Antonio Gramsci Quotes

I'm a pessimist because of intelligence, but an optimist because of will.

The old world is dying, and the new world struggles to be born: now is the time of monsters.

The point of modernity is to live a life without illusions while not becoming disillusioned

The crisis consists precisely in the fact that the old is dying and the new cannot be born

The crisis consists precisely in the fact that the old is dying and the new cannot be born; in this interregnum a great variety of morbid symptoms appear.

Pessimism of the spirit; optimism of the will.

The challenge of modernity is to live without illusions and without becoming disillusioned. I’m a pessimist because of intelligence, but an optimist because of will.

Man is above all else mind, consciousness -- that is, he is a product of history, not of nature.

Pessimism of the intellect, optimism of the will.

If you beat your head against the wall, it is your head that breaks and not the wall.

All men are intellectuals, but not all men have in society the function of intellectuals

Il vecchio mondo sta morendo. Quello nuovo tarda a comparire. E in questo chiaroscuro nascono i mostri.

The whole of language is a continuous process of metaphor, and the history of semantics is an aspect of the history of culture; language is at the same time a living thing and a museum of fossils of life and civilisations.

I hate the indifferent. I believe that living means taking sides. Those who really live cannot help being a citizen and a partisan. Indifference and apathy are parasitism, perversion, not life. That is why I hate the indifferent. The indifference is the deadweight of history. The indifference operates with great power on history. The indifference operates passively, but it operates. It is fate, that which cannot be counted on. It twists programs and ruins the best-conceived plans. It is the raw material that ruins intelligence. That what happens, the evil that weighs upon all, happens because the human mass abdicates to their will; allows laws to be promulgated that only the revolt could nullify, and leaves men that only a mutiny will be able to overthrow to achieve the power. The mass ignores because it is careless and then it seems like it is the product of fate that runs over everything and everyone: the one who consents as well as the one who dissents; the one who knew as well as the one who didn’t know; the active as well as the indifferent. Some whimper piously, others curse obscenely, but nobody, or very few ask themselves: If I had tried to impose my will, would this have happened? I also hate the indifferent because of that: because their whimpering of eternally innocent ones annoys me. I make each one liable: how they have tackled with the task that life has given and gives them every day, what have they done, and especially, what they have not done. And I feel I have the right to be inexorable and not squander my compassion, of not sharing my tears with them. I am a partisan, I am alive, I feel the pulse of the activity of the future city that those on my side are building is alive in their conscience. And in it, the social chain does not rest on a few; nothing of what happens in it is a matter of luck, nor the product of fate, but the intelligent work of the citizens. Nobody in it is looking from the window of the sacrifice and the drain of a few. Alive, I am a partisan. That is why I hate the ones that don’t take sides, I hate the indifferent.

تشاؤمُ العقل .. تفاؤلُ الإرادة

Common sense is a chaotic aggregate of disparate conceptions, and one can find there anything that one like.

Ideas and opinions are not spontaneously "born" in each individual brain: they have had a centre of formation, or irradiation, of dissemination, of persuasion-a group of men, or a single individual even, which has developed them and presented them in the political form of current reality.

How many times have I wondered if it is really possible to forge links with a mass of people when one has never had strong feelings for anyone, not even one's own parents: if it is possible to have a collectivity when one has not been deeply loved oneself by individual human creatures. Hasn't this had some effect on my life as a militant--has it not tended to make me sterile and reduce my quality as a revolutionary by making everything a matter of pure intellect, of pure mathematical calculation?

History teaches, but has no pupils.

Verus Quid Factum

Instrúyanse, porque necesitamos toda nuestra inteligencia. Conmuévanse, porque necesitamos todo nuestro entusiasmo. Organícense, porque necesitamos de toda nuestra fuerza.

حياتي تتدفق دائمًا بنفس الطريقة أقرأ، آكل وأنام وأفكر لا أستطيع أن أفعل أي شئ آخر ..

The popular element "feels" but does not always know or understand; the intellectual element "knows" but does not always understand and in particular does not always feel.

The starting-point of critical elaboration is the consciousness of what one really is, and is 'knowing thyself' as a product of the historical processes to date, which has deposited in you an infinity of traces, without leaving an inventory.

Is it better to work out consciously and critically one's own conception of the world and thus, in connection with the labours of one's own brain, choose one's sphere of activity, take an active part in the creation of the history of the world, be one's own guide, refusing to accept passively and supinely from outside the moulding of one' own personality?

Since defeat in the Struggle must always be envisaged, the preparation of one's own successors is as important as what one does for victory.

Socialism lost its way largely when it became decoupled from the processes of democracy. My vision of a socially just society is one that is deeply democratic, that allows people’s voices to be heard, where people actually govern. C.L.R James sometimes used the slogan “every cook can govern” to speak to the concept that there should be no hierarchies of power between those who lead and their constituencies. This idea is related to Antonio Gramsci’s argument that the goal of the revolutionary party is for every member to be an intellectual. That is, everyone has the capacity, has the ability to articulate a vision of reality and to fight for the realization of their values and goals in society. Gramsci is pointing toward the development of a strategy that is deeply democratic, one where we don’t have elitist, vanguardist notions of what society should look like, but have humility and the patience to listen to and learn from working class and poor people, who really are at the center of what any society is.

