Being marginal does not in itself discredit anything. If that were true, then the civil rights movement, feminism, and so on, would have been still-born. It's not as if the mainstream led the charge on those issuse.

quote:

---

As to Debord, I wouldn't recommend it to anyone who didn't have a grounding in the continental tradition.

---

I found it rather hard slogging.

quote:

---

Originally posted by WingNut:
Alternative globalization is not marginal? Is not in an "intellectual ghetto" as you would describe it? Environmentalism, human rights, fair trade, safe foods, clean water, all of these things are marginal and outside the mainstream. So, in your view, they belong in an "intellectual ghetto" and are no longer worth persuing. So lets all get in the SUV, dive to the Sam's Club, pick up a wide screen and pork rinds and hurry home to watch all-star wrestling.

Is that your advice?

---

Ask the common man whether he thinks environmentalism is good. At least here in Europe 50%+ will immediately answer 'definitely. Empathy, helping the poor and handicapped? Most people support in principle.

quote:

---

Originally posted by rasmus raven:
CrazyM, your remark is ignorant of the nature of political dynamics, including the social and political impact of what is apparently "marginal", and how the margins can expand at time of crisis; and it is ignorant of the actual role played by more or less classical Marxists in governments and large movements across Latin America, and elsewhere.

---

Yeah in countries with utmost poverty, where people can relate to social change concretely, like the dirt they can grab from the field and hold in their hands. It's close it's personal, then there is a market for economic radicalism. But not in a society where 80+% are living in prosperity, and cannot personally relate to this fight. Environmental problems some 50-100 years away are not the same thing. You can touch them concretely, you don't face them in your every day life, unlike say hunger or enslaving work standards.
Same with global altruism, people cannot relate to it in the same way personally.

On top of that with the extra historical stigma it is even worse for Marxism, it's desperate, it IS impossible.

quote:

---

Being marginal does not in itself discredit anything.

---

Yes it does, if resources are being wasted if some people are campaigning for messages, that the target groups cannot relate to, won't adopt and which may even turn them away from the movement! It's not always only wasteful, it can also be harmful.

quote:

---

If that were true, then the civil rights movement, feminism, and so on, would have been still-born. It's not as if the mainstream led the charge on those issuse.

---

They WERE changed by REACHING the mainstream. This is the point. And this is why Marxism is today outdated, it can NOT reach the mainstream in todays western societies. It can also be harmful.

quote:

---

Crazy M, I think you need to do others the respect of doing some homework before being so casually dismissive.

---

I'm done my home work thank you. 64 months soon.

[ 04 August 2004: Message edited by: CrazyMiranda ]

quote:

---

Ask the common man whether he thinks environmentalism is good. At least here in Europe 50%+

---

There is a huge disconnect between what people say and what they do. Anyway you cut it, support for environmental policies is marginal at best. It is one reason why the Green Party, in North America and beyond, remains a party mostly of protest.

quote:

---

Originally posted by WingNut:

That is meaningless. Here, in Canada, a majority will respond to pollsters, every single time, that they would prepare to pay more for clothing they know is not made in sweatshops of by child labour. And then they all go shopping at the WalMart and buy on price.

---

Like I said people generally cannot relate to it concretely in their every day lives. But that does render it meaningless. It is a very difficult task, and therefore it is even more important that the messages we try to approach them with are as appealing as possible. Marxism does not make that bracket.

quote:

---

There is a huge disconnect between what people say and what they do. Anyway you cut it, support for environmental policies is marginal at best. It is one reason why the Green Party, in North America and beyond, remains a party mostly of protest.

---

This is true. So in the fight to change it, we must be as appealing as possible, to reach more people and make the movement grow gradually. Marxism is not a message that is appealing.

quote:

---

And as for globlaization, well, the proponents of globalization say that resistance is marginal, that market globalization is inevitable, and that it is supported by most people around the world so accept it and get over it. Sound familiar?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by lagatta:
Well then, stop trolling and start discussing Gramsci's life and works.

Hmm, to paraphrase il gran compagno Tonino, I'm a pessimist about getting trolls to discuss anything seriously, but an optimist about our moderators' ability to deal with them.

---

quote:

---

My premises are environmentalism and fight for global social justice and well being.

---

Sorry, wrong premises. My mistake, I was unclear. The premise that I was referring to was the idea that great ideas and works of history could become outdated. Even if they are flawed we need to know them to understand where we are day. The original poster did not claim he want to read Marxist thought to become a card carrying, red bereted, member of the Spartacus league. He wanted works“dealing with analysis of the mass media, ideology, hegemony and the like”. All things which are important in understanding the world we live in; and all areas where Marxist thought is quite relevant, not outdated.

Apologies to any card carrying, red bereted, members of the Spartacus league.

