"“A SOCIAL GROUP CAN, AND INDEED MUST, ALREADY EXERCISE ‘LEADERSHIP’ [I.E. BE HEGEMONIC] BEFORE WINNING GOVERNMENTAL POWER (THIS INDEED IS ONE OF THE PRINCIPAL CONDITIONS FOR THE WINNING OF SUCH POWER)”...."
ENEMIES OF WESTERN CIVILIZATION: ANTONIO GRAMSCI & THE LONG MARCH THROUGH THE INSTITUTIONS
PUBLISHED: 4th April, 2019 | By Richard Heathen
To understand the subversion and subsequent fall of Western Civilization, it’s important to understand the ideas and philosophy of Antonio Gramsci. Gramsci was one of the founding fathers of the rearticulation of Marxist theory, away from economic determinism and towards an examination of culture and society.
Antonio Gramsci was born in 1891 in Sardinia, a large island West of the Italian Peninsula, and eventually moved to the mainland where he went to the University of Turin and was introduced to Marxist ideas. Gramsci joined the Italian Socialist Party in 1913, and in 1915 his career as a Marxist agitator was started when he began writing for Avanti!, the same paper that Benito Mussolini was editor for, not long before his transformation from a Marxist to a fascist.
On January 21st 1921 Gramsci lead a split from the Italian Socialist Party to become the leader of the Italian Communist Party. Despite his activism what he’s best know for is his contribution to Marxist theory, particularly his concepts of cultural hegemony and passive revolution, which are foundational not only to leftist philosophy today, but also their tactics.
According to Gramsci, cultural hegemony is the process through which the ruling class uses social engineering to create a narrative justifying the existing political and social order. This is done through control of all culture-creating social institutions such as: mass media, academia, public education, the entertainment industry, and even religious institutions. The left used Gramsci’s concepts of hegemony to inculcate society with their values through a neo-Marxist cultural revolution. Today, the ideology of the system is much more zealously enforced now then at any point during Gramsci’s lifetime. Neo-Reactionary philosopher Mencius Moldbug, referred to the network of institutions that create and enforce the societal narrative today as the Cathedral. The Cathedral then, was created by the cultural revolution and long march through the institutions which began in the 1960’s and has now been completely solidified.
As I discussed in a previous article, cultural revolution is an integral part of communist revolutions post World War II. Due to technological innovation, mass industrialization, and the relative comfort of your average citizen, a revolution such as the one successfully carried out by the Bolshevik’s in Russia is no longer possible in the West, at least not without mass agitation, propaganda and indoctrination. One has to radicalize, and racialize minority groups. You have to get them to believe that they are oppressed, rather than the beneficiary of good fortune to be placed in the most prosperous civilization in human history. They have to see themselves as the downtrodden masses, exploited by the European people’s who built that society. I suppose it’s more comforting for them to believe that they are being oppressed, than to confront the fact that, as a group, they have thus far been unable to replicate such a feat. It’s easier for people to blame others for their problems than to be introspective and confront their own shortcomings. Such as it is with individuals, and appears to be the same with groups.
As I documented in my film Hidden Influence: The Rise of Collectivism, the public education systems in the United States, Canada and the rest of the West, have been infiltrated by socialist and communist ideologues, and have replaced the previous constitutionalist liberal state ideology with a neo-Marxist one. No longer are children taught about the greatness of America’s founding fathers, or anything that could cause a child to have pride in the heritage of their nation, but instead are taught that America is a nation built on slavery and genocide, that white American children are the descendants of slave owners and mass murderers, and that they must atone for the sins of their fathers. In Canada the same idea of shame is taught in the schools, and that we need to be eternally sorry for Residential Schools, and building a thriving nation in what was a vast and unforgiving wilderness.
What is a ‘passive revolution’? In their book Commonwealth, Marxist theorists Micheal Hardt and Antonio Negri discuss Gramsci’s theory of passive revolution, and how it can be used as a ’war of position’ as opposed to a ‘war of movement’. When a communist revolution is impossible a ‘war of position’ is a passive form of revolution that can hold ground and set the stage for a ‘war of movement’, i.e. actual communist revolution.
“Passive revolution, Gramsci explains, is a revolution without revolution, that is, a transformation of the political and institutional structures…. Gramsci also applies the term passive revolution to the mutations of the structures of capitalistic economic production that he recognizes primarily in the development of the US factory system of the 1920’s and 1930’s.
… After using passive revolution as a descriptive tool of historical analysis regarding both the superstructural and structural changes of capitalist society, Gramsci seems to employ it, third, to suggest a path for struggle. How can we make revolution in a society subsumed with capital? The only answer Gramsci can see is a relatively passive one, that is, a long march through the institutions of civil society.
