Google Groups no longer supports new Usenet posts or subscriptions. Historical content remains viewable.

Dismiss

Marxism vs. the American Ideology

4 views

Skip to first unread message

Dr Fuji Kamikase

unread,

Jan 4, 2001, 7:14:05 PM1/4/01

Gramsci vs. Tocqueville or Marxism vs. the American Ideology

FrontPageMagazine.com | January 4, 2001

By Ronald Radosh

CONSERVATIVES HAVE BEEN LAX in dealing with the question of
ideology, leaving this terrain most often to the academic
Marxists and to the remnants of the 60's New Left. While we have
had an outpouring of articles and books criticizing the
fashionable views on issues such as multiculturalism, affirmative
action, the mythology surrounding race in America and the like,
there have been few attempts to deal with the reasons surrounding
the widespread acceptance of the new shibboleths in deeper
philosophical terms.

Finally, an attempt has been made in an important new article
written by historian John Fonte, "Why There is a Culture War:
Gramsci and Tocqueville in America," which appears in the new
issue of the Heritage Foundation's monthly magazine, Policy
Review. What Fonte attempts to establish is that, beneath the
surface of our political world, there has been a fight between
competing worldviews, a fight which Fonte rightfully calls "an
intense ideological struggle."

Fonte begins by summarizing the thesis of the late Italian
Communist intellectual, Antonio Gramsci (1891-1937), who
developed the thesis of "hegemony," which became the starting
point for his entire worldview. From Gramsci's perspective, a
social system- in our case, capitalism - is sustained when the
majorities of its inhabitants internalize and accept the system's
values and premises. Revolution could not succeed, he
hypothesized, until a cultural "war of position" had been waged
to undermine the hegemonic values that sustained the system. That
demanded the creation of a new value system through a struggle
waged in the organs of civil society by the Left - the schools,
the churches, the media and all voluntary organizations. Only
then, when the dominant ideas had been discarded, could steps be
taken to transform the social system.

The decisive struggle to undermine middle-class liberal
democracy, Fonte notes, would be fought primarily at the level of
consciousness. The necessary first step for handing power to
previously subordinate groups was the rejection of the old social
order by its citizens on intellectual and moral grounds, through
the creation of counter-hegemony. What John Fonte goes on to
argue is that the Left has in fact been pursuing the Gramscian
approach, perhaps unaware that they are doing it. From arguing
that the critical attention has to be given to race, ethnicity
and gender, to the claim that "the personal is political," to the
arguments for so-called jury nullification, to the doctrine of
"critical theory" developed in our major law schools - Fonte
convincingly shows how the underlying philosophical approach can
be traced back to Gramsci.

One example he gives will suffice. Critical legal theory, he
writes, "could hardly be more Gramscian; it seeks to
'deconstruct' bourgeois legal ideas that serve as instruments of
power for the dominant groups and 'reconstruct' them to serve the
interests of the subordinate groups." In practice, therefore, its
advocates claim that when black jurors vote to acquit a guilty
black criminal, they are merely empowering previously powerless
defendants who might have been driven to crime by the real guilty
party - American racism and its controlling body of white males.

Countering Gramsci is what Fonte calls the basic American
ideology, that of Alexis de Tocqueville, based on the
understanding that Americans are individualistic, religious and
patriotic, as well as committed to a dynamic entrepreneurial
energy that demands the acceptance of the equality of individual
opportunity, rather than special rewards given to the "oppressed"
based on their perceived group affiliations. American
exceptionalism, Fonte writes, is based on dynamism, religiosity
and patriotism. Its adherents include intellectuals such as
Gertrude Himmelfarb, William Bennett, but also liberal
intellectuals such as former Clinton advisor William Galston, a
supporter of the Progressive Policy Institute and the Democratic
Leadership Council. In terms of action, it includes the work of
Michael Joyce of the Bradley Foundation, whose self-described
"Tocquevillian" approach includes support to associations and
individuals that seek to infuse moral and religious underpinnings
to civic action. Indeed, he notes that, in an article, Joyce
called for challenging the "political hegemony" of those who run
what the late historian Christopher Lasch called the "therapeutic
state." Again, those who support this stance include both
Democrats and Republicans, including the pre-campaign Joseph
Lieberman and, of course, President-elect George W. Bush.

In theory, as in life, all is not so black and white. Fonte notes
that some intellectuals support one and reject another aspect of
the Tocquevillian ideology. Paleoconservatives oppose modernism
and the Enlightenment; secular patriots like Arthur M.
Schlesinger Jr. support American nationalism but balk at anti-
statist American traditions and Catholic social democrats like
journalist E.J. Dionne accept the religious part of the
Tocqueville approach but want to put curbs on the entrepreneurial
spirit. Fonte might have added the anomaly posed by the work of
the eminent historian Eugene D. Genovese, a self-proclaimed
Gramscian who opposes radical feminism, affirmative action and
who has even praised the work of Judge Robert Bork. I would have
particularly appreciated, given this irony, how Fonte would have
explained and fit Genovese into his paradigm.

