Marxism After Marx | Gramsci: Language and Politics 

I'm up babe, thanks for waking me up 😊😗😗🤗

yes

Let's say the 'bourgeosie' left the Western countries. How would these countries be any better?

@@lochnessmunster1189 well, such a change would be both good and bad (dialectics, ha). i assume when you say "leave" it is with all the capital as well? it would likely be tragic-the proletariat in these countries does not have its own organisations capable of taking state power, and so there would be a power vacuum and factions struggling for power. bourgeois ideology remains, even after the bourgeoisie are expropriated and turned into proletarians, and this ideology will guide some groups which do not consist of any bourgeois individuals but still hold to bourgeois ideology to taking state power and reinstating capitalism which would create a new bourgeoisie. in countries like India and the Philippines, though, Communists are perfectly capable of wielding state power tomorrow, because they have the necessary organisations. capital is also what allocates resources in capitalist societies, so that allocation would stop and many would starve, dehydrate and freeze to death as well as die from medical conditions which can no longer be treated. of course, Communists do not want this. Communists want to tear down capitalist institutions which allocate resources and _replace_ them with socialist, popular institutions, not only tear them down (that is what anarchists want to do; anarchists are our enemies as liberals and fascists are). if we are not able to replace them, then it would be too hastily to destroy them.

@@despa7726 Cheers. But what's wrong with being a liberal? Also, what's 'bourgeois ideology'? Which model of Socialism do you advocate, and why would it not lead to 'a new bourgeoisie'?

@@lochnessmunster1189 liberalism is the ideology which arose with the bourgeoisie in the 18th, 19th and 20th centuries in most countries, which promotes the idea of the atomised individual with these mechanical "rights" which do not change even if conditions demand them to. liberalism is the ideology of individualism, which arises from the logic of capital (appropriation in capitalist production is private, and therefore, to the private owners appropriating the labour, a certain selfishness becomes natural). if we look at countries like the Philippines, the people are taking power step by step, and the liberals are opposing them. liberals ally with the fascist Marcos II regime of the Philippines against the people, for example. the same thing is happening in India, Turkey, Ecuador, Brazil, Colombia, and so on. in Nepal certain opportunists, led by one Prachanda, led the Communists to capitulate and lose to the bourgeoisie of Nepal right before they were able to actually overthrow the government, and now the liberals in Nepal are good friends with the "Communist" capitulationists-liberals support wreckers in the Communist movement. this is another example. liberalism is usually at odds with reality most of the time. it promotes a metaphysical ("things can be separated from their time and their place"), mechanical ("nothing _really_ changes") and idealist ("ideas before matter") understanding of the world, which obscures class struggle and makes capitalism seem like it is obviously correct. bourgeois ideology is any ideology which creates, reinforces or restores capitalism in a country. so it includes Smithian liberalism, Hitlerite fascism, Khrushchevite revisionism, Deng-Liu revisionism, Italian fascism, neo-liberalism, social-democracy, radical-feminism, and all kinds of sentiments which support these, such as national-chauvinism, misogyny, racism, ethnonationalism, the view of the state as a thing outside and above society, class collaborationism, and so on. it is at odds with proletarian ideology, Marxism-Leninism-Maoism, Proletarian Feminism, and so on, as well as feudal ideology, theocracy, Confucianism, and so on. revisionism and dogmatism are also tendencies within the Communist movement which corrode it. there is only really one model of socialism which actually exists. it is one with social ownership of the means of production, an end to exploitation of man by man, destruction of Old culture and building of New culture, a populace which is ready and prone to criticise whenever something happens, led by a Communist Party which helps with all of this 'social construction' and utilises the method of the mass-line without being tailist or commandist. i.e kind of what was constructed in China, with our additions from experience in recent years regarding patriarchy, ableism and so forth. of course, every socialist project will look different when applied to different conditions, but we must be clear that we will not forgive those who push capitalist-restorationist (revisionist) lines. a 'new bourgeoisie' only arises when the Communist Party does not abide by the principles i mentioned above. the class struggle continues under socialism, and the bourgeoisie will be defeated ideologically eventually. socialist projects have historically been defeated because of revisionism, mainly, subverting the Communist lines and turning it into liberal and fascist lines.

@@despa7726 Cheers; however, what do you mean by 'exploitation of man by man'?

Thank you for your questions! 1) I think it would be difficult to make a definitive statement here since I can't claim to be well-versed in the histories of the many civilizations, states, and regions of the world. That being said, I think Soviet policies were particularly unprecedented for their times, especially because they were being enacted at the climax of European colonialism. I can't think of another major state that was as profoundly concerned with linguistic minorities as the Soviet Union was. As I mentioned in the video, and as several historians have pointed out, the Soviets were almost *too* concerned about linguistic struggles. So in this sense I think there are few, if any, parallels to the Soviet approach. 2) I think the charges mounted by Stalin's critics suffer from two problems: the first is that they disregard the broader circumstances in which the turn occurred; the second, related to the first, is that they believe a different administration would have magically taken a different trajectory. In my opinion, as you say, there were many political pressures (internal and external) that ignited paranoia across all levels of politics in the USSR. As mentioned in the video, certain regional movements posed a (perceived) threat to Soviet power (for example: pan-Turkism). Gramsci was totally right in that linguistic and political struggle are very often connected, if not the same. So I think the retreat towards promoting Russian as the dominant language was a reaction to the instability of the early Soviet state. To be fair, there were always groups within the Party and the government who favored Russian linguistic primacy, so I'm certain they played a part as well (incidentally, Stalin was generally in the other camp, preferring linguistic autonomy and almost always rejecting Russification). I'm not convinced that had someone like Trotsky been in power instead, things would have played out very differently. These claims place too much emphasis on individual leaders or small groups, rather than recognizing that policies are almost always the products of historical environments and large-scale mobilization for specific visions. In fact, in many of the republics, the Soviet state had to intervene to crackdown on Russian nationalist sentiment among the workers and to settle disputes that emerged along ethnic lines. This happened well into the 30s during the peak of industrialization. A question for you: are linguistic struggles still ongoing in parts of Italy? I lived in Milan for about two years and didn't get much of an impression that there was resistance to an Italian linguistic identity -- but that's probably because I was in such an urban and northern location. Of course I am aware that there are political movements (Lega Nord, the Sardinian parties, and the Sicilian movement) but to what extent is the political regionalism also linguistic? It would be super interesting to hear your perspective!

