Due to his view in western government structures, I'd like to see one on John Locke in particular his influence on classic liberalism and natural rights and your thoughts on these from a Christian view on government.

“Let the past die. Kill it, if you have to” - Antonio Gramsci

Dr Cooper is incredibly gifted in communicating his thoughts. Thanks doc.

I don't know who started it, but a critique of Fascism would be very helpful.

Could you cover the crazy world of Michel Foucault and Wilhelm Reich?

You are doing excellent work sir, not sure why this channel was not recommended for me earlier.

From a christian and a socialist, really good talk. I would point out that you can see much of what Gramsci is talking about successfully adopted by the populist-right: a separate media defining its own counter hegemony (Christian Nationalism), featuring its own crop of organic intellectuals critiquing the dominant hegemony: the society resulted from neoliberal economics and a liberalism that's severed its ties to the working class. Sadly, Gramsci's critique of "let the past die" is lost on most modern "leftists" who are still googly eyed about Lenin, and get misty over the 1930's American Labor Movement.

What do you mean he wasn't of Italian descent? His mother was a local from Sardinia. Also, his father is from a Southern Italian Albanian minority which has both Italian and Albanian origins -> See the Name Gramsci which is both Italian and Arbëresh. Furthermore, his grandmother was Teresa Gonzales -> Gramsci was also of Spanish descent.

If you're taking suggestions, Noam Chomsky is one that I'd be interested in seeing a video on, if he qualifies for what you would consider a "Maker of the modern world". I really appreciate the series. Thanks for all your work!

Were there counter voices as these philosophical thoughts were gaining ground? I was exposed to these thoughts in graduate school but not other counter voices

Great video Doctor. I can confirm that he believed in a battle ground of culture, and that this is not just a translation thing. It's fundamental to how he's viewed today. I think the figures most in need of a video, at this point, are Hegel, Kant, Derrida, and others like that. However, I think the best next video would be an evaluation of the Birmingham school (and its two founders)Founders, and how they turned Gramsci into the foundational unit of cultural studies.

Thank you so much. This was a very clear explanation.

Covering Mises, Rothbard, Hayek, or Nozick would be nice. Also, only because he's popular in academia: Rawls.

Thank you for continuing this series. I found your point regarding Gramsci's lack of wealth and his family's financial condition (as opposed to the wealth of many of the other communist / Marxist thinkers) enlightening. Perhaps he could see - because he lived among them and as the wealthier Marxist thinkers could not - that the lower classes were not going to rise up because they accepted the cultural framework of society. He lived among those that made clear that the economic condition was not the primary issue.

Would love to hear you covering Jean Paul Sartre, and Michel Foucault, as well as the thoughts of older thinkers like Descartes who have been influential on modern thought. Thank you!

Good video Dr. Cooper. You covered Gramsci's life and thought quite well in an hour video. To be honest I had never heard of Gramsci before although his ideas are certainly familiar and something we hear a lot of in the media these days.

I am amazed at the depth of your knowledge.

Is there any evidence of communication and/or influence from Gramsci to the Frankfurt School prior to his imprisonment?

Another great video, Dr. Cooper. Personally, I'd like to see a video on C.S. Peirce, William James, and American Pragmatism. Despite the fact that some may consider them somewhat dry, one cannot ignore the impact of their thought on life in the 20th century and beyond.

great video series.. finally the stuff going on today make so much more sense

I'm about half way through the video and I'm finding it very informative, especially from a biographical point of view. But, with respect, I completely disagree with the characterization of marxism and socialism/communism, especially when making comparisons to fascism. The former advocates for *international* class struggle with the goal of worker control of the means of production (which can happen in a variety of ways as you allude to), as well as advocating for women's rights and the empowerment of all oppressed people. The latter tends toward national and even racial struggle against the out group, and aims to maintain fixed hierarchies that are antithetical to communism - Mussolini and Hitler distorted the idea of socialism into making it about national/racial struggle and unifying the different classes through what Mussolini called "corporatism". This idea is actually much more aligned to liberal politics and we can see that historically in how the US and western-allied imperialist powers have supported fascist governments/movements throughout the world, even to this day.

Why should the proletariat intellectuals be more honest than the Bourgeoise intellectuals?

Is there any essential difference between fascism and socialism (communism) that cannot be traced in some way to the division over nationalism vs. internationalism? I don’t think that we should ever concede that fascism and communism are on opposite ends of the ideological spectrum (and I’m not saying that you did, but it is their contention, it is a dominant presupposition in political science, and it is a constant temptation for the popular imagination).

Excellent video! Thank you so much, Dr. Cooper.

How about Saul Alinsky and “Rules for Radicals?”