It is John Fonte's hope, as he writes, that the Tocquevillians
will have the strength, given their "intellectual firepower,
infrastructure, funding, media attention and a comprehensive
philosophy that taps into core American principles - to challenge
the Gramscians with any chance of success." It is his feeling
that the coalition of paleoconservatives, libertarians, secular
patriots and Catholic social democrats do not have the
wherewithal to provide effective resistance to what Fonte terms
"the Gramscian assault." He sees hope in the manifesto "A Call to
Civil Society: Why Democracy Needs Moral Truths," which outlined
civic and moral values that buttress our republic, and which was
signed by political figures and intellectuals of both Left and
Right, including liberals such as Jean Bethke Elshtain and
radicals like Cornel West.

The fight has also taken place in Congress, where Gramscian laws
such as the Gender Equity in Education Act, based as it is on
concepts of "institutionalized oppression," vie against
Tocquevillian legislation like the "charitable choice" provision
in the welfare reform legislation. And, of course, it has spread
to the Supreme Court, which has heard cases such as the Violence
Against Women Act, in which the Court has accepted the gender
feminist argument that sexual harassment is a hate crime
perpetrated by men to keep women inferior. Fonte writes that in
the case Davis v. Monroe County Board of Education, the Court
endorsed Gramscian and Marxist assumptions "of power relations
between dominant and subordinate groups and applied those
assumptions to American fifth graders." And in the executive
branch of government, the Gramscian view is apparent in the
various attempts to promote group-based equality of result rather
than equality of individual opportunity.

Fonte's article is of importance because until now, few
commentators have tied the growth of political correctness to the
advance of Marxist ideology. Fonte concludes that "the slow but
steady advance of Gramscian and Hegelian-Marxist ideas through
the major institutions of American democracy," taking place while
politicians seem to converge in the political center, reveals the
"deeper conflict" of ideology that will continue into the new
century. It will continue, Fonte argues, because Gramscian
Marxism continues, a decade after the collapse of the Soviet
Union, "to challenge the American republic at the level of its
most cherished ideas." That is America's unique exceptionalism,
based on entrepreneurial dynamism, patriotism and a religious-
cultural core. Should Gramsci's view win, Fonte warns, it "would
mean the end of this very 'exceptionalism,'" with America
becoming a secular, post-patriotic and statist social order, in
which group hierarchies and group rights replace the idea of
equality before the law. I agree with Fonte when he says "the
historical stakes are enormous." His discussion is, in itself, a
contribution to winning the fight.

http://www.frontpagemag.com/archives/radosh/2001/rr01-04-01.htm

God Bless America
Fuji

IMPEACHMENT IS FOREVER
Opinions expressed here are entirely those of my employer.

(T- 17 days until eviction and delousing the White House!)

Gandalf Grey

unread,

Jan 4, 2001, 9:23:23 PM1/4/01

Dr Fuji Kamikase <drfujik...@aol.comnocrap> wrote in message
news:20010104191405...@ng-cm1.aol.com...

Right Wing Bullshit snipped for your intellectual safety.

Abortion / Family Planning
1999: On the votes that the National Right to Life Committee considered to
be the most important in 1999, Senator Ashcroft voted their preferred
position 100 percent of the time.
1999: On the votes that the Planned Parenthood considered to be the most
important in 1999, Senator Ashcroft voted their preferred position 0 percent
of the time.

1999: On the votes that the National Abortion Reproductive Rights Action
League considered to be the most important in 1999, Senator Ashcroft voted
their preferred position 0 percent of the time.

----------------------------------------------------------------------------
----
Animal Issues
1999: On the votes that the The Humane Society of the United States
considered to be the most important in 1999 , Senator Ashcroft voted their
preferred position 0 percent of the time.

----------------------------------------------------------------------------
----
Business
2000: On the votes that the Small Business Survival Committee considered to
be the most important in 2000, Senator Ashcroft voted their preferred
position 100 percent of the time.
2000: On the votes that the Business-Industry Political Action Committee
considered to be the most important in 2000, Senator Ashcroft voted their
preferred position 92 percent of the time.

1999-2000: On the votes that the National Federation of Independent Business
considered to be the most important in 1999-2000, Senator Ashcroft voted
their preferred position 100 percent of the time.

1999: On the votes that the Business-Industry Political Action Committee
considered to be the most important in 1999, Senator Ashcroft voted their
preferred position 100 percent of the time.

1999: On the votes that the U.S. Chamber of Commerce considered to be the
most important in 1999, Senator Ashcroft voted their preferred position 88
percent of the time.

1998: On the votes that the Small Business Survival Committee considered to
be the most important in 1998, Senator Ashcroft voted their preferred
position 95 percent of the time.

1997-1998: On the votes that the National Federation of Independent Business
considered to be the most important in 1997-1998, Senator Ashcroft voted
their preferred position 86 percent of the time.

