그람시의 진지전

[다른소리]

그람시에 관한 글입니다.

"역사예정설의 부인" "헤게모니" "유기적 지식인", "진지전" "역사적 블록", "정세 분석", "상식-공통의 감각"

등등 그람시의 주장을 조금씩 조금씩 대강으로 소개햇습니다..

이런 글을 쓰는 이유는 ...궁금하면 더 읽어 봐라....는 의미겟지요.

답답할 때는 책을 읽으시기 바랍니다..

그나마 조금이라도 위로를 받고 힘을 얻을 수 잇는 곳은 책 밖에 없습니다.

-이제 200여년밖에 지나지 않는 프랑스 혁명을 어떻게 평가 할 수 잇겟나??......................주은래

다른소리가 한국의 민주화 과정을 격어 나오면서 한 가지 크게 깨우친것이 잇다면

사회는 한방의 혁명따위로는 절대 바뀌지 않는다는 것이지요..

그 것이 민주사회이던 사회주의던 또 무엇이라 표현하던....현실과 다른 사회의 변화는 어차피 시간이 걸린다는 것이고

확끈한 혁명 한방으로 뭔가를 해 보려 햇다.....좌절를 격고는  포기 하고 더불어 타락하고  한숨이나 내 쉬고 술이나 처 마시는 따위의 짓은 부랑아 들이나 하는 짓이다는 것을 절절하게 격어봣다는 것이겟지요.

386의 현재을 보세요..

끔찍함 .....말고 ...달리 표현할 단어가 잇는지 모르겟습니다.

386 딸들의 행복에 쩌른 행진과.......처먹기 방송..

386은 주술과 쌍판과 졸개들로도  혁명이 가능하다는 꿈을 꿧던 자들이고 

그 또록 원햇던 꿈이 이루어지는 해괴망칙한 세상까지 치 달려 권력까지 잡앗지만....

혁명은 커녕 가장 반동적인 사회를 만들어 버렷습니다.

1948년 대한민국 건국 이후 

가장 많은 빈부격차를 벌렷고

가장 많은 부동산투기질을 하게 하엿고

가장 많은 비 정규직을 만든 ............위대한 3관 참피온 노무현..

그들은 이 해괴하고 끔찍한 세상에  민주주의 라는 거죽을 씨웟습니다...

이 갈려............

이 희안하게 생겨 처먹은 쌍판을 갖은 자는 ......그런것이 노무현의 시대 정신이엇다고 합니다..

다른소린 지금도 도무지 이해가 되지 않는 것은

이들은 도대체 무엇을 위해 그리도 지들은 다르다....고 악악거렷냐는 것이지요..

격거 보니...그것도 2번씩이나.......더 악질들인데..

야나들은 사상이나 철학, 능력이나 정책따윈 말 할 것도 없고....

도덕과 상식 감성에서도 열등종들이잇고 

야들이 김영삼 아류와 대체 무슨 차이가 잇엇길레....그리도 악악거리며 입 앙당 깨물고 ..그리고 다르다고 깽깽거렷는지

지금의 야들의 줄창 나발거려되는  민주주의로는 도무지  판단이 안 됩니다.

갈보들만 우글 거리는 세상에서 모처럼 화냥년 한년이 등장하여....

갈보들 먹걸이를 다 빼앗아....스스로 더 악질적인 갈보가 되어 버린 상황.....

다른소리 해골로는 386에 대한 더 적절한 은유를 찾지 못 하겟습니다..

우리가 이렇게 될지 정말 몰랏을까??  

386이 처음 부터 저런 종들이엇다는 것을 정말 몰랏을까???

공자는 말 햇지요..

-다 잇지 않는가??

-모든것이 잇는 그대로  다 잇는데 단지 니들이 보지 못 하고 잇는것 뿐이다..

아마도...그람시가 옥중에서 공자를 맹독하지 않앗을까 시포요..

사회주의는 혁명한방 따위로 이루어 질 수 잇는 체제도 아니고

그 사회주의가 완벽한 체체도 아닙니다.....

자본주의가 없엇다면 사회주의도 없엇겟지요...자본주의 모순위에 사회주의가 잇습니다...

사회주의도 모순적인 체제라는 주장이 조금도 이상한 것이 아닙니다.

사회주의도 고처 써야 하는 제도 입니다. 

그런데 어떻게 어느 방향으로 고처 써야 하느냐??....에 대한 답변은  그 사회의 시대 환경에 따라 다릅니다.

그람시가 말 하고자 햇던 것은 그런 것입니다.