The crisis creates situations which are dangerous in the short run, since the various strata of the population are not all capable of orienting themselves equally swiftly, or of reorganizing with the same rhythm. The traditional ruling class, which has numerous trained cadres, changes men and programmes and, with greater speed than is achieved by the subordinate classes, reabsorbs the control that was slipping from its grasp. Perhaps it may make sacrifices, and expose itself to an uncertain future by demagogic promises; but it retains power, reinforces it for the time being, and uses it to crush its adversary and disperse his leading cadres, who cannot be be very numerous or highly trained.

تقدمت في العمر أربع سنوات، أصبح شعري أشيب من السابق بكثير، فقدت أسناني، لم أعد أضحك من أعماق قلبي كما في ما مضى، لكني أعتقد أني صرت أكثر حكمة وازدادت تجربتي في الحياة ثراء

At a certain point in their historical lives, social classes become detached from their traditional parties. In other words, the traditional parties in that particular organisational form, with the particular men who constitute, represent and lead them, are no longer recognised by their class (or fraction of a class) as its expression. When such crises occur, the immediate situation becomes delicate and dangerous, because the field is open for violent solutions, for the activities of unknown forces, represented by charismatic "men of destiny".

Freedom is not utopia, because it is a basic aspiration; the whole history of mankind consists of struggles and efforts to creates social institutions capable of ensuring a maximum of freedom.

Le vieux monde se meurt, le nouveau tarde à apparaître et dans ce clair-obscur surgissent les monstres .

The discipline imposed on citizens by the bourgeois state makes them into subjects, people who delude themselves that they exert an influence on the course of events.

We need to free ourselves from the habit of seeing culture as encyclopedia knowledge, and men as mere receptacles to be stuffed full of empirical data and a mass of unconnected raw facts, which have to be filed in the brain as in the columns of a dictionary, enabling their owner to respond to the various stimuli from the outside world. This form of culture really is harmful, particularly for the proletariat. It serves only to create maladjusted people, people who believe they are superior to the rest of humanity because they have memorized a certain number of facts and dates and who rattle them off at every opportunity, so turning them almost into a barrier between themselves and others.

The starting-point of critical elaboration is the consciousness of what one really is, and is “knowing thyself” as a product of the historical process to date which has deposited in you an infinity of traces, without leaving an inventory. The first thing to do is to make such an inventory.

[...] but we know. and have always said, that the bourgeoisie is attached to fascism. The bourgeois and fascism stand in the same relation to each other as do the workers and peasants to the Russian Communist Party.

Culture is a privilege. Education is a privilege. And we do not want it to be so. All young people should be equal before culture.

The principle must always rule that ideas are not born of other ideas, philosophies of other philosophies; they are a continually renewed expression of real historical development. The unity of history (what the idealists call unity of the spirit) is not a presupposition, but a continuously developing process.

The brain is not nourished on beans and truffles but rather the food manages to reconstitute the molecules of the brain once it has been turned into homogeneous and assimilable substances, which potentially have the "same nature", as the molecules of the brain

It should never be forgotten that, in the struggle between the nations, it is in the interest of each one of them that the other should be weakened by internal struggle. Hence it is always possible to pose the question of whether the parties exist by virtue of their own strength, as their own necessity, or whether rather they only exist to serve the interests of others.

At the limit it could be said that every speaking being has a personal language of his own, that is his own particular way of thinking and feeling. Culture, at its various levels, unifies in a series of strata, to the extent that they come into contact with each other, a greater or lesser number of individuals who understand each other's mode of expression to varying degrees, etc.

Odio gli indifferenti. Credo che vivere voglia dire essere partigiani. Chi vive veramente non può non essere cittadino e partigiano. L’indifferenza è abulia, è parassitismo, è vigliaccheria, non è vita. Perciò odio gli indifferenti.

Pessimismo dell'intelligenza, ottimismo della volontà.

It is in their interests to have a stable, skilled labour force, a permanently well-adjusted complex, because the human complex (the collective worker) of an enterprise is also a machine which cannot, without considerable loss, be taken to pieces too often and renewed with single new parts.

The history of education shows that every class which has sought to take power has prepared itself for power by an autonomous education. The first step in emancipating oneself from political and social slavery is that of freeing the mind. I put forward this new idea: popular schooling should be placed under the control of the great workers’ unions. The problem of education is the most important class problem.

Man can affect his own development and that of his surroundings only so far as he has a clear view of what the possibilities of action are open to him. To do this he has to understand the historical situation in which he finds himself: and once he does this, then he can play an active part in modifying that situation. The man of action is the true philosopher: and the philosopher must of necessity be a man of action.

