A lot of criticism of WEF quickly becomes fantastical. Really any globalistic organization should just be denounced on the basis of encouraging supranationalism.
Plus… I think the technocapital globalists like Schwab are probably less malicious than domestic Gramscians. Less resentful and less excited by the idea of terrorizing their political opponents.
The WEF crowd could “win” and things would be fine (not great, but fine).
Gramscians want to give the USSR another go of it. Which seems substantially less appealing.
This is also an example of what Scott is talking about. What is the Gramscian school in the US? Who are its members and what is it doing? What's the explicit counter-hegemony here? Answer: non-existent, non-existent, and non-existent. Assuming from your post that you see the new USSR emerging here in the US - if it does, then as Scott says it'll be in the language that Americans relate to and it'll be part of the Global American Empire, not as some vanguard trying to replace it.
You'd be better served just acknowledging that the domestic politics you don't like are by and for liberal professional Americans, rather than trying to Glenn Beck chalkboard it into some communist uprising.
Modern liberalism has pulled a lot of ideas from earlier Marxist thought. Is this really worth debating?
So, I am referring to a significant share of those that call themselves liberals, whether or not they appreciate the origin of the ideas. The LGBT activist people? The “fighting white supremacy” people? Those are the Gramscians. Again, whether or not they are familiar with the origins of their ideas and tactics.
For an example of someone making this case in detail, look at some of Jonathan Bowden’s work.
By the way, a reason why this crowd never gets anywhere is they can’t help but be obnoxious..
Maybe one person in fifty in this country knows the name Gramsci, and maybe one in every two hundred could give a decent summary of his work. If GAE liberalism is Gramsciist - which I would dispute to start with - it's simply not a relevant factor to the vast majority of liberal activists, much less the voters. It's not something that resonates with anyone. It's not something that motivates anyone. What motivates your rank-and-file lib is their belief, however misguided, that they're fighting injustice and helping bend the arc of the universe in a moral direction. And above all else: if they have control of cultural institutions, it's certainly not to replace an American hegemony, but rather to augment it. If, to take an example from Scott's piece, they favor near-unlimited immigration and celebrate the decline of the White share of the population, it's not for any reason more arcane than this: they truly, honestly, genuinely believe what they're saying about diversity, and they truly, honestly, genuinely believe that the American promise is best lived up to in a more diverse society. It's not whatever you think is going on.
I don't think it obnoxious to point this out. People on the Right are absolutely addicted to coming up with weird Rube Goldberg machines to explain the motivation of the Left and part of it is for exactly the reason Scott gave: it's completely safe and toothless to shake one's fist and say "Grr! Gramsci!" It's harder, both societally and personally, to ask why the American people in general and the American culture in particular have ended up the way they have without their conception of America having taken the slightest dent and without the historic American nation doing especially much other than going along with it - and it's not because the historic American nation is hanging on the every word of an Italian communist or a German supervillain.
There is some Marxist influence on the American Left. Certainly a lot of fundamental left-wing thinkers were inspired by Marx and those like them. But you can find much of the American Left is rooted in particular traits to this country. The modern Left takes the ideological conception of America to an extreme degree. I wouldn't say it's quite Marxist but I think Marxism/communism/etc. are fine epithets to use to describe the modern Left
Regular people will tune out of this stuff if you start calling Democrats communists based on extremely debatable theories. As you moreso than most on the Right point out, the vast majority of normal people live in an "integrated" political environment where they work and play alongside liberals, watch the same TV shows, watch the big game at B-Dubs etc. If you start saying "yeah they're Marxists" they'll ask where the communism is (since that's most normies' conception of Marxism), then you're left scrambling around for "neo-Gramscism."
This stuff takes away far, far more than it adds. It brings nothing to the table when it comes to actually opposing the actions of the GAE that are counter to the interests of the American people. It muddies the waters and makes everything else we say suspect. It's fine, I guess, for little internal conversations like this one, but if people approach the wider world with "Libs are the real Gramsciites" we have nobody else to blame for losing.
Ehh, sometimes these epithets work. Calling BLM "Marxist" did give normies a way to criticize them without being labelled racist. It just depends on the context. I do not recommend calling them by obscure monikers, however.
Whether the rationalization (or lie) for stealing your wealth and middle class lifestyle is racism or climate change, you end up living in a pod either way. You will own nothing while they own everything.
Any GND or WEF proposal can be implemented at the state and local level GND was never meant to be passed by Congress, it was always going to be rolled out piecemeal style and pick up steam as open borders turns state after state blue. Just wondering which US city will be the first to ban gas stoves. A hoity toity coastal city like Santa Monica. Restaurants will still be allowed to have gas stove so as not to shut down too much commerce at once.
Great piece. thanks for highlighting that the “green new deal” is just wealth transfer gussied up as environmentalism!