@@themarxistproject Yeah, Milan is not the best place in Italy to look at political struggles about languages XD. It is THE italian capitalist city, in the sense that Milan is very modern and bourgeios like. Obviously, people from Milan still have accents and a dialect, but it's not a central part of their identity. Generally, the more you go south the more dialects and regional languages become prevalent. The only notable exception in the north is Veneto (which is in fact sometimes jokingly called "the south of the north"). When we discuss regional languages in Italy, the south always keeps a central spot because the italian unification was guided from the northern ruling classes (italian unity, the so called Risorgimento, was unfortunately a very reactionary process, because compared with other bourgeios upheavals like the french revolution, it happened with little participation from the italian masses and with cooperation between capitalists and the aristocracy: for this reason Gramsci used the term "passive revolution" to refer to the Risorgimento; curiously, he also used the term to describe the rise of fascism to power); consequentially linguistic unionism also came for the most part from the north, even if north italians also have dialects and really strong regional, many times even town identity! There is an italian term, "campanilismo", from "campana", bell, which is used to refer to this incredible italian fragmentation. It basically means that where there is a bell in Italy, there is also a distinct identity. Every small town in Italy has a bell, so you can draw your conclusions. Even my very small town of 2000 people is divided in two fractions. In the south regional languages are used way more. Unfortunately, even if the languages are very rich and alive culturally (just think about the fact that ONLY in Campania, my region, mainstream music is ALWAYS in neapolitan, not italian), they are not so much politically, and they are not taught in school. In fact, there is a disgusting colonial mindset that portrays italian as well mannered, while other languages are seen as inferior and compared to bad words. I can say for experience that some teachers will correct you if you don't use italian.If regional identities do not get politicized, dialects will eventually disappear. As a sardinian (sardinians often don't even think of themselves as italians), Gramsci was the italian communist who thought the most about the so called "southern question". Italian communists will have to resolve these contradictions and struggle to achieve a revolution that is also a linguistic one. In this we fortunately have the example of the soviet experiment. About Stalin, yeah, I was never convinced by the russian nationalist version. He was, after all, the georgian bolshevik expert of nationalities who wrote marxism and the national question. But, regarding my second question, I don't think one scenario excludes the other. The critical situation for the USSR could have created a reactionary agenda. Even if I don't think that of the Stalin period, so. But we can say for sure that the imperfections of soviet socialism laid the base for its demise. Yeltsins don't spawn from trees

Thank you so much for the response, it was very interesting to read!

@@themarxistproject keep up the good work!

Why does the capitalist system give disrespect to regional languages and dialects, as you said?

Yes you do! Glad to see the content encouraging further reading 🙂

And yet, one of the most underrated of all "theorists"

It's a shame that quite a lot of Marxism hasn't been proved to be theoretically true.

Shame Marxism isn't a watertight explanation.

Considering unequal exchange will make a frequent appearance in my upcoming dissertation work, I imagine I'll make at least one video on it (but probably more)! Glad you're enjoying the videos!

@@themarxistproject can't wait for that!

I think that would definitely make for an interesting video. There's nothing in the works yet for that, but I'll note it down. In the meantime, there's the video on critical pedagogy, if you're interested!

Do you think that the educational system is actually under 'capitalist control'?

Sure, control in a Deleuzian sense -- implicit configuration of modes of thinking and behavior. Education looks different in different countries though, and there are obviously capitalist countries which have radically re-evaluated education (e.g. Finland). As for places like the United States, the education system is absolutely molded by dominant ideological frameworks which say a lot without even having to say them out-loud. History and literature courses tend to be very sanitized, even when the subject matter appears to be radical. Even the structure of schooling in the US is very constrictive: you literally have to pledge your allegiance to the flag and to God every morning, you are not permitted to leave the classroom without express permission (which you don't always receive), your entire 8-hour experience is punctuated by a system of literal bells which you can receive real punishment for not abiding by, teachers are treated as unquestionable purveyors of "correct" information, and so on. Is there a board of Capitalist Overlords sitting in a dimly lit room reviewing the curriculum of every student in every school? Obviously not. But there is definitely a prevailing ideology, an implicitly understood absolute "truth", and an established mode of conduct whose objective is regulating the student as a subject of a hierarchical system.

@@lochnessmunster1189 Yeah, you have anything against it?

@@bobert6686 Against what?

Gramsci wrote about this topic! He said esperanto wouldnt work because it was inorganic

South America is not America. It's an entirely different continent.

You wanna be us so bad 😂

That will happen, when the Communists are in power again!

it really isn't

"The socialist idea of migration" 😂😂😂 yeah because humans famously _didn't migrate at all_ prior to the 1800s. Gtfoh 😂😂😂

Capitalism also loves the "free movement of labor" so it's not like socialists are unique in their belief that open borders are good, which I'd argue as a socialist that they are absolutely not. One reason being is displacement of people, their culture and languages.

@@RextheRebel so your a national socialist?

they did, sometimes on gunships and sometimes risking being eaten by tribes whose lands they traversed.@@Matthew.E.Kelly.