Literature Review Gramsci

This article was downloaded by: [Universitaetsbibliothek Kassel] On: 02 November 2011, At: 05:57 Publisher: Routledge Informa
Ltd Registered in England and Wales Registered Number: 1072954 Registered office: Mortimer House, 37-41 Mortimer Street, London W1T 3JH, UK
Economy and Society

Publication details, including instructions for authors and subscription information: http://www.tandfonline.com/loi/reso20
Gramsci in France and Italy-a review of the literature

Chantal Mouffe & Anne Showstack Sassoon Available online: 28 Jul 2006
To cite this article: Chantal Mouffe & Anne Showstack Sassoon (1977): Gramsci in France and Italy-a review of the literature, Economy and Society, 6:1, 31-68 To link to this article: http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/03085147700000015
PLEASE SCROLL DOWN FOR ARTICLE Full terms and conditions of use: http://www.tandfonline.com/page/terms-and-conditions This article may be used for research, teaching, and private study purposes. Any substantial or systematic reproduction, redistribution, reselling, loan, sub-licensing, systematic supply, or distribution in any form to anyone is expressly forbidden. The publisher does not give any warranty express or implied or make any representation that the contents will be complete or accurate or up to date. The accuracy of any instructions, formulae, and drug doses should be independently verified with primary sources. The publisher shall not be liable for any loss, actions, claims, proceedings, demand, or costs or damages whatsoever or howsoever caused arising directly or indirectly in connection with or arising out of the use of this material.
Gramsci in France and Italy - a review of the literature

