Is Gramsci a right-wing social democrat? He's trendy among some European new-right circles currently...

Gramsci is more radical than alnost anyone on leftypol. He knew all teachers, trade unions, the family, school, university, welfare, charity, socdems, german marxists, min wage, governments etc only existed to produce consent to capitalism. He thought it all needs to be overthrown. He d probably say you too do nothing but reproduce capitalism

Whats a good book that explains gramsci? The prison note books are too hard lol

so he was basically a very bad tempered leftcom on steroids?
wow that sounds very right wing in deed…

I haven't read it but I'm probably going to order this book.
versobooks.com/books/2441-the-antinomies-of-antonio-gramsci

Stop asking the phillistines here and actually read Gramsci.

Gramsci was the OG nazbol

duckduckgo.com/l/?kh=-1&uddg=https://libcom.org/files/Chiaradia-Bordiga-Gramsci.pdf

Gramsci was the only one to acknowledge that the superstructure is actually reciprocal to the base and that vulgar dialectical materialism is bullshit (something Leftcoms like to adhere to, despite calling dialectical materialism a "Stalinist deviation", total cognitive dissonance).

Gramsci is the predecessor of Debord.

Oh yeah, Bordiga, the staunch anti-fascist. The guy who co-authored or published a text that would legally be Holocaust Denial in most European countries, the guy that was left alone by the fascist police because he was "actively discouraging action" and the guy who thought that liberal democracy of the UK or the US is the same as fascism and therefore we shouldn't resist fascism at all.

...

Weird. How does that work?
How did he do that when he completely dropped out of politics after being released from prison?
But he didn't. His point was that liberal democracies lead to fascism in times of crisis and askewing class struggle to save liberal democracy from it's devolution is an excercise in futility.

Gramsci was an opponent to the party line when Bordiga was the secretary and during the fight in the PCUS he hardly criticized Trotsky. So he really was not in the left of the party (Bordiga, Terracini). Stop spreading bullshit.
And the other user was right about Gramsci's thinking. Yes leftcoms are vulgar materialists.

Let me write that again
Pick one

...

Yes

I'm confused as to why someone with a leftcom flag would call Gramsci retarded.

love the glasses

"Auschwitz or the Great Alibi" is a controversial essay but it's not Holocaust denial. Besides, we're not even sure Bordiga actually wrote it, it was not signed.

So "left alone" that he spent several years in prison.

He refused alliance with bourgeois politicians in the name of anti-fascism, not resistance to fascism itself.

Gramsci wanted to work with fascists in their early years, so it's not surprising that the New Right have an interest in him.

>>>/reddit/

Butthurt tankiddies pls go

Assuming AnCap is not Socialism, how exactly are you going to justify Chomsky as anything but right-leaning political opportunist?

By stating he's a literal anarcho-syndicalist?

He is.
t. Continental gang.

It's literally in the name u dum bich

...

What does he mean by all of this?

He's just an edgelord. Which a lot of the new tanks seem to be.

Well, some people call AnCap Left. If we are to discuss seriously if Chomsky is (at least somewhat) Socialist, I'd rather not waste time on opinions of those people.

That's your personal opinion and nothing else. If I would post excerpts from that essay on Facebook, I'd get literally imprisoned for Holocaust Denial in my country.

Those are bullshit laws honestly, I obviously don't love Bordiga or anything, but I could care less if some of his works would be breaking laws that are meant to ideologically uphold imperialism

Pls point me to who calls AnCapism a leftist ideas so we can e-purge them

I agree. But if this guy says that this essay is not Holocaust denial as it is commonly understood, he is wrong and merely doing damage control.

That's not my opinion but a clearly demonstrable fact. Holocaust denial is to assert the genocide of European Jews by Nazi Germany didn't actually happen. At no point in the Great Alibi is the existence of death camps questioned. Its sole claim is that the motivation for that genocide was not fanatical antisemitism but profit and accumulation. This essay is poorly regarded overall and I personally think it's fairly dumb, but it doesn't make it a denialist rag.

Buddy, I'm against this stupid legislation but you can't say that this is an undeniable fact if it clearly does go against the laws of Holocaust denial that most European countries have. Again, if this wasn't the case, why can't I post excerpts from it without being imprisoned?

What makes you think that could actually happen?

Doesn't it go against some of these claims:
If you go against one of these claims, you are being locked away as a Holocaust denier. Again, I don't agree with it, but that's the reality.

Why are you a Holocaust denier?

What??

What is the basis for your claim that an assertion going against these rules would land you in prison?

I imagine thats because this particular ☭TANKIE☭ is german and Bordiga's essay enters into the holocaust denial category.
Isn't the essay authorship disputed?

Because my country (Germany) asserts that Holocaust denial is the following:
Concretely, the constitutional court has ruled:
tl/dr, the essay in question would get me to prison. I assume many other countries which have Holocaust denial laws are modeled after the German law.

lol got me there. However, most countries that do have these laws go into a similar direction.

Yes, the journal in which it was featured published articles anonymously, so we can't know for sure who exactly wrote it.

The Great Alibi does nothing of what you've just listed. It does NOT diminish the suffering of the victims of the Holocaust; it does NOT justify the action of the Nazi government; and it does NOT insult or smear anyone. Again, its only claim is that the Holocaust was the result of the petite-bourgeoisie looking for a scapegoat when faced with an economic crisis — which is technically true but fairly dogmatic and lacking in nuance.

That's Holocaust denial. Denying or diminishing that there was an ethnic aspect, denying that the Holocaust was a singular event in history or trying to "economize" the Holocaust is very likely to get you locked up. I personally think it's utterly ridiculous but that's the way things work here.

I think you are underestimating how fanatical and cultish the sionistas that wrote these laws actually are, the holocaust is basically religion to them

When I asked what the basis for that claim of yours was, you listed three rules you say were promulgated by the German government — and I explained why the Great Alibi is not in conflict with any of those. Are you going to keep moving the goalpost, or…?

I stated in the post you quoted that economizing the Holocaust or denying its ethnic aspect gets you in prison. It's the offical interpretation of said rules which I stated. If you think I'm lying, I invite you to come here and publicly quote the essay in question. Feel free to criticize the jurisdiction of this country all you want, but don't accuse me of moving the goalposts.

I've seen some on >>/liberty/

>>>/liberty/

Gramsci is opposed to Bordiga.