----------------------------------------------------------------------------
----
Children
1999: On the votes that the Children's Defense Fund considered to be the
most important in 1999, Senator Ashcroft voted their preferred position 13
percent of the time.

----------------------------------------------------------------------------
----
Christian Family Issues
1999-2000: On the votes that the Christian Coalition considered to be the
most important in 1999-2000 , Senator Ashcroft voted their preferred
position 100 percent of the time.
1997-1998: On the votes that the Christian Coalition considered to be the
most important in 1997-1998 , Senator Ashcroft voted their preferred
position 100 percent of the time.

----------------------------------------------------------------------------
----
Civil Rights / Liberty
2000: On the votes that the American Civil Liberties Union considered to be
the most important in 2000 , Senator Ashcroft voted their preferred position
14 percent of the time.
1999-2000: On the votes that the Human Rights Campaign considered to be the
most important in 1999-2000, Senator Ashcroft voted their preferred position
0 percent of the time.

1999: On the votes that the American Civil Liberties Union considered to be
the most important in 1999 , Senator Ashcroft voted their preferred position
17 percent of the time.

1999: On the votes that the National Hispanic Leadership Agenda considered
to be the most important in 1999, Senator Ashcroft voted their preferred
position 14 percent of the time.

1999: On the votes that the National Association for the Advancement of
Colored People considered to be the most important in 1999, Senator Ashcroft
voted their preferred position 20 percent of the time.

1997-1998: On the votes that the Leadership Conference on Civil Rights
considered to be the most important in 1997-1998, Senator Ashcroft voted
their preferred position 10 percent of the time.

----------------------------------------------------------------------------
----
Conservative
2000: On the votes that the American Conservative Union considered to be the
most important in 2000, Senator Ashcroft voted their preferred position 96
percent of the time.
1999: On the votes that the Conservative Index-The John Birch Society
considered to be the most important in 1999, Senator Ashcroft voted their
preferred position 70 percent of the time.

1999: On the votes that the American Conservative Union considered to be the
most important in 1999, Senator Ashcroft voted their preferred position 100
percent of the time.

----------------------------------------------------------------------------
----
Consumers
1999: On the votes that the Consumer Federation of America considered to be
the most important in 1999, Senator Ashcroft voted their preferred position
0 percent of the time.

----------------------------------------------------------------------------
----
Contractors
1999: On the votes that the Associated Builders & Contractors considered to
be the most important in 1999, Senator Ashcroft voted their preferred
position 100 percent of the time.

----------------------------------------------------------------------------
----
Defense/Foreign
1999: On the votes that the Peace Action considered to be the most important
in 1999, Senator Ashcroft voted their preferred position 30 percent of the
time.
1999: On the votes that the Campaign for U.N. Reform considered to be the
most important in 1999, Senator Ashcroft voted their preferred position 0
percent of the time.

1999: On the votes that the Council for a Livable World considered to be the
most important in 1999, Senator Ashcroft voted their preferred position 14
percent of the time.

1997: On the votes that the Center for Security Policy considered to be the
most important in 1997, Senator Ashcroft voted their preferred position 93
percent of the time.

----------------------------------------------------------------------------
----
Economic Policy
1999: On the votes that the The Republican Liberty Caucus - Economic Policy
considered to be the most important in 1999, Senator Ashcroft voted their
preferred position 85 percent of the time.

----------------------------------------------------------------------------
----
Education
1999-2000: On the votes that the American Federation of Teachers considered
to be the most important in 1999-2000, Senator Ashcroft voted their
preferred position 0 percent of the time.
1999: On the votes that the National Education Association considered to be
the most important in 1999, Senator Ashcroft voted their preferred position
20 percent of the time.

1998: On the votes that the American Federation of Teachers considered to be
the most important in 1998, Senator Ashcroft voted their preferred position
0 percent of the time.

1995-1996: On the votes that the U.S. Student Association considered to be
the most important in 1995-1996, Senator Ashcroft voted their preferred
position 0 percent of the time.

----------------------------------------------------------------------------
----
Environment / Consumer
1999-2000: On the votes that the U.S. Public Interest Research Group
considered to be the most important in 1999-2000, Senator Ashcroft voted
their preferred position 0 percent of the time.
1999: On the votes that the U.S. Public Interest Research Group considered
to be the most important in 1999, Senator Ashcroft voted their preferred
position 15 percent of the time.

----------------------------------------------------------------------------
----
Environment
1999-2000: On the votes that the League of Conservation Voters considered to
be the most important in 1999-2000, Senator Ashcroft voted their preferred
position 0 percent of the time.
1999: On the votes that the League of Conservation Voters considered to be
the most important in 1999, Senator Ashcroft voted their preferred position
0 percent of the time.