Ciò che avviene, non avviene tanto perché alcuni vogliono che avvenga, quanto perché la massa degli uomini abdica alla sua volontà, lascia fare, lascia aggruppare i nodi che poi solo la spada potrà tagliare, lascia promulgare le leggi che poi solo la rivolta farà abrogare, lascia salire al potere gli uomini che poi solo un ammutinamento potrà rovesciare

Possibility means "freedom". The measure of freedom enters into the concept of man. That the objective possibilities exist for people not to die of hunder and that people do die of hunger, has its importance, or so one would have thought. But the existence of the objective conditions, of possibilities or of freedom is not yet enough: it is necessary to "know" them, and know how to use them.

Tutti i più ridicoli fantasticatori che nei loro nascondigli di geni incompresi fanno scoperte strabilianti e definitive, si precipitano su ogni movimento nuovo persuasi di poter spacciare le loro fanfaluche. D'altronde ogni collasso porta con sé disordine intellettuale e morale. Bisogna creare uomini sobri, pazienti, che non disperino dinanzi ai peggiori orrori e non si esaltino a ogni sciocchezza. Pessimismo dell’intelligenza, ottimismo della volontà.

cultural cringe which prevents other people from challenging them. the Italian philosopher Antonio Gramsci used the term ‘cultural hegemony’ to describe the way in which ideas and concepts which benefit a dominant class are universalised. they become norms, adopted whole and unexamined, which shape our thinking

Common sense is not a single unique conception, identical in time and space. It is the "folklore" of philosophy, and, like folklore, it takes countless different forms. Its most fundamental character is that it is a conception which, even in the brain of one individual, is fragmentary, incoherent and inconsequential.

Culture is something quite different. It is organization, discipline of one’s inner self, a coming to terms with one’s own personality; it is the attainment of a higher awareness, with the aid of which one succeeds in understanding one’s own historical value, one’s own function in life, one’s own rights and obligations.

I live, I am partisan. This is why I hate those who do not take sides; I hate those who are indifferent

Ogni movimento rivoluzionario è romantico, per definizione.

fuck this glitchy ass site.

A man of politics writes about philosophy: it could be that his "true" philosophy should be looked for rather in his writings on politics. In every personality there is one dominant and predominant activity: it is here that his thought must be looked for, in a form that is more often than not implicit and at times even in contradiction with what is professly expressed.

Education is a struggle against instincts which are linked to elemental biological functions, a struggle against nature, in order to dominate it and create man immersed within his own time.

One must speak for a struggle for a new culture, that is, for a new moral life that cannot but be intimately connected to a new intuition of life, until it becomes a new way of feeling and seeing reality.

The Italian philosopher Antonio Gramsci used the term ‘cultural hegemony’ to describe the way in which ideas and concepts which benefit a dominant class are universalized. They become norms, adopted whole and unexamined, which shape our thinking. Perhaps we suffer from agricultural hegemony: what is deemed to be good for farmers or landowners is deemed, without question or challenge, to be good for everyone.

Istruitevi, perché avremo bisogno di tutta la nostra intelligenza. Agitatevi, perché avremo bisogno di tutto il nostro entusiasmo. Organizzatevi, perché avremo bisogno di tutta la nostra forza. [da L'Ordine Nuovo, anno I, n. 1, 1° maggio 1919]

Odio gli indifferenti. Credo che vivere voglia dire partecipare. Chi vive veramente non può non essere cittadino partecipe. L’indifferenza è abulia, è parassitismo, è vigliaccheria, non è vita. Perciò odio gli indifferenti. L’indifferenza è il peso morto della storia. L’indifferenza opera potentemente nella storia. Opera passivamente, ma opera. È la fatalità; è ciò su cui non si può contare; è ciò che sconvolge i programmi, che rovescia i piani meglio costruiti; è la materia bruta che strozza l’intelligenza. Ciò che succede, il male che si abbatte su tutti, avviene perché la massa degli uomini abdica alla sua volontà, lascia promulgare le leggi che solo la rivolta potrà abrogare, lascia salire al potere uomini che poi solo un ammutinamento potrà rovesciare. Tra l’assenteismo e l’indifferenza poche mani, non sorvegliate da alcun controllo, tessono la tela della vita collettiva, e la massa ignora, perché non se ne preoccupa; e allora sembra sia la fatalità a travolgere tutto e tutti, sembra che la storia non sia altro che un enorme fenomeno naturale, un’eruzione, un terremoto del quale rimangono vittime tutti, chi ha voluto e chi non ha voluto, chi sapeva e chi non sapeva, chi era stato attivo e chi indifferente. Alcuni piagnucolano pietosamente, altri bestemmiano oscenamente, ma nessuno o pochi si domandano: se avessi fatto anch’io il mio dovere, se avessi cercato di far valere la mia volontà, sarebbe successo ciò che è successo? Odio gli indifferenti anche per questo: perché mi dà fastidio il loro piagnisteo da eterni innocenti. Chiedo conto a ognuno di loro del come ha svolto il compito che la vita gli ha posto e gli pone quotidianamente, di ciò che ha fatto e specialmente di ciò che non ha fatto. E sento di poter essere inesorabile, di non dover sprecare la mia pietà, di non dover spartire con loro le mie lacrime. Io partecipo, vivo, sento nelle coscienze della mia parte già pulsare l’attività della città futura che la mia parte sta costruendo. E in essa la catena sociale non pesa su pochi, in essa ogni cosa che succede non è dovuta al caso, alla fatalità, ma è intelligente opera dei cittadini. Non c’è in essa nessuno che stia alla finestra a guardare mentre i pochi si sacrificano, si svenano. Vivo, partecipo. Perciò odio chi non partecipa, odio gli indifferenti.

