Thank you so much for explaining this so clearly, the difference between Marx's economic materialist theory and Gramsci's theory of hegemony by consent. This is so difficult to grasp but you made it incredibly easy to follow.
U only understand something truly if you can explain it to a 5 year old -Einstein That means all others that are explaining marxist stuff dont get it and I also can feel that quite often.
@@RevolutionandIdeology yeah I have a lot more to learn about Gramshi somebody tried to tell me that he destroyed Italy's economy But I don't even think he was ever in power I know the right-wing likes to just lie and make things up If I missed something in the video it's not your fault
@@kevintewey1157 He was a leader of the Italian socialist party for a brief time and supported striking workers in Italy on many occasions but I think "destroying Italy's economy" is a complete fabrication lol. He definitely opposed Musolini. We'll do a long episode on him and his life someday soon.
It isn't voluntarily if we're given a choice between doing what they say and starving, homeless in the streets. That's an act of violence and coercion. It's as if you're trapped in a house and the owner says you must obey him or he locks you in the basement and starves you.
Looking at the comments it doesn't seem as though anyone really understands even though it was presented in 7 min. That's the real problem. This could be entitled Hegemony for Dummies. If I learned this as a new concept and thought for more that 5 min on the problems of America and Western Civ., I would be SHOCKED at what has happened to my country. We have accepted it though. Gramsci knew how to topple Western Civ. from within and has been successful.
I've had a trouble with the term (Consent) since i have first discovered Gramsci's thoughts. when you say consent, it gives you this impression of a clear agreement. for example, i consent upon the law of "whatever". A law in this case, needs to be written, a clear type of agreements. consenting needs to have a clear content. but in this case it has never been clear, but on the contrary it has been always unclear, hidden and derived constantly by using ideologies and propaganda and etc.. i would use the word "comminute" over "consent". a child of the working class does not have a "consenting ability" but he rather "comminute" with whatever surrounds him. as a contrast, we do not consent upon power, but we rather find ourselves attached to the social machinery. in such case the "normal" social condition is the "consenting" condition. Normal here, means the only enlightened "episteme", that our consciousness can spot and focus on. so a revolution in this context means, discovering a new episteme that can advocate change, hopes and better lives. as an ending, Gramsci's thoughts are not "wrong" for me, but they give this deluded expression of what is going on psychologically inside the oppressed.
Gramsci does speak of the difference between consent and coercion and discusses how both are utilized. For example, hegemony is "1. The “spontaneous” consent given by the great masses of the population to the general direction imposed on social life by the dominant fundamental group; this consent is “historically” caused by the prestige (and consequent confidence) which the dominant group enjoys because of its position and function in the word of production. 2. The apparatus of state coercive power which “legally” enforces discipline on those groups who do not “consent” either actively or passively." I'm not familiar with the word "comminute;" (other than its definition as 'crushing,' 'grinding') could you elaborate on that? This is a good short read too: journals.sagepub.com/doi/pdf/10.1177/2158244012472347
@@RevolutionandIdeology i am talking here about the "consenting" process. Which means accepting. Which i do not think it's accurate or demonstrates the situation probably. Gramsci believed that if i lived under a "capitalistic" power this means that i am consenting upon this power. Comminute means "to reduce to small particles", "to lessen" it can serve a meaning like to mingle or to be combined-with, mixed with. In my context it means that they are already a part of an existing body, so you cannot say that they are consenting to it (You need to give the comment another read after this). My argument here, is anti-dialectic/materialistic.
@@musaabmomani4022 "they are already a part of an existing body, so you cannot say that they are consenting to it" Could it not be argued that they are consenting to it by continuing to be a part of it (once they are of 'legal' age)--"Implied Consent"? I actually agree with you; just playing devil's advocate. "Gramsci believed that if i lived under a "capitalistic" power this means that i am consenting upon this power." Are you/we not? Our actions here speak louder than our words. When I go to work, watch Netflix, buy my smartphone, use TH-cam, am I not consenting to capitalism no matter how much I may ideologically disagree with it? And, if I don't consent, then the coercive arm (political society for Gramsci) ensures that I do. I totally get your point that people are born into the system so they're never given the chance to express their consent. That's actually true for almost everything including the laws of whatever country/state/city etc. that one lives. I have never once explicitly expressed my consent to these laws. But, the legal argument is that I've implied my consent by continuing to live where I live... "so a revolution in this context means, discovering a new episteme that can advocate change, hopes and better lives. as an ending, " this doesn't actually go against Gramsci. I think he'd agree. Though, my argument is: You would NEVER be able to consent to any episteme without a priori understanding of another/conflicting episteme. Only with knowledge of both could you give your consent to one.