----------------------------------------------------------------------------
----
Farm
1999: On the votes that the American Farm Bureau Federation considered to be
the most important in 1999, Senator Ashcroft voted their preferred position
100 percent of the time.
1998: On the votes that the National Farmers Union considered to be the most
important in 1998, Senator Ashcroft voted their preferred position 40
percent of the time.

----------------------------------------------------------------------------
----
Gun Issues
2000: Based on lifetime voting records on gun issues and the results of a
questionnaire sent to all Congressional candidates in 2000, the National
Rifle Association assigned Senator Ashcroft a grade of A (with grades
ranging from a high of A+ to a low of F).
1999: On the votes that the Gun Owners of America considered to be the most
important in 1999, Senator Ashcroft voted their preferred position 45
percent of the time.

1999: On the votes that the Coalition to Stop Gun Violence considered to be
the most important in 1999 , Senator Ashcroft voted their preferred position
0 percent of the time.

----------------------------------------------------------------------------
----
Health
1999: On the votes that the American Public Health Association considered to
be the most important in 1999, Senator Ashcroft voted their preferred
position 0 percent of the time.
1997-1998: On the votes that the AIDS Action Council considered to be the
most important in 1997-1998, Senator Ashcroft voted their preferred position
20 percent of the time.

----------------------------------------------------------------------------
----
Immigration
1996-98: On the votes that the American Immigration Control-Senate
considered to be the most important in 1996-98, Senator Ashcroft voted their
preferred position 0 percent of the time.
1996: On the votes that the Federation for American Immigration Reform
(Senate) considered to be the most important in 1996, Senator Ashcroft voted
their preferred position 25 percent of the time.

----------------------------------------------------------------------------
----
Labor
2000: On the votes that the American Federation of State, County & Municipal
Employees considered to be the most important in 2000, Senator Ashcroft
voted their preferred position 0 percent of the time.
2000: On the votes that the AFL-CIO considered to be the most important in
2000, Senator Ashcroft voted their preferred position 0 percent of the time.

2000: On the votes that the International Association of Machinists and
Aerospace Worker considered to be the most important in 2000, Senator
Ashcroft voted their preferred position 0 percent of the time.

2000: On the votes that the The Teamsters considered to be the most
important in 2000, Senator Ashcroft voted their preferred position 0 percent
of the time.

1999: On the votes that the AFL-CIO considered to be the most important in
1999, Senator Ashcroft voted their preferred position 0 percent of the time.

1999: On the votes that the United Auto Workers considered to be the most
important in 1999, Senator Ashcroft voted their preferred position 8 percent
of the time.

1999: On the votes that the American Federation of Government Employees
considered to be the most important in 1999, Senator Ashcroft voted their
preferred position 9 percent of the time.

1999: On the votes that the American Federation of State, County & Municipal
Employees considered to be the most important in 1999, Senator Ashcroft
voted their preferred position 0 percent of the time.

1999: On the votes that the Communications Workers of America considered to
be the most important in 1999, Senator Ashcroft voted their preferred
position 0 percent of the time.

1999: On the votes that the Transportation Communications Union considered
to be the most important in 1999, Senator Ashcroft voted their preferred
position 0 percent of the time.

1999: On the votes that the International Brotherhood of Boilermakers
considered to be the most important in 1999, Senator Ashcroft voted their
preferred position 0 percent of the time.

1998: On the votes that the International Brotherhood of Boilermakers
considered to be the most important in 1998, Senator Ashcroft voted their
preferred position 0 percent of the time.

1997-1998: On the votes that the The Teamsters considered to be the most
important in 1997-1998, Senator Ashcroft voted their preferred position 0
percent of the time.

1997: On the votes that the United Food & Commercial Workers considered to
be the most important in 1997, Senator Ashcroft voted their preferred
position 0 percent of the time.

----------------------------------------------------------------------------
----
Liberal
1999-2000: On the votes that the Public Citizen's Congress Watch considered
to be the most important in 1999-2000, Senator Ashcroft voted their
preferred position 8 percent of the time.
1999: On the votes that the Americans for Democratic Action considered to be
the most important in 1999, Senator Ashcroft voted their preferred position
0 percent of the time.

1997-1998: On the votes that the National Committee for an Effective
Congress considered to be the most important in 1997-1998, Senator Ashcroft
voted their preferred position 0 percent of the time.

----------------------------------------------------------------------------
----
Nat. Journal
1999: According to the National Journal - Liberal on Social Policy
calculations, in 1999 Senator Ashcroft voted more liberal on social policy
issues than 21 percent of the United States Senate.
1999: According to the National Journal - Conserv. on Economic Policy
calculations, in 1999 Senator Ashcroft voted more conservative on economic
policy issues than 83 percent of the United States Senate.

1999: According to the National Journal - Liberal on For & Def Policy
calculations, in 1999 Senator Ashcroft voted more liberal on defense and
foreign policy issues than 16 percent of the United States Senate.

1999: According to the National Journal - Conserv. on Def & For Policy
calculations, in 1999 Senator Ashcroft voted more conservative on defense
and foreign policy issues than 77 percent of the United States Senate.

