But no, I sincerely doubt that dark and mysterious acolytes of an obscure Italian Marxist have infiltrated our institutional state apparatuses and begun propagating their ideology.

Yes, yes, I know, evil liberals have infiltrated our culture and have changed our values systems so that people can’t call gays “faggots” anymore, black people can marry white people, and children are taught Chanukhah songs but not Christmas carols.

But Gramsci probably would have held this sort of thing in disdain as well. These are cultural artifacts – they represent the superstucture of cultural relationships that grows out of the base of the means and modes of production.

Gramsci wasn’t interested in liberal cultural ideas; he was interested in changing the way people think about their relationships in terms of power, all going back to their relationships to the means of production.

In other words, if people’s energies are devoted to identity politics instead of stuff like, I don’t know, the revolution, then Gramsci really didn’t do a very good job.

Gramsci’s real contribution was understanding how the demands of the economy shape our culture.

A fun little example:

In Jesus’ gospel, he promoted a radical re-interpretation of what “family” meant. The new family was to consist of believers in Christ; it didn’t matter who your mother or father or sister or brother or child was. All that mattered was belief in Christ – everyone who believed was to be a brother and sister in Christ’s family.

This was a radical break from tradition, a total reshaping of social and moral order.

Now, though, it is the nuclear family that is considered the bedrock of morals/values/tradition/faith/etc.

Jesus’ gospel didn’t change, but people’s understanding of families and how families relate to morality has changed.

Capitalism, of course, demands a highly mobile, atomized labor force. The traditional extended family model is incompatible with modern capitalism – family connections get in the way of open economic exchange.

So, in other words, even though the original text remains unchanged, what people believe about families and morality has changed in a way that neatly suits the demands of the dominate economic mode.

Coincidence? Or was Gramsci right?!?!?!?!?!??! Long-dead Italian Marxists report, you decide.

I’m afraid you are right.

I’ve recently come across the work of 20th century Italian Marxist theoretician Antonio Gramsci. A case can be made that it is his playbook that has been used by many on the Left to undermine American culture and society. Gramsci believed that the ruling groups in society held “Hegemony” through a “dominent set of ideas through which dominant groups secured the consent of subordinate groups to their rule.” (see this article from which I have quoted for more detail http://www.freerepublic.com/forum/
a3a4c610569be.htm) Gramsci’s plan was to attack and subvert the institutions of a society–the family, the church, schools, civil society and its organizations. If this subversion was successful, a whole new set of values, beliefs and morality would replace what had been and the people would question the legitimacy of their rulers to rule in the accepted way. One of the keys to this transformation was the capture of the media so that it could pour out unceasing propaganda to change the popular concensus.

Looks to me like this is what has been happening and if none in the MSM “dare call it treason,”then, for a lot of people, it isn’t.

Who’s kidding who? If your a liberal you guest lecture at Universities and end up with your own show on “Air America”. You’re greatest contribution to society from that point on, would be to edge Cindy Sheehan further back from the limelight.

(And boy, will she be pissed!)

In today’s gentler age I suppose the equivalents would be loss of job with loss of pension and prosecution for any number of offenses up to treason, which carries the death penalty. But no one that I am aware of has been prosecuted in the last decades for such severe leaks; spies, yes, moles, yes, leakers,no. It seems to me that if you never harshly punish or even bring to trial anyone who commits a serious violation of the secrecy laws, its as if there were no secrecy laws (the farce of Sandy Berger’s “punishment” comes to mind here). If you never punish infractions you also embolden other potential leakers, who might be on the fence, to leak.

http://www.editorandpublisher.com/eandp/columns/pressingissues_display.jsp?vnu_content_id=1002343990

Bias? What bias?

Read the whole sorry thing.

Please explain.

Enjoy being invisible.

I really wonder…if we hadn’t invaded Iraq, do you really believe that we’d be wearing burkas?