O camarada Lenis nos ensinou que [...] na guerra dos exércitos, não se pode atingir o objetivo estratégico, que é a destruição do inimigo e a ocupação de seu território, sem ter antes atingido uma série de objetivos táticos, visando a desagregar o inimigo antes de enfrentá-lo em campo aberto.

La indiferencia es el peso muerto de la historia. La indiferencia opera potentemente en la historia. Opera pasivamente, pero opera. Es la fatalidad; aquello con que no se puede contar. Tuerce programas, y arruina los planes mejor concebidos. Es la materia bruta desbaratadora de la inteligencia.

Once we grasp the scale of national and global inequalities, then the narrative that seeks to cast GDP growth as a proxy for human progress begins to seem a bit tendentious – perhaps even a bit ideological. And by ideology I mean in the technical sense: a set of ideas promoted by the dominant class, which serves their material interests, and which everybody else has internalised to such an extent that they are willing to go along with a system they might otherwise reject as unjust. The Italian philosopher Antonio Gramsci has called this ‘cultural hegemony’: when an ideology becomes so normalised that it is difficult or even impossible to reflect on it.

Why is a petition for peace called a “violent” act? Why is a human barricade thwarting the police called an act of “violent” aggression? Under which conditions and within which frameworks does the inversion of violence and nonviolence occur? There is no way to practice nonviolence without first interpreting violence and nonviolence, especially in a world in which violence is increasingly justified in the name of security, nationalism, and neofascism. The state monopolizes violence by calling its critics “violent”: we know this from Max Weber, Antonio Gramsci, and from Benjamin. Hence, we should be wary about those who claim that violence is necessary to curb or check violence; those who praise the forces of law, including the police and the prisons, as the final arbiters. To oppose violence is to understand that violence does not always take the form of the blow

Un traduttore qualificato dovrebbe essere in grado non solo di tradurre letteralmente, ma di tradurre i termini, anche concettuali, di una determinata cultura nazionale nei termini di un'altra cultura nazionale, cioè un tale traduttore dovrebbe conoscere criticamente due civiltà ed essere in grado di far conoscere l'una all'altra servendosi del linguaggio storicamente determinato di quella civiltà alla quale fornisce il materiale d'informazione.

Gramsci used to say 'Pessimism of the intellect, optimism of the will'. What he meant is: understand how the bloody system works. What confronts you? The fact that the terrain is not favourable to your project. Understand that, even if it disillusions you, even if it makes you awake at night. Understand it. Then you're in a position to say 'Well what is.... what can change? Where are the emergent forces? Where are the cracks and the contradictions? What are the elements in popular consciousness one could mobilise for a different political program?

First, as I showed in Chapter 5, the term “cultural Marxism” refers to a particular Marxist theory and strategy inaugurated by Antonio Gramsci – working to establish “cultural hegemony” in order to effect socialist revolution. Second, the substitution of special identity groups advocated for by social justice activists for the working class championed by Marxists does not lead to an identical or nearly identical politics. With the working class as a lever, Marxism proposes to overcome its nemesis – the capitalist class, which maintains the class system, including a class-based system of production and resource allocation. Social justice, on the other hand, aims at little more than debunking particular identity groups from atop a putative social hierarchy, knocking them from their supposed positions of totemic privilege, and replacing them with members of supposedly subordinated groups. Third, in Chapter 5, I told why Marxism and postmodernism can’t be equated. I’ll restate it here. While postmodern theory is anti-capitalist, it not only rejects capitalism but also other “totalizing” systems, or “meta-narratives,” including even the major system proposed to counter capitalism – Marxism itself.

Vorrei, per essere proprio tranquillo, che tu non ti spaventassi o ti turbassi troppo qualunque condanna siano per darmi. Che tu comprendessi bene, anche col sentimento, che io sono un detenuto politico e sarò un condannato politico, che non ho e non avrò mai da vergognarmi di questa situazione. Che, in fondo, la detenzione e la condanna le ho volute io stesso, in certo modo, perché non ho mai voluto mutare le mie opinioni, per le quali sarei disposto a dare la vita e non solo a stare in prigione. Che perciò io non posso che essere tranquillo e contento di me stesso. Cara mamma, vorrei proprio abbracciarti stretta stretta perché sentissi quanto ti voglio bene e come vorrei consolarti di questo dispiacere che ti ho dato ma non potevo fare diversamente. La vita è così, molto dura, e i figli qualche volta devono dare dei grandi dolori alle loro mamme, se vogliono conservare il loro onore e la loro dignità di uomini