Chantal Mouffe and Anne Showstack Sassoon Introduction Recently interest in Antonio Gramsci's work has begun to develop in England and the United States, and has been reflected in a number of works in English. Nevertheless most of this literature is intended as introductory and has had t o take account of the relative ignorance of Gramsci's writings in the Anglo-Saxon world. There are various objective reasons for the elementary level of the discussion in English. Gramsci is still relatively unknown, and only part of his work has been translated into English.' The genuinely complex nature of Gramsci's thought and the form of his work in prison, where a single fragment usually contains several intertwined concepts, requires a special kind of effort t o establish Gramsci's fundamental problematic. Often the attempt to summarize and to simplify is misleading. The fragmentary nature of Gramsci's prison writings lends itself to an eclectic use of some of his ideas in works whose positions are at variance with major aspects of his thought. Gramsci's earlier works, written both at a different stage in his development and, very importantly, at moments when the objective situation was very different, are not easily integrated with the Notebooks. These objective difficulties are all the more difficult to overcome given the limitations of the English literature which is a certain naivety vis-a-visthe theoretical problems posed by Gramsci's work, probably caused to a large extent because the literature concerned on the whole ignores recent theoretical discussion within Marxism. This theoretical weakness is reflected in the tendency in many quarters t o misunderstand the way in which Gramsci related politics t o consent and ideology and the nature of the relationship he suggested between the economic base and the ~ u ~ e r s t r u c t u r e . ~ offshoot is the interpretation of Gramsci as One counterposed t o a Lenin who is implicitly reduced to the argument that the whole of political reality is dictatorship and t o a Marx whose whole reality is e c o n ~ m i c . ~ fact that Gramsci is The above all concerned with the superstructures has often led t o the
Downloaded by [Universitaetsbibliothek Kassel] at 05:57 02 November 2011
32
Chantal Mouffe and Anne Showstack Sassoon
attempt t o assimilate him into a Lukicsian or generally neoHegelian p r ~ b l e m a t i c .Moreover, much of the English literature ~ attempts impossible tasks in very short articles, pretending t o come t o firm conclusions without demonstrating any awareness of the complexities of the problems i n ~ o l v e d . ~ On the whole, the political dimension of Gramsci's work has not been fully appreciated. The relationship between his concrete experience as a political activist and the concrete problems he was facing t o the theoretical task he undertook, has generally been misunderstood in the English literature. Gramsci's debate against much of the Italian socialist tradition, as well as against Bordiga's positions, is intimately related to the theoretical problems he posed.6 Furthermore, he was part of an international movement which was discussing similar problems. Reflecting the relative backwardness of studies on the debates about Marxism in the Third International, and overemphasizing Gramsci's intellectual isolation in prison, Gramsci's work is taken completely out of its theoretical and temporal context. The vivacity of the political and theoretical debate about the building of socialism in Russia, which was not restricted t o an examination of economic policies, the widespread nature of the discussion in the international communist movement about the different conditions in Western Europe as well as the debate, particularly in Russia, Germany and Austria, about questions of Marxist philosophy, has remained highly obscured or ignored a l t ~ g e t h e r . ~ These areas and the various theoretical questions which are involved, or which have been posed more recently, must be considered when posing the question of Grarnsci's originality and his theoretical contribution. Many of these aspects have begun to be considered in France and Italy, so that t o a large extent the work produced in these countries provides the basis for overcoming many of the weaknesses in the study of Gramsci in the AngloSaxon world. It is therefore urgent that students of Gramsci become familiar with this literature in order not t o repeat a phase of Gramscian studies that has already been superseded. An awareness of the different stages through which the interpretation of Gramsci has developed, and of the current level of theoretical discussion, is the necessary condition for any advance in Gramscian studies in English.
From a political debate to Gramsci as the theorist of the political
Gramsci in the Italian context. In Italy, Gramsci's writings were politically instrumentalized after the war by all sides, and any
Gramsci in France and Italy
33
attempts at a scientific reading were singularly lacking until quite recently. Discussion about Gramsci was embedded in current political debates, in which Gramsci's ideas were used t o justify a variety of political positions. Until the late 1960s consideration of Gramsci was limited t o an Italian context by Communist and non-Communist writers alike, and the relation of his political and theoretical work to the international movement was not investigated.' Togliatti's post-war interpretation of Gramsci, as the continuation of the progressive tendencies in Italian thought from Vico, was very much a reflection of the more general political strategy of the Italian Communist Party ( P C I )flowing from the resistance. The limitation of the discussion of Gramsci in terms of the Italian national heritage was part of the attempt t o portray the Italian working-class movement and its political representatives as the rightful heirs to the Risorgimento, as a new hegemonic national force which could strive to become the fundamental factor in rebuilding Italy on the basis of a wide-ranging alliance of anti-fascist forces. Togliatti therefore presented Gramsci as a cultural figure, a leading martyr t o fascism, who 'belonged' not just t o the working class and the P C I but to all those classes and groups interested in the building of a 'new democracy'. The predominant reading of Grarnsci was ironically more a politically instrumental one in the period when his contribution as a political leader and a political theorist was eclipsed by the cultural and historical aspects of his works, his investigation of the Italian intellectual tradition, and his interpretation of the Risorgimento. Gramsci was one of the elements used by the P C I t o integrate progressive aspects of the national tradition with Marxist-Leninist theory in a set of symbols which would be the ideological cement in a new 'historical bloc'.9 In the debate which took place, the question of Gramsci's place within the Marxist tradition and any possible contribution he might have made t o it were reduced t o a discussion of his orthodoxy. He was either presented as a national figure who had simply translated Leninism into 1talian,l0 or, by those who opposed the P C I interpretation, as an 'unorthodox' thinker who was an alternative t o Leninism and Stalinism, or even t o Marxism." The question of his originality in terms of a development of Marxism was not posed, and not until after 1956 was any serious analysis of Gramsci's work undertaken. Until quite recently the debate revolved around the existence or not of a continuity between Gramsci's work and P C I post-war strategy, with both left and right oppositions to the P C I each sharing two positions. The first position was to accept a continuity as presented by the P C I and t o reject Gramsci either from the
34
left, which considered this reformist or 'centrist' or from the right, which considered it Stalinist and anti-democratic.12 The second position was t o claim Gramsci as being contradictory t o the P C I and therefore either more revolutionary or more social-democratic, maintaining that there was a break between Gramsci's ideas and contemporary P C I practice.13 This, of course, was a reaction to the way Togliatti had presented himself and the P C I as the direct heirs t o Gramsci. Once again the discussion went on without either side posing the question in its proper theoretical terms. It was thought possible t o make summary assumptions about the lessons which Gramsci had t o teach, and t o be able t o apply them directly t o the present without first establishing Gramsci's theoretical problematic and then deciding critically in what terms this problematic could be used to analyse the present. Only then could the problem of the existence of a continuity be addressed properly. A similar controversy took place around the periodization of Gramsci's work and the question of whether there was a break within it. In the middle of the 1950s Gramsci's earlier writings became available.14 Written during and after the First World War, the characteristic themes of these writings included the need for a cultural renewal, control of the work place, and new forms of organization of the masses (the factory councils), so that the role of the party appeared eclipsed. A central aspect of the debate had t o d o with Gramsci's ideas on the factory councils and how these related t o the concept of the party. In the 1919-1920 period, Gramsci was concerned above all t o translate the Soviet experience into Italian reality and t o find new institutions which would provide the organizational framework within which, as he later wrote, the spontaneity of the mass movement could be 'educated'. These new institutions were the factory councils, which were t o have a certain autonomy alongside the traditional working-class organizations, the trade unions, the co-operatives, and the Socialist Party, and were t o serve as the germs of a new way of organizing not only production but society as a whole. By emphasizing the early writings it was argued that Any Gramsci was a theorist of workers' control or a syndicali~t.'~ such attempt was met by an answer from the P C I based on the assumption that a Leninist concept of the party was always implicit in Gramsci from the very earliest writings.16 Another position was t o consider primarily the Notebooks, in which certain other themes emerged in a very different form, and t o ignore Gramsci's earlier life as a political activist and as a leader of the P C I . The effect was t o portray Gramsci as belonging more t o a socialist or social democratic position than t o a Leninist or communist one.''
Grarnsci in France and Italy
35
Thus the important question of the elements of continuity and change in Gramsci's own work, as well as that of a comparison with L.enin in terms of their respective problcmatics, was not correctly posed. The P C I presented Gramsci's ideas as a more or less homogeneous whole, the Italian reflection of Lenin, who was above all else interested in cultural and historical questions, while the various oppositions t o the P C I either accepted this analysis and therefore rejected Gramsci or prcscntcd partial and, to a largc extent, dogmatic arguments about Gramsci's significance.
Gramsci and the Communist tradition. A qualitatively different phase in the study of Gramsci began with an intervention by Togliatti in 1958. In the aftermath of the 'de-Stalinization' of 1956, there had been various attempts on the Left t o emphasize the distance between Gramsci and Lenin, attempts which were part of moves t o reject the communist tradition entirely. Paradoxical as it may seem, after having portrayed Gramsci as a national figure in the immediate post-war period, Togliatti for the first time now asserted that the most important influence on Gramsci was Leninism and the example of the Russian Revolution. In this way Togliatti presented Gramsci's thought as a rupture with the Italian socialist tradition. It is Togliatti's explanation of this influence which provided the key t o a new reading of Gramsci as the theorist of the political. When Togliatti argues that Gramsci's writings must be read as a theoretical reflection on his concrete experience as a political leader, he presents Gramsci as the theorist of the transition to socialism in a precise historical moment - in the period of imperialism, which provides the international context of the cbjective basis for a transformation of society, and in the period following the experience of Lenin and the Russian Revolution which, Togliatti says, transformed the way reality was understood and which demonstrated the national specificity of the modes and forms of a political transformation. Understood in terms of the potential of political intervention within the possibilities and limits posed by the concrete situation, in its international and national aspects, it is Gramsci's conception of the revolutionary process which is his great originality and which demonstrates the influence of Lenin upon him. In Togliatti's reading, the essential interrelated features of this influence are the understanding of imperialism as providing crucial determinants of the revolutionary conjuncture, the need for a precise notion of the State, and the concept of the revolutionary party. These aspects are all connected in Gramsci's development of a notion of the revolutionary process which is not divided into 'pre-revolutionary' and 'post-
36
revolutionary' periods in which the revolution itself is presented as a single dramatic event, but as a process of transition in which the building of socialism begins within the capitalist social formation and continues after a change in State power. The significance of Togliatti's discussion derives from the way in which he changed the whole perspective and approach t o Gramsci, who is for the first time viewed as a theorist of the political, and from the way in which the historical determinants of Gramsci's thought are situated in the context of the experiences of the international working-class movement. Moreover, Togliatti discussed how Gramsci's ideas developed and changed, no longer implying homogeneity, and providing suggestions not only for an examination of the development of Gramsci's problematic but also implicitly for the way in which Gramsci developed Lenin's ideas. It was not accidental that the discussion of Gramsci's ideas was posed in such new terms in the new political and ideological space created by the events and debates of the post-1956 period. These various aspects are present when Togliatti describes Gramsci's originality with regard t o the Italian socialist tradition Gramsci's concept of the revolution based on concrete objectives and perspectives and a particular understanding of the State in relation t o an historical bloc.18 From this was derived Gramsci's view of political intervention t o change the balance of forces, and his non-instrumental view of alliances as the basis upon which t o build an alternative historical bloc. The party was central t o Gramsci's concept of politics, argued Togliatti, who maintained that the nucleus and originality of Gramsci's conception was the Consideration of the different party as a 'collective intelle~tual'.'~ modes of domination by a class leads Gramsci, according t o Togliatti, t o think the methodological rather than organic difference between dictatorship and hegemony, so that neither moment ever disappears entirely and the State is always viewed as a combination of the two elements. Decisive in terms of posing concrete objectives and perspectives is Gramsci's development of the concept of war of position in a period in which a frontal attack of war of movement is not possible.*' The war of position, Togliatti maintains, is not merely a defensive struggle but an offensive one, as it prepares for a war of movement. In an interpretation which has implications for the building of socialism, according t o Togliatti the fact that for Gramsci the war of position is always the decisive factor is a reflection both on the nature of power in a new society and on the different ways of preserving power in a society in crisis. Implicitly, many of these ideas are presented by Togliatti as contributions not only t o a national tradition but t o an international one.
37
Togliatti's paper would serve t o indicate further areas of development in Gramscian studies. This is evident in Ernesto Ragionieri's contribution t o the second conference on Gramsci in Cagliari in 1967, 'Gramsci e il dibattito teorico nel movirnento operaio internaziole' (1969). This paper appears as a defence of the strategy of the P C I through a rejection of a variety of interpretations which set Gramsci against the communist tradition. The longer-term significance of the paper, however, is provided by the argument that a correct reading of Gramsci entails the understanding that his works are a reflection upon concrete political problems, above all the problem of political intervention. Following Togliatti, Ragionieri discusses critically the development of Gramsci's thought from an international rather than merely Italian perspective. In this context he argues against what he considers a false dichotomy between a communist orthodoxy and heterodoxy while rejecting facile comparisons between Gramsci and so-called 'non-conformists' such as Luxemburg, L.ukPcs, Korsch or even Lin ~ i a o . " The collocation of Gramsci's ideas in the international working-class movement must be determined, according to Ragionieri, by an examination of the method according t o which he sought t o study the experiences of that movement in order to derive indications for the struggle in Italy, a method which consists in translating rather than merely copying the Russian experience. Ragionieri analyses the long genesis of Gramsci's notes in prison on the differences in the struggle between East and West locating the origin of this reflection as early as 1920 with Gramsci's discussion of the failure of the revolutionary movement in Hungary, Austria and Germany. He maintains, however, that the decisive experience from the point of view of Gramsci's development was the period working for the International in Moscow and Vienna in 1922-3, a period of intense debate about the course of the Russian Revolution and the correct strategy for Western Europe, a debate in which Lenin made several important contributionsZZand also a period of intense study for Gramsci. In what are new, if not entirely acceptable, terms Ragionieri emphasizes that the Lenin who influenced Grarnsci was above all the revolutionary leader who posed the practical problems of making a revolution which Marx had posed theoretically, specifically the question of working-class hegemony in the democratic revolution and more in general the question of the State.23 The instrument conceived of and actually created in relation t o the question of the State in both Lenin and Gramsci, Ragionieri argues, is the political party. From a general idea of certain tasks which had t o be fulfilled and which the Italian socialist movement had