1999: According to the National Journal - Conserv. on Social Policy
calculations, in 1999 Senator Ashcroft voted more conservative on social
policy issues than 77 percent of the United States Senate.

1999: According to the National Journal - Liberal on Economic Policy
calculations, in 1999 Senator Ashcroft voted more liberal on economic policy
issues than 0 percent of the United States Senate.

----------------------------------------------------------------------------
----
Populist
1999: On the votes that the Liberty Lobby considered to be the most
important in 1999, Senator Ashcroft voted their preferred position 80
percent of the time.

----------------------------------------------------------------------------
----
Poverty
1999: On the votes that the Bread for the World considered to be the most
important in 1999, Senator Ashcroft voted their preferred position 0 percent
of the time.

----------------------------------------------------------------------------
----
Property
2000: On the votes that the League of Private Property Voters considered to
be the most important in 2000, Senator Ashcroft voted their preferred
position 62 percent of the time.

----------------------------------------------------------------------------
----
Seniors
1999-2000: On the votes that the National Committee to Preserve Social
Security and Medicare considered to be the most important in 1999-2000,
Senator Ashcroft voted their preferred position 23 percent of the time.
1999-2000: On the votes that the National Association of Retired Federal
Employees considered to be the most important in 1999-2000, Senator Ashcroft
voted their preferred position 0 percent of the time.

1999: On the votes that the United Seniors Association considered to be the
most important in 1999, Senator Ashcroft voted their preferred position 100
percent of the time.

1999: On the votes that the National Council of Senior Citizens considered
to be the most important in 1999, Senator Ashcroft voted their preferred
position 10 percent of the time.

1997-1998: On the votes that the The 60 Plus Association considered to be
the most important in 1997-1998, Senator Ashcroft voted their preferred
position 100 percent of the time.

1995-1996: On the votes that the National Association of Retired Federal
Employees considered to be the most important in 1995-1996, Senator Ashcroft
voted their preferred position 20 percent of the time.

----------------------------------------------------------------------------
----
Social Policy
2000: On the votes that the Friends Comm. on Nat'l Leg. considered to be the
most important in 2000, Senator Ashcroft voted their preferred position 0
percent of the time.
1999: On the votes that the Friends Comm. on Nat'l Leg. considered to be the
most important in 1999, Senator Ashcroft voted their preferred position 42
percent of the time.

1999: On the votes that the NETWORK, A National Catholic Social Justice
Lobby considered to be the most important in 1999, Senator Ashcroft voted
their preferred position 18 percent of the time.

1999: On the votes that the The Republican Liberty Caucus - Social Policy
considered to be the most important in 1999, Senator Ashcroft voted their
preferred position 77 percent of the time.

1999: On the votes that the Zero Population Growth considered to be the most
important in 1999, Senator Ashcroft voted their preferred position 0 percent
of the time.

----------------------------------------------------------------------------
----
Taxes
1999: On the votes that the Americans for Tax Reform considered to be the
most important in 1999, Senator Ashcroft voted their preferred position 100
percent of the time.

----------------------------------------------------------------------------
----
Taxes / Spending
1999: According to the National Taxpayers Union, in 1999 Senator Ashcroft,
on ALL votes dealing with spending, voted to reduce or not increase spending
79 percent of the time.
1999: On the votes used to calculate its ratings, the Concord Coalition
attaches more value to those votes it considers more important. For 1999,
the Concord Coalition gave Senator Ashcroft a rating of 75 percent.

1999: On the votes that the Citizens Against Government Waste considered to
be the most important in 1999, Senator Ashcroft voted their preferred
position 71 percent of the time.

1999: On the votes that the Taxpayers for Common Sense considered to be the
most important in 1999, Senator Ashcroft voted their preferred position 34
percent of the time.

1998: On the votes that the Taxpayers for Common Sense considered to be the
most important in 1998, Senator Ashcroft voted their preferred position 60
percent of the time.

1997-1998: On the votes that the National Tax-Limitation Committee
considered to be the most important in 1997-1998, Senator Ashcroft voted
their preferred position 100 percent of the time.

----------------------------------------------------------------------------
----
Technology
1999: On the votes that the Information Technology Industry Council
considered to be the most important in 1999, Senator Ashcroft voted their
preferred position 100 percent of the time.

----------------------------------------------------------------------------
----
Trade
1997-98: On the votes that the CATO Institute/Center for Trade Policy
Studies considered to be the most important in 1997-98, Senator Ashcroft
voted their preferred position 67 percent of the time.

----------------------------------------------------------------------------
----
Women
2000: On the votes that the Concerned Women for America considered to be the
most important in 2000, Senator Ashcroft voted their preferred position 80
percent of the time.
1999-2000: On the votes that the American Association of University Women
considered to be the most important in 1999-2000, Senator Ashcroft voted
their preferred position 0 percent of the time.