A lot of criticism of WEF quickly becomes fantastical. Really any globalistic organization should just be denounced on the basis of encouraging supranationalism.
Very thoughtful piece.
Plus… I think the technocapital globalists like Schwab are probably less malicious than domestic Gramscians. Less resentful and less excited by the idea of terrorizing their political opponents.
The WEF crowd could “win” and things would be fine (not great, but fine).
Gramscians want to give the USSR another go of it. Which seems substantially less appealing.
This is also an example of what Scott is talking about. What is the Gramscian school in the US? Who are its members and what is it doing? What's the explicit counter-hegemony here? Answer: non-existent, non-existent, and non-existent. Assuming from your post that you see the new USSR emerging here in the US - if it does, then as Scott says it'll be in the language that Americans relate to and it'll be part of the Global American Empire, not as some vanguard trying to replace it.
You'd be better served just acknowledging that the domestic politics you don't like are by and for liberal professional Americans, rather than trying to Glenn Beck chalkboard it into some communist uprising.
Kind of a bizarre comment.
Modern liberalism has pulled a lot of ideas from earlier Marxist thought. Is this really worth debating?
So, I am referring to a significant share of those that call themselves liberals, whether or not they appreciate the origin of the ideas. The LGBT activist people? The “fighting white supremacy” people? Those are the Gramscians. Again, whether or not they are familiar with the origins of their ideas and tactics.
For an example of someone making this case in detail, look at some of Jonathan Bowden’s work.
By the way, a reason why this crowd never gets anywhere is they can’t help but be obnoxious..
Maybe one person in fifty in this country knows the name Gramsci, and maybe one in every two hundred could give a decent summary of his work. If GAE liberalism is Gramsciist - which I would dispute to start with - it's simply not a relevant factor to the vast majority of liberal activists, much less the voters. It's not something that resonates with anyone. It's not something that motivates anyone. What motivates your rank-and-file lib is their belief, however misguided, that they're fighting injustice and helping bend the arc of the universe in a moral direction. And above all else: if they have control of cultural institutions, it's certainly not to replace an American hegemony, but rather to augment it. If, to take an example from Scott's piece, they favor near-unlimited immigration and celebrate the decline of the White share of the population, it's not for any reason more arcane than this: they truly, honestly, genuinely believe what they're saying about diversity, and they truly, honestly, genuinely believe that the American promise is best lived up to in a more diverse society. It's not whatever you think is going on.
I don't think it obnoxious to point this out. People on the Right are absolutely addicted to coming up with weird Rube Goldberg machines to explain the motivation of the Left and part of it is for exactly the reason Scott gave: it's completely safe and toothless to shake one's fist and say "Grr! Gramsci!" It's harder, both societally and personally, to ask why the American people in general and the American culture in particular have ended up the way they have without their conception of America having taken the slightest dent and without the historic American nation doing especially much other than going along with it - and it's not because the historic American nation is hanging on the every word of an Italian communist or a German supervillain.
NO INFIGHTING AMONG GREERHEADS!!
There is some Marxist influence on the American Left. Certainly a lot of fundamental left-wing thinkers were inspired by Marx and those like them. But you can find much of the American Left is rooted in particular traits to this country. The modern Left takes the ideological conception of America to an extreme degree. I wouldn't say it's quite Marxist but I think Marxism/communism/etc. are fine epithets to use to describe the modern Left
Regular people will tune out of this stuff if you start calling Democrats communists based on extremely debatable theories. As you moreso than most on the Right point out, the vast majority of normal people live in an "integrated" political environment where they work and play alongside liberals, watch the same TV shows, watch the big game at B-Dubs etc. If you start saying "yeah they're Marxists" they'll ask where the communism is (since that's most normies' conception of Marxism), then you're left scrambling around for "neo-Gramscism."
This stuff takes away far, far more than it adds. It brings nothing to the table when it comes to actually opposing the actions of the GAE that are counter to the interests of the American people. It muddies the waters and makes everything else we say suspect. It's fine, I guess, for little internal conversations like this one, but if people approach the wider world with "Libs are the real Gramsciites" we have nobody else to blame for losing.
Ehh, sometimes these epithets work. Calling BLM "Marxist" did give normies a way to criticize them without being labelled racist. It just depends on the context. I do not recommend calling them by obscure monikers, however.
Whether the rationalization (or lie) for stealing your wealth and middle class lifestyle is racism or climate change, you end up living in a pod either way. You will own nothing while they own everything.
Any GND or WEF proposal can be implemented at the state and local level GND was never meant to be passed by Congress, it was always going to be rolled out piecemeal style and pick up steam as open borders turns state after state blue. Just wondering which US city will be the first to ban gas stoves. A hoity toity coastal city like Santa Monica. Restaurants will still be allowed to have gas stove so as not to shut down too much commerce at once.
Banger after banger, this is easily your best column!