38
failed t o carry out, Gramsci eventually develops a concept of the party as a historically specific expression of the will to build a State. Gramsci's originality, according t o Ragionieri, is his study of the multiplicity of means through which a class seeks t o establish its hegemony. Gramsci is interested in the intellectuals not because of a generic culturalist or superstructural bent in his thought, but rather in order t o enable the party t o undertake the necessary tasks centred around the question of the State. The building of an alternative hegemony based on a concrete political strategy developed by the party, or the 'collective intellectual' is crucial in undermining the present State and building a new one. Ragionieri's interpretation of Gramsci's work as a theoretical reflection upon concrete political problems in order t o establish the potential of political intervention, is clearest in the last section of his paper where he considers the Notebooks as a political reflection on contemporary Europe and most specifically fascist Italy. In essence he takes Gramsci out of the political and theoretical isolation in which he had normally been viewed, and argues that in the Notebooks, as in the previous writings, Gramsci's ideas can only be understood as an attempt t o analyse the political and economic events of the epoch, the defeat of the revolution in the West, the rise of fascism, the economic crisis of 1929 and the problem of creating a strategy suited t o the specific conditions of Western ~ u r o p e The~ .~ unity underlying the fragmentary appearance of the Notebooks is provided by this link with political reality. Ragionieri relates what he considers a central theme in the prison writings, the differences between the war of position and the war of movement, t o Gramsci's particular interpretation of the 1929 crisis. Ragionieri says that Gramsci was interested above all in the ability of the system t o adjust and t o transform itself. Starting in 1929, Gramsci develops the ideas ~~ ~ forms of hegeof the 'passive r e v o l u t i ~ n 'and of ' ~ a e s a r i s m 'as~ monic affirmation and of unification of the bourgeoisie in the modern period of history in which the organizational capacity of the working class is one of the structural aspects of any conjuncture. The fundamental question which Gramsci was addressing was the way in which a dominant mode of production and a social class was able t o win historical survival despite political and economic crises.27 Ragionieri's paper had the merit of expanding still further the terms in which Gramsci was considered. Developing certain indications from Togliatti, Gramsci is presented as having international as well as national relevance and as a theorist concerned with political problems. Ragionieri's method consists mainly in establishing the historical determinations of Gramsci's work. What is still missing is a theoretical discussion of Gramsci's problematic and its relation t o that of Lenin.28
Grarnsci in France and ltalv
39
Gramsci the political thinker. It was starting in 1958 with Togliatti's intervention that work on Gramsci as a political leader became central, but which itself signalled the beginning of the end of a party line on Gramsci. By 1970 Leonardo Paggi's book, Antonio Gramsci and the Modern Prince, published by the P C I publishing house, was in open polemic with Togliatti, and also on different positions from one of the party's leading historians, Paolo Spriano. This book represents a further development in the study of Gramsci's formation and his international collocation, remaining, however, within a predominantly historical perspective. Exhibiting a remarkable breadth of knowledge of European cultural and political movements, Paggi traces influences on Gramsci of such groups and figures as Barbusse and the Clarte group, Daniel De Leon, and Tom Mann and the British shop stewards' movement as well as presenting a very complete and original examination of the influence of Salvemini and of the Italian free trade movement. Paggi's method of establishing relationships between Gramsci's ideas and a varied group of people and intellectual movements is rooted in a very close reading not only of what Gramsci himself wrote but of the contents of the two newspapers he edited in Turin, the Grido del pop010 and Ordine Nuovo. In his introduction Paggi argues with Togliatti's interpretation of Gramsci between 1945 and 1956, especially his stress on general cultural and historical aspects to the detriment of the political, and his presentation of Gramsci's works as a body of continuous, almost homogeneous, thought without marked development. Paggi considers the 1923-24 period, the beginning of the struggle against Bordiga, as a critical turning point in Gramsci's development. A qualitative change can be marked, according t o Paggi, starting from those years and continuing .~~ through the ~ o t e b o o k s One of the themes which Paggi indicates as being central t o Gramsci, and which arises from a reading of Gramsci as a political thinker, is his awareness of the increasing distance between the objective revolutionary potential of the situation and the subjective possibilities of the working-class movement as the fascist reaction undertook to destroy its organizational capabilities. This is also one of the central themes of a book by Franco De Felice, Serrati, Bordiga, Grarnsci e il problema della n'voluzione in Italia, 1919-1920 (1971). This book represents an intervention in the debate about the historiography of the party, and it is a significant contribution to a critical discussion of both the originality and the limitations of Gramsci's analysis in this period. De Felice studies the three figures who represent the Italian left socialist and communist tradition and the way they each approach the
40
problem of providing a political organization suited to the needs of the struggle in 1919-1920. Thus the examination of the P C I tradition is n o longer reduced in a unilinear manner t o a Gramsci' Togliatti ~ o n t i n u i t y . ~By considering the problem of the revolution and the nature of the intervention of the mass movement in the revolutionary process, the question of the forms of organization of the working class is posed as an intimately political and historical rather than theoretical question. According t o De Felice this question can only be posed by considering the interconnection between the conception of the modalities of the transition between capitalism and socialism, in which the concrete situation of the mass movement is always central, and the conception of political organization and political intervention. De Felice's book contributes to the study of Gramsci the political thinker by examining the specific nature of his view of the revolutionary process, a process based on the intervention of the masses which cannot be substituted by or reduced t o activities of the party. The revolution is conceived of by Gramsci as a process t o build a new type of State, and the party as the instrument to enable the mass movement t o intervene politically. In these two aspects lies the key t o Gramsci's Leninism of the period, according t o De Felice. This is contrasted t o the ideas of the two other main leaders of a 'left' alternative t o the traditional amalgam of socialist positions, i.e. Serrati's fundamentally pedagogic view of the role of the party and t o Bordiga's schematicism, as well as providing the basis for a comparison between Gramsci and other left-wing European current. Neither Serrati nor Bordiga succeeded in understanding the significance of new forms of organization such as the factory councils which, for Gramsci, not only provided an original way t o organize the mass movement but suggested a new relationship between the economic and the political which overcame the separation between the two aspects traditional to the Second International. The factory councils were not simply the promotors of an economic struggle, but provided a means for the working class t o train and t o assert itself as a potential new ruling class, as the organizers of a new hegemony. De Felice argues that, far from neglecting the role of the party, Gramsci posed its relationship t o the trade unions and the factory councils in an original way and was, above all, concerned t o transform the intervention of a divided and often economistic and corporative working-class movement into a unified, political one. Only Gramsci, according t o De Felice, was thus able t o appropriate key aspects of Leninism and go beyond the economistic problematic of the Second InternationaL31 A significant aspect of De Felice's book is his description of
41
the limitations t o Gramsci's problematic in 1919-1920. For example, Gramsci's appreciation of the objective necessity of the revolution is not based so much on an analysis of finance capital as as on the general crisis of the bourgeoisie in organizing the productive sphere. He dedicates little attention t o the political forms of the crisis, sharing a tendency with Bordiga t o underestimate the differences between different political parties and groupings, a flaw which marks his analysis of fascism. De Felice also criticizes Gramsci's view of the problem of alliances between the proletariat and other popular strata. The complex nature of these strata, above all the peasantry but also other sections of the petty bourgeoisie, is not fully analysed by Gramsci which prevents him from posing correctly the concrete problem of constructing the alliances with these groups. Gramsci does not consid~r qualitative differences in both their political and strxctural conditions, which he tends t o reduce to being only quantitatively different from that of the proletariat. De Felice provides, then, a general revaluation of this period in Gramsci's development in which elements for an examination of the way in which Gramsci's problematic changed and developed are presented.33 Many of these themes also appear in a collection of essays, Gramsci e il problema storico della democrazia (1973), by Massimo Salvadori, who maintains that there is a continuity throughout Gramsci's work. In his reading, one aspect of Gramsci's originality consists in the choice of a type of proletarian democracy, a choice made by Gramsci in the period following 1917, but which remains constant throughout his thought even when he concentrates on the political party in that the necessity of establishing an 'organic' relationship between the party and the masses, and between leaders and led, as well as the view of rank and file organizations as the embryo of a future proletarian power, is never absent from Gramsci's Secondly, in an interpretation which perhaps overstresses superstructural aspects,35 Salvadori argues that Gramsci's greatest originality probably lies in his consideration of the element of subjectivity as thz yardstick of any revolutionary interpretation of Marxism. Gramsci the revolutionary leader is evaluated in terms of a contrast with later developments of Stalinism and Togliatti's leadership. Salvadori is particularly interested in Gramsci's analysis of the exhaustion of the historical role of the bourgeoisie in this period and the role of the proletariat in preventing the collapse of the productive system, a theme which is also t o be found in the Notebooks. Somewhat similarly t o De Felice, he concludes, for the whole of Gramsci's work, that an important limitation consists in an exaggeration of the maturity of the objective basis for
42
Chantal Mouffe and A n n e Showstack Sassoon
the transition t o socialism and of the insufficiency of capitalism as a productive system at that time. He adds, however, that the irrationality and contradictions of latter day monopoly capital make Gramsci's analysis of great contemporary interest. The implication in Salvadori is that the contemporary usefulness in Gramsci's problematic lies in the existence of a capitalist crisis. This usefulness is therefore determined by the existence of a certain object rather than theoretically by an investigation of Gramsci's theoretical tools. Gramsci the theorist of revolution in the West Thus by the 1970s Italian studies on Gramsci had provided a rich articulation of themes which went far beyond the often simple, dogmatic, and at times provincial treatment of Gramsci in the post-war period. Indeed, the end of the 1960s marks an important turning point in Gramscian studies in several ways. Interest in Gramsci's work, which up until then had been almost entirely limited t o Italy, began t o be manifest in many other countries, above all in France. In addition, the theoretical aspect of his writings and the contribution it makes towards the development of Marxist theory which had previously remained in the background, now came t o the fore.36 Gramsci ceased t o be studied solely on the basis of his relationship with the P C I and of his role in Italian politics in order t o be presented as the theoretician of the revolution in the West. This thesis was in fact already implicitly present in Togliatti's intervention at the 1958 conference, but it is only recently that it has been fully developed and put forward in a rigorous and systematic way. Central t o this interpretation is the idea that Gramsci's analyses, which hinge upon the role of civil society as a group of institutions by means of which a particular class can exercise its hegemony over sociery as a whole, provide us with a key for understanding the nature of power in Western society. This analysis also indicates a new strategy for the seizure of power by stressing the importance of the 'war of position' in relation t o the 'war of movement'. According t o Togliatti, this new strategy corresponded primarily t o a new phase of the struggle linked t o a relative stabilization of capitalism. Later writers, however, see Gramsci as postulating a strategy based on the very nature of Western society. Moreover, recent works have argued that Gramsci's contribution to Marxism is not confined simply t o the elaboration of a new strategy for a revolution in the West. Through his study of Western
43
society he has also contributed to the development of historical materialism, above all in the realm of the superstructures. Gramsci's contribution to the development of historical materialism. Norberto Bobbio was one of the first people t o insist on the originality of Gramsci as a theoretician. In his intervention at the 1967 conference Bobbio (1969) discusses Gramsci's concept of civil society and attempts t o demonstrate how this concept differs not only from that of Hegel but also from that of Marx. According to Bobbio, when Gramsci talks of civil society, he means the whole complex of ideologico-cultural relationships, in other words, all those so-called 'private' organizations by means of which a particular social class organizes its hegemony over society as a whole. For Gramsci, therefore, civil society is one of the two moments of the superstructure, the other being political society, or the body of coercive organisms. On the other hand, Bobbio claims that in Marx7s work civil society is the whole domain of economic relationships and therefore belongs to the economic structure. Looking at this from a different point of view, he points out that, although Gramsci and Marx both claim t o have found this concept in Hegel, it has in fact an entirely different meaning in Hegel's works. For Hegel civil society includes not only the realm of economic relationships and the formation of classes, but also the administration of justice and the police. In other words, it groups together some institutions belonging to the structure and some belonging t o the superstructure. Basing his observations on this distinction between Gramsci and Marx, Bobbio goes on t o draw some important conclusions which are, however, quite debatable. He claims that for both Marx and Gramsci civil society plays its part as the 'active7 and 'positive' moment in any historical development. But since, when speaking of civil society, Marx is in fact referring to the structure and Gramsci t o the superstructure, according t o Bobbio this means that for Marx the driving force of history is t o be found in the economy, whereas for Gramsci it is to be found in ideology. Another important aspect of Bobbio's interpretation is the difference which he points out between the meaning of Gramsci's idea of hegemony and that proposed by Lenin. Bobbio says that in Lenin hegemony is used purely to signify political direction, whereas when Gramsci uses the word it means not only political direction but also, above all, moral and intellectual reform, i.e. cultural direction. Bobbio's analysis is based on the relationship existing between the two elements of the superstructure: civil society and political society. He claims that for Gramsci the 'positive' and 'determining' element is that of civil society, which he
44
interprets to mean that Gramsci gives pre-eminence to the moment of consensus rather than to force, whereas for Lenin the 'determining' moment is political society. This accounts for the predominant role assigned to the moment of force in Lenin. According t o Bobbio we should therefore find in Gramsci's work a double inversion with respect t o the Marxist tradition: i The claim for the predominance of the superstructure over the structure. ii The claim for the predominance of civil society over political society. It is precisely this double reversal which constitutes for Bobbio the originality of Gramsci and his contribution to the development of historical materialism. But despite these points of divergence with Marx, Bobbio still considers Gramsci to be a Marxist, since he believes that any theory which in one way or another accepts the dichotomy between superstructure and structure is, in fact, a Marxist theory.37 Bobbio's analysis has served as a model for a type of superstructural reading of Gramsci which posits that his fundamental contribution has been to break with the economic determinism of Marx and Engels, and with the authoritarianism of Lenin, thus allowing the accent t o be placed on the role of ideas and human will. This kind of reading is undertaken, for instance, by Jean-Marc Piotte (1970). He accepts most of Bobbio's analysis concerning the divergences between Gramsci's thought and that of Marx and Lenin, and on the basis of this superstructural reading he goes on to attempt to systematize Gramsci's political thought around the ~~ concept of the i n t e l l e ~ t u a l .Piotte believes that the concept of the intellectual is, in fact, the keystone to Gramsci's work since, according to Gramsci, it is thanks to the intellectuals that the ethico-political moment finds its concrete expression. Piotte stresses the novelty of Gramsci's conception of the intellectual compared to that of Marx and of Lenin. For Marx the intellectual is nothing more than the ideologist of the dominant class and a member of the bourgeoisie; for Lenin, intellectuals are seen as forming a separate social stratum which is at one and the same time isolated from the bourgeoisie and from the proletariat, but would tend to be linked to the petty bourgeoisie by virtue of its life-style. Gramsci, by contrast, defines intellectuals by their position and function with regard to production and no longer by the simple distinction between manual and intellectual work.39 For Gramsci, each fundamental class 'creates together with itself, organically, one or more strata of intellectuals which give it homogeneity and an awareness of its own function not only in the economic but also in the social and political fields' (Gramsci, 1970,
