Jamie pointed me to this outstanding piece at Armed and Dangerous. While I have been aware of the individual elements identified, I have never seen a better job of assembling an entire mosaic from the available pieces.
I am aware that some contributors here do not believe that Gramsci's proposed methods were ever methodically implemented in the US, or that they continue to be propagated at almost twenty years from the fall of the regime responsible for their dissemination. I would not posit that every decision concerning advancement wihin the fields described is made by committee's whose sole determinant is "What would Antonio do?" but I do believe that affinity groups composed of his adherents (whether witting or unwitting) continue to conrol advancement within education and journalism or, wrt Hollywood, selection of "appropriate" product.
This is a truly top notch essay - and some of the comments (and commenters) which follow are very amusing - if you find blind adherence to a dead but pernicious philosophy a source of amusement.
7 comments:
It is a good essay, I agree.
But I continue to disagree with you to some extent about the nature of the phenomenon we are observing here. My opinion is that one cannot view the people holding the Gramscian ideas as mere puppets. It is not sufficient to say that Gramsci via the Soviets got this ball rolling. That they did get this ball rolling is not in particular doubt, let me hasten to emphasize. Rather, the issue turns on the nature of the believers themselves.
The point I am trying to make is that ideas of this nature succeed because they are satisfying a deep human need on the part of the believers. Ideas are like bacteria, they spread where there is opportunity to spread.
In order to root out this disease, it is not sufficient to say "See, you just a puppet of the Soviets." That won't persuade anybody, and will really just cause them to become hostile. Rather, the need that this disease satisfies must be identified and must be satisfied by some alternative belief system.
The fact is that there exist people whose hearts bleed over the poor and downtrodden, even if they have never met a poor or downtrodden person in their lives. The bleeding is real. There are likewise people whose hearts do not so bleed. The latter tend to view the former as foolish, and perhaps they are, but that doesn't change their nature. They need to believe in a better world and if they are not offered a reasonable means to a better world, they will inevitably turn to an unreasonable one.
Our task therefore is to follow in Truepeers's path by trying to create a new belief system for those who need it. It sounds quaint, old-fashioned, unhip, and all those other bad things (bad to those of us who are children of the Sixties) but we have to believe in Western Society or we will not succeed. We must believe in ourselves, or we will inevitably fail. If we cannot believe that we are the future then we will not be.
It sounds quaint, old-fashioned, unhip, and all those other bad things (bad to those of us who are children of the Sixties) but we have to believe in Western Society or we will not succeed.
Oh, no, not unhip at all. I think it is a deep seated need. I wrote a freshman essay in 1964 saying the same thing, although I can't say the essay was very profound -- 500 words, you know. I also brought in comic book superheroes somewhere along the line, in that essay or another, something to do with young folks needing rites of passage and an arena in which to prove themselves. I think the malaise of disbelief and unconfidence is *the* fundamental problem of modern societies.
"My opinion is that one cannot view the people holding the Gramscian ideas as mere puppets."
I certainly don't disagree with you about that. Nor do I disagree that the syncretic amalgam of Hegelian materialist/rationalist "belief" systems satisfies a need. I believe that it does, although I believe that it is the cheapest sort of sentimental crap that provides wild self-applause for holding "feelings" or participating in "advocacy" rather than dealing with an honest to goodness poor person by hauling them to an appointment at a free clinic.
I believe that after a long struggle the market will destroy the Gramscian foothold in the MSM and Hollywood. The useful idiots at the NYT and the Trib are going to have to face their families, who have seen their net worth sliced to ribbons, at some point. The same for Hollywood - Disney at least seems to be awakening to the fact that people commited to staying away from the junk they were serving seems to have an impact on the bottom line.
Academe is a completely different matter. This is the point where I veer sharply away from the Horowitz 'call them dangerous' method and sharply toward Knuck's 'laugh them out of the classroom' method. Mocking the profs and their acolytes, seems the best bet. Posting a "Ten Stupidest Things Prof. X Has Said to Date" could be more effective than Horowitz's "dangerous" classification. Disseminating handouts of those "Ten Stupidest Things" on campus would be a project that I could support.
Shoot, even a "Who was Antonio Gramsci and why is Prof. X a witting or unwitting dupe?" contest at the various dens of iniquity mentioned by Horowitz would be an idea that I would support.
I agree with MHA here. We need to believe in ourselves. We may think Gramscians are a virus, but they feed off a very real need.
When FDR became President he did not tell folks to pull themselves up by their boot straps and stop bellyaching. He opened soup kitchens in so doing cut the membership of the American Communist Party almost immediately. He made people believe that there was hope. People need that.
Western civilization has much to be proud of. When our founding fathers wrote the amazing words, life..liberty and the pursuit of happiness they were recognizing and celebrating the fact that people have worth..by virtue of their existence.
I remember being in school and listening to the communists rant. They really did believe that stuff. I wonder how many of them still do.
Academe needs at least a one-two punch. Ridicule first, scaremonger even, but we need more than that as MHA and DT were discussing above. Mark Steyn, for all his skill in undressing the left, is ultimately a defeatist re Europe because he has no deep appreciation for the (re)genererative possibilities inherent in western culture. And it is attention to the latter that we need somehow to promote better. It is all too easy now to undress our enemies, and yet many remain on the wrong side of things, so now we have to start building a new set of clothes that will attract the desiring crowd.
WE need less reactionary blogging and more a construction of some vision of humanity to which people will want to belong. It's a tough demand; i've been dwelling on it a while and i know how tough its going to be. The left has done so well with its resentful righteousness because it's so much easier to sell that crap. But, ultimately, what else are we here for than to fight for the best, whatever the odds?
More to come...
True,
Without doubt.
The mythos must precede the ethos - or, at minimum be constructed within the ethos.
And it must be done in real time with the world watching - which requires "heroes" DOA - no living hero will suffice.
Orphan heroes who never made any friends would probably be best.
Orphan heroes who never made any friends would probably be best.
Mohammed, Moses, Hiram (of the Freemasons) or someone else? I take it Harry Potter made too many friends.
Post a Comment