My first article was written by John Fonte, who's an author and spokesperson, often taking on more conservative approaches to his works. This article was published December 1st of 2020. I found this article through the Hoover Institution. 

This article primarily aimed to deconstruct Gramsci and Tocqueville's philosophy and how it partakes to modern-day US. It does take a more conservative point of view, which is very interesting when you think about the juxtaposition. Gramsci, or Marxism, in itself is viewed, at least contemporarily, as a very progressive and left-wing movement, yet here it is almost embraced with a conservative spin on it. I've grown to adopt more progressive viewpoints, and did catch myself debating back and forth with the article as I read, but I think more times than not, I found myself agreeing with Fonte's claims. Fonte didn't seem to make an argument against Gramsci or his Marxist ideas, but rather focuses more on the "cultural revolts" we're experiencing in our society and how they don't follow the suggestions made by Gramsci. He explains that the liberal adoption made by grand institutes, such as media companies, corporations, and universities, just feeds into this Hegemonic cycle. Even if one thinks that a revolution is occurring through culture, the base and the superstructures remain the same, hence reinforcing this oppression of capitalism. The group in power (the bourgeoisie, those who own capital) remain in power, and the subordinate groups (the proletariat, those who work for capital) remain exploited. The only difference is the cultural lens in which Hegemony was implemented has changed to one more socially acceptable, reinventing this unbeknownst consent by the oppressed groups.

That was all in the first section of the article, in the chapters Refining Class Warfare, Gramsci's Long Reach, and Hegel Among the CEO's. In the next section, specifically in the chapters The Tocquevillian Counterattack and Tocquevillian as Praxis, Fonte takes on a different approach. The Tocquevillian ideology stems from the 19th century French philosopher, Alexis de Tocqueville. He ultimately believed that the US was completely different from any other developed nation (specifically European ones) due to five crucial points: liberty, egalitarianism, individualism, populism, and laissez-faire. Fonte expands on this, saying that it alls derives from what we know as American exceptionalism. He describes this exceptionalism as a mix of patriotism, religiosity, and dynamism which fuels this entrepreneurial and individualistic energy. People who take on this Tocquevillian approach in their business or lives fight back against the collectivist core of Gramscism, and view their sets of beliefs and values to be independent from influence and rather a liberal choice made by their consciousness. Other examples of forms of resistance to Gramscian thought were given, but Fonte makes that point that only Tocquevillian methods would have a chance to stand resistant to the Gramscian movement. He connects to modern-day politics how Tocquevillian methods have become more commonplace in many states today, from the "charitable choice" made by Congress in 1996, which prevented state institutions receiving federal funds from discriminating on religious organizations, and the Faithworks Indiana project, which assists faith-based institutions with networking.

One simple way of  understanding the difference between Gramscism and Tocquevillism is that "Tocquevillians believe that there are objective moral truths applicable to all people at all times" and "Gramscians believe that moral 'truths' are subjective and depend upon historical circumstances." With these definitions of morality, you can see how the two diverge. Tocquevillians believe in one set of moral truths, a set that transcends time and should be the root to all structural bases. Gramscians definition of morality gives it that flexibility to be manipulated and morphed to either be a tool for control by the bourgeoisie, or a weapon by the proletariat. The Tocquevillians believe in personal responsibility (individualism), while Gramscians believe that everything, even the personal things, are political (hence you have no self-control). Lastly, Fonte makes the point that Tocquevillians believe in the Transmission of American exceptionalism, while Gramscians believe in the Transformation of the entire structure. His main takeaway is that this exceptionalism, this part of the US that is brought forth through Tocquevillian methods, could one day come to an end and bring forth a new era of Gramscian methods. Once this happens, the US will become Europeanized, in the sense that it will go through a transformation towards a post-patriotic, statist, secular state.

 The article and its components are relevant to my study of research because it not only presents Gramsism in different political lens than the usual, but also takes it to the next level and applies it to modern issues. It was interesting and helped spark a few new ideas for my midterm SDA. At first, I was thinking of maybe pointing out some contradiction to Gramsci's ideology, but the issue with that is that all philosophic and idealistic writings are confusing and often contradict themselves. Therefore, to state out something predictable didn't really inspire me much. This article gave me the idea of perhaps connecting modern progressivism and Gramscism. With new concepts such as CRT and the Green New Deal being labeled as Marxist, it's interesting how Fonte tackles similar issues like this to disprove how they don't truly follow the doctrine of Marxism, or even Gramscism. 