Concent makes more sense if you distinguish between active concent, where people share the views of their rulers, and implicit concent, where people accept the status quo, often because they can't change it.
Yes, more or less. Hegemony is the process through which the ruling class gains the consent of the working class, meaning by "consent" the adoption of the ruling class ideology as their own.
Hi I'm doing a report for my class right now and am somewhat confused by the terms of ideology and hegemony. So ideology by Althusser is used through ideological and repressive state apparatuses right?? and I'm wondering is hegemony the same with state apparatuses ? or is it very different from each other? thank u very much
Does your report require specifically using Althusser's interpretation of ideology? If so, what you've stated is more or less correct. Ideological apparatuses such as the Church, education system, etc. indoctrinate people into the dominant ideology. This might help: en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cultural_hegemony#Gramsci's_influence
Isn’t hegemony an assumption that if it is consent everyone would agree? It feels as though this would separate out those that don’t think in one single way.
@@RevolutionandIdeology interesting! Hypothetically how does this reconcile with those that hold religious or similar convictions that contradict the ideology? Is the goal to change the religious leaders perspective or perhaps an encouragement of self identity outside of some of the traditional sense? I feel as though some of the lack of acceptance comes from a tight grasp on traditions regardless of positive outcome.
@@SuperJudeM It's hard to say without specific examples. If it's a minority and non-expansionist belief system, like Buddhism for example, then it's really a non-issue. It poses no threat to the dominant ideology. If it's the Catholic Church during the French Revolution, or the Orthodox Church during the Russian Revolution, then it is an enemy of the (emerging) ideology, and policies and violence are executed (pun intended) to diminish its influence over the masses. Some religious beliefs are in line with the dominant ideology, Christianity and capitalism for example. Obviously, this wasn't always the case but Christianity has transformed to co-exist with capitalism in modern times.
Thank you for this simple explanation for Gramsci's analyses on hegemony. It makes easier to explain to people unfamiliar with the term and concept. If I may impose or suggest, how about a video on Anarchism vs communism? Marx/Engels vs Proudhon/Bakunin (theory/approaches/similarities and differences, etc...)? Anarchist system in Barcelona in the Spanish civil war vs the Russian/Cuban revolution? Keep up the great work, I truly enjoy your videos. Thanks a million!
Thanks for watching! We do have videos on Socialism and Anarchism (though not really comparing them directly to one another): th-cam.com/video/1bPUnwqVKyw/w-d-xo.html th-cam.com/video/rUINFJrBziY/w-d-xo.html
@@RevolutionandIdeology Thanks, I will watch tem. PS: Anarchism is libertarian socialism with six distinct currents. I suggest this introduction to the history of anarchism: th-cam.com/video/OJ_qg23orFM/w-d-xo.html
In this video you forgot the key role of intellectuals in creating new ideas to fight hegemonic power. The battle for hegemony is a battle that, without intellectuals, cannot be fought, especially without organic intellectuals to each class.
Yeah. Please help on this too. Role of intellectuals, organic intellectuals as well as local educators which are accepted by the community, how hegemony play out when these types intervene ?
you are correct, and it is very important to understand that the reality of our objective oppression is eclipsing our manufactored consent. Therefore, we have entered an era of growing revolt (non-consent) answered with growing violence with impunity by law enforcement agencies of the state. Increasingly, laws are made to protect injustices and the system increasingly ignores laws that would protect the public. The lie of consent is exposed thoroughly and that is when the inevitable road to fascism starts. This idea that "consent" is the cover for increased oppression eventually leading to a form of authoritarian or fascist goverenance by the ruling class is missed by both Gramsciists and Chompsky. They leave it open to actually blame the working class for caving to fascism, rather than their faulty, misinformed organizing against the inevitable growth of Fascism.