우린 사회주의 거대한 변혁의 과정의 초입에서 386,노무현교 쥐쇗기때들이라는 희귀 변종을 보고 잇는 것 뿐입니다. 

https://www.commondreams.org/opinion/social-movements-learn-from-gramsci

What Can Social Movements Learn From Gramsci in Today’s Uncertain Times?

What Can Social Movements Learn From Gramsci in Today’s Uncertain Times?

Gramsci encourages movements to pursue wide-ranging interventions, but always to unite them as part of a common program to transform society.

MARK ENGLERPAUL ENGLER

He has been called one of the most original political thinkers of the 20th century. Historians point out that “If academic citations and internet references are any guide, he is more influential than Machiavelli.” And his impact on the way we think about the processes of social change has been described as “little short of electrifying.”(사회의 변화과정에 대한 그람시가 미친 충격은 짜릿함이 느껴질 지경이다) 

The accomplishments of Antonio Gramsci, born in Italy in 1891, are all the more remarkable considering that his life was both short and notably difficult: His family was destitute in his childhood; he was sick for much of his life; he spent the prime of his adulthood confined to prison by Benito Mussolini’s fascists after his own party’s attempts to foment revolution had failed; he was often denied access to books during his incarceration; and he died at the age of just 46. Yet, in spite of this, he produced a body of theory that has been widely admired and cited as an inspiration by organizers across several generations and multiple continents.

Amid all this acclaim, it is still fair to ask whether engaging with the Italian’s thinking remains worthwhile for activists more than eight decades after his death. Has interest in Gramsci become merely academic, or are there practical lessons that social movements can fruitfully draw today?

For organizers working in the socialist lineage, Gramsci is important because he offers a version of Marxist analysis that sheds much of the dogmatism and backward-looking orthodoxy that has unfortunately clung to the tradition.

There’s a good argument that the latter is the case. For organizers working in the socialist lineage, Gramsci is important because he offers a version of Marxist analysis that sheds much of the dogmatism and backward-looking orthodoxy that has unfortunately clung to the tradition.

At the same time, he retains core insights into why capitalism is inherently exploitative and why changing it will require movements from below to engage in a contest of power, rather than buying into the idea that the system can be successfully tinkered with by technocratic reformers with clever policy ideas.

(아마도 미국이나 한국이나 지금의 상황 만큼 그람시의 이런 주장이 절절하게 느껴지는 시대가 잇을까 싶습니다....

똑똑한 정치인 몇명, 어떤 그럴싸한 크기와 역량을 갖은 듯하게 보이는 정치집단 기술적인 개혁을 통해 사회의 변화가 가능하다는  따위의 주장이 얼마나 해 맑은 거짓말(노무현교 미친개들의 사기질) 이라는 것이 실감나는 시대가 잇을까?

70년대 중반 부터 2020년 까지 ,,,미국의 하위 노동자들의 실질임금은 년 평균 0.3% 올랏습니다.

이 기간동안 미국의 상위 1%의 소득은 매년 20배 이상 뛰엇습니다..

이 기간은 누가 뭐라해도 민주주의가 가장 극성을 털던 시대엿고...그들 정치인, 정치정당은 항상 더 좋은 세상과 개혁을 이야기 하며 표를 받아 집권햇지만......상황은 더 악질화 되엇고...이제는 그런 주장 조차도 하지 않습니다.

-천당에도 빈부격차는 잇다...........는 체념으로 털고 가지요.

-민주당이나 국힘당이나...노무현이나 박그뇌나 무슨 차이가 잇지요??.....라는 체념과 꼭 같습니다.

사회는 잘 바뀌지 않는다...는 것을 알게 되는 것은 당연하지만....그렇다면 무엇이 사회를 바꿀 수 잇는 실질적인 방법인가?

4년주기로 5년 주기로 열씸히 줄 서서 투표하여 지들이 원하는 정치인이나 정당을 집권 시켯을때...

과연 사회가 바꿧냐??

But even for those who do not personally identify with the socialist tradition, understanding the thinking of Gramsci and his intellectual heirs allows for an appreciation of how movements internationally have developed their strategies: from landless workers in Brazil who have combined land occupations with the creation of a vibrant network of rural schools to left populists in Spain pursuing electoral strategies aimed at creating a new “common sense” in favor of redistribution and social solidarity. In the United States, awareness of Gramsci would be necessary to understand why left educators in New York might run a workshop on “conjunctural analysis,” or why a book like Jonathan Matthew Smucker’s organizing guide takes the title Hegemony How-To.

