This article must adhere to the biographies of living persons (BLP) policy, even if it is not a biography, because it contains material about living persons. Contentious material about living persons that is unsourced or poorly sourcedmust be removed immediately from the article and its talk page, especially if potentially libellous. If such material is repeatedly inserted, or if you have other concerns, please report the issue to this noticeboard.If you are a subject of this article, or acting on behalf of one, and you need help, please see this help page.
This redirect does not require a rating on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:
This redirect is within the scope of WikiProject Biography, a collaborative effort to create, develop and organize Wikipedia's articles about people. All interested editors are invited to join the project and contribute to the discussion. For instructions on how to use this banner, please refer to the documentation.BiographyWikipedia:WikiProject BiographyTemplate:WikiProject Biographybiography articles
This redirect is within the scope of WikiProject Anarchism, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of anarchism on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.AnarchismWikipedia:WikiProject AnarchismTemplate:WikiProject Anarchismanarchism articles
This redirect is within the scope of WikiProject Philosophy, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of content related to philosophy on Wikipedia. If you would like to support the project, please visit the project page, where you can get more details on how you can help, and where you can join the general discussion about philosophy content on Wikipedia.PhilosophyWikipedia:WikiProject PhilosophyTemplate:WikiProject PhilosophyPhilosophy articles
This redirect is within the scope of WikiProject Sociology, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of sociology on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.SociologyWikipedia:WikiProject SociologyTemplate:WikiProject Sociologysociology articles
This redirect is within the scope of WikiProject Canada, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Canada on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.CanadaWikipedia:WikiProject CanadaTemplate:WikiProject CanadaCanada-related articles
I'm practically embarrassed to say that I simply edited this article to add proper italics, given how interesting Day's Gramsci is Dead is. (This was my first Wikipedia edit ever, so I wasn't that adventurous.) Does anyone know what became of the 'forthcoming' Affinities? Am I right in guessing that became Gramsci is Dead?Oxygen Smith14:45, 16 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
As far as I know it was not yet released. I do know that he has released at least one follow-up journal article that deals with the themes found in Gramsci is Dead. Duanarchy05:17, 24 March 2007 (UTC)duanarchy[reply]
I do personally know Day, so I will ask him about these things as soon as possible, but I think that Affinites became Gramsci is Dead as well. This article does need to be worked on some more though. I'll get on it soon. 195.221.241.13012:37, 30 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The publishers coerced him into changing the name from Affinities to GID --however he has publicly stated that he invented GID as lark to try and get them to stop bugging him-- and they thought it was great. Now this is the RD version. I would suggest that the name was shrewdly chosen in order to provoke Marxists to read the book out a desire to knock-down Day for attacking Gramsci (meanwhile the truth is Gramsci is one of Day's favorites--it is how he uses Gramsci against authoritarian Marxism). So that strategy has a two-fold benefit: 1) Marxists buy books. 2) They are also perhaps exposed to some ideas they are currently ignoring? Whose shrewd idea, Day's or the publishers? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 130.15.94.143 (talk) 18:37, 2 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The comment(s) below were originally left at Talk:Richard J. F. Day/Comments, and are posted here for posterity. Following several discussions in past years, these subpages are now deprecated. The comments may be irrelevant or outdated; if so, please feel free to remove this section.
I rated this a "B" because it is useful for readers who are interested in an overall, sort-of, biography of Richard Day. But at the same time I'd like to see some of the main points from his overall theory posted here. In particular, regarding his definition of the "newest" social movements, as well as his genealogical method for understanding the rootedness of "hegemony" in Marxist discourse. Duanarchy05:23, 24 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