É preciso perder o hábito e deixar de conceber a cultura como saber enciclopédico, no qual o homem é visto apenas sob a forma de um recipiente a encher e entupir de dados empíricos, de fatos brutos e desconexos, que ele depois deverá classificar em seu cérebro como nas colunas de um dicionário, para poder em seguida, em cada ocasião concreta, responder aos vários estímulos do mundo exterior. Essa forma de cultura é realmente prejudicial, sobretudo para o proletariado. Serve apenas para criar marginais, pessoas que acreditam ser superiores ao resto da humanidade porque acumularam na memória certo número de dados e de datas que vomitam a cada ocasião, criando assim quase que uma barreira entre elas e as demais pessoas. Serve para criar aquele tipo de intelectualismo balofo e incolor, tão bem-fustigado duramente por Romain Rolland, intelectualismo que gerou toda uma caterva de presunçosos e sabichões, mais deletérios para a vida social do que os micróbios da tuberculose e da sífilis o são para a beleza e a saúde física dos corpos.

For the sake of their own self-image they had to force themselves to believe that they sought happiness for their slaves. But the “happiness” of the slaves could never have arisen from an acceptance of slavery. At best, it had to arise as a function of the living space created by paternalistic compromise forced on them. That living space meant the possibility of creation of an autonomous spiritual life – a religion of their own with which they could be “happy” – that is, they could live in reasonable peace with themselves. The masters, seeing their apparent contentment took credit and congratulated themselves for the slaves’ acceptance of slavery, whereas in fact the slaves had only accepted the limited protection that even slavery had to offer, while acknowledging the reality of the power over them. The masters then had to hold the slaves’ religion in contempt, for in truth they feared it. And properly so, for it meant that the slaves had achieved a degree of psychological and cultural autonomy and therefore successfully resisted becoming extensions of their masters’ wills – the one thing they were supposed to become. It made all the difference that the masters’ claims to be bestowing privileges were greeted by the slaves as recognition of their own rights. “Men” wrote Gramsci, “when they feel their strength and are conscious of their responsibility and their value, do not want another man to impose his will on theirs and undertake to control their thoughts and actions.” The everyday instance in which “docile” slaves suddenly rebelled and “kind” masters suddenly behaved like wild bests had their origins, apart from frequent instabilities in the participating responsibilities in this dialectic. Masters and slaves had both “agreed” on the paternalistic basis of their relationship, the one from reasons of self-aggrandizement and the other from lack of an alternative. But they understood very different things by their apparently common assent. And every manifestation of that contradiction threatened the utmost violence… The slaves defended themselves effectively against the worst of their masters’ aggression, but they paid a high price. They fought for their right to think and act as autonomous human beings, but it was a desperate fight in which they could easily slip backward… they had manifested strength…. In Gramsci’s terms, they had had to wage a prolonged, embittered struggle with themselves as well as with their oppressors to “feel their strength” and to become “conscious of their responsibility and their value.” It was not that the slaves did not act like men. Rather, it was that they could not grasp their collective strength as a people and act like political men. The black struggle on that front, which has not been won, has paralleled that of every other oppressed people. It is the most difficult because it is the final stage a people must wage to forge themselves into a nation.

Gramsci transformou a estratégia comunista, de um grosso amálgama de retórica e força bruta, numa delicada orquestração de influências sutis, penetrante como a Programação Neurolingüística e mais perigosa, a longo prazo, do que toda a artilharia do Exército Vermelho. Se Lênin foi o teórico do golpe de Estado, ele foi o estrategista da revolução psicológica que deve preceder e aplainar o caminho para o golpe de Estado. Gramsci estava particularmente impressionado com a violência das guerras que o governo revolucionário da Rússia tivera de empreender para submeter ao comunismo as massas recalcitrantes, apegadas aos valores e praxes de uma velha cultura. A resistência de um povo arraigadamente religioso e conservador a um regime que se afirmava destinado a beneficiá-lo colocou em risco a estabilidade do governo soviético durante quase uma década, fazendo com que, em reação, a ditadura do proletariado — na intenção de Marx uma breve transição para o paraíso da democracia comunista — ameaçasse eternizar-se, barrando o caminho a toda evolução futura do comunismo, como de fato veio a acontecer. Para contornar a dificuldade, Gramsci concebeu uma dessas idéias engenhosas, que só ocorrem aos homens de ação quando a impossibilidade de agir os compele a meditações profundas: amestrar o povo para o socialismo antes de fazer a revolução. Fazer com que todos pensassem, sentissem e agissem como membros de um Estado comunista enquanto ainda vivendo num quadro externo capitalista. Assim, quando viesse o comunismo, as resistências possíveis já estariam neutralizadas de antemão e todo mundo aceitaria o novo regime com a maior naturalidade. A estratégia de Gramsci virava de cabeça para baixo a fórmula leninista, na qual uma vanguarda organizadíssima e armada tomava o poder pela força, autonomeando-se representante do proletariado e somente depois tratando de persuadir os apatetados proletários de que eles, sem ter disto a menor suspeita, haviam sido os autores da revolução. A revolução gramsciana está para a revolução leninista assim como a sedução está para o estupro. Para operar essa virada, Gramsci estabeleceu uma distinção, das mais importantes, entre “poder” (ou, como ele prefere chamá-lo, “controle”) e “hegemonia”. O poder é o domínio sobre o aparelho de Estado, sobre a administração, o exército e a polícia. A hegemonia é o domínio psicológico sobre a multidão. A revolução leninista tomava o poder para estabelecer a hegemonia. O gramscismo conquista a hegemonia para ser levado ao poder suavemente, imperceptivelmente. Não é preciso dizer que o poder, fundado numa hegemonia prévia, é poder absoluto e incontestável: domina ao mesmo tempo pela força bruta e pelo consentimento popular — aquela forma profunda e irrevogável de consentimento que se assenta na força do hábito, principalmente dos automatismos mentais adquiridos que uma longa repetição torna inconscientes e coloca fora do alcance da discussão e da crítica. O governo revolucionário leninista reprime pela violência as idéias adversas. O gramscismo espera chegar ao poder quando já não houver mais idéias adversas no repertório mental do povo.