So what concepts, then, have movements taken from Gramsci’s body of theory? And how has it affected their approaches to organizing?

History Won’t Do Our Work for Us(역사의 진보...역사는 우리편이다...정의는 승리 한다...진실은 감출 수 없다.....따위는 주술이라고 햇지요...꼭 찌질한 쇗끼들이 존나 깨지고 나서 억울하다며 저딴 소리나 씨불거리지요..... 예수 그리수도 할렐루야  광기를 부리던지)

From Gramsci’s political thinking and practical strategizing come a set of ideas that arguably have only grown more salient with time. Among them: That revolutionary change will not inevitably come thanks to the preordained laws of history.(역사 예정설의 전면적인 부정입니다) That if progressive movements are to create change, they must win over large swaths of the public to their way of thinking about the world. And that organizing must take place on multiple fronts—cultural, political, economic—requiring engagement with many different institutions of society.(대통령 하나 달랑 바꾼다 하여,,,진보적인 변화가 일어나는 것이 아니고

사회의 모든 부분- 문화 경제 정치 -에서 변화가 일어냐야 세상이 바뀐다고 한 것입니다...그람시는 특히 문화의 중요성을 강조 햇고 자본주의가 강고한 것은 그들이 경제와 정치는 말 할 것도 없고...특히 문화을 지배 하여 끊임없이 친 자본주의적인 사고와 논리 감성을 만들어 낸다는 것입니다.....

한국으로 치면 박통 전통 시대의  빨갱이 사냥...종북 좌파 사냥으로 퉁 처저 잇던 문화가  지금은  민주주의 라는 해괴한 단어로 퉁 처저 잇지요...

민주주의= 능력에 따른 정당한 차이

좋은 대학 나온놈이 돈과 미녀를 갖는 것은 너무 당연하다...

그들의 노력에 대한 보상이 사회정의의 실현이고 그것이 민주주의의 기본원리이다..

그런데  그들의 노력에 대한 그럴싸한 객관적인 기준이 없고...그들의 보상에는 제한이 없습니다.

일 하지 않는자 굶어 되지라는 비정한 신학적 소명을 강제 하지만 정작 자신들은 일 하지 않고도 엄청난 돈을 긁어 답습니다.

그리고 민주주의 체체를 통과한  법과 제도가 이런 것을 합리화 시켜 주지요..

노무현교 쥐쇄끼때들은 윤석열의 수능 마피아 때리기에 대한 일타강사 보호 하기는  차마 구역질 나서 못 봐 주겟습니다.

그들은 그들의 눈물나는 노력의 정당성에 대한 사회의 보상을  민주주의와 시장의 원리를 동원 보호 하엿습니다.

그리고 성열이의 접근이 틀려 먹엇다며 ...그럴듯 하게 밑밥을 깔아 씨불 거려 됩니다..

수능에 대한 사회적인 문제가  민주주의와 시장의 원리로 통체로 날라가 버린 것이지요..

다른소린 민주주의 라는 단어에서 한기를 느낀다고 햇지요??

정말 민주주의라는 단어로 쒸불거려되는 개 소리는 종북좌파 보다 더 으시시합니다..

Although he died in 1937, Gramsci did not become well known outside of Italy, particularly in the English-speaking world, until the 1970s. That was when edited translations of his famous Prison Notebooks,(옥중수고) written during his incarceration and surreptitiously smuggled beyond fascist reach, finally became widely available. At his trial in 1928, Gramsci’s prosecutor had famously declared, “We must stop this brain working for 20 years!”(우리는  20년동안 그의 두뇌를 작동할 수 없게 해야 한다) The expansive Prison Notebooks show why the Mussolini regime saw the theorist as such a threat.

Although writing in fragmentary snippets, Gramsci dives deep into a vast array of topics—spanning religion, economics, history, geography, culture, and education. This range, the historian Perry Anderson has argued, “had, and has, no equal in the theoretical literature of the left.” Beyond questions of political strategy, Gramsci’s work has a major impact on the academic fields of cultural studies, subaltern history, and the study of “world systems” under capitalism.

He believed that only through determined organizing and the strategic application of human will would the fundamental structures of society change for the better.

Owing to Gramsci’s wide range of interests, there are many different lessons that can be drawn from his work. But a first important lesson for organizers is one that emerged from the theorist’s rejection of elements of his own intellectual tradition.

