Talk:Long march through the institutions

Remove Gramsci

I would suggest removing the phrase stating that Gramsci influenced Dutschke. In his biography, it says that he first used the term "long march through the institutions" in or shortly after June 1967 (p177, Wir hatten ein barbarisches). The first German translation of Gramsci's Prison Notebooks came in January 1967. However, in his published diaries (Jeder hat sein Leben ganz zu leben. Die Tagebücher 1963–1979), he makes no mention of Gramsci before this period of June 1967 when he supposedly first used the term (I didn't check afterwards). The diaries do make clear that he did not speak Italian so he could not have read the Italian publications.

I checked three other publications by him: Mein langer Marsch (a sort of collage with different interviews, newspaper articles, etc. a lot of which from 1967), Die Sowjetunion, Solschenizyn und die westliche Linke, and Versuch, Lenin auf die Füße zu stellen. Only the last one, which is from 1974, mentions Gramsci in passing, not in relation to the long march. All in all, it seems very unlikely that Dutschke did know of Gramsci's ideas at the time he coined the phrase and the only source who claims that he did, did not, as far as I know, actually know Rudi Dutschke, which begs the question of what he bases himself on.

Instead I would propose the following first sentence: "Ernst Bloch has been identified as an influence on Dutschke's thinking."

Tomvasseur (talk) 19:28, 25 June 2021 (UTC)

Outcome?

The "Outcome" section says:

As a result of the conditions after the Second World War, including the baby boom, the Cold War and the sexual revolution, a counter culture developed in the 1960s which culminated in the protests of 1968. That young generation then became established in the institutions of society which then reflected their views but, in western societies, this did not immediately result in full-scale revolution.

I think this is a jumbled account of history, but not exactly an "outcome" of Dutschke's idea. The conclusion that, "in western societies, this did not immediately result in full-scale revolution". I would say student activism did not lead to full-scale revolution at all, anywhere. The text cites Suri, but the only mention of the "long march" in his article is: "The international counterculture was, in fact, complicit in many of the elements of society that it criticized. It was not a call for revolution, despite its rhetoric, as much as it was a movement for rapid and personal reform within existing social and political structures. This is what Rudi Dutschke meant by his famous dictum about the 'long march of the institutions'" (p 48). I think Suri is wrong. Those are two different approaches. In any case, Suri's comment does not support the text quoted above.

The problem with assessing Dutschke's idea is that it's advising people to do what they would do anyway. The student activists were always going to leave university and get a job and eventually get a promotion. Was their consciousness intact? Who knows? Some of their causes were more or less successful, and some of this was due to the activists, no doubt. The sexual revolution, now with same-sex marriage. Feminism. Removal of censorship. Environmentalism. Peace — far less people are dying in war these days. But at the same time, capitalism is more rampant than ever, it has devoured its Communist adversary, thrown of the chains of regulation and nationalisation. Recreational drugs are still illegal (if it matters). It is hard to assess what the outcome of Dutschke's idea was. There is no way of knowing how many followed it. There is no way of working out what the consequences were. But it would be interesting to see any analysis. However, what we have is no analysis of the "outcome" at all, so I am removing it.--Jack Upland (talk) 09:05, 17 December 2018 (UTC)

Artwork?

What is the relevance of the artwork shown at the top of the article? It ought to have a caption. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 94.18.233.71 (talk) 19:18, 29 August 2020 (UTC)

Original source/context for Dutschke's idea

The original source or context for Dutschke's idea is oddly missing from the article. It only mentions vaguely in the lead that he coined it "around 1967". Well, where and how did he coin it - in his writings or is the idea only known by word of mouth? Surely there must be some context in which the phrase became popularized? As it is, the article only quotes Marcuse talking about the phrase - but not the man who actually coined it! That is a strange omission. 185.224.57.161 (talk) 11:53, 14 September 2021 (UTC)

According to the German Wikipedia page for the phrase, it originated in this book: [Briefe an Rudi D.] - however I couldn't find it there. There is also a header on the German page for the phrase, it reads: "This article or the following section is not adequately provided with supporting documents (e.g. individual evidence)"... and even the quote its self has clarifying text after it saying it's actually from Ulrike Marie Meinhof, in a foreword about Dutschke. So it's on pretty shaky grounds in my opinion. --194.193.147.6 (talk)

Found a source on the Rudi Dutschke wiki page, have edited the page accordingly. https://web.archive.org/web/20081111192512/http://www.baader-meinhof.com/essays/SatyaEssay.html --203.221.166.218 (talk) 05:07, 29 November 2021 (UTC)

Yes, this essay by Richard Huffman, published in March 2004... I'm not sure that is enough, though... Laurier (talk) 05:20, 1 May 2023 (UTC)