Occorre persuadere molta gente che anche lo studio è un mestiere, e molto faticoso, con un suo speciale tirocinio ,oltre che intellettuale,anche muscolare-nervoso: è un processo di adattamento,è un ambito acquisito con lo sforzo,la noia e anche la sofferenza

Despite everything, I cannot stifle the need to follow, though very approximately, what happens in the vast and terrible world.

To paraphrase Antonio Gramsci, cynicism of intellect; promise of the present.

Varje människa...utför någon sorts intellektuellt arbete, dvs. hon är en "filosof", en konstnär, en person med intressen, hon är delaktig i en speciell världsuppfattning, hon tar medvetna moraliska ställningstaganden och bidrar därför till att upprätthålla en världsuppfattning eller till att förändra den, dvs. till att införa nya tankesätt.

Människan står inte i något förhållande till naturen bara därför att hon utgör en del av den, utan aktivt genom arbete och teknik. Detta förhållande är dessutom inte mekaniskt... Vi ändrar oss alla, omformar oss i samma utsträckning som vi ändrar och omformar de sammansatta förhållanden som vi är mittpunkten i. I denna betydelse kan den sanna filosofen inte vara något annat än politikern, handlingsmänniskan som skapar om sin omgivning.

On March 23, 1919, one of the most famous socialists in Italy founded a new party, the Fasci di Combattimento, a term that means “fascist combat squad.” This was the first official fascist party and thus its founding represents the true birth of fascism. By the same token, this man was the first fascist. The term “fascism” can be traced back to 1914, when he founded the Fasci Rivoluzionari d’Azione Internazionalista, a political movement whose members called themselves fascisti or fascists. In 1914, this founding father of fascism was, together with Vladimir Lenin of Russia, Rosa Luxemburg of Germany, and Antonio Gramsci of Italy, one of the best known Marxists in the world. His fellow Marxists and socialists recognized him as a great leader of socialism. His decision to become a fascist was controversial, yet he received congratulations from Lenin who continued to regard him as a faithful revolutionary socialist. And this is how he saw himself. That same year, because of his support for Italian involvement in World War I, he would be expelled from the Italian Socialist Party for “heresy,” but this does not mean he ceased to be a socialist. It was common practice for socialist parties to expel dissenting fellow socialists for breaking on some fine point with the party line. This party reject insisted that he had been kicked out for making “a revision of socialism from the revolutionary point of view.”2 For the rest of his life—right until his lifeless body was displayed in a town square in Milan—he upheld the central tenets of socialism which he saw as best reflected in fascism. Who, then, was this man? He was the future leader of fascist Italy, the one whom Italians called Il Duce, Benito Mussolini.

[Common sense] is a spontaneous set of beliefs which together express a conception of the world which takes the social order as ‘the way things are.’ It is apparently the ‘spontaneous feelings’ that people have, the traditional popular conception of the world – what is unimaginatively called “instinct” although it too is in fact a primitive and elementary historical acquisition.

Mallory says that the comradely sisters then proceeded with a sustained discussion on how to advance these goals. “It was clear they desired nothing less than the utter deconstruction of Western society,” she said. How would they do this? They would do so via the method laid out by the cultural Marxists, by the Frankfurt School, by the spirit of Antonio Gramsci and the “long march through the institutions” of the culture, from media to education. They would “invade every American institution. Every one must be permeated with ‘The Revolution.

Siamo forti e ci vogliamo bene. E siamo semplici, e tutto è naturale in noi... Vogliamo essere forti spiritualmente, e semplici e sani e volerci bene così, perché ci vogliamo bene e questa è la più bella e più grande e più forte ragione del mondo.