1999: On the votes that the American Association of University Women
considered to be the most important in 1999, Senator Ashcroft voted their
preferred position 0 percent of the time.

1998: On the votes that the National Organization for Women considered to be
the most important in 1998, Senator Ashcroft voted their preferred position
0 percent of the time.

1997-1998: On the votes that the Concerned Women for America considered to
be the most important in 1997-1998, Senator Ashcroft voted their preferred
position 100 percent of the time.

rose...@idt.net

unread,

Jan 4, 2001, 9:06:37 PM1/4/01

drfujik...@aol.comnocrap (Dr Fuji Kamikase) wrote as if right wingers had
a clue:

Here is the relevent words in this diatribe:

>CONSERVATIVES

>Culture War:

> Heritage Foundation

> ideological
>schools,
>churches,
>media
>William Bennett,

And one must remember that it was Bennett who suggested to his fellow CPAC
members, that the Jones smear would be "just the thing" to defeat clinton.

The preeminent conservative moralist still cannot answer the question: "what
was the moral principle involved that justified funneling $4 million through
the American spectator to smear clinton"??

Laffs_at_Roswell

unread,

Jan 5, 2001, 4:28:21 PM1/5/01

In article <3a552add....@169.132.11.12>,

rose...@idt.net wrote:
> drfujik...@aol.comnocrap (Dr Fuji Kamikase) wrote as if right
wingers had
> a clue:
>
> Here is the relevent words in this diatribe:
>
> >CONSERVATIVES
>
> >Culture War:
>
> > Heritage Foundation
>
> > ideological
> >schools,
> >churches,
> >media
> >William Bennett,
>
> And one must remember that it was Bennett who suggested to his fellow
CPAC
> members, that the Jones smear would be "just the thing" to defeat
clinton.

This is, of course, a lie.

> The preeminent conservative moralist still cannot answer the
question: "what
> was the moral principle involved that justified funneling $4 million
through
> the American spectator to smear clinton"??

A straw man, pussy. None of your ravings have any basis in truth.

Now tell us: Why did you call for Katherine Harris to be shot?

--
"Why should we believe that you [AlGore] will
tell the truth if you are president when you don't
when you are a candidate?" -----Bill Bradley

Sent via Deja.com
http://www.deja.com/

Dr Fuji Kamikase

unread,

Jan 8, 2001, 12:10:44 PM1/8/01

Gramsci vs. Tocqueville or Marxism vs. the American Ideology

By Ronald Radosh

http://www.frontpagemag.com/archives/radosh/2001/rr01-04-01.htm

God Bless America
Fuji

(T- 12 days until eviction and delousing the White House!)

John H. McCloskey

unread,

Jan 8, 2001, 3:05:03 PM1/8/01

Pseudo-Gramsci vs. the American Ideology
8 January 2001

(( Gramsci? Radosh, even? Dr. Phoo goes upscale bigtime! Two known
names together. Unfortunately the piece is really at third or fourth
hand routed through one John Whowhizzit Fonte, but still ....

(( Civil Socialism is undoubtedly the toniest form of reaction going.
And if I'm wrong about that, relax: "lung" will appear to set me right
now that I've given a 1930's Italian name top billing. ))

Dr Fuji Kamikase "borrowed":

Gramsci vs. Tocqueville or Marxism vs. the American Ideology
By Ronald Radosh

(( "Conservatives" would probably do well to distrust anybody like RR
who uses the I-word except as a pejorative for something only we wicked
psocialists possess. Usually they do distrust such people, even as they
subsidize them. "Deeper philosophical terms" for putting Capitalism
first are hardly urgently required for the practical success of that
tendency. If you can help 'em get rich, most folks will gladly dispense
with a "proof" that getting rich is the meaning of life. ))

social system -- in our case, capitalism -- is sustained when the

majorities of its inhabitants internalize and accept the system's
values and premises. Revolution could not succeed, he
hypothesized, until a cultural "war of position" had been waged
to undermine the hegemonic values that sustained the system. That
demanded the creation of a new value system through a struggle
waged in the organs of civil society by the Left - the schools,
the churches, the media and all voluntary organizations. Only
then, when the dominant ideas had been discarded, could steps be
taken to transform the social system.

(( Obviously we have here a left counterpart to the intellectual
coherence problems of the Friends of Eddie Burke, who argue
theoretically that circumstances are more important than theoretical
arguments. ))

(( "Perhaps unaware," my foot! The Elders send us statists down
protocols and talking points on a regular basis. Awareness is us. We
are the cutting edge of the self-actualization of _Geist_. ))

From arguing that the critical attention has to be given to race,
ethnicity and gender, to the claim that "the personal is
political," to the arguments for so-called jury nullification, to
the doctrine of "critical theory" developed in our major law
schools - Fonte convincingly shows how the underlying
philosophical approach can be traced back to Gramsci.