A leader in the Communist Party of Italy, Gramsci witnessed a bold series of factory occupations in the Fiat auto plants in Turin in 1919 and 1920. These actions seemed like they might be a sign of a worker’s revolution that could follow on the heels of the historic Bolshevik victory in Russia. But then, after witnessing the rise of fascism and being jailed in 1926, he was forced to revise his vision of how a more just world might take shape.

(이탈리아 노동장들이 피아트 자동차 공장의 점거를  그람시는 이탈리아 노동자 혁명의 시작으로 보앗습니다..

하지만 현실은 정 반대로 이탈리아 파시즘의 등장으로 끝낫고...그람시도 투옥이 되엇습니다..

무엇이 잘못 된 것인가?? 이탈리아에서는 왜 소련과 같은 볼세비키 혁명이 일어나지 않은 것인가???

그 근본에 대해 고민을 하지 않을 수 가 없엇겟지요..

이런 고민이 그람시만의 고민도 아니고...그 시대의 모든 지식인과 사상가들의 고민 이기도 햇습니다.

왜 볼세비키 혁명은 서구 유럽에서는 실패 하엿는가

그런것에 대한 고민이 오늘날 그람시의 걸작  Prison Notebooks (옥숭수고)로 남게 되엇습니다..

As the Jamaican-born British scholar Stuart Hall would later explain, Gramsci “worked, broadly, within the Marxist paradigm. However, he… extensively revised, renovated, and sophisticated many aspects of that theoretical framework to make it more relevant to contemporary social relations.”(사회학은 근본적으로 변증에서 자유로울 수 없습니다....중국의 사회주의를 짝퉁 사회주의로 폄하 하는 사람들은 또 하나의 지적 오만이거나...변형된 오리엔탈리즘 입니다....좆나 지만 잘난체 한 것이지요) One of the key aspects he jettisoned was the tradition’s sense of historical inevitability.(역사 예정설, 역사 결정론, 역사 필연론)

In Gramsci’s time, it was common for “scientific socialists” to expound a highly deterministic vision of history(역사 결정론). According to this view, Karl Marx had uncovered trends in economic development that were akin to natural laws: Capitalism was condemned by its own internal contradictions to produce crises, and these crises would inevitably lead to the victorious rise of the proletariat over its bourgeois exploiters.

Gramsci saw how these beliefs, propagated by elders and contemporaries alike, could lead to fatalism, passivity, and extremist posturing.(운명론, 수동성 극단적 태도) Those who thought that political problems would be solved by the inexorable march of history did not need to take responsibility for coming up with thoughtful plans that balanced visionary goals with pragmatic action. Instead they could, in Gramsci’s words, hold an “aversion on principle to compromise” and spread the belief that “the worse it gets, the better it will be.” As he put it, “Since favorable conditions are inevitably going to appear, and since these, in a rather mysterious way,” would propel forward revolution, these socialists saw initiatives aimed at proactively ushering in such change as “not only useless but even harmful.”(실제 이 시대에는,  역사의 필연적인 순간이 올때 까지 아무것도 하지 말고 기다리자...먼가 하는 것은 오히려 일을 그리치게 하는 것이다.... 는 주장이 엄청나게 등장햇습니다...그람시는 이런 견해를 근본에서 거부햇습니다) 

One can argue that such historical determinism(역사적 결정(론)) came from a flawed and reductionistic reading of Marx. Yet there is no doubt that it became widespread among many radicals in different periods, and it was particularly dominant in the time of the Second International,(제2 인터네서널) the cross-border federation of labor and socialist parties that met periodically between 1889 and 1916, a period that coincided with Gramsci’s youth.

Gramsci was loyal to the idea that economic forces and class relations were critical in shaping the flow of history. Yet he believed that only through determined organizing and the strategic application of human will would the fundamental structures of society change for the better. Gramsci opposed the idea that “immediate economic crises of themselves produce fundamental historical events.” Rather, he argued, “they can simply create a terrain more favorable to the dissemination of certain modes of thought” and certain types of organizing. The recurrent crises of capitalism do create opportunities, but people must come together to exercise “their will and capability” in order to take advantage of auspicious situations.(경제위기가 역사적인 근본적  사건이 아니고 단지 변화와 새로운 것을 위한 기회일 뿐이다...이런 기회는 언제든지 날라가 버릴수 잇으니 인민들이 함께 뭉쳐 변화을 위한  의지와 능력을 모아야 한다는 주장입니다.......그런데 어떻게 그렇게 인민들의 의지와 능력을 모읍니까?? 여기서 진지전의 사고는 당연해 보입니다...)