From the streets of France to the heart of American evangelical Christianity, the past three hundred years have seen many changes in the nature of redistributive social justice. Jean-Jacques Rousseau imagined a centralized power capable of achieving egalitarian equality. Karl Marx wanted to accomplish this dream through the redistribution of resources from the haves to the have-nots. Walter Rauschenbusch Christianized socialism under the banner of “social justice.” Antonio Gramsci believed it was the cultural hegemony, and not simply the haves, which was actually responsible for oppressing the have-nots. György Lukács saw capitalism as an oppressive mindset and not just an economic system. The Frankfurt School developed critical theory to analyze oppression in cultural institutions. French postmodernists, like Jacques Derrida and Michel Foucault deconstructed language and knowledge as social constructs and power dynamics. Kimbery Williams Crenshaw developed intersectionality, which attempts to construct a new hierarchy based on a matrix of socially constructed victim categories. Achieving social justice has gone from the redistribution of income to the redistribution of privilege, from the liberation of the lower classes to the liberation of culturally constructed identities, from lamenting victimhood to promoting victimhood, and from changing society through politics to changing politics through society. No social organization remains unaffected. Gramsci’s “long march through the institutions” is almost complete. The final stage is to capture the last stand for Western Civilization and conscious of the country—the American evangelical church.

La verità è la tattica della rivoluzione.

New" national, international, or global emergences create an unsettling sense of transition, as if history is at a turning point; and it is in such incubational moments—Antonio Gramsci's word for the perceived "newness" of change—that we experience the palimpsestical imprints of past, present, and future in peculiarly contemporary figures of time and meaning.

RULING CLASS. For Marxists the ruling class is the economically dominant class, and the economically dominant class is the class that owns and controls the means of production. With economic power comes political power, and Karl Marx saw the ruling class as controlling the state. Furthermore, the ruling class is intellectually dominant, which Marx expressed as, “The ideas of the ruling class are, in every age, the ruling ideas.” The notion of a ruling class can obscure or oversimplify complexities of class rule. For example, as Marx himself notes in discussing various actual historical examples, the ruling class may be split into different sections, or may be difficult to determine, and the Soviet Union raised the question of whether or not its leadership constituted a new ruling class not defined in terms of its property ownership. The state itself may develop its own autonomy and interests separate from those of the dominant economic class, a complicating factor explored by Nico Poulantzas and Ralph Miliband. The issue of the ruling class’s ideas being the ruling ideas is a further issue of debate within Marxism, with Antonio Gramsci’s notion of hegemony, and the Frankfurt School’s focus on ideology raising the question of the extent to which ideology is instrumental in maintaining class rule.

Não havendo partidos ou políticos de direita no Brasil, toda a confrontação direita-esquerda que se vê atualmente é uma obra de engenharia social criada pela própria esquerda com três objetivos: (1) ocultar sua hegemonia e seu poder monopolístico sob uma aparência de disputa democrática normal; (2) neutralizar quaisquer tendências direitistas, canalizando-as para uma direita pré-fabricada, a “direita da esquerda”, o que se observou muito claramente nas duas campanhas eleitorais de Fernando Henrique Cardoso, um marxista gramsciano que foi alegremente aceito como depositário (infiel, é óbvio) da confiança do eleitorado direitista; (3) dominar todo o espaço político por meio do jogo de duas correntes partidárias fiéis ao mesmo esquema ideológico, só separadas pela disputa de cargos, como aliás o reconheceram explicitamente o próprio Fernando Henrique e o prof. Christovam Buarque, então um dos mentores do PT. Essas três linhas de ação definem exatamente o que Lênin chamava “estratégia das tesouras”, termo inspirado na idéia de cortar com duas lâminas.

« Nous avons la sensibilité pour percevoir les souffrances du monde, l'intelligence pour les analyser, et l'imagination pour inventer les solutions politiques qui devront y mettre fin. »

The old world is dying, and the new world struggles to be born: now is the time of monsters.

Cosa significa il fatto che il popolo italiano legge di preferenza gli scrittori stranieri? Significa che esso subisce l'egemonia intellettuale e morale degli intellettuali stranieri, che esso si sente legato piú agli intellettuali stranieri che a quelli «paesani», cioè che non esiste nel paese un blocco nazionale intellettuale e morale, né gerarchico e tanto meno egualitario. Gli Gli intellettuali non escono dal popolo, anche se accidentalmente qualcuno di essi è d'origine popolana, non si sentono legati ad esso (a parte la retorica), non ne conoscono e non ne sentono i bisogni, le aspirazioni, i sentimenti diffusi, ma, nei confronti del popolo, sono qualcosa di staccato, di campato in aria, una casta, cioè, e non un'articolazione, con funzioni organiche, del popolo stesso.È da ricordare ciò che scrisse Edoardo Boutet sugli spettacoli classici (Eschilo, Sofocle) che la Compagnia Stabile di Roma diretta appunto dal Boutet dava all'Arena del Sole di Bologna il lunedí – giorno delle lavandaie – e sul grande successo che tali rappresentazioni avevano. È anche da rilevare il successo che nelle masse popolari hanno sempre avuto alcuni drammi dello Shakespeare, ciò che appunto dimostra come si possa essere grandi artisti e nello stesso tempo «popolari».

i montanari, moralmente più puri, sono fisicamente più robusti e «triplicano» le consonanti, la gente di pianura (guai poi se sta al livello del mare come i veneziani) invece, oltre che moralmente depravata, è anche fisicamente degenerata e «scempia» le consonanti.