45
p. 4).40 The term 'intellectual' may be applied therefore not only to thinkers and scientists but also to organizers and educators. The importance which Grarnsci assigns to the intellectuals' role is connected, according to Piotte, to his equally novel conception of ideology. Whereas in Marx ideology is seen as the mystifiedmystifying justification of an already existing economic and political power, for Gramsci it is the terrain in which man becomes aware of socio-economic structures and of the need to change them. It is thanks to the intellectuals that this process of becoming aware is able to take place, and it follows that they have a leading role to play in the creation of the class consciousness of the proletariat and in the eventual establishment of its hegemony. Piotte is also one of the first t o put forward the thesis that the Gramscian problematic of hegemony is based on an awareness of the structural difference between East and West and the understanding that in the advanced capitalist countries the moment of the struggle for hegemony is a necessary step in the search for political power. Bobbio's thesis has provoked numerous criticisms, the most detailed being that put forward by Jacques Texier (1968). In a discussion of Bobbio's paper which also has implications for any reading of Gramsci influenced by Bobbio such as that of Piotte, he argues that Bobbio's opposition of Marx and Gramsci is in reality the result of an incorrect interpretation not only of Marx's thought but of Gramsci's as well. According to Texier, the first mistake which Bobbio makes is that of presenting the relation between structure and superstructure as a dichotomy in which one of the two elements must of necessity dominate the other. From that point onwards Bobbio has no difficulty in forcing his reading of Marx in an economistic direction and that of Gramsci in an ideologistic one, thus paving the way for his claim that in Marx it is the structure which dominates while in Gramsci it is the superstructure. Texier's contention is that both Marx and Gramsci conceived of the relation between structure and superstructure in a completely different way to that supposed by Bobbio, that is, as a process of dialectical unity in which each element can in turn assume the role of conditioner or conditioned. However, although this dialectical relation excludes any sort of mechanical causality, it does not, according to Texier, prevent both Marx and Gramsci holding the thesis that the determining factor in the last instance is the economy, since for both of them the movement of history is always dependent on structural conditions. Moreover, when superstructural activity becomes dominant it is always on the proviso that certain structural conditions be present which allow it to adopt that role. According to Texier, therefore, there is no theoretical divergence
46
between Marx's theoretical problematic and that of Gramsci. The only difference consists in the fact that Marx primarily studied structural conditions whereas Gramsci devoted the greater part of his work t o the study of the superstructure thus completing the project undertaken by mar^.^' A second kind of interpretation of the Marx-Gramsci relation concerning the structure-superstructure problem has been put forward by Hughes Portelli (1972). According t o Portelli, t o ask which is the primordial element, structure or superstructure, is really t o pose a false problem. He contends that the most original contribution offered by Gramsci's thought is precisely that he succeeded in overcoming this dichotomy by introducing the notion of the historical bloc. Portelli explains that by historical bloc Gramsci indicates a particular type of organic unity which appears between the infrastructure and the superstructure when ideologies cease t o be arbitrary and take on an organic aspect, in other words, when ideologies organize social groups in accordance with socio-economic condition^.^^ This link is forged by the intervention of intellectuals, since it is they who have the task of elaborating the organic ideology of the class which they represent. Portelli goes on t o suggest that within the historical bloc neither of the two elements can be called determining because, even if the socioeconomic structure limits the possibilities for a development of the superstructures, it is nevertheless on the level of the latter that the basic contradictions are resolved. Thus, for Portelli Gramsci's originality consists, first, in his attributing equally important roles t o the socio-economic structure and t o the ethico-political superstructure; secondly, in having established a link between the two by means of the concept of historical bloc, and finally, in having succeeded in offering a concrete social embodiment of this link - the intellectual^.^^ Portelli's thesis on the role of intellectuals in the formation of the historical bloc has been criticized by Buci-Glucksmann (1974, p. 319). It is her opinion that the role of the intellectuals is overstressed by Portelli at the expense of the role of the State. This leads him t o conclude that the intellectuals have the essential role t o play in the unity of the State, which is in fact far from being consistently the case. She considers this interpretation by Portelli as being connected with the fact that he systematically underestimates the influence of Lenin on Gramsci's theoretical and political practice which leads him t o an interpretation which is 'too superstructural of the problematic of the superstructures' since his interpretation avoids the question of the relations between the State and social classes which are in fact the historical base of the superstructures.
47
This criticism is certainly justified and could equally well be applied t o the works of Bobbio and Piotte who both completely ignore Gramsci's political activity as well as the politico-theoretical context in which his thought developed. This omission has obviously very grave consequences since, as Paggi so rightly suggests, 'the study of Gramsci as a politician is also the surest way to consider and redefine his collocation in theoretical Marxist research (1970, p. xxvi). Indeed, one of the most important aspects of Buci-Glucksmann's book, Gramsci e t l'dtat (1974), is that she attempts a 'theoreticalpolitical reading of the Prison Notebooks in so far as they are connected with his [Gramsci's] militant political activity of the years 1914-1926, using the State as a strategic point of departure for this reading' (1974a, p. It is her belief that the research undertaken by Gramsci revolves around a central problem: that of the 'search for a new path to socialism in an advanced capitalist country: the war of position which demands an unprecedented concentration of hegemony' (1974, p. 19). For Buci-Glucksmann then, the concept of hegemony is the central aspect of Gramsci's thought. Indeed, she shows how this concept calls for a completely new conception of the superstructures and the role which they fulfil. For instance, the concept of hegemony leads t o an enlargement of the concept of the State. The State is no longer seen simply as a repressive apparatus once it has been understood that it is through the State that a social class organizes its hegemony over society as a whole. For Gramsci the function of the State is not solely a coercive one, but is extended to that of cultural direction which accounts for his definition of the State as including both civil society and political society: 'hegemony + coercion'. Gramsci's 'expanded' conception of the State allows him t o develop a theory of the efficacy of the superstructures. According to Buci-Glucksmann, it is in this way that Gramsci transcends the economism t o be found in those attitudes t o the State which see in it nothing more than 'an instrument in the hands of the dominant class'. This enlargement of the concept of the State also allows Gramsci to rethink the problem of revolution in the West in terms of the crucial distinction between the war of position and the war of movement. Because there exists such a highly developed civil society in Western countries, the bourgeoisie has been able t o implant its own hegemony deeply. The result is that the proletariat is faced with a long and hard struggle if the foundations of this hegemony are t o be undermined so that, in the long run, a revolutionary strategy in the West must go through a long war of position.45 According t o Buci-Glucksmann, the concept of hegemony also
48
leads to the need for a widening of the notion of ideology. Indeed, for Gramsci a fully realized hegemony involves real progress for society as a whole. It is much more than the mere establishment of certain mechanisms whereby the masses are made to acquiesce to the politics of a single class. This notion cannot therefore be reduced to the notion of dominant ideology in the traditional Marxist sense or to the Weberian mechanism of legitimization. According to Gramsci, ideology is not just a process of subjection. It also has a positive and progressive role to play when it succeeds in uniting several social groups into a single body, around a hegemonic class which takes responsibility for the direction of society and undertakes to realize objectives which are not corporative but are in the interest of the whole society. For Buci-Glucksmann Gramsci's contribution to the development of historical materialism is, therefore, quite considerable on two counts: first, for his conception of the State, and second, because of his views about ideology. Hence the appellation 'theorist of the superstructures' is well deserved, on the condition, however, that we do not adopt an excessively 'superstructural' view of the superstructures according to which these are not rooted in specific relations of production and end up by being considered as independent variables. Insistence on the importance of the superstructures in Gramsci's who work has recently been criticized by Nicola Badaloni (1975), puts forth the argument that although the problem of the superstructures is indeed central to Gramsci's thought, it is because of his recuperation of social aspects in relation to the economic ones. It is Badaloni's belief that the basic feature of Gramsci's work is the novel way in which it deals with the problem of uniting economy and politics in a complex project for reorganizing society around the producers. He claims that the important role which Gramsci attributes to intellectuals is in no way an indication that the superstructures are pre-eminent but is rather connected with the subjective aspect of the productive forces. He also suggests that for Grarnsci intellectuals are not a point of departure but that he is led to consider them because of the need t o introduce historical mediations into a theoretical model which sets out t o resolve the problem of the superseding of capitalist society through direct control of the productive forces by the producers. He concludes from this that Gramsci is in no way the theorist of the superstructures, but could more easily be described as the theorist of the productive forces. By extension the central figure for Gramsci would not be the intellectual but the producer. Although it is important to remember the fact that in Gramsci the problem of the superstructures must not be separated from its
Grarnsci in France and ltalv
49
economic and social roots, nevertheless Badaloni's argument leads him t o adopt quite a narrow view of politics seen as an instrument of domination while for Gramsci, as Paggi has shown (1976), politics is the means by which the producers, historically, are able to master the productive forces. Badaloni is also running the risk of a since he presents the historical 'neo-historicist r e d u c t i ~ n i s m ' ~ ~ process of the transition t o socialism as taking place through the development of the new productive class, as the process of the emergence of the subjective aspect of the productive forces (a growth in the political awareness of the new producers) which implies the necessity of socializing the economy and politics and explains, in Badaloni's phrase, 'the need for communism'. Another point which Badaloni stresses is the impossibility of understanding Gramsci by mere reference to the Leninist tradition. He demonstrates (in a very convincing way) how the real basis of Gramsci's thought was, in reality, the conjunction of cultural, political, and moral problems arising from the crisis of Marxism and the development of revisionism. Without accepting all its consequences, Gramsci's thought evolved within the Sorelian perspective of an anti-reformist and anti-positivist struggle. He accepts, for example, Sorel's idea that historical laws do not automatically direct the historical process towards socialism, and that it is necessary t o introduce a subjective and voluntary element. Badaloni's insistence on the need to place Gramsci in a wider context than Leninism certainly adds an important dimension to the reading of Gramsci, even though it leads him to overestimate somewhat Sorel's influence. Indeed, this aspect of Badaloni's work complements the interpretation made by Buci-Glucksmann, who rather onesidedly stressed the importance of the Leninist and the Third International context of Gramsci's development. But, even if Gramsci certainly cannot really be understood outside this context, it is none the less true that in order to understand what is peculiar and original about his thought, he must be placed within the general context of the Italian tradition. Indeed, it can be argued that the Gramscian view of hegemony does not owe its origins to Lenin but was more probably inspired by a reading of Machiavelli and was enriched by the idea of culture as a type of 'hold' on society t o be found in the writings of C r ~ c e . ~ ' In this sense it seems that Bobbio is quite correct to underline the difference between the concept of hegemony of Gramsci and that of Lenin, because it is quite true that it is impossible to find in Lenin the same type of sensitivity t o cultural and moral direction with which the Italian tradition had imbued Grarnsci. Moreover, although the anti-economist reading of Marx effected by Gramsci does, in fact, coincide with that of Lenin, it begins to be
50
worked out before Gramsci came into contact with the latter's work and must therefore be explained by readings from other sources as well. It is in this respect that Badaloni's argument about the influence of Sore1 is very pertinent. One common point emerges from all these different interpretations: one of the principal themes of Gramsci's thought concerns the relations between structure and superstructure. Moreover, he attempted to provide a non-economistic answer to this problem, an answer which excluded any sort of mechanical causality. Indeed, one of the fundamental problems of historical materialism is undoubtedly that of reconciling the two following theses: 1 In the last instance economy is the determining factor. 2 The primacy of the class struggle. The chief difficulty in reconciling these two ideas derives from a certain inaccurate and economistic interpretation of the first point. To cite Marx's text:
In the social production of their existence men inevitably enter into definite relations which are independent of their will, namely relations of production appropriate to a given stage in the development of their material forces of production. The totality of these relations of production constitutes the economic structure of society, the real foundation, on which arises a legal and political superstructure and to which correspond definite forms of social consciousness. (1859, Preface to a Contribution to the Critique of Political Economy.) This has generally been interpreted to mean: 1 It is the economic aspect which determines the legal-political and ideological superstructures. 2 It is the economic level which is the determinant force in the reproduction of society as a whole. If we accept this interpretation, even without holding the idea of a relation between structure and superstructure that would make the latter an epiphenomenon of the former, it is difficult to provide a theoretical basis for the possibility that politics might have a primordial role to play. Gramsci's principal merit consists precisely in the fact that by using the notions of 'historical bloc' and 'hegemony', he expanded the terrain of politics and posed the problem of reproduction in a non-economistic way. According to him, in order for a particular society to reproduce itself on a long-term basis, a historical bloc must be created, that is to say, a fundamental class must be capable of establishing its own hegemony and thus realize the dialectical unity between structure and superstructure. Such a hegemony may be rooted in the legal-political superstructure or in the
Gramsci in France and ltalv
51
ideological superstructure, or indeed in the economic structure as Gramsci has shown in his analysis of 'Americanism and Fordism'. The problem of social reproduction is therefore no longer posed in purely economistic terms but rather from the point of view of the articulation of the whole ensemble of the various levels of society. The economic aspect remains, in the last instance, as the final determinant but politics may now play the dominant role since it is through politics that a historical bloc is created or destroyed.
Gramsci and Marxist philosophy. If Gramsci's contribution t o his-