민주화 이후의 우리사회가 돌연 답답해져 버린것은...그런 진지가 사라져 버린 것으로 이해 하면 될 것 같습니다.

우린 광주와 6월의 항쟁을 통해 진지에서 벋어나 돌격전을 감행햇습니다....

그런데 뜻 밖에 여기서 승리를 해 버렷지요...갑자기 우리 세상이 되어 버렷습니다...

그리고 나니 무엇을 어떻게 해야 할지....전혀 준비가 되지 않은 상태에서 개도 소도 쥐쇗끼때들도 다 민주주의만 

나발 거리면 치 달렷달고....결국은 노무현교 똥파리때들이라는 기이한 종들의 창권을 눙깔 벌겋게 뜨고 보고만 말앗습니다.

재주는 곰이 넘고 돈은 뙤놈들이 챙긴다고..

민주주의 거죽을 쓴 쥐쇄끼때들에게 돌격전으로 얻은 땅은 말 할 것도 없고 ...가지고 잇던 진지마저 깡그리 내 줘 버린 것이고

열씸휘 열씸히 패 갈라....우리 교주님 할렐루야 주술만 만들어 ...선거 때 마다 민주주의 화신이 되어 종놈들 처럼 줄 서서 교주님 충성쌈질을 처 해 되는 기이한 세상이 만들어져 버린 것이지요.

문제는

이런 세상이 앞으로 더 햇쓰면 더 햇지...덜 해지지 않을 것이라는 것인데..

진지가 사라저 버린  온통 민주주의자들만 할거 하는 세상에서....우리가 느낄 수 잇는 것은 무력감 말 고 없습니다.. 

대체 ...이게 뭐야??

우리가 대체 무엇을 해 온 것이야??

The key for Gramsci was to avoid falling victim to either economism—or an over-emphasis on the material causes behind historical developments—or ideologism, which involves an exaggerated view of what can be accomplished merely through good intentions and expressions of voluntary resolve. To strike the right balance between them requires careful observation and historical analysis.

Movements must study the current “relation of forces,” or the social, political, and military balance of power between different groups. They must look at the changes taking place in society and determine which are organic, reflecting deep shifts in the economic structure, and which are merely conjunctural—short-term occurrences that may be “almost accidental” and lack “far-reaching historical significance.” Only through such careful preparation can they determine if “there exist the necessary and sufficient conditions” for transformation in a given society, and whether a given plan of action is workable.

Such ideas would resonate with the thinking of other radicals, such as Detroit-based writer, organizer, and activist mentor Grace Lee Boggs, who counseled social movement strategists to ask “What time is it on the clock of the world?” when considering their plans for action. And the ideas parallel concepts from other organizing traditions, such as the field of civil resistance, which emphasizes the role of both skills and conditions—that is, how historical circumstances and human agency each play a part in determining a movement’s success or failure.

An important implication of Gramsci’s argument is that there would be no single path to socialism that every country would follow.

Instead, he argued that because the political landscape varies, it is necessary to look carefully at the terrain—what Gramsci describes as taking “accurate reconnaissance of each individual country.”

(이런 사고는 비단 사회주의에서만 그런것도 아닙니다.....

민주주의도 그렇습니다...

미국의 민주주의가 세계 모든 나라의 보편적인 민주주의가 될 수 없는 것도 꼭 같습니다....

민주주의도 그 사회의 환경과 요구에 따라 수정되어 정착됩니다....

박정희가 나발 거렷던 10월 유신은...한국적 민주주의라는 ...그 발상과 구호만 차용되엇지만  민주주의와는 정 반대의 체체 엿지요...

요즘 mz 개때들의 민주주의에서는  미국의 빠다 냄세가 너무 구역질 나게 납니다....

견디기가 어렵습니다..

This idea has proven particularly inspirational to activists in the Global South who have been moved to create versions of radical theory that engage with the unique histories of their regions. Scholars Nicolas Allen and Hernán Ouviña write that Latin American socialists since Gramsci’s time have enlisted his work “into a larger intellectual project that has sought to adapt Marxist theory to the social reality of a region largely ignored by orthodox Marxism.”(중국의 혁명도...볼세비키 혁명도 원론적으로 막스의 이론에 따른 혁명은 아니지요) The Prison Notebooks encouraged them to “engage directly with a set of regional realities” that local communist parties had previously disregarded in deference “to the Communist International’s (Comintern) interpretation of history, which deemphasized the particularities of individual nation-states.”