[ 04 August 2004: Message edited by: Rand McNally ]

We could try to look at this world today with open mind, with no pre-conceptions and pre-concieved theories.. we then try to make the reality to fit!

quote:

---

This is true. So in the fight to change it, we must be as appealing as possible,

---

Huh. And I was arguing with you. That has just lost appeal to me and, therefore, you are marginalized.

quote:

---

I'm trolling, because I'm making sense?

---

You're trolling because your responses are not topical to the thread. I didn't ask anybody whether Marxism was still "popular." I asked whether anyone had any information they could share about a particular thinker - Gramsci - who happened to be a Marxist. If you don't have anything to add on that topic, kindly fuck off please. And would everyone else kindly stop feeding him?

EDITED TO ADD:

quote:

---

Is it that bad if debate is sparked in different contexts? People can still post him links to Gramsci's work.

---

Yes it is that bad. It is highly distracting. Please start a different thread if you want to have this "debate" further. Bye.

[ 04 August 2004: Message edited by: robbie_dee ]

[ 04 August 2004: Message edited by: Rand McNally ]

quote:

---

Originally posted by WingNut:

Read what you are saying: You are saying that environmentalism and globalization are not marginal because they are appealing to you but Marxism and Gramsci, who you are apparently unfamiliar with, are not appealing to you and, therefore, marginal.

---

You misread me now, on purpose perhaps. 'as appealing as possible' does not mean the same as 'appealing'. I'm not unfamiliar with Marxism. I admit I know very little about Gramsci because different Marxist writers don't interest me.

We desperately need new answers. This movevement has failed so horribly. The current answers are not working, and many of them are adopted from these writers you cite.

quote:

---

I admit I know very little about Gramsci because different Marxist writers don't interest me.

---

Then fuck off! This thread is about Gramsci and if you don't know anything about him you don't have much to contribute, now, do you. I don't know as much as I would like about Gramsci, that's why I am asking questions about him. If you would like to ask questions too, that's fine. If you would just like to shut up and read, that's fine. But if you want to change the subject, start your own damn thread! Please, everybody, if you feel you must reply to this person take it to a different thread.

What is discouraging is that it seems you are closing your mind to alternative philosophies and ideas based upon a personal prejudice. You deem Marxism, or another idea, outdated, so it no longer requires any more investigation.

I read Manufacturing Consent long before I read Gramsci. I don't know if you could say they "follow" Gramsci's theory of hegemony -- and this theory itself was only worked out in patches -- but my sense is they are broadly in agreement on the nature of ideological hegemony and its role in creating consent.

[ 04 August 2004: Message edited by: rasmus raven ]

It does not follow that theories adequate to some frame or time are rendered completely inadequate to all other times and frames. The question then is what is the truth that must be preserved, augmented, made adequate.

quote:

---

My mistake robbie-dee. If you can only read the posts in which there are links?

---

CrazyM, I think that you have some interesting things to say. I would just really appreciate it if you didn't say them on this thread? If we could instead move this other discussion, say, here, I would really appreciate it and look forward to reading everyone's contributions.

[ 04 August 2004: Message edited by: robbie_dee ]

Since the wall fell down in 1989, global media has pushed, and pushed, and pushed the same message regarding the "Death of the Spectre of Communism" ... flatly ignoring how classical Marxist thought has materialized itself throughout the industrialized world.

Consumer fetishism anyone?

Of course, Crazy M is also mostly right that the political relevancy of old-school socialism is mostly dead ... due to free-market societies with half a brain (such as much of Scandvania) co-opting the political drive to control the means of production through the construction of a generous welfare state, cheap tutition, reasonable labour/environmental standards, etc..

Despite that, however, Marxist analysis prevades everything in the capitalist world -- marketing in particular employs endless devious techniques that I'm sure would have Karl nodding his head in admiration. Remember: Marx himself thought very highly of the power of the entreprenerurial genius of capitalists -- he just assumed that such a society would remain stagnated in the status quo until the 'proles worldwide tore everything down.

In that respect, he was very, very wrong about the majority of First World Sheeple, who are quite happy with their material quality of life thank-you, despite suffering from the alienating nature of post-industrial society.

Like Huxley's "soma" in Brave New World, global consumerism is a seductive and very successful drug that is oh so ripe for critical theorists (who will undoubtably know some Marx!) to dig their teeth into. Will most people probably not care? -- sure. But, is Crazy M "throwing the baby out with the bathwater"? Absolutely.

[ 04 August 2004: Message edited by: tomlovestrees ]

the writings of robert w. cox would also be a good place to start:

(1981) ‘Social Forces, States and World Orders’, Millennium: Journal of International Studies, 10(2): 126–55.

(1983) ‘Gramsci, Hegemony and International Relations’, Millennium: Journal of International Studies, 12(2): 162–75.

(1987) Production, Power and World Order: Social Forces in the Making of History. New York: Columbia University Press.

[ 06 August 2004: Message edited by: Willowdale Wizard ]