torical materialism has in general been widely recognized, the same cannot be said with regard to his contribution t o Marxist philosophy. Indeed, his definition of Marxist philosophy as 'absolute historicism' has been the object of many severe criticisms. Probably the most influential was the criticism made by Louis Althusser in Reading Capital ( 1970). In the chapter entitled 'Marxism is not an Historicism' Althusser criticizes historicism not as a particular school but as a theoretical matrix which includes not only self-declared historicism but also very different tendencies like the Della Volpian school in Italy. This theoretical matrix is characterized in the following way: first, it fails t o take into account the epistemological break which gave historical materialism its status as a science; secondly, it erases the distinction between historical materialism and dialectical materialism and sees Marxism in terms of a 'world view'; and finally it collapses all structural levels into an expressive totality, denying any real efficacy t o the superstructures. Although Althusser recognizes that many of Gramsci's expressions are polemical and serve as 'practical concepts', pointing at the way in which some problems should be solved, lie declares Grarnsci guilty of the sin of historicism principally in the way he conceives the relation between Marxist theory and history and in his identification between philosophy and history and between philosophy and politics. That leads, says Althusser, t o a reduction of the different levels of the social formation t o a unique structure and does not allow their relative autonomy t o be thought. It is the same kind of reduction that we find in the economistic interpretation of Marx. For that reason, Althusser argues that the historicist reading of Marx, which he also attributes to Gramsci, even if it developed as a reaction to the mechanicism of the Second International, did not in fact succeed in freeing itself from the theoretical problematic of economism. In a little book published in 1965, Jacques Texier undertook the defence of Gramsci's philosophical views. In fact, he was one
52
of the first t o put forward the idea that Gramsci's aim in the Prison Notebooks was t o attempt a critical reconstruction of Marxist philosophy. In the Notebooks Gramsci opposed the general opinion held by the Second International by claiming that Marxism is a world view and an integral philosophy. He also claimed that this philosophy is radically original and independent and cannot be identified with any other philosophical trend of the past, not even with materialism. According t o Texier, Gramsci conceived of Marxist philosophy as a new philosophical system capable of supplying an answer t o all the major philosophical problems. His originality consists in presenting a new view of man and knowledge, which he calls historicism, according to which philosophy is man's consciousness of himself, this self-consciousness being inseparable from the self-production of man which is history. Thus philosophy is identified with history since it is the process by which man comes into self-consciousness and since man is precisely his own history. As we can see, Texier also presents Gramsci as an historicist, but unlike Althusser he gives it a positive value and postulates the possibility of identifying historicism and Marxist philosophy. Recently there has been a tendency t o give greater importance to Gramsci's philosophical views, but this time from a different perspective than that adopted by Texier. Most of the contributors, starting from Althusser's criticisms, have tried t o invalidate some of them by arguing that Grarnsci's conception of historicism is quite different from Althusser's and t o argue that his problematic does not fall under the general model of historicism as put forward by Althusser. At the same time they have presented Gramsci's conception of Marxist philosophy as more valuable than the 'theoreticist' one defended by Althusser in Reading Capital. In this context Badaloni believes that Gramsci's 'absolute historicism', far from referring to the theoretical basis of a new philosophical system, on the contrary indicates the objective of Marxism: the socialization of politics and economy, and the absolute control of society by the producers. The unity of history and philosophy should be understood in this light, not as a method of reflexive knowledge but as the possibility for philosophy t o become a norm of collective action, t o influence the behaviour of the masses and thus t o be equated with history. In other words, Gramsci's 'absolute historicism' is a revolutionary philosophy, and its fundamental meaning lies in its aim of effecting 'a recomposition of Marxism', which, through the unity of Marxist theory and the practice of the workers' movement in the struggle for socialism, would re-endow Marxism with the revolutionary character it had lost through the scientistic interpretations of the Second International.
53
Badaloni points out, however, that Gramsci's 'absolute historicism' should not be seen as the definitive version of Marxist philosophy. It only refers t o a single phase in the wider context of the revolution in the West, and therefore it can only be the philosophy of a transitional period. Once communism is established, philosophy must have a radically different role t o play. For her part, Buci-Glucksmann defends Grarnscian philosophy from the point of view of a problematic influenced by Althusser, but she refuses t o accept the latter's interpretation of Gramsci's historicism. Indeed, she shows that Gramscian historicism cannot be called an expressive model of the social whole as in the Hegelian model, which is the theoretical matrix Althusser proposes for every form of historicism. She contends that Althusser's error is that he understood some of Gramsci's statements in too literal a fashion and that he failed t o undertake a 'symptomatic' reading of Gramsci's work which would have revealed a conception of Marxist philosophy which has nothing a t all to do with Hegel. Buci-Glucksmann's main thesis here is that the concept of hegemony does not simply open up new ways of looking a t the Marxist theories of the State and ideology. Over and above this function, it demands a completely new conception of philosophy and of the relations between philosophy and politics, a new conception which she designates by the term 'the gnoseology of politics'. She notes that Gramsci begins by dismissing the distinction between the philosophy of the philosophers and the spontaneous philosophy of the masses, common sense. He shows that, far from being a science with a specific object, philosophy is in reality a conception of the world which is made manifest in the entire culture of a society. This conception of the world is always that of a fundamental class, and therefore philosophy has an important part t o play in the establishing of the hegemony of a social class since it is through philosophy that a social class can impose its vision of the world on society as a whole. It is also through philosophy that a social class establishes its particular 'definition of reality', which will be accepted by the subordinate classes. From this it can be concluded that the role of philosophy in the class struggle is far from being negligible and that it has widespread repercussions in the domain of politics. But, according t o Buci-Glucksmann, Gramsci did not simply establish the political character of philosophy. He goes much further and, in an attempt to resolve the problem of the unity of theory and practice as a dialectical process, he claims that politics also has a philosophical character because it produces knowledge. It is this dual relation which she seeks t o express in the term 'gnoseology of politics'. However, she never really defines this
54
term or its effects. She attempts t o surround it with a series of vague and often contradictory formulations whose overall effect is t o render her argument extremely obscure. But her intention is none the less clear and fundamentally correct: she wishes t o demonstrate the political character of philosophy while taking care not to fall into a reductive identification of philosophy and politics, which would lead t o 'politicism', viewing philosophy as mere political ideology. If we can accept easily the political effects of a given philosophical position, the same cannot be said of the reverse. The affirmation that politics, as all social practice, is productive of knowledge is very problematical and requires a development which Buci-Glucksmann does not provide. There is, nevertheless, a sense in which we might be able t o accept the claim that political practice has philosophical effects. It is with respect t o the view that a revolution is a philosophical event since the establishment of a new hegemony creates a new ideological terrain which provides the basis for a change in consciousness and the methods of knowledge. But can that be expressed by saying that politics produces knowledge? There is yet another point which raises problems in BuciGlucksmann's interpretation: what is philosophy t o become and what will be the nature of practice peculiar to Marxist philosophy? For if philosophy is not to dissolve into pure politics, it must have its own domain, a field of activity which is specific t o itself. BuciGlucksmann is aware of this problem, and she tries t o answer it thus: philosophy produces a body of knowledge at the service of politics. But this is never really made explicit and suffers from the same lack of theoretical development as does the thesis of the 'gnoseology of politics'. This problem of the definition of the field of philosophy is treated in a clearer way in Paggi's interpretation of Gramscian philosophy (1973 ). According to Paggi, Grarnsci's philosphical undertaking is an attempt to transfer to Marxist philosophy the revolution achieved by Lenin in the field of political science. The basis for this task is provided by Labriola, who claimed that Marxism possesses its own completely original philosophy which cannot be identified with materialism. Gramsci went from this t o show that the identification of Marxist philosophy and materialism is always connected with an economistic interpretation of historical materialism. It is precisely this economistic interpretation which Lenin called into question without drawing the full philosophical consequences of his achievement in political science. It was therefore of the greatest importance t o complete Lenin's work by developing the implications in his politics for the field of Marxist philosophy.
55
It is against this background that we should understand what Gramsci meant by maintaining that Marxism is a philosophy which is also a view of the world. By this he wants to stress the definitive break that Marxism makes with all the previous conceptions of philosophy and show that, far from being a new philosophy, Marxism indicates the necessity of a completely new mode of existence for philosophical knowledge. It is t o that new 'practice of philosophy' that Gramsci alludes when he uses the expressions 'absolute historicism' and 'philosophy of practice'. The first is, argues Paggi, in open polemic with Croce's historicism and intends to show the ambiguities of a reference to 'history' which does not take account of Marx's discoveries and which is based on an idealistic conception of history. The 'philosophy of praxis' refers more concretely t o the interpretation of historical materialism seen as a 'science of history and politics', that is, not as a mere canon of historical research in Croce's terms but as an instrument by means of which one may intervene in the course of the historical and political process. According to Paggi the main task that Gramsci assigned t o Marxist philosophy was t o provide the concepts which would lay the theoretical foundations of historical materialism as the science of history and politics. In effect, for historical materialism t o become a science of politics and be capable of analysing the revolutionary process, several conditions are required. First, it needs to free itself from the constraint of a determinist view of the relations between structure and superstructure by elaborating a concept of dialectic which would make it possible t o consider the specificity of Marxist historical causality. Secondly, it must recognize the role of subjectivity through stressing the ethicopolitical element. And finally, it has t o break with the traditional positivist view of the sciences based on the model of the natural sciences48 and according t o which their role consists of establishing laws on the basis of given data. The type of scientificity that, according t o Paggi, Gramsci wants to endow Marxism with is completely different. Marxist theory is, for him, a 'theory of contradictions', a 'critique of political economy' which should allow us t o understand the contradictions of a given mode of production, and indicate, only indicate, the way in which they can be resolved. I t cannot go further because the verification of those possibilities belongs t o the realm of politics. When it becomes apparent that what is really at stake in the elaboration of a completely autonomous Marxist philosophy is the very anti-economistic interpretation of historical materialism, and its character as a revolutionary science, then it is clear why Gramsci attached so much importance t o this task. Indeed, without
56
an adequate philosophy historical materialism always runs the risk of falling back into economism. Moreover, as Paggi correctly stresses, the advance which was made by Lenin's revolutionizing of political science will never really be consolidated so long as the philosophical consequences of his work have not been fully developed. Paggi's interpretation of the Gramscian view of Marxist philosophy has a certain similarity t o the view that Althusser put forward in Reading Capital (but which he subsequently abandoned). Indeed, in both cases it is above all a question of turning Marxist philosophy into an epistemology. Yet the resemblance goes no further. Whereas Althusser was incapable of freeing himself from a positivist view of scientificity and thus created his epistemology on the same model as that of the natural and exact sciences, Gramsci on the other hand strove t o elaborate an epistemology which would take into account the radically original nature of Marxist scientificity and would allow for thought unthinkable in a positivist problematic. This leads t o the view that the Marxist science of history is a revolutionary science from which one not only can but should deduce political propositions, since it is also a strategy for the transformation of society. This position has its difficulties and more elaboration would certainly be needed, but it may provide an interesting way of solving the problem of the complex nature of Marxist theory. We can see here how it is finally Althusser's interpretation of Marxist philosophy which ends up being on trial. Buci-Glucksmann argues that, far from not allowing any efficacy t o the superstructures, as Althusser had declared, Gramsci's interpretation of historical materialism, on the contrary, provided through the concept of hegemony the very theoretical basis for thinking that efficacy. Paggi goes further and suggests that it is in fact the positivistic interpretation of historical materialism on the lines of the natural sciences which is economistic. He does not name Althusser, but it is evident that his conception of Marxist scientificity falls under this criticism. On the other hand, both BuciGlucksmann and Paggi consider as one of Gramsci's main achievements his conception of the relation between philosophy and politics, which had been Althusser's most important target. Althusser's strong distinction between science and ideology and his view of Marxist philosophy as 'Theory of theoretical practice' are thus implicitly criticized and rejected.49
Conclusion
This presentation of the evolution of Gramscian studies indicates
57
how, from a figure who was depicted in the post-war period as contributing mainly t o the Italian progressive cultural tradition, he has now become a major Marxist thinker whose real contribution has only very recently begun t o be adequately analysed. It has been argued, from a variety of points of view, that Gramsci's thought is in fact of a remarkable relevance for a great number of problems which are currently at the centre of various debates among Marxists. One of the most important of these is the attempt by a group of Marxist thinkers, mainly in Italy, t o rethink the nature of Marxism and its relation with the working-class movement in order t o overcome the economism not only of the Second International but also, although generally less recognized, that remaining in the Third International. This new trend-insists on the character of Marxism as the 'science of politics' and tries to reformulate the foundations of historical materialism in order t o be able to think the crucial role of politics.s0 I t is an important attempt t o try t o recuperate the scientific character of Marx's thought, but without doing so at the expense of its relation t o politics as had been the tendency of Della Volpe or Althusser, although in different ways. Gramsci's work appears extremely useful for this task, since recent studies argue that he was one of the first Marxist thinkers to succeed in breaking with economism and t o lay the theoretical basis for the efficacy of the superstructures. In this context, the analyses by Buci-Glucksmann and Paggi, as well as some indications in other presentations of Gramsci such as those of Togliatti and De Felice, are especially illuminating. In this perspective, the main task consists in rediscovering the political dimension of the superstructures in their relation t o the State and in recuperating the theme of subjectivity and of the ethico-political moment in the revolutionary process. For the Second International, with its crisis theory of the break-down of capitalism, the political sphere was necessarily seen as an epiphenomenon. It was this mechanistic interpretation which Lenin had opposed, yet he retained a rather restrictive conception of politics, not grasping its full nature, and, above all, its deep connection with culture. For this reason his conception of hegemony is limited to the aspect of political direction. Gramsci, on the other hand, was able t o comprehend the phenomenon in all its depth and, through his enlarged conception of the State as 'civil society + political society', t o put forward a completely new conception of the superstructures and of their relation with politics. In this way historical materialism may become the 'science of history and politics' (Paggi) and the role of political struggle comes t o the fore as a struggle for hegemony which manifests itself in all fields of human activity. A new relationship between economics
58