Interesting it makes sense its subtle it reminds me of the art of war. “The supreme art of war is to subdue the enemy without fighting.” ― Sun Tzu, The Art of War “Let your plans be dark and impenetrable as night, and when you move, fall like a thunderbolt.” - Sun Tzu, The Art of War War of the mind is the idea 💡 behind subtlety. Think of the words hidden in plain sight or the Devil is in the detail, this might all seem vague but if you saw your enemy for what he is you would not call him your friend because he, the powers using the art of war do not consider you a friend until they've subdued you. So to say they are not cohersive is not true you just don't see their plans for what they are controlling I.e "The supreme art of war is to subdue the enemy without fighting.” They don't need to fight you if they can control you. Sorry if none of what l said makes sense.
I just have one question, based on Gramsci's work, how exactly would it be useful in discussing inequality? I'd really appreciate your opinion, thanks in advance
Aleah Benjamin Societies are fundamentally inequal because of the underlying economic relations or so claim the traditional Marxists. Once the economic base structure is attacked, everything else including the superstructural inequality will be pummeled to ground. The key for the Marxist is changing the economic base. Gramsci says it is not enough we attack the economic structure. Capitalist or the bourgeoise class have built up a systemic sense of enslavement through what he calls hegemony. Hegemony is more of a mental term that he uses for the inherent innate approval of masses for the bourgeoise culture.Prolatariat don't oppose it, bourgeoise thrive on it. Through cinema, art, music a hegemonic structure is erected that keeps the proletariat caged. For instance in two biggest movie franchises Harry Potter, Lord of the Rings do you find a single major black character? Yet we willingly accept it without question.
Aleah Benjamin The fact that GRAMSCI's hegemony is about ruling class dominating social and public resources and thought_patterns, it therefore leaves the low/subordinates at the mercy and will of ruling class, naturally this comes with inequality (the oppressor creates artificial consent to which the low class subscribe unconsciously)
very interesting indeed . please keep posting and I a definitely subscribing and giving a thumbs up. please help me on this though. Is it true that communication , ideology and hegemony share common space in the structure of any society or country? Discuss
Your explanation is appreciated, yet it totally robs any supposed - and necessary by your definition - member of the proletarian or bourgeois class of any possible freedom in their everyday. I live free!
How are going Today Russia and mascow politics and human behaviour with small countries? in context of the international politics for keeping the international security in the world through security council of UNO.? हजुरलाई धेरै धेरै धन्यबाद छ।
Good indeed and may I add to consent is not terrible but to feel oppressed is I'm from a middle class family yet I'm personally lower class because I chose my profession as a mental health advocate at the same time I don't feel oppressed may God bless America
The entire history of the human Civilization, except some primitive conditions is a history of class struggle. Quote and unquote from the first chapter of......
@@dancanmpooya2387 He was arrested in November 0f 1926 and convicted of "conspiracy, of instigation to civil war, of justifying criminal acts, and of fomenting class hatred." He was sentenced to 20 years four months and five days in prison. At one point his sentence was reduced and was to end on April 21, 1937. His plan was to reunite with what remained of his family in Sardinia, but he was too ill to travel/move. He died on April 27, 1937 so he served 10 years and +/- 5 months.
I already responded to another comment on this. You're right. His original sentence was 20 years. He didn't serve all of it. Congrats; you win the internet. You found a minuscule error.
Nowdays where is communists eyes lens of glace. Again to start badal pari gauma hami ramaiyo nepal movies songs for all you to understand about co operation diplomacy and diplomats. please.dear sir TH-cam. fast watching Machiavelli Biography 720 BBC documentary .
Thank you so much for explaining this so clearly, the difference between Marx's economic materialist theory and Gramsci's theory of hegemony by consent. This is so difficult to grasp but you made it incredibly easy to follow.
Glad you found it valuable!
Once you see it… you REALLY see it everywhere. I felt the same.
The consent was from being manipulated and lied to.
@@MelissaR784 How very true!
Yeah Marxism is mainly hard to grasp because it doesn’t make sense.
Gramsci’s concept of Hegemony really reminds me of Chomsky’s Manufactured Consent
They're definitely related for sure.
Great video I was told to look into Gramsci and you gave me a clearer picture of his works.
Glad you enjoyed it!
