How can I contact Anna Rist directly to coordinate a review of a current writing?
@PaoloGasparini-ux2kp
Жыл бұрын
4:55: ANTONIO GRAMSCI (1891 - 1937), politician, philosopher, and Italian journalist, was among the founders of the Communist Party of Italy (1921). He was imprisoned by Mussolini's fascist regime from 1926 to 1937 and was released shortly before his death due to severe deterioration of his health during his years of imprisonment. His writings - in which he studied and analyzed the cultural and political leadership of society - are considered among the most intellectually original in the Marxist philosophical tradition. One of his main contributions was the concept of cultural hegemony, whereby the dominant classes of capitalist society force the working class to adopt their values to reinforce the State around an imposed "common sense." His impact on Italian affairs and the Marxist leadership from the Italian Communist Party (which was the largest communist party among Western European countries) is more significant than it may appear at first glance. His thinking, in dialogue with that of Benedetto Croce but actually in continuity with that of Gentile, emphasizing the praxis dimension of Italian Marxism, can explain the current situation of the Italian ruling class. A lucid presentation of this hypothesis was provided by Vittorio Mathieu in an article titled "Alle radici del socialismo egemone-in-Italia," published on September 6, 2004, by "Il Giornale." Vittorio Mathieu (1923 - 2020) was an Italian philosopher and historian. He became a professor of theoretical philosophy at the University of Trieste in 1961 and later became a professor emeritus of moral philosophy at the University of Turin. Here my translation. "The Suicide of the Revolution, a work by Augusto Del Noce now re-proposed ..., was already republished once, two years after the philosopher's death (December 30, 1989), when the suicide of the Bolshevik revolution had already occurred. When it was first published (April 1978), it could hardly be appreciated by the public in all its aspects, which are mainly two: the "rethinking of philosophy," which "becomes the primary problem of today's politics," and the interpretation of Gramscism as a "continuation," under opposite ideological signs, of the same dissolution that had manifested itself in bourgeois society after the Enlightenment. The first aspect is characteristic of Del Noce's "metapolitics." Starting from all speculative "-isms," he explains seemingly contingent political manifestations (as Hegel had done in "The Phenomenology of Spirit," for example, concerning the Terror). Typical of Del Noce, however, is to start not from great philosophy but from the small and even the minimal; sometimes close to him for personal reasons. For example, Franco Rodano, whom the young Del Noce had followed, is the "Catholic communist" who, in the book of 1981, becomes the protagonist of an archetypal situation. But Rodano is already a giant compared to characters like Luigi Ornato, on whom Del Noce could hold an entire lecture (...). Once upon a time, I passed through Luigi Ornato Street in Turin twice a day and didn't even know he had been a philosopher. (Despite that, I was unanimously placed first in a History of Philosophy competition). I learned who he was for the first time from Augusto Del Noce. Ornato, an "ante litteram modernist," came to Del Noce from a citation of Gentile mediated by Gramsci: and Gentile is the true protagonist of the work we are discussing. Del Noce's originality lies in making Gramsci, in a still all-encompassing climate of the 1968 movement, the epoch-making thinker who announces the suicide of the revolution. That Gramsci's thinking was "dissolutive" of the communism in which he believed was also the opinion of orthodox communists (like Togliatti): they saw Gramsci as a thorn in their side. But Del Noce's reasons are entirely different. Gramsci is generally considered as the one who, following a Crocean formation, denounces in democracy the bourgeoisie's final attempt to preserve its dominion as the heir of absolutism. By gaining hegemony, communism would lead the bourgeoisie to a painless suicide, supported by consensus. On this point, Del Noce agrees. He agrees to the extent that bourgeois society believed it could attain freedom by liberating itself from "traditional values," particularly Catholic ones. The remedy, then, would be a "secularity" heir to the French Revolution without Robespierre (the secularity of much of today's France). Fascism derogated from this secularity in '29; yet fascism had remained the hidden ally of Benedetto Croce's philosophy, which assumed cultural hegemony when Mussolini had political dominion. By denouncing this situation, Gramsci presumed to finally put absolutism to death by simply replacing Crocean hegemony with communist hegemony. In fact, after '68, communist thinking (preferably undeclared) infiltrated and established itself in culture, from universities to primary