Yet another great presentation from this Makers of the Modern World series. I'd like to suggest an improvement that you could make to your videos, Dr. Cooper. It seems to me the levels of your mic might be a little off meaning your voice sounds a bit scorched. Next time try bringing the mic levels a little bit lower before starting to record. I hope this helps!

21:53

Gramsci seems more honest than other Marxists in one respect, he acknowledges that Marxism is a religion. All Marxists act like that, but he is honest enough to accept that.

Interesting

Gramsci is not a relativist, his approach is the (Marxist) philosophy of praxis. As well, the description here of ideology as false consciousness, i.e. interests of the powerful made to seem natural, is fine for garden variety leftism and postmodern deconstruction, but it is not Gramscian, as you can glean from his critique of Bukharin's interpretation of Historical Materialism, which also shows that Gramsci is not a simple historicist either. Insofar as he is Marxist, his approach to dialectical materialism cannot be defined without some reference to historicity, and it is historicity that defines Marxism as a worldview. In addition, you should not conflate contemporary so-called "cultural Marxism" or postmodern leftism with Gramsci because, again, Gramsci is Marxist and left postmodernists are usually not Marxist and this goes especially for intersectionalists, discourse theorists, critical race theorists, Derrideans, Deleuzians, Butlerians, etc. The postmodern version of Gramsci comes out most forcefully in the writings of Ernesto Laclau and Chantal Mouffe, which is, ultimately, democratic or populist.

Did he really supported Russia ro rule Italy? Because he had disagreements with Russian revolutioners.

Lennin is a necessary piece for a survey of Marxism, if nothing else, to explain how post-Marxism develops. Thanks for the videos.

informative

Breakers of the Modern World in actuality ...... but it's important to know and understand how they work in order to best counter their works.

Pretty decent presentation. Not without manipulations, but for an American is ok I guess. "Working counsels" - it is "soviet", thats how USSR's whole political structure was based, the way you present gives the impression that Gramsei had the idea of "working counsels" and then he went to USSR to come back and sell Italy to Russians. While actually the "working counsel" were modeled after "the Soviet", this is what he saw in USSR and wanted to import to Italy, thats a light year from selling Italy to Russians. Its just nonsense. Following this logic the whole mainstream political establishment in EU is selling EU to US, since its heavy influenced by US. If they get a prison time for seing US as a leader for "the fri world" would that be "kind of" understandable as well? Not for me, but I'm a communist what do I know)) You make a lot of emphasis that Gramsei became so influence because he was in prison and seen as a martyr because of that. I would like to get clarification who exactly sees him as a martyr? I always thought he is valued for his ideas and don't know a single communist of that time who wasn't prosecuted, exiled ir imprisoned but I guess somehow Gramsei's imprisonment is something very very special. Again, I'm a communist what do I know? There are few more questionable statements you've made and a lot of things that are debatable, but I'll say it again for an American its a pretty decent presentation.

This is pretty damned shallow.

I would disagree that Marxists do not create good art, at least some Marxist art I've seen isn't bad. It's not the best art, the Catholics take that spot, but some Marxist art is quite good.

Great content! Thanks!

could it be possible that Gramschi had identified that ' capitalism' does lift people out of poverty, that's why he argues more about the identification of 'culture' as the new 'proletariat?'

one of greatest assumption of Antiono Gramshi that cultural nomrs are creates by rulling Bourgiozes ...

another interesting lecture that jumps the shark about the 1:05 mark

Ideas: if covering american marxism, the origins of DSA/Jacobin and SDS, IWW, socialist party, third position, the trotskyist sects, the Maoists, Castroites, stalinists, etc. And george orwell and noam chomsky still have way too many admirers. But do Rawls first please. :) :)

A narrow and distorted view of Gramsci. He read a couple of books about him but his thought went over his head. Nice try!

So the trouble I can’t escape is his relativism. I just don’t get why are the communist say that oppression of the proletariat is bad? If we are just animals, no value whatsoever and there is no measuring stick for right and wrong then why do they say it is bad to oppress others? I mean there are a lot of gaping holes like this in communists (Gramsci’s) teaching like him saying that communism is pretty much elitism and revolution is pretty much is just change of elite but relativism bothers me the most.

As a lifelong leftist, Gramsci is not liked or respected by most leftists. He’s also not widely read. He was an interesting person but his work is just not taken seriously and his impact is mostly overstated.

It is interesting that Gramsci comes out of the Italian Socialist Party and goes in the direction of communist revolution to make socialism a reality, while literally at the same time Mussolini comes out of the Italian Socialist Party and goes in the direction of fascist revolution to make socialism a reality.

He was crooked in soul and body.