Gramsci’s various political proposals coalesce as a Leninist critique of Leninism. He is critical of Leninism in that he emphasizes not the “war of movement” but the “war of position,” proposing, in other words, not the insurrectional blow against the ruling powers but an extended series of battles in the cultural and political spheres in the effort to wrest hegemony away from the bourgeoisie. Gramsci’s critique, however, remains Leninist. Passive revolution, for the nineteenth-century Italian bourgeoisie or the twentieth-century proletariat, is not superior to active revolution but merely an alternative when the primary avenue is not possible… All the core ideas of Gramsci’s politics—including war of position, hegemony, and passive revolution—are aimed at inventing revolutionary activity for nonrevolutionary times, but this is oriented nonetheless toward the horizon of active revolution, when sometime in the future this becomes possible….
We are not faced with an alternative—either insurrection or institutional struggle, either passive or active revolution. Instead revolution must simultaneously be both insurrection and institution, structural and superstructural transformation.”
This excerpt of Commonwealth, a book literally discussing how to create a communist revolution, is featured on the website for Harvard University Press, the publishing company controlled by Harvard University, which, ironically is an example of how the left has gained control of the cultural and educational institutions.
What is the long march through the institutions? Well, quite plainly it’s the infiltration of the social institutions by Marxist political operatives. Theoretically, it was based on Gramsci’s theories of passive revolution, and hegemony. Using the language of Gramsci, they successfully conducted a passive revolution and took control of the hegemonic structures of cultural creation, and now they are in control of the process of cultural hegemony. The culmination of this passive [cultural] revolution, is the creation and consensus of the web of institutions that Mencius Moldbug referred to as the Cathedral.
“A social group can, and indeed must, already exercise ‘leadership’ [i.e. be hegemonic] before winning governmental power (this indeed is one of the principal conditions for the winning of such power)”.
While inspired by Gramscian thought, it was Rudi Dutschke, a German Marxist and prominent member of the students movement in Germany who popularized the idea of a long march through the institutions in the 1960’s. As well as being inspired by Gramsci, Dutschke was influence by the Frankfurt School and their concept of critical theory, he corresponded with Herbert Marcuse, a prominent member of the Frankfurt School. In his book Counter Revolution and Revolt, Marcuse praised Dutschke’s Gramsician strategy of a long march through the institutions:
“To extend the base of the student movement, Rudi Dutschke has proposed the strategy of the long march through the institutions: working against the established institutions while working within them, but not simply by 'boring from within', rather by 'doing the job', learning (how to program and read computers, how to teach at all levels of education, how to use the mass media, how to organize production, how to recognize and eschew planned obsolescence, how to design, et cetera), and at the same time preserving one's own consciousness in working with others.”
Such as was often the case Rudi Dutscheke was funded by a wealthy benefactor Rudolf Augstein, publisher and part owner of Germany’s top paper Der Spiegel.
In his writings, specifically on passive revolution, Gramsci contextualizes his ideological struggle as a war, this is because that is exactly how the left view their activism. The left view themselves as taking part in a never ending war or revolution. Liberals (in the classical sense), on the other hand don’t see things that way, they believe in a market place of ideas where the best ideas naturally come out on top, and thus there’s no reason to oppose the mass distribution of hostile ideologies. They believe that a vigorous debate will separate the good ideas from the bad, and people will use their reason to reject the bad ideas. Unfortunately, this doesn’t take into account the fact that most people don’t come to their political ideas rationally. Whether it’s because they are looking for benefits from the state and can’t see past their own interests, or the fact that they aren’t educated in history, economics, and other topics that are vital for understanding good statecraft, and thus are victims of the Dunning Kruger Effect. Some people just aren’t very skilled at abstract thinking, and thus don’t have the cognitive capacity necessary to adequately examine political ideas.
This is why the classical liberals constantly lose. They believe that good faith arguments will change the minds of people who essentially want to destroy them. They are engaging in gentlemanly debates, and trying to find compromises with people who are waging total war on them.
Naively, they had no problem with allowing Marxists into the public space to spread their ideas, but now that the Marxist control the social institutions, they have no intention of reciprocating the generosity of yesterdays liberals. The lesson to be learned here is that the left is engaged in total war, and we can draw them no quarter, and have no mercy, because they will have none for us. Thankfully, it seems most people on the rightwing have learned this lesson.
FOR A NEW FASCISM IS THE SECOND FULL LENGTH DOCUMENTARY FILM BY RICHARD HEATHEN AND LIBERTY MACHINE NEWS
IF YOU ENJOY OUR CONTENT AND WOULD LIKE TO CONTRIBUTE. SIMPLY DONATE THE PRICE OF A PINT, CHEERS.