Talk:Antonio Gramsci

misc.

In "Later thinkers influenced by Gramsci" Samuel P. Huntington is listed. Really? Someone needs a citation because it is difficult for me to see it. I've only read the "Clash of Civilizations" but someone needs to make a good argument about how this high profile conservative used the lefty/Marxist Gramsci in his work. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 163.238.9.37 (talk) 16:41, 21 December 2009 (UTC)

Is anyone else disturbed by the unsupported claims of the "Criticism" section? Eg, that Neoliberalism takes the form of NeoGramscianism? I wish!!! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 207.194.226.129 (talk) 21:57, 13 September 2009 (UTC)

Francesco Gramsci (1860-1937), his father was Albanian.

Was he Jewish, he certainly looks it?

Source : [1]

I think that Arbereshe is more precise because his father's family was in Italy since long before 1860. GhePeU 23:50, 29 Mar 2005 (UTC)

I'm kind of an idiot when it comes to Gramsci, but I'm fairly certain this article desperately needs some mention of the subaltern. RadicalSubversiv E 11:13, 25 Feb 2005 (UTC)

I'm thinking of giving this page a thorough revision: a lot of his ideas seem to be over-simplified and/or completely left out. Hanshans 01:23, 19 Jun 2005 (UTC)

I'm also no expert on Gramsci, but the opening description of hegemony seems somewhat problematic. "cultural hegemony — whereby, the ruling class of a capitalist society coerce the working class to adopt its values in maintaining the State" The word "coerce" might not be quite accurate. The concept becomes more clearly addressed in latter portions of this entry. Given that formal education (and other social institutions) indoctrinate citizens, there's no need for the ruling class to "coerce" the working class. The working class consents to their own oppression. Granted, the literal meaning of the word "consents" might be equally problematic.--Christoph87 (talk) 02:26, 18 March 2009 (UTC)

You're certainly right: the whole point of hegemony is that it requires little if any ouvert coercion to maintain capitalist dominance. I'll think about rewording ove rthe next few days.86.1.196.156 (talk) 01:35, 14 April 2009 (UTC)

Prison Notebooks

Q: Where can I find them on the internet to download them?!

A: http://www.marxists.org/archive/gramsci/index.htm

Pretext for his imprisonment?

On just what pretext was G imprisoned? Simply "being a Socialist", or was there anything more to it than that? - 25 November 2005

Well Italy was under the fascists at that time so they were in the habit of rounding up Communists (as Gramsci was then) and locking them away.

--Gramscis cousin 16:56, 6 September 2007 (UTC)

What "pretext"? He was a Communist scum. Mussolini was too damn soft-he should have killed all these devious bastards. 68.224.206.168 (talk) 00:06, 28 September 2009 (UTC)

Chomsky

Chomsky may have a book called 'Hegemony or Survival' but I'm not sure if his use of the term has anything to do with Gramsci - Hanshans23

Featured Article Candidate

I want to ask what improvements might be needed to make this article worthy of featured article status. Hanshans23 04:05, 14 May 2006 (UTC)

A proper WP:LEAD, and inline referencing, to start with. Jkelly 05:23, 14 May 2006 (UTC)

Slogan

Is he credited with the communist slogan we must have "Pessimism of the intellect and optimism of the will"?

I've seen this attributed to him before, but I think it sounds v. Nietzschean and could have its origins in Schopenhauer. Somearemoreequal

I've seen it attributed to Romain Rolland - Hanshans23 15:16, 29 October 2006 (UTC)

Letter from Prison, Dec. 19, 1929 Somearemoreequal 16:00, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

"Philosophy of Praxis"

The article correctly notes that Gramsci used "Philosophy of Praxis" to refer to Marxism in his Prison Notebooks. However, the lead states that this is a departure from Dialectical materialism. This claim needs badly to be substantiated with a citation, preferably to the Notebooks, which could establish that Gramsci was anti-dialectical in some way. Since it was used in reference to Marxism and not as a term in and of itself, this should not be considered a substantial part of Gramsci's thought.

Influenced..

He influenced Bill Hicks if that is notable enough for the page.

How so? Somearemoreequal 16:04, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

I added Stephen Gill. I didn't think there'd be any controversy since he's written numerous books influenced by Gramsci's idea of hegemony and historic bloc as well as being a colleague of Robert Cox in Global Political Economy. Mia-etol didn't seem to think there was any proof that he was actually influenced by Gramsci. Well, Gill is not just writing biographies! They all have titles like "American Hegemony" "International Relations". That should enough of a clue. Nubeli (talk) 02:36, 20 October 2008 (UTC)

Organic Intellectual Concept

I am surprised theres not more elaboration on this concept, aside from hegemony this is what i know Gramsci for. Could an expert or at least someone well versed possibly give some depth to this? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 128.206.160.253 (talk) 16:48, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

