Has anyone ever wondered why modern Western societies appear to have an unhealthy fixation on leftist ideologies? Where does such an obsession come from? After all, anyone with a modicum of intellect is quickly able to call out socialism for its obvious flaws as an economic model. One major aspect of this doctrine remains largely ignored, though: socialist ideologies pose a vicious and silent threat to our psycho-social environment, which in turn might leave the door open for a centrally planned economy in the not-so-distant future.
I happen to be familiar with this doctrine, and what I see today in the Western world leaves me with a spooky sense of déjà vu. Indeed, behind the latest woke idiocies that keep making the headlines, the tactics employed are dangerously reminiscent of strategies established in the not-so-distant past, somewhere behind the Iron Curtain.
In terms of ideas and knowledge, leftists and progressive liberals are often seen as illogical and socially inept cretins with zero street smarts and a poor understanding of how the economy works in the real world. These so-called activists are nothing more than the useful idiots of a greater... um... Utopia. Without their knowledge, they contribute to a pernicious agenda that was set in motion many years ago.
Socialism is divided into many schools of thought. The most famous example is probably Marxian socialism. I won't expand too deeply into Marxist ideas, as they quickly tend to turn into intertwined gibberish—a perpetual "work in progress," if you will—especially if you read Karl Marx's books, such as The German Ideology, The Manifesto, Foundations of a Critique of Political Economy, or his magnum opus, Das Kapital (a largely ignored book, by the way).
I will also refrain from commenting on Johann Karl Rodbertus' allegations of plagiarism against him.
To put it simply, Karl Marx (1818–1883) believed that social relations are an emanation of the economic base—material reality determines ideology (Materialism). In other words, productive forces determine social relations. Said relations then develop/evolve and eventually come into contradiction with the original ones, thereby creating frictions. These frictions are usually resolved through cycles of social (r)evolutions.
Under the capitalistic mode of production, this phenomenon manifests itself as a class struggle between the oppressor: the so-called bourgeoisie (owners of the means of production), and the oppressed class of productive workers: the proletariat (those who produce goods and services).
Now, according to Marx, this class struggle must inevitably lead to the final phase of capitalism, setting up the conditions for a proletarian revolution that would culminate in "communism"—i.e., the abolition of private property as a means of production, replaced by cooperative ownership, consequently ending the division of labor, classes, and the state. (I won’t digress into his critique of capitalism; that is not the point of this post.)
One question persists though ;
why had it proven so difficult to promote (or bring about) a revolution in Western Europe ?This question was raised by a prominent Italian Marxist figure, Antonio Gramsci (1891-1937), who emphasized one fundamental Marxian
distinction between :
•An ideological "superstructure" ( art, family, culture, religion, philosophy, law,
media, politics, science, education. )
•The economic base of a society.
There is a reciprocal relationship between the superstructure (ideology) and the base (economy)—each part maintains and shapes the other. According to Gramsci, this superstructure determines how society as a whole reacts to economic and political changes.
(It is important to note that Marx postulated the exact opposite theory: the economic base shapes the ideological superstructure, and not the other way around.)
Furthermore, Gramsci saw a distinction between coercion and consent. Indeed, no state could rely exclusively on coercion to uphold its position and power. The political consent part of the equation was largely ignored by traditional Marxists, who concentrated exclusively on the economic base.
But how exactly was consent supposed to be brought about in an "oppressive" capitalist system? Gramsci answered the question this way: upper classes do not rule only through economics but by perpetuating a "Cultural Hegemony": ideas, values, norms, and moralities are perpetuated and pushed by the upper classes as normative and supposedly beneficial to the working class, leading the proletariat to simply believe this is how the world works. As a result, the proletariat is held in socially constructed, invisible shackles and doesn't believe in the things it should in order to advance its own class and improve its political and economic position within capitalist societies.
This is why, according to Gramsci, it has proven so difficult to trigger a revolution.
With this statement, he opposed Marx on the inevitability of revolution (scientific socialism). His solution? A passive revolution via the formation of a counter-hegemonic force—a way to undermine and dismantle Western ideas, values, and moralities and replace them with new cultural norms. The oppressed groups would de facto produce their own class of intellectuals and create their own culture, media, rituals, etc.
See where I'm going with that?
Gramsci rejected the subject/object divide. To him, there were no inherent laws of nature shaping human beings and societies, no essential human nature (soul). Everything was determined by history (the past) and shaped by relations and social roles. In other words, nothing is written in stone, and anyone can choose their identity, behavior, values, and decide how nature should work.
In the modern world, one possible way to push counter-hegemony is through the "creation" of a plethora of oppressed minorities. Imagine an army of victimized people aggressively attacking their oppressors (Western societies) by questioning and defying Western ideological and moral pillars.
Sounds familiar? Feminism, f(x) = LGBTQx, toxic masculinity, "We Was Kangz Until Whitey Ruined Everything," gender ideologists, transsexuals, oppressed "minor-attracted" people (cringe), climate change activists, and whatnot.
Basically, an army of degenerates shouting, "We can do what we want and not conform to the oppressive system of a traditional, hardworking, white heterosexual society!" The nuclear family is de facto a prime target for this 'Evil Dead-like' Army of Darkness.
Gramscian movements started gaining traction in the 1950s–1970s. From 1992 to 2007, Joseph Buttigieg (yes, Pete Buttigieg's father) translated and edited the four volumes of Antonio Gramsci's Prison Notebooks in English. He was also a founding member and president of the International Gramsci Society.
I don't know about you, but I feel that a silent revolution aiming to destroy and rebuild the superstructure (our ideologies) via the instantiation of a counter-hegemonic force—which, by the way, represents the consensual part of the Marxist equation—paired with profound economic reforms and increased authoritarianism (the Marxist conception of coercion) nicely sets up the stage for "You will eat ze bugs," "You will own nothing and be happy," paired with invasive digital currencies and allowances.
Sorry for the long-ass post.
