As the title suggests, this is an article exploring Western Marxism. I have many confusions about Western Marxism, such as Gramsci, Lukács, Althusser, Sartre, etc. I rarely know much about Western Marxism in daily life, and I can even say I am basically unaware. I have only read one systematic discussion article about Western Marxism, which is written by Voice of Marxism-Leninism. I have no idea how to refute the various schools of Western Marxism; they often throw out a bunch of abstract terms to muddle through. I am completely unclear about the formation history of Western Marxism, especially regarding Gramsci and his historical evaluation. Gramsci, on one hand, expressed his very metaphysical essence in his works; on the other hand, he died after being brutally tortured by fascists. Therefore, I find it difficult to comment on him. Moreover, I am completely unaware of the formation history and the underlying roots of Western Marxism (is it possible that they are very similar to the bourgeoisie? or has this long-standing bourgeois environment bred these opportunists?). I also recognize that I am particularly vague about their theories. So I want to ask everyone if there is a systematic work that discusses Western Marxism.
Same curiosity
I also want to understand the nature of Gramsci. I heard before that his theory of cultural hegemony was a reactionary argument that abandoned armed struggle, but when I listened to “Fontana Square” earlier, I found that the lyrics were commemorating him.
Gramsci is an advocate of the “cultural hegemony theory,” which roughly states that the main component of the state is not the violence apparatus. The bourgeoisie mainly relies on violent suppression of the proletariat to maintain its rule. The main task of the proletarian revolution is to overthrow the bourgeois dictatorship and destroy the old state machinery through violent revolution. This fallacy instead distorts Marxist theory of proletarian dictatorship into the idea that the bourgeoisie mainly relies on “cultural hegemony” to maintain its rule, and that the main reason the bourgeoisie can maintain its dominance is due to the proliferation of bourgeois ideas. Based on this absurd viewpoint, Gramsci opposes the proletariat organizing workers for armed struggle to overthrow the state power. Instead, he advocates that the Communist Party indulge in legitimate ideological propaganda, abandon the attempt of violent revolution, and wait until the bourgeois “cultural hegemony” is defeated ideologically before discussing violent revolution. What does this mean? Essentially, it is a way of propagating revisionism—saying that the proletariat’s ideas should first become the dominant ideology in society before revolution. This is essentially the same as Kautsky’s excuse that revolution should wait until the proletariat becomes the majority of society. But the problem is that in capitalist society, it is impossible for the proletariat’s ideas to dominate. The bourgeoisie controls state power, and controls the majority of media, newspapers, and other propaganda tools. The most effective means of indoctrinating bourgeois ideas—education—is also fully controlled by the bourgeoisie. The proletariat cannot talk about overthrowing bourgeois “cultural hegemony” before overthrowing capitalism. Therefore, Gramsci’s logic ultimately leads to the conclusion that violent revolution is impossible. The only way out for the Communist Party is to engage in legal work, pursue parliamentary paths, and tirelessly promote “revolutionary” ideas in parliament to break the bourgeois “cultural hegemony.” Once this hegemonic cultural control is overthrown, there is no need for violent revolution, and capitalist society can transition peacefully to socialist society. It is clear that this entire set of logic is revisionist—using a different method to eliminate the task of violent revolution, rationalizing peaceful transition theory, and peddling revisionist traitor philosophy.
In fact, it was because Gramsci himself became pessimistic and disappointed after being arrested and imprisoned, losing revolutionary ideals, and thus directly betrayed the revolution, shamefully abandoning Marxist faith and turning into a despicable, weak petty bourgeois traitor who dared not fight against the bourgeoisie. So when he heard about violent revolution and bloodshed and sacrifice, he was terrified to death, fearing for his own life. Therefore, he thought of taking the revisionist path that would allow him to “stay alive” without having to endure hardship, bloodshed, and sacrifice, merely fighting against “cultural hegemony” in writing, and thus concocted this set of reactionary Western Marxist (West Marxism) theories. In fact, those who believe in Gramsci’s Western Marxist theories are basically those who want to stir up revolution over coffee, afraid that they will have to sacrifice everything for the revolution, and therefore are not Marxists at all, but intellectuals who want to use Marxism to decorate their own image.
So that’s how it is, is the song ‘Fontana Square’ commemorating Gramsci not well understood, or is there an issue with the song’s author as well?
Gelanxi overall played a positive role before being imprisoned, but after imprisonment, he wavered and betrayed, and his思想 (thoughts) degenerated into revisionist Westernism.
It can be said that the reason why the later Togliatti line of the Italian Communist Party (PCI) was able to proliferate was largely due to the influence of Gramsci’s so-called theory of cultural hegemony, which was too detrimental. His revisionist theory opposing violent revolution was ultimately inherited by Togliatti and transformed into more explicit and direct revisionist fallacies to deceive PCI members and the masses.
I see
This analysis is very accurate, pointing out that the class foundation of Western Malaysia is the intellectuals who are afraid of death and hardship. In fact, Western Malaysia was first formed after the failure of the German November Revolution and the Hungarian 1919 Revolution, reflecting the psychological state of intellectuals who are unstable, pessimistic, disappointed, and lack firm confidence in the revolution. They excuse the Russian Revolution as having particularity, claiming it cannot succeed in other European countries, and can only adopt cultural means to disintegrate capitalism to defeat capitalism. In reality, it is a way for them to abandon political struggle and engage in some “struggles” within capitalism that the bourgeoisie permits, providing a theoretical basis for superficial “struggles”.
【Žižek’s Mistake in the View of Revolution - Bilibili】 https://b23.tv/0O9Kpje
His view of revolution itself is a traumatic reality where the bourgeoisie continuously buys off the knowledgeable and skilled proletariat
What does “Traumatic Reality” mean?
It should be Xima slang, roughly the PTSD concept in bourgeois psychology, referring to the individual’s perception of the huge gap between the reality of capitalism and revolutionary visions. The individual is in an extreme encouragement within capitalist society,陷入巨大绝望, but unable to conduct organized and effective attacks on the capitalist system.
I feel that this statement is still very abstract
Translating it simply, isn’t it just the bourgeoisie’s disillusionment and despair after their fantasies are shattered? Why use such complicated Western Marxist language to explain something that can be summed up in one sentence? Learning Western Marxism will make people’s brains stupid, it makes it impossible for people to speak normally, the harm is too great. I remember a long time ago I also saw Western Marxism online, and it felt no different from Scholastic philosophy, all full of incomprehensible and verbose terminology.
Žižek directly denies Lenin’s path, saying it is “a huge failure.”
Hehe, I feel like what you said makes a lot of sense~
Every place that Žižek cannot reach is a place that Lenin has deeply penetrated.
It is probably due to the petty bourgeoisie’s pessimistic disappointment that they cannot see the great prospects of the revolution and the people’s desire to struggle and demand change, but instead indulge in the spiritual opium of capitalist society, so they are unwilling to fight thoroughly and change capitalist society.
Actually, I was previously disappointed and even hopeless because I couldn’t see the vision of the people’s demand for struggle, so I often got drunk daily, temporarily immersing myself in a state of numbness. Therefore, after engaging with the forum, I became much more optimistic.