Wow! How did u manage to put everything perfectly in just 7 mins? Simply amazing. Liked it a lot. Thnx
U only understand something truly if you can explain it to a 5 year old -Einstein
That means all others that are explaining marxist stuff dont get it and I also can feel that quite often.
Great video, thank you. This helped me understand the importance of continuing to challenge ideas taken for granted in our society.
Lucid explanation. Thank you! Very underrated channel.
Thanks for watching!
Dear great thinker
very sweet good day and super lecture.
So nice of you
This is why I always start with the short videos to understand Theory looks like I found a great one
Thanks for watching. Glad it helped!
@@RevolutionandIdeology yeah I have a lot more to learn about Gramshi somebody tried to tell me that he destroyed Italy's economy
But
I don't even think he was ever in power
I know the right-wing likes to just lie and make things up
If I missed something in the video it's not your fault
@@kevintewey1157 He was a leader of the Italian socialist party for a brief time and supported striking workers in Italy on many occasions but I think "destroying Italy's economy" is a complete fabrication lol. He definitely opposed Musolini. We'll do a long episode on him and his life someday soon.
@@RevolutionandIdeology Awsome
I hope I get into Play Someday where I can give more support to Independent Media other than my big mouth
@@kevintewey1157 👍
Keep going mate........you are the most underrated channels in youtube
Thanks for watching!
He remained in prison for 11 years not 20
You are correct. His original sentence was 20 years. Our mistake.
👍
Fascinating cultural anthropology study!...thank you
It isn't voluntarily if we're given a choice between doing what they say and starving, homeless in the streets. That's an act of violence and coercion. It's as if you're trapped in a house and the owner says you must obey him or he locks you in the basement and starves you.
Yes. Exactly!
@@RevolutionandIdeology ✊
Thanks for this introduction to the concept! I needed some clarification, and you provided it :)
This reminds me of observations Chomsky made about how consent is manufactured by constant propogandizing
Chomsky is very influenced by Gramsci
@@patched8789 Chomsky plagiarised M. Parenti (inventing reality/1986) lmfao
@@anagnorisis1522 FACT! Chomsky is just a watered down, copy cat version of Parenti
@Kosch GM yeah chomsky has some bad takes pretty often
I'd say his ideas of countering cultural hegemony are among the--if not the--most subversive philosophic idea(s) of the past 100 years
Agreed
It's winning too. Leftism is cultural hegemony
Looking at the comments it doesn't seem as though anyone really understands even though it was presented in 7 min.
That's the real problem. This could be entitled Hegemony for Dummies. If I learned this as a new concept and thought for more
that 5 min on the problems of America and Western Civ., I would be SHOCKED at what has happened to my country. We have accepted it though. Gramsci knew how to topple Western Civ. from within and has been successful.
Thank you so much for this well prepped video!
Thanks for watching!
Thank you for this, really a stellar video.
Good, well explained , thank you.
the most effective video on youtube
thanks for your hard work it realy helped me alot the understand his ideolgy and hegemony.
Be sure to subscribe! We're going to have a longer episode on Gramsci's life and philosophy soon.
Dear prof.
very sweet good morning and very good luck
हजुरलाई धेरै धेरै सम्झना छ।
Thank you for this, this really helps explain a lot about the world.
I've had a trouble with the term (Consent) since i have first discovered Gramsci's thoughts.
when you say consent, it gives you this impression of a clear agreement.
for example, i consent upon the law of "whatever".
A law in this case, needs to be written, a clear type of agreements.
consenting needs to have a clear content. but in this case it has never been clear, but on the contrary it has been always unclear, hidden and derived constantly by using ideologies and propaganda and etc..
i would use the word "comminute" over "consent".
a child of the working class does not have a "consenting ability" but he rather "comminute" with whatever surrounds him.
as a contrast,
we do not consent upon power, but we rather find ourselves attached to the social machinery. in such case the "normal" social condition is the "consenting" condition.
Normal here, means the only enlightened "episteme", that our consciousness can spot and focus on.
so a revolution in this context means, discovering a new episteme that can advocate change, hopes and better lives.
as an ending,
Gramsci's thoughts are not "wrong" for me, but they give this deluded expression of what is going on psychologically inside the oppressed.