(( Unfortunately I've mislaid my Gramsci briefing papers from the Centre
and will have to contend with Fonte/Radosh on my own. But this stuff
looks a bit fishy to me _prima facie_. Antonio Gramsci's dates are
1891-1937. Expressions like "deconstruct" and "critical legal studies"
certainly belong to other systems developed long after his time and
remote from his place. I would be surprised to learn that AG ever
discussed jury nullification, seeing that he lived in a Roman Law
country with inquisitorial procedure. "American racism" seems most
unlikely to have come to his attention.

(( Let us have a little bit about AG from a high-and-dry academic source
who is more interested in Italy's Gramsci than in Bush's America:

"The proletariat needed 'organic' intellectuals (one of Gramsci's
favorite and most frequent adjectives); that is to say, intellectuals
who did not simply describe social life from outside in accord with
scientific rules, but who used the language of culture to 'express' the
real experiences and feelings which the masses could not express for
themselves. ... [T]he workers could only win if they achieved cultural
'hegemony' before attaining political power.... [A]s a rule, ...
hegemony signifies the control of the intellectual life of society by
purely cultural means. Every class tries to secure a governing position
not only in political institutions but also in regard to the opinions,
values and standards acknowledged by the bulk of society.... No
oppressed class in history had yet succeeded in doing this."
[Kolakowski:1978, III:240ff.]

That summary is not utterly different from Fonte/Radosh, but it locates
the center of Gramsci's thought where it probably actually was, sc. in
old-fashioned European and economic Marxism. AG would not have
considered African-Americans a class, and almost certainly would not
have thought that any class could be constituted on a purely "cultural"
basis. His thesis seems to be only that an economic class must attain a
cultural triumph before it can attain economic and political supremacy.
That is Marxist revisionism, but still Marxism. All the more modern
people whom Fonte and Radosh really want to smack down clearly do
believe in culture-based classes, and therefore are not Marxists at all.
))

(( Not very accurate. M. de Tocqueville of course described Democracy
in America strictly from the outside. Whatever we may have ideologized
in the 1830's, it was *our* preferred stuff under Jackson, not his own
aristocratic liberalism, that the famous book is about. I'd be
interested to see the passages (if any) which Mr. Fonte adduces to set
de Tocqueville up as a prophetic denouncer of affirmative action.
Anyway, even stipulating against the evidence that American Ideology
eternally is individualism plus religiosity plus patriotism plus
especially militant capitalism, in what sense does it (?or dT's supposed
description or codification of it?) "counter" Gramsci? There is only a
jumble of non-intersecting ideas here. Not only does Gramsci have
little to do with F&R's real contemporary enemies, he has even less to
do with de Tocqueville. ))

American exceptionalism, Fonte writes, is based on dynamism,
religiosity and patriotism. Its adherents include intellectuals
such as Gertrude Himmelfarb, William Bennett, but also liberal
intellectuals such as former Clinton advisor William Galston, a
supporter of the Progressive Policy Institute and the Democratic
Leadership Council. In terms of action, it includes the work of
Michael Joyce of the Bradley Foundation, whose self-described
"Tocquevillian" approach includes support to associations and
individuals that seek to infuse moral and religious underpinnings
to civic action. Indeed, he notes that, in an article, Joyce
called for challenging the "political hegemony" of those who run
what the late historian Christopher Lasch called the "therapeutic
state." Again, those who support this stance include both
Democrats and Republicans, including the pre-campaign Joseph
Lieberman and, of course, President-elect George W. Bush.

(( Signore G. has now disappeared altogether, buried under an avalanche
of the same tired old neo-connery with Civil Socialist trimmings.
Perhaps we're to suppose that American "liberals" (i.e., everybody
hesitant about prioritizing capitalism over democracy) are an oppressed
"class" seeking political mastery through cultural "hegemony"? I
suppose F&R intend something muddled like that, something that owes
Gramsci only a couple of syllables at most. On anything like Gramscian
terms, we would have at this point to hear about how the currently
dominant "class" enabled capitalism culturally before enforcing it
politically. But plainly F&R won't discuss anything like that. Right
or wrong, their real position is that there isn't any class in America
at all. That is why they drag in de Tocqueville. To invoke Gramsci
after starting from axiomatic classlessness is about like quoting
Paracelsus as a great authority for the proposition that alchemy is
utter rubbish. Nothing AG says makes sense if there is no class war.
If F&R mean that deluded "liberals" alone, not sensible reactionaries
like themselves, believe that classes and class wars exist, why on earth
disinter Gramsci in particular and not just bash Marx straightaway? ))

(( Well, Mr. Fonte could always decide that his Great American Ideology
is radically incoherent; in chemical terminology, a mixture rather than
a compound. That view has the major advantage of being accurate. As to
Prof. Genovese, well, just call everybody who talks about cultural
politics or political culture a Gramscian and where's the problem?
Apart from saying anything of value or interest, that is. ))

(( Mr. West is not a Gramscian assaulter? Ms. Elshtain is a liberal?
Egad, what *will* these guys say next? ))

(( Hmm. As I recall fifth grade from long ago, teachers acted rather
like a dominant group. But no doubt that was well before the NEA
gramsciated everything. ))

Fonte's article is of importance because until now, few
commentators have tied the growth of political correctness to the
advance of Marxist ideology.

