Gramsci - Democracy and Hegemony

The latter. I had lengthy first hand experience. The cadres "induce" the subalterns to transfer their "affections" from the previous authority to them instead. It can be cloaked in all sorts of sentimentality, dynamism or superior-looking mystique but beware. The cadres will select individuals who are pliable enough "material" to represent a privileged element within the subalterns, initially making very sure to imply that it is the rest of us subalterns that are electing those. Hence the pretence at democracy. Further "elections" will be more contrived if they don't become less frequent. Dumbing down the system, and relying on the prevalence of a forelock-tugging mentality in the first place, are features.

These operatives and ringleaders wear the aura of semi “rehabilitated” IRA, or Italian revolutionaries, or Yaxley-Cummings “people” types. And they embed themselves everywhere. I mean everywhere. Religions, commerce. They render what we thought was hitherto proper authority, completely ineffective, no matter if there are still a few old-style seniors of attempted goodwill around. There is no recourse and there are no channels of responsibility-taking.

Quoting Fine Doubter

The latter. I had lengthy first hand experience. The cadres "induce" the subalterns to transfer their "affections" from the previous authority to them instead. It can be cloaked in all sorts of sentimentality, dynamism or superior-looking mystique but beware. The cadres will select individuals who are pliable enough "material" to represent a privileged element within the subalterns, initially making very sure to imply that it is the rest of us subalterns that are electing those. Hence the pretence at democracy. Further "elections" will be more contrived if they don't become less frequent. Dumbing down the system, and relying on the prevalence of a forelock-tugging mentality in the first place, are features.

These operatives and ringleaders wear the aura of semi “rehabilitated” IRA, or Italian revolutionaries, or Yaxley-Cummings “people” types. And they embed themselves everywhere. I mean everywhere. Religions, commerce. They render what we thought was hitherto proper authority, completely ineffective, no matter if there are still a few old-style seniors of attempted goodwill around. There is no recourse and there are no channels of responsibility-taking.

Are you talking about real life, or a computer game? I tend to believe the latter is the case. (Gramsci, subalterns, cadres, dumbingt the system, forelock-tugging, being features. All indicate non-reality. Unless I live a really sheltered life.)

Quoting Fine Doubter

The latter. I had lengthy first hand experience. The cadres "induce" the subalterns to transfer their "affections" from the previous authority to them instead. It can be cloaked in all sorts of sentimentality, dynamism or superior-looking mystique but beware. The cadres will select individuals who are pliable enough "material" to represent a privileged element within the subalterns, initially making very sure to imply that it is the rest of us subalterns that are electing those. Hence the pretence at democracy. Further "elections" will be more contrived if they don't become less frequent. Dumbing down the system, and relying on the prevalence of a forelock-tugging mentality in the first place, are features.

These operatives and ringleaders wear the aura of semi “rehabilitated” IRA, or Italian revolutionaries, or Yaxley-Cummings “people” types. And they embed themselves everywhere. I mean everywhere. Religions, commerce. They render what we thought was hitherto proper authority, completely ineffective, no matter if there are still a few old-style seniors of attempted goodwill around. There is no recourse and there are no channels of responsibility-taking.

Strikes me as a very elaborate conspiracy theory.

It's a long time since I read Gramsci, an experience I recall as liberating - but you always have doubts about your earlier self when people speak with such apparently textual authority. Was Gramsci really naïve enough to accept bourgeois 'democracy'? If so, I was very dim indeed back then.

Reply to iolo

Also, it's hard to take someone seriously when they have this hairdo:

Reply to god must be atheist Did he really reject democracy? Gramsci conceived the connection between democracy and hegemony. (Sorry I'm just making a paper about this, I want to be sure)

Reply to isaacmoris Quoting isaacmoris

?god must be atheist Did he really reject democracy? Gramsci conceived the connection between democracy and hegemony. (Sorry I'm just making a paper about this, I want to be sure)

I don't know whether that might be addressed to me, in which case I am not the man to ask, since I seem to have had an attack of extreme theory-amnesia when I left the SWP, but mightn't the meaning of democracy depend rather on class and historical context?

Terrapin Station, bad planning has been going on on this planet for thousands of years, in my hypothesis.

I think any number of people will have introduced variations both during the old man's lifetime and afterwards. Also, this sort of thing is an especially big custom in Italy.

The thread belongs even more, to those who have matched the details of Gramsci's publications with activities carried out in his name, than to me, I only posted because I eye witnessed some goings on that were in fact attributed to his posthumous influence (via some Italian movements incidentally). You also only have to look at the enormous amount of baggage and unfinished business that are coming to light around the Ireland situation, with its very sad and long history.

Documents by those that lived through atrocities in many countries attest to similar manoeuvres.

Yes, bad planning, achieved by complex and laborious means, on large scales.

Sorry, I didn't realise you were making a paper Isaac, I hope you get the responses you need, but I don't see why my added posts should actually distract from that.

Manoeuvres of these kinds can be copied by any organisations anywhere, and weren't new with Gramsci himself. The more commercialised and sentimentalised religions have been operating in this ball park all the more in recent years. In the case of religions and some businesses, the "business model" has been imposed on them. It is particularly disappointing in the case of religions, which should have a good compass of their own to resist these kind of diversionary tactics, by faddists mostly.