Of course, for Gramsci, it was crucial that study of conditions in any given country go hand in hand with practical action. Unless someone is aiming “merely to write a chapter of past history,”(이런것을 좌파의 역사라고 하진 않지요....저널입니다...신문 기자 나부래기 쐣끼들이 나발 거리는 사실의 짜찝기 열거일 뿐입니다) they should recognize that all political analyses “cannot and must not be ends in themselves.” Instead, Gramsci wrote, these analyses “acquire significance only if they serve to justify a particular practical activity, or initiative of will. They reveal the points of least resistance, at which the force of will can be most fruitfully applied; they suggest immediate tactical operations” and “they indicate how a campaign of political agitation may best be launched.”

If Gramsci’s perspective was only valuable in rebutting orthodox Marxists, it would not have much lasting value today. But its significance is much greater. Although the exact type of belief in the historical destiny of the working class that was preval‎ent in Gramsci’s time may not commonly exist now, there are still many people—whether they are mainstream academics, political commentators, liberals, or ultra-radicals—who harbor deterministic beliefs of their own. These people hold that social movements have little ability to influence history, that major uprisings emerge solely due to historical circumstances beyond our control, or that technological innovation is the only significant driver of progress and change.

Gramscian analysis provides helpful tools for rejecting such apathy, whether it arises from despair, cynicism, a focus on techno-fixes, or the fear of genuinely aspiring to power. It encourages movements instead to accept responsibility for organizing, educating, and preparing a base of people that can be ready to act when opportune moments arise. After all, Gramsci argues, historical conditions can only truly be judged as favorable by those who have a “concrete possibility of effectively intervening in them.” In other words, fortune favors the organized.(준비하고 잇써야...기회를 이용 할 수 잇습니다...준비가 없쓰면 그것이 기회 인줄도 판단 할 수 없을 뿐 더러....기회를 이용 할  능력을 기를 수 없습니다..

지금 한국 민주주의의 처참함은.......준비 부족 때문입니다.

대통령을 선거를 통해서 선택 할 수 잇게 되엇고...이쪽에서 권력을 만들어 보기도 햇다는 것을 성취로 착각한 것이지요.

조금은 더 정이가고 친화적인 느낌을 주는 쪽으로 권력만 바뀐것 뿐입니다... 

권력의 이동과는 전혀 무관하게 ...사회는 더 처참하게 계급화되고,물질화되고 자본주의만의 방식의 정의를 구현해 나갓습니다.

이들은 수구 꼴통들 보다 더 악질적인 결과를 남겻고...

민주주의에 대한 믿음마져 깨 부셔버렷습니다......사회에서 희망고문을 제거햇다는 공헌은 한 셈이지요.

처 먹은 뇌물이 뽀록이 나자...좆 같다고 죽은 대통령은 노무현 뿐입니다.

다른소린 이런 메몰된 몽니와 염치를 경험해 보지 못 햇습니다.

노무현과 같은 쥐쇗끼는 두번 다시 경험하고 싶지 않습니다....

Winning the Battle of Ideas

Gramsci created a further breakthrough by elaborating on the importance of the cultural, political, and ideological elements that, in the Marxist tradition, make up the “superstructure” of society.(사회의 상위구조...막스는 생산력과 생산관계를 토대로 분석하엿고 그 이외의 모든것은 상위구조로 이분하여 분석 하엿습니다.....토대와 상위구조는 서로간에 영향을 미치나 토대가 상위구조에 훨씬 더 큰 영향을 미친다고 주장 하엿는데....그람시은 이런 관계에 의문을 갖엇고...상위구조에서 특히 문화의 힘에 대해 무게를 더 두엇습니다) In the process, he helped develop a new theory of how movements could successfully instill their vision of a just society in a lasting way.

When analyzing why revolution had succeeded in Russia but failed in other countries, including his own, Gramsci drew on an expanded vision of how dominant groups stayed in control.(이는 그람시의 시대나 지금의 시대가 같습니다) The capitalist state, he argued, could not merely be seen as a set of government institutions that maintained power through coercion—administered through its courts, police, and military forces. Instead, the power of the state extended much further, seeping through the institutions of civil society, including schools, the media, the churches, and other institutions.(즉 자본주의를 정치체제로만 한정해서 분석하지 않고 훨씬 더 넓고 크게 포괄적으로 분석하엿습니다.....즉 자본주의를 단순히 경제체제로 국한하여 보질 않고 그런 경제체체를 지속하게 하는 모든 사회의 구성요소를 포괄한 것으로 본 것이지요.....

