Cultural hegemony Puns

One of the prominent non-leftist criticism of laissez faire capitalism I've heard from third-positionists, distributists, paleo-conservatives or any non-libertarian right wingers is that capitalism is enabling the left-wing within the private sector and academic institutions. there is some merit to the claim since almost all the upper crust at your average company graduated from universities that are dominated by post-modern cultural leftists who indoctrinated them. what is the libertarian rebuttal to this claim and what is your strategy against cultural Marxism in the private sector?

Idealize example

Big Country

For instance, say an NYC artist makes a comic book about superheroes. Maybe, the reason this artist made it was because it reflected the local conditions of the city. Like, say, the rising crime in NYC. Hence the need to write about superheroes..etc. Say it's a very urban environment.

Smaller Country

However, the smaller country that might "adopt" this culture has completely different values, history, and culture. Where a "superhero story" might not make much sense. What would make sense is a story about maybe cleaning the ocean.

However, it seems that smaller countries do not "assert" their values. Instead, their citizens seem to embrace whichever "hegemonic" culture is en vogue. It seems strange that a government with a different set of local issues will adopt the culture of a large or wealthier territory which a different culture, values, and background.

I have noticed that this phenomenon creates a sense of inferiority where the "hegemonic culture" is cool or appealing while the local culture is deemed "uncool" or 'backward.'

I have started reading the Prison Notebooks, but given their age, have a hard time reconciling them with the current problems in culture and politics. What contemporary writers and books closely follow Gramsci's thinking? Do any have ideas on how to establish a "countercultural hegemony"?

Looking for secondary literature on Gramsci. I’m probably too much of a noob to read his first hand prison notebooks. I’m fascinated / obsessed with his idea of Cultural Hegemony. Anything about that (and how it is applicable to 21st century would be great) thank you

That might seem like a huge stretch at first, but hear me out. So Gramsci’s concept of Cultural Hegemony is this: “the domination of a culturally diverse society by the ruling class which manipulates the culture of that society—the beliefs and explanations, perceptions, values, and mores—so that the imposed, ruling-class worldview becomes the accepted cultural norm; the universally valid dominant ideology, which justifies the social, political, and economic status quo as natural and inevitable, perpetual and beneficial for every social class, rather than as artificial social constructs that benefit only the ruling class.” (Thank you Wikipedia)

I was wondering where our moral system came from, at least in America. Even though most people aren’t into ethics and couldn’t really identify a system for themselves without a direct education, they do still operate by some morality. Conservatives will say we get our morals from religion, and that that is why religion is so important. But that’s not true because even they don’t abide by their religious values. Jesus was basically a proto-socialist who condemned profiteering at every opportunity and the Bible is filled with stories of political dissidents who opposed the rule of oppressive kings. Yet, the institution of the Church has always taken the side of power, and one look at modern-day Christianity just shows how much hypocrisy there is. So, I don’t know where else we must get our morals from except from the state/ruling classes. The entire point of cultural hegemony is for the people to see the world in the same way as the ruling class, so it would make sense that we get our morality from them too—unwillingly, or unconsciously. What do you think? Even the way that the message of Jesus’s radicalism has been distorted for their benefit is kind of evidence for this no?

If you're not a zoomer, you probably remember the 2000s. Back when Netflix sent DVDs in the mail, streaming services didn't exist, and we watched TV with ads.

One TV ad campaign that many of the straight male (and gay female) audience here may remember were the GoDaddy ads. If you don't, basically some coked-up marketing white guy saw fit to advertise website domain name registration with BOOBA. Hey, it was the 2000s, sex sells and controversy gets people talking. No one actually cared about domain name registration so you had to do something wacky, and that's what they did.

Fast-forward to 2021. This is their new ad, which came up when I watched youtube via Chromecast (it bypasses adblockers, don't get me started on that). No more of the casual misogyny or toxic masculinity, no that's passé and could get them cancelled. Still barely a mention of what GoDaddy's actual business is, cuz that's boring. So what did the coked-up marketing trans WOC come up with in Current Year?

Millennials good! Boomers bad! Vague notion of Progress^(TM) good! Look at all these diverse people! One of them looks like you right? Ok go buy product!

Never believe a liberal when they say they aren't the dominant culture in modern-day America.

Tell me I’m wrong. American hegemony, especially in it current form has being a absolute cancer on the globe. Why would anyone, especially if your a “right wing” American want to defend this shit? What’s there to be “patriotic” about contemporary America anymore? It’s completely pozzed and degenerate.

Can’t wait for the day red middle America start actively hating their own country and loose all that useful idiot “patriotism“ they had for a system/society which hates their mere existence and wants them replaced.

The system only uses right wing Americans patriotism maliciously like for drumming up support for globalist foreign policy agendas and wars under the guise of “merica, freedom woohoo! we are number one! 🇺🇸” when it’s fuck all to do with that.

Republicans losing faith in military and in the idea that America are the “good guys” is the day I can’t wait for. The faster republicans turn against their own country (the only people who still really “believe” in America) the better. A collapse in American hegemony accelerates.

Derek Chauvin guilty of all counts because regardless of truth it was less profitable in this case to protect the institutions of state violence against the proletariat.

I firmly believe he is guilty of all counts also.

I just think the threat of dissidents is what forced the hand of the oligarchy to deliver this verdict.

Otherwise it would have ended like every other trial of a police officer: without justice.

I was just thinking how globalization (and or capitalism) has turned certain nations into the ruling nations (replace with ruling class), and how these nations and their world view through media (and social media) and education institution dominance has pretty much taken over political discourse in the English speaking populace across the world. I have seen lots of Nepali people in this sub use/promote/espouse political and societal opinions/viewpoint of certain groups in the Angloshperic world. For example, I once remember a guy/girl say something like abortion should be illegal. Another time I saw someone passionately defend AOC. Also a lot of right-wing/left-wing framed discussions. A lot of which I don't think have practical implications on our non-English speaking populace. For example, I have never once seen a political leader in India or Nepal call themselves "दक्षिणपंथी". And politics hardly ever revolves around दक्षिणपंथी vs वामपंथी in contemporary regional language media. But once coverage starts in English or when stuff about politics is written in English the framing is always left vs right (particularly India). And this framing of left vs right gives us a very Anglospheric interpretation of the political events. A recent example is the divergence of media portrayal of what happened in France. Where Anglospheric media focused more on the further stigmatizing of Muslims, the French media focused more on the killing and defending of its "Universal Republican Model". Like the worldwide coverage is read mostly (almost exclusively) in English, so our views of it are mostly shaped by the coverage it gets in that Anglospheric media and then on whatever they have put the focus on.

Another example is how Socialism has started being very popular in Angloshperic Countries, which through its domination of media (in this case certain social media platforms) has projected its world view to the rest of us, and that has led to constant "capitalism/socialism" debate even here in this sub. While this has not happened to the non-English speaking or non-English media-consuming populace. Like those terms don't necessarily mean anything here. I guess "पूंजीवाद" bad is somewhat entrenched in most Nepali people's minds. समाजवाद as a term means progress is also already entrenched.

With the rise of China and India and the potential decline of the US soft power will this Cultural Hegemony of the Anglospheric countries still continue? Is there a cultural hegemony, or

See the title.

Gramsci's concept is important to me. I've previously asked whether either was aware of the other's existence, and was told no. In defining them now I'm struggling to distinguish the two. The biggest difference I can come up with is that Gramsci was more pessimistic about the potential of overthrowing the bourgeoisie given this, while Adorno et. al. believed that this very device, while responsible for fascism, would be part of their downfall. Can anybody help? Thank you