Gramsci does speak of the difference between consent and coercion and discusses how both are utilized. For example, hegemony is "1. The “spontaneous” consent given by the great masses of the population to the general direction imposed on social life by the dominant fundamental group; this consent is “historically” caused by the prestige (and consequent confidence) which the dominant group enjoys because of its position and function in the word of production. 2. The apparatus of state coercive power which “legally” enforces discipline on those groups who do not “consent” either actively or passively." I'm not familiar with the word "comminute;" (other than its definition as 'crushing,' 'grinding') could you elaborate on that? This is a good short read too: journals.sagepub.com/doi/pdf/10.1177/2158244012472347
@@RevolutionandIdeology i am talking here about the "consenting" process.
Which means accepting. Which i do not think it's accurate or demonstrates the situation probably.
Gramsci believed that if i lived under a "capitalistic" power this means that i am consenting upon this power.
Comminute means "to reduce to small particles", "to lessen" it can serve a meaning like to mingle or to be combined-with, mixed with.
In my context it means that they are already a part of an existing body, so you cannot say that they are consenting to it (You need to give the comment another read after this).
My argument here, is anti-dialectic/materialistic.
@@musaabmomani4022 "they are already a part of an existing body, so you cannot say that they are consenting to it" Could it not be argued that they are consenting to it by continuing to be a part of it (once they are of 'legal' age)--"Implied Consent"? I actually agree with you; just playing devil's advocate. "Gramsci believed that if i lived under a "capitalistic" power this means that i am consenting upon this power." Are you/we not? Our actions here speak louder than our words. When I go to work, watch Netflix, buy my smartphone, use TH-cam, am I not consenting to capitalism no matter how much I may ideologically disagree with it? And, if I don't consent, then the coercive arm (political society for Gramsci) ensures that I do. I totally get your point that people are born into the system so they're never given the chance to express their consent. That's actually true for almost everything including the laws of whatever country/state/city etc. that one lives. I have never once explicitly expressed my consent to these laws. But, the legal argument is that I've implied my consent by continuing to live where I live... "so a revolution in this context means, discovering a new episteme that can advocate change, hopes and better lives. as an ending, " this doesn't actually go against Gramsci. I think he'd agree. Though, my argument is: You would NEVER be able to consent to any episteme without a priori understanding of another/conflicting episteme. Only with knowledge of both could you give your consent to one.
Look at Thomas Schelling, namely his theories of the tipping point, and the focal point (also called a Schelling point).
Concent makes more sense if you distinguish between active concent, where people share the views of their rulers, and implicit concent, where people accept the status quo, often because they can't change it.
if everyone watched this youtube video, the revolution would be complete.
What an explanation 👏👏👏
Great, thank your presentation
Thank you for watching!
Appreciated.
Thanks for watching!
Thank you so much Sir
Thank you, this really helped
Thanks for watching!
Dear great prof.
hajur lai very sweet good morning.
clear analysis lecture.
Thank you!
A very influential man.
Thank you so much!!!
Thank you for watching!
Very grt it help lot of us thank you
How would false class consciousness fit within the consent (not coercion) of the working class? Would this be the ideological battle concept?
Yes, more or less. Hegemony is the process through which the ruling class gains the consent of the working class, meaning by "consent" the adoption of the ruling class ideology as their own.
@@RevolutionandIdeology thank you for the clarification!!
Hi I'm doing a report for my class right now and am somewhat confused by the terms of ideology and hegemony. So ideology by Althusser is used through ideological and repressive state apparatuses right?? and I'm wondering is hegemony the same with state apparatuses ? or is it very different from each other? thank u very much
Does your report require specifically using Althusser's interpretation of ideology? If so, what you've stated is more or less correct. Ideological apparatuses such as the Church, education system, etc. indoctrinate people into the dominant ideology. This might help: en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cultural_hegemony#Gramsci's_influence
Thank you so much for such a fast reply! this helps a lot
@@pennyteachanuntra4701 👍
Isn’t hegemony an assumption that if it is consent everyone would agree? It feels as though this would separate out those that don’t think in one single way.
Hegemony is never complete. There's always a struggle for the consent of the masses.
