I don’t think Gramsci ever wrote about false consciousness, and what you’re describing is closer to the German Ideology than Gramsci’s theory of hegemony.
Like sorry if this is way out of whack but I think its like if someone wanted to understand Lenin’s formulation of imperialism and then I explained Chapter 15 of Capital v1. Like the theory is in there, but understanding it requires seeing how Marx’s “capital has x tendency” relates to specific, verifiable evidence.
If youre interested I will find the proper essays in Gramsci to post along side here, I just gotta dig in my book a little bit!
To be clear, the comment on false consciousness was separate to Gramsci, as an addendum to his theories of hegemony. I find both are good explanations, not that they are the same.
I see, thanks for the explanation. I hadn’t thought of the two things quite that way, that they fit together. False consciousness is the subjective manifestation hegemony’s objective condition.
I think about the stuff he wrote about Italian theater every time I think about live nation and ticket master.
I think another thing I deeply appreciate about Gramsci’s writing is that given the fact that his prison notes never had to like “bend the stick” the way other leaders did. I think it gives an unusually long tail of relevance for his work, because he was working with abstractions, which reemerge over and over throughout struggle, and not messy revolutionary conditions.
But its incredibly sad what happened to him. Anyway thanks for your insight, I have an urge to help clarify these theories – it seems like 90% of the analysis of Gramsci I’ve read has come from Neolibs and reactionaries who can only comprehend his theories cynically (the other 10% coming from DSA’s very good Mountain Caucus). But imma need to sharpen my pencil a bit I guess
That’s a good point, regarding the abstract nature of Gramsci’s work. It’s similar to Marx and Engels in that sense. Gramsci is a difficult one, like you brought up he’s often used in reactionary and cynical ways, despite being very supportive of existing socialism.
Being critical of abstraction is kind of my thing these days. IMO most people are more concerned with making or adopting abstractions that convincingly pass as real, because the abstractions validate people’s lived experience, rather than dig into the actual concrete conditions.
The real mindfuck comes when we realize that people can be totally idealistic in their understanding, and simultaneously very effective at certain kinds of organizing because they have more experience with a domain of practical work than they do with theoretical understanding of that work. Because people can be kinda negative its obvious to us that people can have seemingly good theory but really bad organizing instincts, but the other side always stands out to me as well.
I don’t think Gramsci ever wrote about false consciousness, and what you’re describing is closer to the German Ideology than Gramsci’s theory of hegemony.
Like sorry if this is way out of whack but I think its like if someone wanted to understand Lenin’s formulation of imperialism and then I explained Chapter 15 of Capital v1. Like the theory is in there, but understanding it requires seeing how Marx’s “capital has x tendency” relates to specific, verifiable evidence.
If youre interested I will find the proper essays in Gramsci to post along side here, I just gotta dig in my book a little bit!
To be clear, the comment on false consciousness was separate to Gramsci, as an addendum to his theories of hegemony. I find both are good explanations, not that they are the same.
I see, thanks for the explanation. I hadn’t thought of the two things quite that way, that they fit together. False consciousness is the subjective manifestation hegemony’s objective condition.
Thabks
No problem! Gramsci’s a bit fresh on my mind since I read a good deal of him a few weeks ago.
We really lost a lot when the fash locked him up, thank god his notebooks got smuggled out.
Yep! It’s incredible how much he wrote under strict observation.
I think about the stuff he wrote about Italian theater every time I think about live nation and ticket master.
I think another thing I deeply appreciate about Gramsci’s writing is that given the fact that his prison notes never had to like “bend the stick” the way other leaders did. I think it gives an unusually long tail of relevance for his work, because he was working with abstractions, which reemerge over and over throughout struggle, and not messy revolutionary conditions.
But its incredibly sad what happened to him. Anyway thanks for your insight, I have an urge to help clarify these theories – it seems like 90% of the analysis of Gramsci I’ve read has come from Neolibs and reactionaries who can only comprehend his theories cynically (the other 10% coming from DSA’s very good Mountain Caucus). But imma need to sharpen my pencil a bit I guess
That’s a good point, regarding the abstract nature of Gramsci’s work. It’s similar to Marx and Engels in that sense. Gramsci is a difficult one, like you brought up he’s often used in reactionary and cynical ways, despite being very supportive of existing socialism.
Being critical of abstraction is kind of my thing these days. IMO most people are more concerned with making or adopting abstractions that convincingly pass as real, because the abstractions validate people’s lived experience, rather than dig into the actual concrete conditions.
The real mindfuck comes when we realize that people can be totally idealistic in their understanding, and simultaneously very effective at certain kinds of organizing because they have more experience with a domain of practical work than they do with theoretical understanding of that work. Because people can be kinda negative its obvious to us that people can have seemingly good theory but really bad organizing instincts, but the other side always stands out to me as well.
Anyway, always good talking to ya comrade