and politics is also presented as possible, as suggested by De Felice and Badaloni. All of this is also relevant to an understanding of ideology as something other than false consciousness. In addition, as the works of a number of writers suggest, such as Ragionieri, the very concept of political intervention and the scope of activities of a revolutionary party is broadened considerably. Gramsci's work also appears t o be of great relevance for the current debate about the nature of Marxist philosophy. Although a number of ambiguities remain concerning the way in which Gramsci's thought should be interpreted in this respect, there is nevertheless a central concern which is very important, his forceful insistence on the existence of a relation between philosophy and politics. As several authors argue, that new 'practice of philosophy' which Gramsci proposes (and here he meets Lenin and is joined by the latest works of Althusser) cannot consist in elaborating a new philosophical system, even if it is called dialectical materialism. I t must become the moment of mediation between theory and history and in this way contribute t o establishing the hegemony of the proletariat. Whether the role of philosophy must stop here or whether it must also undertake an epistemological reflection on the main concepts of historical materialism understood as the science of history and politics, as suggests Paggi, is still an open question whose solution will probably lead us beyond Gramsci, who in reaction against philosophy as a system had the tendency t o underestimate the epistemological element in his conception of Marxist philosophy. Finally, if it is understood that the State, political strategy, and a new conception of the revolutionary process is central to the task which Gramsci set himself, the full implications of his writings would seem to go beyond a definition of him as the theorist of the revolution in the West. If the concept of hegemony clearly has important consequences for the strategy of the transition of western countries t o socialism, it can also be argued that it provides general theoretical tools so that its field of application is not restricted t o advanced capitalist countries but goes much further. Gramsci allows us t o rethink the way in which the problems of revolution have been posed up t o now. As Paggi has correctly remarked, what Gramsci is trying t o explain is not why revolution was possible in Russia, but precisely why it took place in Russia and not where it was expected, in the most highly developed countries. That is to say, Gramsci, following on from Lenin, and developing new concepts, questions the traditional economistic problematic according t o which it is assumed that the more capitalism has developed the greater is the proximity t o socialism. For Gramsci history develops in a different way - the
59
relative autonomy of politics and its characteristic of a struggle for hegemony explain why a revolutionary situation may never be developed, or may be blocked and begin to deteriorate if the working class is incapable of intervening in a correct manner, even though the possibility for a social transformation may exist. Thus, his view of history is based on a conception which may provide indications for a number of areas of research. The history of the working-class movement, for example, could be studied in this perspective in order to see to what extent the setbacks before the Second World War were due to a mistaken strategy based on a lack of understanding of the full nature of politics and, therefore, of the scope of political intervention. In addition, it can be argued that an understanding of Gramsci's problematic could be useful t o derive indications for present-day strategy not just for advanced countries but also for countries in the Third World. Moreover, Gramsci's notion of the crucial nature of the struggle for hegemony both before and after the revolution, and his suggestions about a new relationship between economics and politics, could also be applied to the study of the difficulties met in the construction of socialism. An analysis of the nature of Stalinism and its theoretical presuppositions could make use of Gramsci's theoretical advances. According to the latest developments in Gramscian studies, then, Gramsci's work contains important indications both for developing Marxist theory and for studying its relation to the working-class movement. To comprehend fully his contribution, and his limitations, the study of Grarnsci must itself be developed further and areas hitherto relatively obscure, such as his notion of economy or the role he attributes to ideology, must be investigated. Only then can his place in the history of Marxism be properly evaluated. Notes
1. Lawrence and Wishart published Selections from the Prison Notebooks in 1970, an excellent translation of the political and historical writings which has a very good historical introduction and in many ways the most useful annotation of any edition. In Italy the critical edition appeared in June 1975 ( 1 9 7 5 ~ ) .For the first time all the drafts of all of Gramsci's notes are available, and although the usefulness of the first Italian edition (1948-1951), where some order was put in a selection of the 3000 pages of fragments, has been reconfirmed, work can now begin to reconstruct the process of Gramsci's thought. Lawrence and Wishart will publish a volume containing a selection of works from the 1914-1921 period in early 1977, while a further volume of writings from 1921-1926 will be published some time later in 1977. Also forthcoming is a volume of writings on literature and culture.
60
2. Neil McInnes provides an extreme example of a superficial reading of Gramsci when he writes 'In drawing his revivifying transfusion from the Italiw neo-Hegelians, Gramsci contracts an extreme case of subjective idealism. . . . Everything, literally everything, is, for Gramsci . . . mere superstructure - . . . he thinks there is no material substructure.' As quoted in Femia (1975), p. 36. 3. In trying t o establish Gramsci's originality in an early article on Gramsci's concept of hegemony, which was the only exposition in English for many years, and which provides a very useful and much-quoted definition of at least the cultural and intellectual aspects of hegemony, Williams (1960) exhibits a certain tendency in this direction which he has since repudiated. 4. This is true, for example, of the Boggs book (1975) which, while it fills a gap in the literature in English, since it is the first book to provide an overview of the writings in prison in some depth, is severely limited in its reading of Gramsci because of its point of departure. Piccone's 1974 article can only be called a superficial and slapdash attempt to establish 'Gramsci's Hegelian Marxism' and at the same time provide a review of twentieth-century Marxism, all in 13 pages! Zanardo (1958) and Paggi (1973) examine some of the differences between G. Lukics and Korsch. 5. Articles which are indeed contributions to the building of a basic knowledge of Gramsci, but which at the same time demonstrate a certain amount of theoretical naivety t o a lesser or greater extent, are those by Bates (1974 and 1975), Famia (1975), and Todd (1974). Bates (1975), for example, neither understands Lenin nor the role of the masses in the development of Gramsci's ideas on the factory councils and the party, despite the existence of a considerable literature in this latter area: e.g. Spriano (1967a), Paggi (1970), De Felice (1971). In what is a useful article, Femia simply attempts too much in 19 pages: 'First, there is the problem of determining the precise nature of hegemony. . . . Then there is the question of how hegemony arises. To answer this, we shall have to explore Gramsci's ideas on the nature of historical materialism, the historic role of the intellectuals, and the functions of the revolutionary party. . . . In the final part of my discussion, I shall relate the concept of hegemony to a contemporary controversy in sociology: that between the school of thought which holds a consensual model of industrial society (i.e. consensus theory) and the school which focuses on conflict and value differentiation (i.e., conflict, or coercion, theory)' (p. 28). Todd puts forward some suggestive ideas about a comparison between Gramsci and Mao, without pretending to undertake the task but neither really indicating the kind of problems involved. 6. Williams's (1975) attempt to suggest a synthesis of Gramsci and Bordiga is perhaps the outstanding example of the kind of mistaken conclusions which can come from not fully appreciating the importance of the debate with Bordiga for Gramsci's theoretical work and for his political activity. Williams does, however, provide a useful summary of the debates about the factory councils and their relation to the party and the State, both in the 1912-1921 period and in later historiography, and thus augments Cammett (1967), which remains an extremely useful historical introduction as well as providing a brief introduction to some of Grarnsci's ideas. Two pieces which start from a considerable theoretical awareness and which are probably the best articles available in English are those by Martinelli (1968) and Merrington (1968). 7. Christine Buci-Glucksmann's book (1974) clarifies this field and indicates many areas still needing t o be investigated. See below. Zanardo's paper for the 1958 Gramsci conference remained until recently the only work in this
61
area. It is a very suggestive comparison of the critique of Bukharin made by AustroGerman Marxism in the 1920s and by Gramsci later. 8. Ragionieri's paper is a fundamental development here. See below. 9. Examules of these earlv mesentations of Gramsci as well as his later articles are t o be'found in ~o~lia;t;(1967). 10. The Lombardo-Radice and Carbone biography (1952) and the Ottino book (1956) are prime examples. 11. See for example Matteucci (195 I), who maintained that Gramsci owed more t o Croce and Machiavelli than t o any other thinkers. 12. The articles in the Rivista storica del socialismo by Cortesi (1965), De Clementi (1966), and Merli (1964) rejected Gramsci and what they considered a 'centrist' P C I tradition from the left while among those who rejected what they considered 'totalitarian' tendencies in Gramsci's thought were Mondolfo (195 5) and Vigorelli (195 5). 13. For example more recently Bonomi (1973) and Macciocchi (1973) both argue that while the PC1 is reformist and opportunist, Gramsci was a revolutionary thinker. 14. L 'Ordine Nuovo 1919-1920 (1954); Scritti giovanili, 1914-1918 (1958); Sotto la Nole (1968); Socialismo e fascismo, L'Ordine Nuovo 19211922 (1967). Note that the volume La Costruzione del partito comunista, 1923-1926, covering the period when Gramsci replaced Bordiga as leader of the party and strove t o transform the early pC1, was not published until 1971. 15. For essays with a worker's control slant or a left socialist tendency see Carraciolo and Scalia (1959), particularly the essays by Cicerchia, Caracciolo, Tamburrano. See also Caracciolo (1958). 16. See for example Ferri (1957). 17. See Tamburrano (1958) and (1959), and later his biography of Gramsci (1963). Davidson's 1972 article provides an introduction t o this tangled debate, although distorted somewhat by a rather shallow anti-PC1 slant. Written from a Bordighist viewpoint, Alcara (1970) touches o n t h e discussion on Gramsci which was part of a much larger debate o n the historiography of the p c ~ The most complete and detached description of this debate, and of the . literature on Gramsci in general, highly recommended t o anyone undertaking a serious study of Gramsci, is Jocteau (1976). 18. The concept of historical bloc expresses both the unity of the structure and the superstructure at the level of theory and a concrete mode of unification in the social formation where a dominant historical bloc unites different social forces through the development of hegemony by the ruling class. The question of an alternative historical bloc and an alternative hegemony must be posed by the proletariat in order t o transform society. 19. This is, in fact, Togliatti's phrase, not t o be found in so many words in Gramsci's writings. 20. War of position is Gramsci's phrase for the kind of prolonged struggle for hegemony necessitated in a State with a developed civil society in order t o prepare for the moment of war of movement or frontal attack when State power is seized. Gramsci writes that it is always the war of position which is decisive both before and after the revolution, implying that whatever the nature of the State before the revolution and whatever the form of revolutionary struggle, e.g. Russia 1917, a war of position and the widening of the hegemonic base of the new State must be undertaken afterwards. BuciGlucksmann considers this problem in her book (1974). 21. Cammett (1967), pp. 177-178 and Nett1 (1966), p. 795, are the specific objects of Ragionieri's criticism.
62
22. For example, there was the publication for the first time during this period of Lenin's Report on War and Peace of 1918, concerning the different paths of development in Russia and the West. 23. In this regard Ragionieri discusses the article which Gramsci wrote upon Lenin's death in which Two Tactics of Social Democracy is considered crucial as well as a review of State and Revolution. 24. Ragionieri points o u t the need t o relate the contents of the political discussions which Gramsci had in prison t o the ideas in the Notebooks. See Lay (1973) and Lisa (1973) for accounts by men who were involved in these discussions, and Fiori (1970) who opened u p the debate about a possible split between Gramsci and the party in the early 1930s. Buci-Glucksmann makes effective use of this material in her book. 25. Passive revolution (often used interchangeably with revolution-restauration) is a far from unproblematic concept in Gramsci. I t is used first t o indicate a mode of t h e establishment of the unity and dominance of the bourgeoisie in which the function of elements of the previous dominant class is transformed so that there is a continuity in the personnel and forms of the State and a compromise with these previous dominant classes albeit providing a superstructure suited t o the dominance of the bourgeoisie. Implied is a limitation of the positive hegemony enjoyed by the bourgeoisie over the mass of the population. Gramsci gives as examples England, Germany, and Italy as contrasted with France where the bourgeoisie took political power by eliminating the old classes and creating a widely based hegemony. A t the same time passive revolution is used t o describe a mode of dominance in which the bourgeoisie attempts t o incorporate and render politically impotent the leaders of the working class and other popular classes, e.g. reformism or in the Italian case, transformism. Gramsci stresses that the passive revolution is not a mode of political struggle which is suited t o the proletariat but is rather a notion which is useful o n the analysis of history. See Gramsci (1970), pp. 58 f. and 5 9 f. 26. Caesarism is a form of political rule in which a stalemate has arisen in the class struggle similar t o that examined by Marx in the X V I I I of Brumaire. The chief difference between caesarism and the traditional concept of Bonapartism is that caesarism implies the existence of mass organizations and is thus applicable, according t o Gramsci, t o the more modern period. Ragionieri (1967) makes the point that the development of a caesarist solution is inevitably in an inverted relationship t o the potential of organization of the working class and its political party. 27. In 1967 there were two other contributions t o the discussion of Gramsci which should be mentioned. First, there was Amendola et al., in which a group of articles about Gramsci appeared. Amendola's own article was a polemic with various interpretations of Gramsci and can serve as a summary of some of the discussion of those years. Second, the question of political intervention by the revolutionary party in Lenin, Gramsci, and Togliatti is considered in an article by Calamandrei. 28. This aspect is developed much further by Buci-Glucksmann, who utilizes many of the indications of Togliatti and Ragionieri developing the theoretical dimension. 29. In an article which examines critically Gramsci's experience as a political leader before 1926 and the limitation of certain aspects of his ideas in that period, as well as in the first volume of his history of the pel, Spriano (1967 and 1967a) indicates certain differences between Lenin and Gramsci, particularly with regard t o the process of the revolution. Spriano maintains that the greatest change in Gramsci's development is between the pre-prison period
63
and the Notebooks because of the nature of these latter as a reflection on a great defeat of the working class, and that there is a qualitative jump in the elaboration in the Notebooks of the different strategy needed in the West and of Gramsci's concept of democracy. 30. Spriano's first volume (1967a) had, of course, already undertaken this kind of articulated study. De Felice's book in fact argues against the resurrection of a certain tendency t o claim that Bordiga was the only real Leninist in Italy after World War I because of the attention he gave to the party, a definition of Leninism which De Felice argues is rcductive and schematic. Among the interpretations which he criticizes are Alcara (1970), and De Clementi (1966). 31. De Felice was one of the first t o investigate what he maintains is a new relationship between the economic and the political in the Notebooks as well as in the earlier period in an article which considered Gramsci's notes on 'Americanism and Fordism' and the way they suggest that the creation of a new hegemony, as well as the maintenance of an existing one, increasingly invests all realms of society, including the economic, with the development of new methods of organizing production. See De Felice (1972). He had influenced Buci-Glucksmann (1974). Badaloni has also considered this aspect. See below. 32. Sereni (1972) makes the criticism that the discussion of finance capital among Italian communists in general and by Gramsci in particular was very weak. 33. Another intervention in the debate on the historiography of the P C I , which is of considerable interest t o the study of Gramsci, is Auciello (1974). Presented as an attempt t o contribute t o a reflection on the theoretical field of politics, Auciello argues that the 'study of Gramsci as a political thinker, in the redefinition of the theoretical field of the Notebooks, [is] the level which is able t o recreate a unitary totality in a work marked by a by now proven complexity' (p. 10). He also suggests that the concept of hegemony enables Gramsci t o determine the specific form of a historically determined transition t o socialism providing a t the same time the theoretical link between the national and international aspects of that process. Auciello maintains that the State is the prime object of Gramsci's reflections, a theme which is developed more fully b y Buci-Glucksmann. See below. 34. Spriano (1967) makes a similar point. He maintains that the weight which Gramsci gives t o 'molecular' organizations and t o activity by the mass movement is quite different from Lenin. 35. Salvadori accepts Bobbio's (1967) interpretation of the 'predominance' of the superstructure and of civil society within it. See below. 36. The discussion on the philosophical aspect of Gramsci's writings in fact formed an important part of the proceedings a t the 1958 Gramsci conference. See in particular Luporini, Bobbio, Cerroni, Gruppi, and Tronti (Garin et al., 1958). This last contribution is especially interesting because it is an early criticism of Gramsci as an historicist. Until more recently, however, theoretical questions in Gramsci's work have not been explored a t any length. For some recent contributions in French, many of which are concerned with this area but which we have not been able t o discuss at any length, see BuciGlucksmann et al. (1974) and Grisoni et al. (1975). 37. Bobbio makes this particular point during the discussion o n his paper. See 'Replica', in Garin et al. (1967). 38. Whether or not Gramsci's problematic can be understood b y eliminating contradictions as Piotte sets o u t to d o rather than by studying.these contradictions in order t o understand what they say about the problematic itself is somewhat debatable.