Stato" significa specialmente direzione consapevole delle grandi moltitudini nazionali; è quindi necessario un "contatto" sentimentale e ideologico con tali moltitudini e, in una certa misura, simpatia e comprensione dei loro bisogni e delle loro esigenze.

The task of the revolutionary intellectuals is to ‘collect the opinions of these mass statesmen’ – namely the people – ‘sift and refine them, and return them to the masses, who then take them and put them into practice’. This is what the Italian Communist Antonio Gramsci, writing in his prison cell at around this same time, called elaboration – to take the views of the masses and elaborate them from common sense to philosophy

The post-Marxists who seek to explain the world around us today have not only imbibed the distorting prism of Foucault and Marx. From Antonio Gramsci they have absorbed their notion of culture as a ‘hegemonic force’ the control of which is at least as important as the working class. From Foucault’s contemporary, Gilles Deleuze, they have absorbed the idea that the role of the individual is to see through and undo the web that the culture you were born into has wound around you. And always and everywhere is the aim – taken from French literary theory – to ‘deconstruct’ everything. To ‘deconstruct’ something is as significant in academia as ‘constructing’ things is in the rest of society. Indeed, it is one curiosity of academia in recent decades that it has found almost nothing it does not wish to deconstruct, apart from itself. The

Los posmarxistas que intentan explicar el mundo de hoy no solo se han imbuido de las ideas de Foucault y Marx. De Antonio Gramsci han adoptado la noción de cultura como «fuerza hegemónica» cuyo control es, cuando menos, tan importante como la clase obrera. De Gilles Deleuze, contemporáneo de Foucault, han absorbido la idea de que el papel del individuo consiste en ver más allá y desmontar la red que la cultura en la que nacemos teje a nuestro alrededor. El objetivo omnipresente —tomado de la teoría literaria francesa— es «deconstruirlo» todo. Dentro del ámbito académico, «deconstruir» es tan importante como «construir» para el resto de la sociedad. De hecho, resulta curioso que en las últimas décadas la academia no haya encontrado casi nada que no merezca la pena ser deconstruido, salvo ella misma. Este proceso se consumó en numerosos campos, pero en ninguno avanzó tan rápido ni tan a fondo como en las ciencias sociales, un terreno en metástasis permanente. Cada una en su especialidad, materias como los «estudios queer», los «estudios de mujeres», los «estudios negros» y demás han buscado, siempre y en todas partes, un mismo objetivo.

Beemot é o peso maciço da necessidade natural, Leviatã é a infranatureza diabólica, invisível sob as águas – o mundo psíquico – que agita com a língua.

Illusion is the most tenacious weed in the collective consciousness; history teaches, but it has no pupils.

Politics always lags behind economics, far behind. The state apparatus is far more resistant than is possible to believe; and it succeeds, at moments of crisis, in organizing greater forces loyal to the regime than the depth of the crisis might lead one to suppose. This is especially true of the more important capitalist states.

Mass culture is an assault that, as the Italian Marxist philosopher Antonio Gramsci wrote, results in a “confused and fragmentary”77 consciousness, or what Marx called “false consciousness.” It is designed to impart the belief to the proletariat that its “true” interests are aligned with those of the ruling class. It transforms legitimate economic and social grievances into psychological and emotional problems. It uses nationalism to discredit class interests. We are not a product of nature, Gramsci understood, but of our history and our culture. If we do not know our history and our culture, if we accept the history and culture manufactured for us by the elites, we will never free ourselves from the forces of oppression

Admito que, se em qualquer dos três livros tivesse adotado uma forma expositiva mais ao gosto acadêmico, eu não precisaria estar agora chamando a atenção para uma unidade de pensamento que transpareceria à primeira vista. Mas essa visibilidade custaria a perda de todas as referências à vida autêntica e o aprisionamento do meu discurso numa redoma lingüística que não combina nem com o meu temperamento nem com a regra que me impus alguns anos atrás, de nunca falar impessoalmente nem em nome de alguma entidade coletiva, mas sempre diretamente em meu próprio nome apenas, sem qualquer retaguarda mais respeitável que a simples honorabilidade de um animal racional, bem como de nunca me dirigir a coletividades abstratas, mas sempre e unicamente a indivíduos de carne e osso, despidos das identidades provisórias que o cargo, a posição social e a filiação ideológica superpõem àquela com que nasceram e com a qual hão de comparecer, um dia, ante o Trono do Altíssimo. Estou profundamente persuadido de que somente nesse nível de discurso se pode filosofar autenticamente.

chegou a nossa vez de conquistar aquilo que já ninguém mais quer.