Talk:Passive revolution

Original research
This article goes to some lengths to convince the reader that modern Islamists are attempting to carry out 'Passive Revolution', but I don't see any references in the article that explicitly connect Islam or Islamism with Gramsci's concept of Passive Revolution. If no such references can be found, the entire section should be considered original research and removed. Robofish (talk) 17:02, 2 May 2010 (UTC)


 * I agree completely, and have accordingly removed the entire "Modern Interpretations and Implementations" section. Unless reliable sources can be found which connect Islamism with Gramsci, it is original research to do so here. —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 06:11, 4 May 2010 (UTC)

Capitalization
Is there a reason why this article is at Passive Revolution instead of Passive revolution? Naming conventions (capitalization) says that unless the article title is a proper noun, the second word should be lowercase. But this article's creator moved it from the standard Passive revolution to the non-standard Passive Revolution. Was there a reason? If not, it should be moved back. —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 08:54, 4 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Done. - Dravecky (talk) 21:27, 7 May 2010 (UTC)

Gramsci and his "support" for Passive Revolution
Reading this article I'm getting the impression that Gramsci advocated Passive Revolution- this is something that has no foundation in what he wrote. He saw passive revolution as a means to analyze historical changes, not for the application of Communism. I've read in other interpretations and treatments of Gramsci that he didn't see Passive Revolution as a means for the proletariat to advance their goals.

It seems to me the author(s) are confusing his emphasis on affecting change on hegemony (war of position) and seeing that tied to Passive Revolution. This isn't the case. --MercZ (talk) 00:50, 26 January 2011 (UTC)

Agreed. This page is extremely inaccurate. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.45.144.80 (talk) 02:19, 17 May 2011 (UTC)

I've waited to see if this page improved- it has not done much in that direction. I've removed the education, media, and Machiavelli sections as they are a total mess and filled with inaccurate and possibly original research on the concept of "Passive Revolution". Passive revolution was posited by Gramsci first and foremost as an explanation as to why countries with "capitalist" societies adapted and were able to make concessions without their authority collapsing, not an insidious back-door power grab the article makes it out to be. --MercZ (talk) 04:15, 18 July 2011 (UTC)

I agree this is an inaccurate article. When Gramsci spoke of "Passive revolution" it was in relation to the Italian Risorgimento, the rise of American-style capitalism in the early 20th century, Fascism and the rise of the interventionist welfare-state. It was essentially an attempt to explain how a new form of capitalism had superseded that which existed in the time of Karl Marx. There are a lot of bizarre third-hand interpretations of Gramsci out there from right-wingers who a) think he was an associate of the Frankfurt School, b) conflate the tactics of Gramsci with those of the KGB Hanshans23 (talk) 18:36, 31 May 2012 (UTC)

"Passive" means top-down change
...meaning that the changes were not achieved by the governed classes... Janosabel (talk) 17:56, 20 December 2022 (UTC)