64
39. One of Piotte's original contributions t o an understanding of Gramsci which should be noted is his explanation that, for Gramsci, the categories 'traditional' and 'organic' depend on the point of view of a particular class. lntellectuals who are 'organic' t o one dominant class in one social formation are 'traditional' with respect t o a new progressive class seeking t o establish its hegemony, e.g. priests, organic under feudalism, are traditional t o the new bourgeoisie while those intellectuals who perform organic functions for the bourgeoisie are traditional with regard t o the proletariat. We can therefore see that when Gramsci writes that a new progressive class must win over sections of the traditional intellectuals, for the proletariat this may mean, depending o n the national context and the point in time, winning over, for example, the clergy (traditional t o both bourgeoisie and proletariat) and managers in industry (organic t o the bourgeoisie but traditional t o the proletariat). Problems still remain with Gramsci's categories, which seem t o be defined functionally and historically. 40. A very interesting discussion of the way in which Gramsci suggests a new relationship between various intellectual strata and what he calls the protagonism of the masses in the period of imperialism, a relationship based on the 'recomposition' of the state of separateness of social classes and groups which exists in capitalist society, is t o be found in Vacca (1976). 41. Texier points o u t the need t o study the concept of structure in Gramsci which had been neglected. See discussion of the book by Badaloni below. See also another article b y Texier (1973) for a consideration of historical causality in Gramsci. 42. There is a debate over the definition of historical bloc as social totality, particularly with regard t o the consequences this definition has for the struggle of a class attempting t o create an alternative historical bloc. BuciGlucksmann summarizes this debate (1974, pp. 315-320). It can be argued that what is essentially missing in both Piotte and Portelli is the historically specific and concrete nature of both the dominant and potential alternative historical blocs and the concrete strategy which is at the core of the new proletarian hegemony. 43. In terms of the themes in the books by Paggi, De Felice, and Salvadori, we would suggest that Portelli does not adequately pose the problem of the relationship between the'subjective and the objective elements, so that it can be argued that he is unable t o suggest satisfactorily the concrete terms of the unity between base and superstructure. Nor does he understand that the notion of organic crisis in Gramsci is both the moment of acute political crisis and the long-term crisis of a social formation in which the development of the forces of production and periodic economic crises provide the concrete evidence of the possibility of the transition t o socialism (the 'actuality' of the revolution), a transition which, however, must be realized on the terrain of the political by the political intervention of the working class. Thus the role of the political organization of t h e working class in the creation, heightening, and superseding of the crisis is severely underestimated by Portelli. Portelli's lack of understanding of Gramsci's concept of the party is revealed in his article on the question of Jacobinism in Gramsci (in BuciGlucksmann et al., 1974). He fails t o see that the content of Gramsci's idea of Jacobinism changes as well as his opinion of it, so that Jacobinism which had earlier been defined as revolution b y an elite, is transformed in the Notebooks into revolution with the backing of the popular masses. Similarly, Portelli reduces Lenin's position t o that of violent revolution and dictatorial rule, ignoring the whole aspect of Lenin's approach having t o d o with building alliances and winning over the vast majority of the population. But what is
65
obscured above all in Portelli is the State. He tends t o portray the relationship of hegemony and dictatorship as an opposition between two separate elements instead of an interrelationship between organically linked aspects of a single phenomenon, the modes of domination and unification of a class. Therefore he diminishes Gramsci's awareness of the element of dictatorship or force, not fully realizing the way in which the two elements interact. 44. Developing in an original way certain suggestions of Togliatti and Ragionieri, Buci-Glucksmann depicts the concrete setting of Gramsci's theoretical endeavours by placing him firmly within the context of the discussion of the Third International as well as indicating problems contemporary t o him, which provided the object of many of his reflections: the political as well as economic difficulties of building socialism in Russia, the consolidation of the fascist State, and the consequences of the economic crisis of 1929-30, this last both in terms of the attempts by monopoly capital in a variety of countries t o rationalize the capitalist economy and in terms of the dangers of economism for the working-class movement. She considers the way in which Gramsci develops Lenin and also the relationship of his concept of hegemony t o those of Bukharin and Stalin. In addition she integrates elements from Gramsci's earlier works t o indicate both continuity and development of certain themes such as the analysis of the liberal State. 45. Buci-Glucksmann concludes that Gramsci's reflection on the needs of a strategy for advanced capitalist countries were never separate from a general reflection o n the State and the problems of building socialism in Russia as well as in the West. Often obscured by the geographical differentiation in the famous passage on East and West, Gramsci's concerns are in general the problems of the transition and the need for hegemony t o be extended by any new socialist State. A particularly interesting aspect of expanding the discussion in this way is her application of Gramsci's problematic t o the question of the withering away of the State. In this context she contrasts Gramsci's concept of the extension of hegemony after the revolution with Stalin's idea of the reinforcement of the State. She thus shows how Gramsci provides theoretical tools for analysing the limitations of the experience of the Soviet Union. Of interest in this context is Cerroni's article, 'Gramsci e il superamento della separazione tra societi e Stato' (Garin et al., 1958), which is part of a discussion of the problem of the relationship between democracy and socialism and in particular the conditions for the withering away of the State. Cerroni provides a re-reading of Marx and Engels and Lenin on the State, inspired by Gramsci's concept of hegemony and the way in which the extension of hegemony in a fundamentally democratic socialist State provides the real basis in the superstructure for the withering away of the State. Gramsci, of course, argues that the building of a political and ideological superstructure in keeping with the socialization of the means of production cannot be left t o spontaneity but must be part of a conscious political effort. 46. This is the phrase of Giacomo Marramao (1975). It could also be argued that this kind of conception of the transition t o socialism is just a more sophisticated way of expressing what basically remains an economistic problematic. A difficulty with the Badaloni book in general consists in the fact that he does not by any means express clearly his argument which remains in many points quite obscure t o anyone outside various current debates in contemporary Italian Marxist philosophy. 47. While the Crocean influence has been extensively investigated, Machiavelli's influence has been much less so. For example, with regard t o the relationship between subjective and objective elements, it can be argued that Machiavelli's concept of the relationship between virti and fortuna were
66
among those aspects of his works which influenced Gramsci as well as the relationship between force and consent. (Another extremely important influence on Gramsci is found in Marx's Theses o n Feuerbach and in the Introduction o f 1857 , an area not fully investigated. See Texier (1973).) Gramsci was particularly interested in the way in which Machiavelli posed the problem of the conditions for the creation of a new State rather than analysing an existing one. See Gruppi (1969) and Davidson (1973). Auciello argues that it is necessary t o underline the importance of Gramsci's study of Machiavelli t o understand the formation of his political science and in particular his concepts of hegemony and of the political party, as well as t o comprehend the differences between Gramsci's problematic and those of Marx and Lenin (1974, pp. 124-5). 48. For a discussion of Gramsci's view of the natural sciences see Rossi (1976). 49. Althusser's conception of Marxist philosophy has changed drastically after Reading Capital, and he now recognizes its relation with politics and defines it as 'the class struggle in theory'. 50. Some of those whose work has relevant aspects in this context are Cesare Luporini, Biagio d e Giovanni, Giuseppe Vacca, Nicola Badaloni, Lucio Colletti and Umberto Cerroni. There are certain convergences and/or influences between their work and that of Althusser o r Della Volpe, but o n the whole it is a departure from both.
References
Alcara, R. (1970) fomazione e i primi La anni del Partito Comunista Italiano nella storiografia marxista, Milan. Althusser, L. and Balibar, E. (1970)Reading Capital, London. Amendola, G . (1967)'Rileggendo Gramsci', in Amendola, G. et al. 'Prassi rivoluAmendola, G . et al. (1967) zionaria e storicismo', in Critica marxista, Quaderni no. 3, Rome. Auciello, N. (1974)Socialismo ed egemonia in Gramsci e Togliatti, Bari. Badaloni, N . (1975) 1 marxismo di 1 Gramsci, Turin. Bates, T . R. (1974)'Antonio Gramsci and the Soviet Experiment in Italy', Societas, vol. IV, no. 1, winter. Bates, T. R. (1975) 'Gramsci and the Theory of Hegemony', Journal of the History of Ideas. vol. XXXVI, no. 2, AprilJune. Bobbio, N. (1969)'Gramsci e la concezione della societl civile', in Garin et al., (1969).Rome. Bobbio, N. (1958)'Nota sulla dialettica in Gramsci', in Garin et al. (1958), Rome. Bobbio, N. (1969)'Replica', in Garin et al. (1969), Rome. Boggs, C. (1975) Gramsci's Marxism, London. Bonomi, G . (1973) Partito e rivoluzione in Gramsci, Milan. Buci-Glucksmann, C. (1974)Gramsci et l'itat, Paris. BuciClucksmann, C. et al. (1974) Dialectiques, no. 415. Calamandrei, F. (1967)'L'iniziativa politics del partito rivoluzionario da Lenin a Gramsci a Togliatti', Critica marxista, vol. V, no. 4-5, July-October. Antonio Gramsci and Cammett, J. (1967) the Origins of Italian Communism, Palo Alto. Caracciolo, A. (1958) 'A proposito di Gramsci, la Russia e il movimento bolshevico', in Garin et al. (1958).Rome. Caracciolo, A. (1959)'Serrati, Bordiga e la polemica gtamsciana contro il "blanquism o w o settarismo di partito', in Caracciolo Milan. and Scalia (1959), Caracciolo, A. and Scalia, G. (1959)La citta futura: Saggi sulla figura e il pensiero di Antonio Gramsci, Milan. Cerroni, U . (1958) 'Gramsci e il superamento della separazione tra societh e Stato'. in Garin et al. (1958).Rome. Cicerchia, C. (1959)'Rapporto col leninism o e il problema della rivoluzione italiana', in Caracciolo and Scalia (1959), Milan. Cortesi, L. (1965)'Alcuni problemi della storia del PCI', Rivista storica del socialism o , vol. VIII, no. 24, January-April. Davidson, A. (1973)'Gramsci and Reading Machiavelli', Science and Society, vol. XXXVII, no. 1, Spring. Davidson, A. (1972)'The varying Seasons of Gramscian Studies', Political Studies, vol. XX, No. 4, December.
Gramsci in France and Italy De Clementi, A. (1966) 'La politica del Partito Comunista dlItalia nel 1921-22 e il rapport0 BordigaGrarnsci'. Rivista storica del socialismo, vol. IX, no. 28, MayAugust and no. 29, September-December. De Felice, F. (1971) Serrati, Bordiga, Gramsci e il problema della riuoluzione in Italia 1919-1920, Bari. De Felice, F. (1972) 'Una chiave di lettura in "Americanismo e fordismo" ', Rinascita, vol. 29, no. 42, 27 October. Femia, J. (1975) 'Hegemony and Consciousness in the Thought of Antonio Gramsci', Political Studies, vol. XXIII, no. 1, March. Ferri, F. (1957) 'Consigli di fabbrica e partito nel pensiero di Gramsci', Rinascita, vol. 14, no. 9 , September. Fiori, G. (1970) Antonio Gramsci, London. Garin, E. et al. (1969) Gramsci e la cultura contemporanea. A t t i del Conuegno, Rome. Garin, E . et al. (1958) Studi gramsciani. A t t i del Conuegno, Rome. Gramsci, A. (1971) La costruzione del partito comunista 1923-1926, Turin. Gramsci, A. (1948-1951) Opere, Turin. Gramsci, A. (1954) L'Ordine Nuovo, 1919-1920, Turin. Gramsci, A. (1975) Quaderni del carcere, vols. 1-4, Turin. Gramsci, A. (1958) Scritti giouanili, 1914-1918, Turin. Gramsci, A. (1970) Selections from the Prison Notebooks, London. Gramsci, A. (1967) Socialismo e fascismo. L 'Ordine Nuouo 1921-1922, Turin. Gramsci, A. (1960) S o t t o la Mole, 19161920, Turin. Grisoni, D. et al. (1975) Les temps m o d e m e s , no. 343. Gruppi, L. (1969) 'Machiavelli e Gramsci', Critica rnarxista, no. 3, vol. 7 , May-June. Gruppi, L. (1958) '1 rapporti tra pensiero ed essere nella concezione di A . Gramsci', in Garin et al. (1958), Rome. Jocteau, G.-C. (1975) Leggere Gramsci. Unaguida alle interpretazioni. Milan. Lay, G. (1965) 'Colloqui con Gramsci nel carcere di Turi'. Rinascita, vol. 22, no. 8 , 20 February. Lisa, A. (1973) Memorie, Milan. Lombardo-Radice, L. and Carbone, G. (1952) Vita di Antonio Gramsci, Rome. Luporini, C. (1958) 'La metodologia filosofica del marxismo nel pensiero di A. Gramsci', in Garin et al. (1958), Rome. Macciocchi, M.-A. (1973) Pour Grarnsci, Paris. Marramao, G. (1975) '11 marxismo di Gramsci e la teoria della transizione', A u t A u t , no. 148 new series, July-August. Martinelli, A. (1968) 'In Defense of the Dialectic: Antonio Gramsci's Theory of Revolution'. Berkelev Ioumal o f Sociology, VOI. X ~ I I . Matteucci, N. (1951) Antonio Gramsci e la
J "
filosofia della prassi, Milan. Merli, S. (1964) 'Le origini della direzione centrists nel Partito comunista d'Italia', Rivista storica del socialismo, vol. VII, no. 23, September-December. Merrington, J. (1968) 'Theory and Practice in Gramsci's Marxism', T h e Socialist Register, London. Mondolfo, R. (1955) I n t o m o a Gramsci e alla filosofia della prassi, Milan. Nettl, J. P. (1966) Rosa Luxemburg, London. Ottino, C. (1956) Concetti fondamentali nella teoria politica di A . Gramsci, Milan. Paggi, L. (1970) Antonio Gramsci e il m o d e m o principe, Rome. Paggi, L. (1973) 'La teoria generale del marxismo in Gramsci', Annuli Feltn'nelli, Milan. Piccone, P. (1974) 'Gramsci's Hegelian Marxism'. Political Theorv. Februarv. Piotte, J.~M.(1970) La ~ & s i e politique de Grarnsci, Paris. Portelli, H . (1972) Gramsci et le bloc historique, Paris. Portelli. H . (1974) 'Jacobinisme e t antijacobinisme de Gramsci', in BuciGlucksmann e t al. (1974). Ragionieri, E . (1969) 'Gramsci e il dibattito teorico nel movirnento operaio internazionale', in Garin et al. (1969). Rossi, P. (1976) 'Antonio Gramsci sulla scienza moderna', Critica marxista, vol. X I V , March-April. Salvadori, M. (1973) Gramsci e il problema storico della democrazia, Turin. Sereni, E . (1972) 'Fascismo, capitale finanziario e capitalismo monopolistico di stato nelle analisi dei communisti italiani', Critica marxista, vol. X, no. 5 , SeptemberOctober. Spriano, P. (1967) 'Gramsci dirigente politico', Studi storici. Spriano, P. (1967a) Storia del Partito comunista italiano. I. Da Bordiga a Gramsci, Turin. Tamburrano, G. (1963) Antonio Gramsci, Manduria-Bari-Perugia. Tamburrano, G. (1959) 'Fasi di sviluppo del pensiero politico di Gramsci', in Caracciolo and Scalia (1959), Milan. Tamburrano, G. (1958) 'Gramsci e I'egemonia del proletariato', in Garin et al. (1958), Rome. Texier, J. (1966) Gramsci, Paris. Texier, J . (1968) 'Gramsci thdoricien des superstructures', La pens&, no. 139. Texier, J. (1973) 'Gramsci. NkcessitC et crc5ativitC historiques', La nouvelle critique, vol. 69. Todd, N. (1974) 'ideological Superstructure in Gramsci and Mao Tse-Tung', Journalof the History o f Ideas, vol. CCCV, no. 1, January-March. Togliatti, P. (1967) Gramsci, Rome. Togliatti, P. (1958) 'Gramsci e il leninismo', in Garin e t al. (1958), Rome.
68
Tronti, M. (1958) 'Alcuni questioni intorno a1 marxismo di Grarnscl', in Garin e t al. (1958). Rome. Vacca, G. (1976) 'L'occasione "Politecnico" (Note su alcuni elementi della politica culturale di Togliatti)', Lavoro critico, vol. V , January-March. Vigorelli, G.-C. (1955) 'Gramsci e Togliatti', Rassegna di politica e di storia, vol. I , no. 10, August.
Williams, G. (1960) 'The Concept of "egemonia" in the Thought of Antonio Gramsci', Journal of the History of Ideas, vol. X X I , no. 4, October-December. Williams, G. (1975) Proletarian Order, London. Zanardo, A. (1958) '11 "manuale" di Bukharin visto dai comunisti tedeschi e da Gramsci', in Garin e t al. (1958) Rome.

