Yeah. Wikipedia is pretty bad with Gramsci. It's edited by maybe two main groups of people- one that want to present Gramsci as a justification for their reformist ways (as the Eurocommunists did, unfortunately) and another from neocons and their ilk pushing Cultural Marxism conspiracies. As far as this site is concerned though, few people I'd say are familiar with Gramsci's theories. The ones that 'dislike' him in particular just rely on polemics from certain websites that bash him as a Stalinist and reformist stooge, which are more sectarian than anything else.
You are absolutely correct on that assumption of blaming Gramsci for Eurocommunism. Just read it and shook my head. To make matters worse the info used was referenced from wikipedia
I agree. If one simply strips it down to purely a matter of the pen then you cant justify any of the many, if not most of the arguments against his collective works.
Thanks. He's not as warmly received on this site partially because of some of the tendecy spats. There is a group of users here who 'follow' Bordiga here who reduce him to a 'stalinist thug/puppet' and push that opinion on the forums. So he doesn't get brought up as often as he should, and when it does it's either from the perspective that he's a stalinist mook or responsible for Eurocommunism- not much on his actual thought or writings.
Comrade just was reading some of your posts on Gramsci and was very pleased. Gramcis writtings are not nearly as used as they should be. Cultural Hegemony as a living science deserves a more prominent place in the movement.