schools (what Lucio Lami called in his book of '76 "The School of Plagiarism," and partly remains so today). Through this process, Gramsci aimed to achieve a consensual totalitarianism, with very few strong measures: therefore, not Stalinist. Del Noce's criticism is that, in this way, "Gramscism does not strike the bourgeoisie at all." On the contrary, "it provides it with the opportunity to realize itself in its pure state," helping it rid itself of those oppressively Platonic 'values,' which have been attacked from all sides in the twentieth century. But - Del Noce observes - this overturning of all values, which claims to be more authentic than Nietzsche's, does not lead, as Gramsci hoped, to the "new Prince" (i.e., the Machiavellian communist party), but to the faithless man of Guicciardini (opposed to Machiavelli by De Sanctis, in a famous essay recalled by Gramsci). Understandably, the "academic Croce-Gramscism" of many former Crocians, aligned with communism, is the glue of this alliance, just as there were many former left-wing fascists. The binding agent of this alliance is "immanentism," which accepts the Catholic Church as long as it loses faith in the transcendent and transforms into a social center. Moreover, Vatican II, as seen by the "new priests," is perhaps not an unsuccessful suicide? One may wonder what remains today of this acute reflection by Del Noce. Much remains. In the history of philosophy, the identification of the true inspiration behind Gramsci, Giovanni Gentile, stands out, who is asserted against Croce as the true philosopher of immanence. For him, the deed - for example, legislative deliberation - always being a relative evil, does not even momentarily bind the freedom of the act. Therefore, in the name of free action, Gentile can be seen just as well as a supporter of fascist preservation, bourgeois Risorgimento, or the Sixties' rebellion on (where indeed, the deliberations of an assembly did not bind it even for a minute). With his idealism without ideas, Gentile is, therefore, more anti-Platonic than Nietzsche and more lawless than Marcuse. ("Freedom is either asexual or not," says the System of Logic). This interpretation of actualism, also given by me, is judged 'excellent' by Del Noce. Therefore, Gentile truly represents the inverted culmination of a philosophy that began with Plato. This led Gentile to a loyalty that was a conscious suicide for him; it will lead Gramscism to an unconscious suicide; and it will lead the technological society, entirely secularized, to nihilism (as announced by Heidegger and echoed by Emanuele Severino). Is this still the situation today? In fact, despite the fall of the 'Berlin Wall' and perhaps thanks to it, secular religion still presents itself as the religion of freedom; the oblivion of transcendence still reduces Christianity to social solidarity; the obsession with 'political correctness' perpetuates that 'ban on asking questions' spoken of by Voegelin. And the conception of politics, both on the right and on the left, often still remains that of Guicciardini's particularism, lacking the universal goals envisioned by Machiavelli. Therefore, the reading of 'The Suicide of the Revolution' is still relevant. Furthermore, I have been able to observe how relevant the issue of fascism is among historians of the 20th century, in relation to other totalitarianisms; and Del Noce's interpretation, in line with De Felice's, remains of interest. But above all, 'The Suicide of the Revolution' will help us see Giovanni Gentile in his tragic grandeur. And it will help us see in the 'Sixties' of which we still bear the scars, that fire which, consuming the rest, consumes itself.
@markofsaltburn
Жыл бұрын
Wither love?
@plekkchand
Жыл бұрын
Cut and paste and exhibit yourself somewhere else.
@PaoloGasparini-ux2kp
Жыл бұрын
@@plekkchand You have a right to the table, not just the crumbs. But it is our prayers, more than words or writings, that provide satisfaction to this right (a Carthusian).
@christopherschaefer1994
Жыл бұрын
5 : 10 "undermine the system from within" Essentially what has happened to the Catholic Church and accelerating under current pope
@PaoloGasparini-ux2kp
Жыл бұрын
The system, the tsunami that is destroying redeemed humanity, has five currents, from the outside to the inside. Faith, destroyed by dehellenization, righteous politics, the kingdom of God, undermined by the kingdom of man (French Revolution), the economy, perverted by turbo-capitalism and communism, society (destruction of the family, with the 1960s), and anthropology (with gender, the destruction of nature). Modernism, to which you allude, started with George Tyrrel, in the 1800s. But I believe in three pillars. The Eucharist, the Madonna, and the Pope. No modernist has these three anchors in their boat. The problem today is reconciling personalism with metaphysics, pastoral with doctrine, active life and contemplative, Jesuits with Dominicans. This is the true challenge in the Catholic Church.
Пікірлер: 8