@@RevolutionandIdeology interesting! Hypothetically how does this reconcile with those that hold religious or similar convictions that contradict the ideology? Is the goal to change the religious leaders perspective or perhaps an encouragement of self identity outside of some of the traditional sense? I feel as though some of the lack of acceptance comes from a tight grasp on traditions regardless of positive outcome.
@@SuperJudeM It's hard to say without specific examples. If it's a minority and non-expansionist belief system, like Buddhism for example, then it's really a non-issue. It poses no threat to the dominant ideology. If it's the Catholic Church during the French Revolution, or the Orthodox Church during the Russian Revolution, then it is an enemy of the (emerging) ideology, and policies and violence are executed (pun intended) to diminish its influence over the masses. Some religious beliefs are in line with the dominant ideology, Christianity and capitalism for example. Obviously, this wasn't always the case but Christianity has transformed to co-exist with capitalism in modern times.
Thank you for this simple explanation for Gramsci's analyses on hegemony. It makes easier to explain to people unfamiliar with the term and concept.
If I may impose or suggest, how about a video on Anarchism vs communism? Marx/Engels vs Proudhon/Bakunin (theory/approaches/similarities and differences, etc...)? Anarchist system in Barcelona in the Spanish civil war vs the Russian/Cuban revolution?
Keep up the great work, I truly enjoy your videos.
Thanks a million!
Thanks for watching! We do have videos on Socialism and Anarchism (though not really comparing them directly to one another): th-cam.com/video/1bPUnwqVKyw/w-d-xo.html th-cam.com/video/rUINFJrBziY/w-d-xo.html
@@RevolutionandIdeology Thanks, I will watch tem. PS: Anarchism is libertarian socialism with six distinct currents. I suggest this introduction to the history of anarchism: th-cam.com/video/OJ_qg23orFM/w-d-xo.html
hi, im doing a uni essay and we need to use hegemony, how does hegemony relate to food poverty and food inequality? would this be governments
thank you so much
You're welcome!
When consent is absent , prison is eminent .
thank you. like the way yyou explain
You are welcome!
Thank you!
very helpful
In this video you forgot the key role of intellectuals in creating new ideas to fight hegemonic power. The battle for hegemony is a battle that, without intellectuals, cannot be fought, especially without organic intellectuals to each class.
Yeah. Please help on this too. Role of intellectuals, organic intellectuals as well as local educators which are accepted by the community, how hegemony play out when these types intervene ?
Consent and resistance of negotiations suggests that there's human agency from the working class part right?
Great video
Investigating what is considered acceptable and what is not point on today's ruling class.
In the US of today, the peoples consent is wearing thin.
you are correct, and it is very important to understand that the reality of our objective oppression is eclipsing our manufactored consent. Therefore, we have entered an era of growing revolt (non-consent) answered with growing violence with impunity by law enforcement agencies of the state. Increasingly, laws are made to protect injustices and the system increasingly ignores laws that would protect the public. The lie of consent is exposed thoroughly and that is when the inevitable road to fascism starts. This idea that "consent" is the cover for increased oppression eventually leading to a form of authoritarian or fascist goverenance by the ruling class is missed by both Gramsciists and Chompsky. They leave it open to actually blame the working class for caving to fascism, rather than their faulty, misinformed organizing against the inevitable growth of Fascism.
you help alot
Thanks!
I need the subtitles..
It took me 4 months, but I finally got them uploaded for you.
Interesting it makes sense its subtle it reminds me of the art of war.
“The supreme art of war is to subdue the enemy without fighting.” ― Sun Tzu, The Art of War
“Let your plans be dark and impenetrable as night, and when you move, fall like a thunderbolt.” - Sun Tzu, The Art of War
War of the mind is the idea 💡 behind subtlety. Think of the words hidden in plain sight or the Devil is in the detail, this might all seem vague but if you saw your enemy for what he is you would not call him your friend because he, the powers using the art of war do not consider you a friend until they've subdued you.
So to say they are not cohersive is not true you just don't see their plans for what they are controlling I.e "The supreme art of war is to subdue the enemy without fighting.” They don't need to fight you if they can control you.
