Neo-Gramscianism

[Communist Mutant From Outer Space]

What are the thoughts of different tendencies on Neo-Gramscianism? I don't see much about it on here and wanted to know why exactly that is (I presume it's either ill-known of or disliked, due to its relationship to the critical theory school).

[The Feral Underclass]

What is neo-Gramscianism?

Edit: I googled https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Neo-Gramscianism. It seems like it's more of a perspective than a tendency.

[Communist Mutant From Outer Space]

I never said it was, I just wanted to know what each of the tendencies on here thought of it.

[motion denied]

*reaches for browning*

[The Feral Underclass]

I never said it was, I just wanted to know what each of the tendencies on here thought of it.

Ah. I miss-read what you had written. I thought you were asking what the different tendencies of Neo-Gramscianism are.

[Communist Mutant From Outer Space]

I didn't exactly word it to the best of my abilities, so I can understand how you misread it. On a side note, I've heard Gramsci was a Stalinist; is there any real truth in this, or did he just vaguely support Stalin while critiquing him?

[Tim Cornelis]

Hey, the university I study at is mentioned in the wikipedia page.

No particular input toward your question...

[John Nada]

I never said it was, I just wanted to know what each of the tendencies on here thought of it.

I can't speak for what Democratic Confederalists think of neo-Gramscianism, other than I think both Gramsci and Ocalan(IMO a post-Marxist) wouldn't agree with it, but I'll type what I personally think.

I didn't exactly word it to the best of my abilities, so I can understand how you misread it. On a side note, I've heard Gramsci was a Stalinist; is there any real truth in this, or did he just vaguely support Stalin while critiquing him?

Most Marxists in Gramsci's life were "Stalinists", or Marxist-Leninists as they call themselves. Stalin was recognized as the leader of the USSR(at the time the only "successful" revolution most pinned their hopes on) and successor to Lenin politically and ideologically. Trotskyists, left-communists, ect were a small minority. You could say Marxism-Leninism had "hegemony". Since Gramsci's opponent in the ICP was Bordiga and he used a sexist slur in reference to Trotsky, I think it's safe to say he was Marxist-Leninist. And his theory on hegemony is based more on Marxist-Leninist orthodoxy than is generally credited.

From my searches, Neo-Gramscianism is something political scientist Robert Cox(who does not profess to be a Marxist) came up with. Instead of the Marxism-Leninist theory of uneven development, it seems to leans closer to either a Trotskyist "combined and uneven development" of a singular global capitalist mode of production, or a Kautskyist "ultraimperialism" of transnational cooperation superseding national antagonisms between the bourgeoisie of each nation; though I'm not sure if a lot of neo-Gramscianists are actually aware of it or if this is even important in their internal logic. And it treats productive relations/productive forces(base) as something separate but determined by hegemony(superstructure), rather than interconnected with the base predominating. Because of this, I think Gramsci(a Marxist-Leninist) would likely have nothing to do with "neo-Gramscianism". It probably owes more to Weber and postmodernism than Marx.

Honestly, some of the theorists(maybe all) sound like they're just invoke Gramsci to make their theories on world politics sound more original and sexier. Though to be fair, Gramsci's Prison Notebooks can be so vague, cryptic and scattered(because he was in prison in a fascist country and didn't edit/organize it for publication) that after running through the postmodernist grinder, even Eurocommunists claim him as inspiration.

[Red Red Chile]

I'd never heard of it before. I always thought Gramsci was 'neo" enough.

[blake 3:17]

While I'm very sympathetic to Gramsci's thought, Neo Gramscianism seems to be a managerial ideology. Here's an interview with Robert Cox: http://www.theory-talks.org/2010/03/theory-talk-37.html