자본주의는 단순한 경제체체를 훨씬 넘어 모든 사회의 구조를 통합하는 의미입니다)

A ruling order could only remain intact through the maintenance of hegemony. The concept most commonly associated with Gramsci, hegemony entails not only the use of force and “legal” discipline, but includes the ways in which ruling ideas are disseminated through society, creating legitimacy and consent for the rule of the dominant group.(지금의 자본주의 그 자체입니다)

Those working in the Gramscian lineage contend that activists who aspire to transform the existing order must aim at nothing short of creating a new “common sense” through which people would understand their place in the world.

With these concepts in mind, Gramsci made a distinction between conditions in Russia and the countries of the West. In Russia, he explained, the formal institutions of state were predominant, while “civil society was primordial and gelatinous.” However, “in the West, there was a proper relation between State and civil society.” In the latter case, civil society protected ruling groups from being easily overthrown: “When the state trembled,” Gramsci explained, “a sturdy structure of civil society was at once revealed. The state was only an outer ditch; behind which there stood a powerful system of fortresses and earthworks: more or less numerous from one state to the next.”

Recognizing these conditions, Gramsci argued that the “war of maneuver,” the kind of seizure of power through direct assault modeled by the Russian Revolution, would be supplanted in advanced capitalist countries by a different type of struggle. In the West, organizing would have to focus on the “war of position”(진지전)—that is, entering into a long-term battle for hegemony, waged through many spheres of social life.

Crucially, this would mean winning the battle of ideas. The critic Raymond Williams wrote that hegemony is made up of a “central system of practices, meanings, and values saturating the consciousness of a society at a much deeper level than ordinary notions of ideology,” and it is something that needs to be continually “renewed, recreated, and defended.” Those working in the Gramscian lineage contend that activists who aspire to transform the existing order must aim at nothing short of creating a new “common sense” through which people would understand their place in the world.

As Harmony Goldberg, an activist and educator at the Grassroot Policy Project, explains, “Gramsci argued that socialism can neither be won or maintained if it only has a narrow working-class base. Instead, the working class should see itself as the leading force in a broader multi-class alliance (termed a ‘historic bloc’(역사적 연합) by Gramsci) which has a united vision for change and which fights in the interests of all its members.” Creating a unified alignment means recognizing that people do not form their beliefs in a mechanistic way based on their economic position in society.

Instead, ideological formation is also affected, as Stuart Hall wrote, by “social divisions and contradictions arising around race, ethnicity, nationality, and gender.” The interests of a social group, Hall noted elsewhere, “are not given but have to be politically and ideologically constructed.”

These ideas have important implications: The political arts of popular messaging and coalition-building should not be left to mainstream liberals, but need also to be the domain of those seeking more transformative change. Movements that want to win cannot be content to circulate slogans that appeal only to self-isolated groups of like-minded activists; they must care about reaching out beyond their existing base and crafting messages that can appeal to a broader set of potential allies.

Building a new common sense requires combating the ideas that keep people complacent. Goldberg notes that the individualistic and divisive ideology of currently dominant groups can be profoundly demobilizing. She writes: “We can come to believe that our interests are aligned with the success of capitalism rather than its destructions (e.g. ‘A rising tide lifts all boats.’); we can believe that there are no alternatives to the system as it is…; we can internalize false senses of superiority or inferiority (e.g. white supremacy which encourages poor white people to comfort themselves with their social privileges); and more.”

If movements are to replace such beliefs with a hegemony of their own, they must convincingly articulate an alternative. But this is only a first step. They must also determine which social groups can be united in support of this alternative and then carefully build the political power of that alignment. The goal, as contemporary Gramscians might say, is to create a big enough “we” not only to win occasional elections, but to change the very way in which people think about themselves and their connections to others. It is to build the collective will for action.

Engaging the institutions

Gramscian thought encourages strategic diversity. Since approaches will be developed based on analysis of a given country’s unique circumstances, movement strategies vary across different geographies. And since the war of position is a long-term effort, fought on many different fronts, a wide range of contributions can assist in the struggle for social and economic justice.

In a recent interview with Gramscian scholar Michael Denning on The Dig, podcast host Daniel Denvir suggested that Gramsci’s thinking was a way for the left to break out of stale debates that see “electoralism,” mutual aid, and workplace organizing as mutually exclusive, rather than as approaches that can complement one another. Denning noted in reply, “On the left, we could all have more compassion for each other following one’s own gifts and abilities, rather than guilting people into doing things that they don’t necessarily have gifts for.” He continued, “I think that Gramsci does lead one to not think that one position is guaranteed to be the central position. People should fight in struggles where they feel they can be most effective and most powerful and where their own talents are.”(이는 월남전을 승리로 이끈 무원갑의 전술과 꼭 같은 것입니다..)

