Gramsci Redux (was Re: debates was guilty / innocent was debates)

kelley kwalker2 at
Sat Oct 14 08:32:50 PDT 2000

>Offhand I don't have a quick understanding of Gramscian consent (maybe I'm
>missing a vital distinction between subjection and subjugation that would
>clear this up). If you mean to say that I support whole-heartedly
>ideological hegemonic force at the expense of others, I would say that you
>misunderstood. I take consensus to mean radical exclusion in the name
>of universal inclusion.

that's not what gramsci means by rule by consensus.

>My understanding of what i was talking about is this:
>in order to "live" with others requires a certain degree of surrender,

surrender of what exactly ken? it's a surrender, actually, of nothing.

>In order to speak, on must subject ones thoughts and dreams to

one doesn't have thoughts and dreams prior to language.

>I enjoy being the butt of a good joke, being
>subject to a fair degree of humiliation at my expense.

hmmm should i wear big floppy shoes and a big red clown nose when i spank you?

>I do it to myself
>sometimes (I am, after all, an idiot).

but you DO have taste.


More information about the lbo-talk mailing list