Sorry if none of what l said makes sense.
great works
I just have one question, based on Gramsci's work, how exactly would it be useful in discussing inequality? I'd really appreciate your opinion, thanks in advance
Aleah Benjamin Societies are fundamentally inequal because of the underlying economic relations or so claim the traditional Marxists. Once the economic base structure is attacked, everything else including the superstructural inequality will be pummeled to ground. The key for the Marxist is changing the economic base. Gramsci says it is not enough we attack the economic structure. Capitalist or the bourgeoise class have built up a systemic sense of enslavement through what he calls hegemony. Hegemony is more of a mental term that he uses for the inherent innate approval of masses for the bourgeoise culture.Prolatariat don't oppose it, bourgeoise thrive on it. Through cinema, art, music a hegemonic structure is erected that keeps the proletariat caged. For instance in two biggest movie franchises Harry Potter, Lord of the Rings do you find a single major black character? Yet we willingly accept it without question.
Thank you!! I totally get it now, appreciate it :)
Aleah Benjamin
The fact that GRAMSCI's hegemony is about ruling class dominating social and public resources and thought_patterns, it therefore leaves the low/subordinates at the mercy and will of ruling class, naturally this comes with inequality (the oppressor creates artificial consent to which the low class subscribe unconsciously)
Ashutosh Mishra,thanks...I would want to learn more from you...how do I email you?
@@ashutoshmishra3650 touche ✊👏
Is there any definitive answer as to which ideology is right?
I think the relevance of an ideology depends the time and place it is employed in.
Just listen to whatever I say :D
very interesting indeed . please keep posting and I a definitely subscribing and giving a thumbs up.
please help me on this though. Is it true that communication , ideology and hegemony share common space in the structure of any society or country? Discuss
that was smooth!!!
Your explanation is appreciated, yet it totally robs any supposed - and necessary by your definition - member of the proletarian or bourgeois class of any possible freedom in their everyday. I live free!
How are going Today Russia and mascow politics and human behaviour with small countries? in context of the international politics for keeping the international security in the world through security council of UNO.?
हजुरलाई धेरै धेरै धन्यबाद छ।
Would it be the equivalent of the iron fist in an velvet glove.
Damn good commentary.
Thanks for watching!
Good indeed and may I add to consent is not terrible but to feel oppressed is I'm from a middle class family yet I'm personally lower class because I chose my profession as a mental health advocate at the same time I don't feel oppressed may God bless America
The entire history of the human Civilization, except some primitive conditions is a history of class struggle. Quote and unquote from the first chapter of......
Is English language nowadays imperialism or hegemony ?
Nice
Great
👋🏼👋🏼
Hi
Not 20 years... It's 9 years
He died in 1937 after 1 year of his release
See the comment and reply below.
Wasn't he for 11 years
he spent 10yrs in prison not 20years
Yes, my mistake. Someone else already pointed this out. He was sentenced for 20 years.
@@RevolutionandIdeology according to this which is correct 20yrs or 10
@@dancanmpooya2387 He was arrested in November 0f 1926 and convicted of "conspiracy, of instigation to civil war, of justifying criminal acts, and of fomenting class hatred." He was sentenced to 20 years four months and five days in prison. At one point his sentence was reduced and was to end on April 21, 1937. His plan was to reunite with what remained of his family in Sardinia, but he was too ill to travel/move. He died on April 27, 1937 so he served 10 years and +/- 5 months.
অধর্ম দিয়ে ধর্ম হয় কিভাবে? কোথায় যেন পড়েছিলাম। ও মনে পড়েছে- মুজতবা আলীর একটি উপন্যাস হতে।
I have a wrench, we could toss in their motor.
Nonsense Spooner puts him to shame.
What?
✌️
You must engage the bourgeoisie in its lair! The "art world".
Well, already the 2nd sentence is wrong. Gramsci was not imprisoned for 20 years mate.
I already responded to another comment on this. You're right. His original sentence was 20 years. He didn't serve all of it. Congrats; you win the internet. You found a minuscule error.
Still confused is not a litterbug
Imprisoned 1926 died 1937 so not 20 years ...
Already addressed.
Nowdays where is communists eyes lens of glace.
Again to start badal pari gauma hami ramaiyo nepal movies songs for all you to understand about co operation diplomacy and diplomats.
please.dear sir
TH-cam.
fast watching Machiavelli Biography 720 BBC documentary .
How are going Russia rights taking way to capture to Ukrain so Russia has taken Nobel Peace prize in this year 2o22.?