How to best wage a war of position is up for debate. In the late 1960s, German student activist Rudi Dutschke argued that the left needed to undertake a “long march through the institutions.” This meant entering into the established social bodies—including schools and universities, political parties, media outlets, healthcare providers, community organizations, unions, and the professions—with the intent to radicalize and transform them. Many have seen such a march as an extension of the Gramscian lineage.

Gramsci tells us that power is everywhere, and that holding office is only valuable as part of a larger movement strategy to rally hearts and minds around a genuinely progressive vision.

The Brazilian landless workers movement (known in Portuguese as the Movement dos Trabalhadores Rurais Sem Terra, or MST) is one group that has embraced this approach. Among the largest social movements in Latin America, the MST has maintained rural occupations that have claimed land for upwards of 350,000 families, while also interacting critically with the government to build an extensive network of schools, community health clinics, and food processing centers.

Scholar Rebecca Tarlau describes these efforts as “contentious co-governance.” Here, activist farmers not only alter the nature of the mainstream institutions they enter; they also use these bodies to expand the legitimacy and organizing capabilities of their movement. “Importantly,” Tarlau contends, “the MST not only embodies this Gramscian strategy, but activists also explicitly draw on Gramscian theory to justify their continual engagement with the Brazilian state.”

Critical to this approach is the idea that movement participants enter institutions not as reformers—a position that may leave them vulnerable to cooptation—but as part of an effort to build the “intellectual and moral leadership” required for a progressive project to gain hegemony. “Organic intellectuals,” comparable to the village teachers or parish priests in the Italy of Gramsci’s time, play a vital role in translating alternative ideas about creating a better society into real-world practice.

Distinct from traditional scholars, these local movement participants spread ideology not through the academic development of theory, but through actually exercising leadership in community affairs and institutions. Tarlau explains that, through their actions, these people in effect are “constantly attempting to garner the consent of civil society to support their political and economic goals” and create a “justification for new forms of social relations.”

Too often, mainstream approaches to politics see all power as residing in the government, especially at the federal level, and they see electing winnable centrists to office as the key to promoting progress.(지금의 민주주의 모습입니다) Gramsci tells us that power is everywhere, and that holding office is only valuable as part of a larger movement strategy to rally hearts and minds around a genuinely progressive vision.(노무현과 문재인의 실패- 잘 조직된 사기질-의  본질적인 이유 입니다....그들이 원햇던 것은 상대적으로 덜 악질적으로 치장한 그들만을 위한 권력이엇지...사회의 바꾸기 위한 권력이 아니엇지요.....

노무현교 갱상도 쥐쇗끼때들의 어디에서 진보를 느껴 볼 수 잇습니까??)

 At the other end of the spectrum, many people working outside of government pursue change in only one area—at the level of a single workplace, school, church, food cooperative, or neighborhood initiative—without connecting their efforts to a more comprehensive project of change. Gramsci encourages movements to pursue wide-ranging interventions, but always to unite them as part of a common program to transform society.

“Especially today,” Stuart Hall wrote in the 1980s, “we live in an era when the old political identities are collapsing.” The same might be said of our present times. If movements for justice are to win, they must work to construct new identities and alliances, built through engagement with the diverse institutions and sites of political conflict that make up peoples’ lives.

Gramsci provides no easy answers for the current challenges that we face. Yet with concepts such as “hegemony” and “organic intellectuals,” the “war of position” and the “historic bloc,” “conjunctural analysis” and the battle for “common sense,” he provides social movements with an enriched strategic vocabulary. And with his insistence on rejecting determinism and engaging with society’s most deeply held beliefs, he offers an approach to radical politics that is dynamic enough to stay relevant through the crises—and transformations—yet to come.

결론입니다..

사회주의는 장기 플랜입니다...

장기 플랜은 아무것도 하지 않는 다는 것이 아니고...정 반대로 ..질기고 집요하게 일정 방향을 향해 노력 하는 것입니다.

도대체 사회주의가 무엇인가??

그것이 무엇인지 아직도 그림이 그려지지 않는 사람들은,, 더 좋은 사회= 사회주의 ..라고 생각하면 될 것 같습니다.

더 좋은 사회란 보다 자유롭고 평등하고 조화로운 사회을 말 합니다.

자본주의는 그런  자유와 평등과 조화를 보장하지 못 합니다...그래서 자본주의가 싫은 겁니다.