While many Italian communists were looked down on by their more strident marxist comrades in other countries, there was one Italian who, while in prison for being a marxist, authored two volumes which in essence said, "Instead of attacking the West head-on, we need to identify and infiltrate Western institutions and culture which make her strong". Gramsci advocated a decades long assault on the traditional family unit -- feminisation of the family, homosexuality and disordered forms of sexuality, which over time led to pornography, contraception, divorce, and eventually abortion. His blueprint, in kernel form, suggested infiltrating the churches, schools and universities, media, art, and entertainment, and government institutions.
Waves of initially covert "agents of change" were sent Westward -- into the seminaries and universities, as a perverse "leaven" -- not to lift society but to degrade and weaken it. Initial agents lifted each other into rising positions of influence, identifying and recruiting allies (whether gullible or intelligent -- both could be used), and spread their ideas and recruits like mushroom spores, to any institutions they could infiltrate.
Some in the West caught on and attempted to warn and to put a stop to this -- the term McCarthyism was coined to direct ridicule, coming from Hollywood and the media, against anyone daring to call out communist sympathizers and supporters.
At present time, one could say those embracing Gramsci's strategies have succeeded, perhaps even beyond what levels they might have imagined -- the West teeters now at the precipice, the last bulwark against a worldwide onslaught of diabolical evil, seeking to enslave and control mankind.
In this great battle against the DS and their marxist battering ram, and even at this late point, it is helpful to know some of the origins of what our Western culture -- our families and institutions, have faced and are facing.
A bit of sauce:
Did Gramsci write about how to subvert the west and capitalism yes or no?
I don't understand why people use the word "subvert" because I've read maybe 200 pages and it's all just analysis of the relationships between the things i said and how it makes parents make kids useful dupes of the elites who take pride in serving them.
Also capitalism lol. I mean markets and agreements are cool but to defend the capitalists is a turd move for good doggies.
You know what subvert means. Was it a yes or no? I’m not asking for your appraisal of its worthiness or otherwise, I’m asking if he wrote about how to subvert the west and capitalism.
Yes or no?
I already explained what I've read that he wrote. It's analysis of motives and behavior and their origins in relationships between political society, family hierarchy, and property. Im gonna say no. Subvert is an interpretation from reactionaries clinging to the exact programming he dissects very brilliantly, where adult workers are childish dupes seeking attaboys from the thieves and decievers who squeeze them from every angle.
Lol you could just read it, it's free and a PDF now
Subvert means to overturn the current order.
No amount of extraneous waffle will make it otherwise.
You just don’t want to admit it
The basics are like "society is of two types: political society, which uses force to build relationships, and civil society, which uses agreements. But the violence threatened and wielded by political society is evident in the structures of civil society." Then he reflects quite insightfully on how and why
Why does Marxism ALWAYS without exception end up in slave Labour and mass death?
How do you justify that?