New key terms:

• Tocquevillian

My research question has now become "In what ways could Gramsci and his philosophy have been implemented in US American history?" The main purpose of this book is to provide an in-depth analysis on Gramsci, and how it relates to the real world. The book I'm using right now is Using Gramsci, written by Michele Filippini. Michele Filippini is a researcher at the University of Bologna, under the Department of Political and Social Sciences. He's the Associate Professor in the History of Political Thought and specializes in his research in Marxism and Post-Marxism.

Unlike the prior article, this one concerns much more with Gramsci. The article written by Fonte had much to do with the current political climate of the US, and how it could relate to Gramsci and Tocqueville. However, Filippini's book dives much more into Gramsci and his philosophy. The reason why I chose to go with something more specified for Gramsci is that I've recognized that in order for me to be able to complete this coming Midterm, I need a better understanding of Gramsci with more US American characteristics. Things involving individualism, collectivism, industrialism, and other sorts that can relate to the US, I lack depth in Gramsci. My goal with this coming SDA is to be able to take a time in US history and almost be able to imagine Gramsci's world. With the mind of Gramsci, how would he have approached the problems and injustice faced by US citizens at the time? While Using Gramsci does offer a lot of new insight into Gramsci and his thoughts, it doesn't directly relay this information back into the US. That part will have to be done by me for this SDA.

The book doesn't directly deal with my problem at hand, but it gives external support. Because it doesn't have much to do with my problem, it doesn't provide any solution either. It does, however, provide Gramsci's thought process for various different situations, which helps a lot on my part. There is a chapter on the individual, on collectivism, and on the relationship between that collective group and the state. It's complex enough to be able to apply it in multiple different scenarios, but not too complex that it's beyond comprehension.

To find this book, I used JSTOR, which is my personal favorite database to use, and used the keywords "Gramsci USA".

My solution will probably end up being something very complicated. There are many different things that will have to be taken into account for this project. I'm thinking that, in order to both formulate a solution and provide it in a digestible form, I'm going to take it step-by-step. I'll first examine the "individuality" aspect of Gramsci, and then provide ways in which it could've been applied in US history, specifically during the industrial revolution. I'll do the same for collectivism, and for the relationship between the collective group and the state.

For this journal assignment, I don't have one singular article, but rather multiple. They each deal with the individuals and groups of interest for my first half of the midterm, and their date of publishing ranges from the early 1900s to the 2000s. Apart from giving the general biography of the individuals, the articles also provide a deep-dive into their tactics and how some of their ideas/methods were counterintuitive to Marxism. The latter part will help a lot with my project because it provides me that starting point of what I would change with their tactics when applying Gramscian methods. I picked out the individuals based on both their influence in US American activism work concerning the interests of the oppressed, whether it be due to race, gender, or economic class. This first half of the midterm would primarily cover individual action over collective action. I intentionally chose to do this because in the US, there is a huge sentiment for individualism. No one necessarily thinks collectively, even Marxian activists due to outside influence of culture (connects back to Gramsci's hegemony). I'll speak of organizations and/or groups each individual has associated themselves with, but I'll approach it in a way that will analyze the effects that the individual had on the groups goals/outcomes, and not the other way around. We like to place a label on people, such as democrat, republican, socialist, capitalist, etc., which causes us to miss a lot of what they truly believe. Someone can be a self-declared Marxist, but when one takes the time to sit down and analyze their work, they come to realize all the disagreements and differences between the work presented and the words of Marx. The same goes with Gramsci. I have to keep in mind as I read these articles that when they compare and contrast the individual's beliefs to those of Marx, it doesn't directly translate to a compare and contrast between that individual and Gramsci. For that step to happen, I'll have to apply my own critical analysis, which will be conveyed in the second half of the midterm.

Through some discussions on my project, I came to the conclusion that, in order to make my topic of research relevant to my audience, I must somehow connect it back to the United States. This is where the idea for my midterm arose. And no matter how far back in the past we go, I'm of the belief that anything (within a reasonable & realistic boundary) can always be relevant to society today. In analyzing the social activism of the 19th and 20th century, we can apply what we learned in the activism we choose to participate in today. We can draw out what worked, what didn't work, and what we could change to prove it to be more effective. Activism is all about trial and error. There is no one solution to facing political, economical, and social injustices. Perhaps a Gramscian method is what can help build those foundational structures to an almost foolproof plan for activism.

Some new terms:

• Lassalleans: those who pursued a socialist nation through the state