(( Only a few thousand or so that I've encountered so far. Plenty of
room for a zillion more pretentious "contributions" along these lines,
if anybody cares to abandon his mind to scribbling them. It is not
mandatory that anybody at all read them. Perhaps somebody will point
out for Rio Limbaugh's inattention that G. Lukacs, not A. Gramsci, is
the *real* villain of this fairy tale? ))

Fonte concludes that "the slow but steady advance of Gramscian and
Hegelian-Marxist ideas through the major institutions of American
democracy," taking place while politicians seem to converge in the
political center, reveals the "deeper conflict" of ideology that
will continue into the new century. It will continue, Fonte
argues, because Gramscian Marxism continues, a decade after the
collapse of the Soviet Union, "to challenge the American republic
at the level of its most cherished ideas." That is America's
unique exceptionalism, based on entrepreneurial dynamism,

patriotism and a religious-cultural core. Should Gramsci's view

win, Fonte warns, it "would mean the end of this very
'exceptionalism,'" with America becoming a secular, post-patriotic
and statist social order, in which group hierarchies and group
rights replace the idea of equality before the law. I agree with
Fonte when he says "the historical stakes are enormous." His
discussion is, in itself, a contribution to winning the fight.

(( Well, there you have it, O donkeys of expensive education. Do you
think we should surrender at once? Mr. John Fonte has figured us out on
the really basic point, namely that our traditional political democracy
cannot ever be an exceptional and Yanks-only kind of thing, never a
Great Parochial Ideology of American Civil Society that stops at the
water's edge and the Mexican border. Myself, I'm for continuing the
struggle against "One Market, Under God" (*) for a century or six.
We've done splendidly with our mere democracy in the past, and we're
certainly not doing all *that* bad at the moment. Dubya has a few minor
faults, as even I must admit, but anti-Gramscian zeal is certainly not
one of them. ))

Happy days.

== Yours, J. H. McCloskey == ... sobie spiewam a Muzom ... ==

(*) << http://www.salonmag.com/books/feature/2000/10/26/frank/ >>

PS. Mr. Radosh didn't use to be a complete boob. We may charitably
suppose that he only wrote this piece for money, thus unifying theory
and praxis in an edifying way.

rose...@idt.net

unread,

Jan 8, 2001, 6:40:37 PM1/8/01

"John H. McCloskey" <j...@iName.com> wrote as if right wingers had a clue:

>Dr Fuji Kamikase "borrowed":
>
>Gramsci vs. Tocqueville or Marxism vs. the American Ideology
> By Ronald Radosh

-------------------

>PS. Mr. Radosh didn't use to be a complete boob. We may charitably
>suppose that he only wrote this piece for money, thus unifying theory
>and praxis in an edifying way.

In the immortal, but understandable words of Dr.
Fujispammerfart........."HUH"??

Because someone who writes the following, couldn't possible understand
anyway.........

===================================================

"This the little Clinton appointed, bowtie-wearing gnome that gathered up
Lynda Tripp's personnel file and released that confidential information to
the press. This is the same little shit that Generalissimo Reno refused to
prosecute for breaching the law.

Now the over-paid little fuck-head tells our kids in the military that they
can eat their food stamps. The fucking Pentagon can fly Hillary's fat,
Marxist ass back and forth between Washington and New York at our
expense, but can't afford to pay our warriors minimum wage? Fuck these
liberal-elitist DemocRat cocksuckers!!!"

Herr Fuji von Kamikase--------conservative de jour

Martin McPhillips

unread,

Jan 8, 2001, 10:47:13 PM1/8/01

"John H. McCloskey" wrote:
>
> PS. Mr. Radosh didn't use to be a complete boob. We may charitably
> suppose that he only wrote this piece for money, thus unifying theory
> and praxis in an edifying way.

While I didn't bother to read every word you wrote, Jack (who
would?), I must say that this was an unusually bold out-of-the-
closet moment for you. I don't mean that it had boldness in
any of its analytical dimensions (a charitable plural there).
But bold in the straightforwardness of your striptease. I suppose
by now that no one could care about the strip or the tease,
knowing as they do what they'll be seeing when the final note
is struck. But I was struck by how readily you simply admitted
that you're a collectivist, who takes it off to that beat, and
how easily you insisted that your hand (and the hand of Everyman)
belongs in any pocket worth reaching into. It was refreshing,
particularly the interesting contest you outline between
capitalism and democracy. Yes, indeed, you go get that precious
51% and keep telling people who are free that they can't do
that. How many have your comrades-in-collectivity killed on
that basis? Plenty, right?

You're really quite the dope. The one-man Mummer's Parade out
of the MLA.

0 new messages