Benoist

It is well-known that Gramsci influenced the New Right philosopher Alain de Benoist (this is documented also on the wikipedia page for Alain de Benoist). Therefore I added Benoist under "influenced." I trust this in no way indicates that Gramsci would have endorsed Benoist's thought, since it is likely he would not. 68.180.6.144 (talk) 22:50, 29 August 2008 (UTC)

Conversion To Catholicism

His reversion to Catholicism should be given its own heading, and not buried in the Imprisonment section. That is a very interesting piece of information that should not be covered up by the Marxists here at Wikipedia. It would be similar to Hitler experiencing a deathbed change of mind concerning the Jews and it being fleetingly mentioned.Thunderboltshy (talk) 04:36, 27 November 2008 (UTC)

You should consider refining your use of analogy, as a general observation. Falzōn (talk) 23:21, 7 April 2009 (UTC)

This is exactly the sort of thing people that makes people hate Wikipedia - baseless rumour presented as if it were fact. Hanshans23 (talk) 11:40, 17 October 2010 (UTC)

Grammar/usage errors

This article is littered with grammar and usage errors, most of them small, and if I had more time, I'd clean them up myself. That being said, a native-English speaker should go over this article with a microscope (metaphorically speaking) and clean it up. Also, and this is just my personal opinion (and, yes, I am an avowed Marxist), this article reflects the biases of its pro-Gramsci author a little too clearly. All that being said, this is a good article and I enjoyed reading it.

The thing is, I wrote the majority of this article in clear prose and someone who doesn't seem to be a native English-speaker felt the need to completely rewrite it sentence for sentence. I've been considering just reverting the whole thing although I'll admit there is the odd sentence here and there which is an improvement.Hanshans23 (talk) 00:35, 27 May 2009 (UTC)

I can see from the talk page for the above mentioned person, Mhazard9, that he or she has been doing this to other articles and has been accused of making edits that "amount to substantial changes to the meaning of the article, often making previously good explanations of the subject into false oversimplifications," under the guise of copy editing and correcting grammar. I would be inclined to agree that such an assessment can be applied to this article. Hanshans23 (talk) 00:45, 27 May 2009 (UTC)

Proposal to revert article to to version of March 1, 2009

In March 2009 this article was rewritten sentence for sentence by Mhazard. Depsite the seeming good intentions of this user, the effect of this has been to turn a clearly written article into an ungrammatical mess. Does anyone object to me reverting the article to the following verson http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Antonio_Gramsci&diff=274260099&oldid=273802726 ?

I support a wholesale revert of Mhazard9's edits, as I agree that, on balance, they are destructive to what used to be a pretty good article. But if you or any other disinterested editor are willing to do the substantial work involved in comparing the two versions, it'd clearly be preferable to save whatever (albeit few) of Mhazard9's changes you feel improve the article's readability without distorting its meaning. -- Rbellin|Talk 00:55, 27 May 2009 (UTC)

I also support rolling these back. We can go through substantive edits made since March for material of quality, but Mhazard9's changes seem to be almost universally for the worse. I would propose that any actual incorporation anyone feels necessary of Mhazard9 material be brought up here, as many of the changes seem to cast the article in a more anti-Gramsci POV light. Cadriel (talk) 10:58, 27 May 2009 (UTC)

Pronunciation

Why is the pronunciation [ˈɡramʃi] (roughly, GROM-shee) described as the "Italian pronunciation"? Is there another one? Is this not also the pronunciation in English, as closely as English can approximate it? --Trovatore (talk) 10:03, 27 May 2009 (UTC)

thank you

to whoever improved this page and saved it from the dismal state it was a year or two ago, I must thank you —Preceding unsigned comment added by 188.3.237.182 (talk) 22:03, 26 August 2009 (UTC)

getting sick of removing pov pushing

I am getting very sick of having to revert loaded phrasing and tendentious edits that misrepresent Gramsci's concerns and views from this page. It is patently obvious that many of these people who present Gramsci as some kind of conspirator with the aim of installing covert Marxist cadres in powerful positions in the media and universities have not read any of his writings. There are some really weird ideas out there regarding what Gramsci was all about Hanshans23 (talk) 11:28, 20 October 2009 (UTC)

Gentile an influence?

Really? I'm not an expert on Gramsci's biography, but that seems deeply dubious. We might think one who uses "influence" to mean "categorical opposition to" misuses the word "influence." Thoughts? Can we back up the Gentile thing with a source?71.16.116.2 (talk) 02:29, 14 July 2010 (UTC)

"widely regarded as an influential thinker in philosophy"

I have to dispute this. There is no entry on Gramsci, either planned or existant, in the Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy or Internet Encyclopedia of Philosophy. I have never known Gramsci's wrtings to be taught on a philosophy undergraduate course. The only reason Gramsci can even be classed as a "philosopher" is that he himself subscribed to an extremely broad definition of the word "philosopher". --Hanshans23 (talk) 13:09, 25 September 2010 (UTC)