Literature Review Gramsci

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Description:

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Literature Review Gramsci

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

This article was downloaded by: [Universitaetsbibliothek Kassel] On: 02 November 2011, At: 05:57 Publisher: Routledge Informa

Economy and Society

Gramsci in France and Italy-a review of the literature

Gramsci in France and Italy - a review of the literature

Downloaded by [Universitaetsbibliothek Kassel] at 05:57 02 November 2011

Chantal Mouffe and Anne Showstack Sassoon

Downloaded by [Universitaetsbibliothek Kassel] at 05:57 02 November 2011

Gramsci in France and Italy

Downloaded by [Universitaetsbibliothek Kassel] at 05:57 02 November 2011

Chantal Mouffe and Anne Showstack Sassoon

Downloaded by [Universitaetsbibliothek Kassel] at 05:57 02 November 2011

Grarnsci in France and Italy

Downloaded by [Universitaetsbibliothek Kassel] at 05:57 02 November 2011

Chantal Mouffe and Anne Showstack Sassoon

Downloaded by [Universitaetsbibliothek Kassel] at 05:57 02 November 2011

Gramsci in France and Italy

Downloaded by [Universitaetsbibliothek Kassel] at 05:57 02 November 2011

Chantal Mouffe and Anne Showstack Sassoon

Downloaded by [Universitaetsbibliothek Kassel] at 05:57 02 November 2011

Grarnsci in France and ltalv

Downloaded by [Universitaetsbibliothek Kassel] at 05:57 02 November 2011

Chantal Mouffe and Anne Showstack Sassoon

Downloaded by [Universitaetsbibliothek Kassel] at 05:57 02 November 2011

Gramsci in France and Italy

Downloaded by [Universitaetsbibliothek Kassel] at 05:57 02 November 2011

Chantal Mouffe and A n n e Showstack Sassoon

Downloaded by [Universitaetsbibliothek Kassel] at 05:57 02 November 2011

Gramsci in France and Italy

Downloaded by [Universitaetsbibliothek Kassel] at 05:57 02 November 2011

Chantal Mouffe and Anne Showstack Sassoon

Downloaded by [Universitaetsbibliothek Kassel] at 05:57 02 November 2011

Grarnsci in France and Italy

Downloaded by [Universitaetsbibliothek Kassel] at 05:57 02 November 2011

Chantal Mouffe and Anne Showstack Sassoon

Downloaded by [Universitaetsbibliothek Kassel] at 05:57 02 November 2011

Grarnsci in France and Italy

Downloaded by [Universitaetsbibliothek Kassel] at 05:57 02 November 2011

Chantal Mouffe and Anne Showstack Sassoon

Downloaded by [Universitaetsbibliothek Kassel] at 05:57 02 November 2011

Grarnsci in France and ltalv

Downloaded by [Universitaetsbibliothek Kassel] at 05:57 02 November 2011

Chantal Mouffe and Anne Showstack Sassoon

Gramsci in France and ltalv

Downloaded by [Universitaetsbibliothek Kassel] at 05:57 02 November 2011

Chantal Mouffe and Anne Showstack Sassoon

Downloaded by [Universitaetsbibliothek Kassel] at 05:57 02 November 2011

Gramsci in France and Italy

Downloaded by [Universitaetsbibliothek Kassel] at 05:57 02 November 2011

Chantal Mouffe and Anne Showstack Sassoon

Downloaded by [Universitaetsbibliothek Kassel] at 05:57 02 November 2011

Grarnsci in France and Italy

Downloaded by [Universitaetsbibliothek Kassel] at 05:57 02 November 2011

Chantal Mouffe and Anne Showstack Sassoon

Downloaded by [Universitaetsbibliothek Kassel] at 05:57 02 November 2011

This presentation of the evolution of Gramscian studies indicates

Gramsci in France and Italy

Downloaded by [Universitaetsbibliothek Kassel] at 05:57 02 November 2011

Chantal Mouffe and Anne Showstack Sassoon

Downloaded by [Universitaetsbibliothek Kassel] at 05:57 02 November 2011

Gramsci in France and Italy

Downloaded by [Universitaetsbibliothek Kassel] at 05:57 02 November 2011

Chantal Mouffe and Anne Showstack Sassoon

Downloaded by [Universitaetsbibliothek Kassel] at 05:57 02 November 2011