Was Gramsci the last true great Marxist writer, and Holla Forums exitcore?

can the abridged work? the whole thing is pretty damn long

...

my commitment to revolution is a religious commitment, if that makes any sense. Communism is Christ's one true Church on earth, and it is our obligation to win souls, to make the world whole. We have to believe the world can be redeemed. The mechanical unfolding of historical materialism cannot and will not save us by itself. In the end, only humanity, that is, what is good in humanity, can save us. economic materialism, does not make a revolution. It is the conscious will to transcend economic materialism that does. the will to go beyond capitalism.

this is just the mirror image of the homo economicus model of humans neoliberals like, in which humans are nothing but rational utility maximising units with no will of their own. Only the conscious will to overcome capital can defeat capital. Capital is, after all, only the current state of the hierarchical germ that has plagued humanity since the dawn of civilisation. You shouldn't reify the economy into some sort of all powerful god, basically enslaving your imagination to capital. Behind a sham facade of cold economic rationality, there's a battle going on between humanity's will to freedom and the constraints on such freedom., a battle that is as old as humanity itself

Post-keynsianism?

hmm I don't know about all this:
'will to freedom' sounds very essentialist/humanist.

Why does the human subject have this will to freedom that is as old as humanity? I hate to say it, but 'will to freedom' sounds like neoliberal cultural logic…

hes better than bordiga.

Oh fuck off with this stale nonsense.

...

economic essentialism is also essentialism. You dismiss most aspects of being as 'unscientific' while worshipping a fetishised rationality that is as much of a product of human consciousness as anything else. you are placing limits on the imagination, saying 'this cannot be'. lots of parallels with scientism and the TINA mantra of neoliberals. There are people who dedicate their lives to the struggle out there, people who don't like to get fucked over. are you gonna tell them they should just read up on structuralist theory and realise 'everything is relative' and overcome their essentialist humanist delusions?

Debord was both great and Marxist, sometimes he also wrote, although he drank more.

there is nothing necessarily human about not wanting to get fucked over, or to be free. those things both sound very bourgeois, like that other poster said, a proletariate ethic that is just a mirror of bourgeois culture

So why not just embrace some sort of full landian accelerationist techno nihilist deathcult? humanity doesn't real after all, only abstract models of political economy are real. Capital will either collapse on its own somehow, or it will turn out to be the true revolutionary subject of history, totally annihilating the proletariat. What if Capitalism is an incarnation of the dictatorship of the political economy, just like feudal societies, slave societies, and authoritarian socialist states. There's something smugly technocratic about doctrinaire marxism. You have access to the one true objective 'scientific' model of the world, Marxism as a secularised theology of technics. Stalin's planners thought they had it too, that the stubborn Soviet people didn't know what was good for themselves and had to be made to comply with the model by the barrel of a gun if necessary. Throughout history, all 'objective' scientific models of the political economy have been but masks for the arbitrariness of power. All world-views have a political, mythical and religious dimension, even those that claim to be 'objective'.

it's easy to be a nihilist for me. It is hard to struggle, when almost every struggle seems to only make capitalism stronger - the most powerful form of hegemony is when it looks like opposition

lmfao at this, not everything is political

What does Mickey mean by this?

List of revolutions that occurred because the contradictions of capital spurred a crisis: all of them (1871, '03, '05, '16, '17, German revolution, Ukrainian peasant uprising, Spanish revolution, Hungarian revolution, Shanghai commune).

List of revolutions that occurred through the insertion of a particular brand of left politics: none.

List of revolutions that died because a particular brand of left politics was forced into the revolutionary subjects already at work instead of tailing said revolutionary subjects: all of them.

What about the Cuban and the Chinese revolutions though?

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Coup_d'état

I think this is crucial to Gramscian thought. I'm not an expert, but I wonder if he'd point out that civil society (ruling through ideology) in advanced capitalism has mitigated the change that crises will now result in revolution.

Both in terms of the crisis that happens every day as people toil, and things like the american bank crisis of '08 (which someone like Engles would have predicted a state takeover of banks as the first step towards Socialism) but of course did not happen b/c the ideology in the USA is to never let "the state interfere with the economy" (at least when it is for the benefit of the proletariate)

*will now NOT result in revolution

post-left, except it doesn't even get you an academic career, you just get to LARP on the internet

Those were national liberation movements against a foreign enemy or a foreign imposed puppet.

to be honest, I'm starting to feel way more sympathetic towards anarkiddies. doctrinaire marxists, either of the stalinist or 'leftcom' variety, are just the flip side to neoliberal technocrats. they elevate their particular model of political economy into a god and deny anything else exists.

If this is all you got from Althusser you haven't engaged him seriously. Structuralism is still probably the most influential theoretical current today.

(It's also funny how you place Lukács in positive light after this.)

Adorno, Benjamin, are excellent but wrote jack shit on praxis, they evaded discussing the USSR completely which is a totally cowardly move by any intellectual standard.

Castoradis, Debord, Lefevre are over-rated, non-essential, but fun to read.

These two are what communists consider to be outright harmful when it comes to their contribution to praxis. Foucault's "power structures" are the anglo's source for checking their muh muh privilege, Deleuze's rhizome is the muh networking post-leftists individualist's mantra.

Too bad Marx was the first anti-humanist political philosopher.

TL;DR: you are part of the problem.

My fucking GOTT, look at this purified ideology.

what are you a fucking normie?

(also yes the abriged work is good enough for a start)

you're missing somebody

gramsia i further developed by althusser, who is further developed by therborn

Althusser's distinction between the early 'ideological' Marx and the 'true' 'antihumanist' Marx is completely arbitrary and kind of idolatrous. ie. treating Marx ahistorically as if it was some sort of sacred religious text.

i prefer antihumanism, so I'm just going to say my friend Marx is an antihumanist

(even though I don't really understand the word too well, it fits in with my sociology of looking at groups and not individuals, b/c individuals don't actually really exist per se)

Should I read Althusser's For Marx and Reading Capital? Or is it a waste of time?