Gramsci

[Absolut]

Ive been searching for books by Gramsci on the concept of cultural hegemony, but I havent been able to find any, the only book I found was about his prison letters, and they were only about his personal life, which Im not really interested in.

Are there any good (introductory would be nice) books about the cultural hegemony? In what of Gramscis texts can you find this concept?

[Ligeia]

Look here:
http://www.marxists.org/archive/gramsci/index.htm
There aren't too many text by him anyway...
But don't you get it wrong, you should read his prison letter books:
At first you could think they are all about his personal life but there are many insights and comments in his letters about cultural hegemony,you'll have to search but there it is.
German Author Sabine Kebir has written books about Gramci's concepts but I'm afraid they were never translated into English.

[OneNamedNameLess]

Ive been searching for books by Gramsci on the concept of cultural hegemony, but I havent been able to find any, the only book I found was about his prison letters, and they were only about his personal life, which Im not really interested in.

Are there any good (introductory would be nice) books about the cultural hegemony? In what of Gramscis texts can you find this concept?

I have two fairly decent Gramsci books: one political, and one prison writings. I cant help you much as I got them at a second hand bookshop. They do obviously deal with the concept but I cant think where else you could buy anything on cultural hegemony other than the internet. I bought the books at a bookshop which sells mainly leftist literature so if you know of anything similar nearby they are sure to have some of his works. I would recommend his prison works for what you are looking for.

For some reason, it remains fairly difficult to find material on Gramsci. Even marxists.org isn't fantastic compared to their stuff on other individuals. It's ashame really, as he is one of the most impressive Marxist thinkers I have come across.

Check out my signature. It's from a school essay by Gramsci :)

[Absolut]

Just so happens I work in a bookshop that used to be run by the Swedish trotskyists, and it has tons of leftist literature, so thats not really a problem. :cool:

Whats the political Gramsci book you have called, Green Socialist? If its any good, I might pick it up.

Thanks for the link, Ligeia. Seems that Quentin Hoare has written some about Gramsci as well as translated his letters. Is he any good?

[Hit The North]

Here's a pretty good article on Gramsci by Chris Harman of the SWP:

http://www.isj.org.uk/index.php4?id=308

[Yehuda Stern]

In the struggle between the Left Opposition and the Stalinists, Gramsci took Stalin's side, and even persecuted and eventually expelled the Bordiga faction of the party (which wasn't Trotskyist, but left communist - at any rate, anti-Stalinist). That the SWP so closely embraces Gramsci just shows their contempt for Trotskyism and their eclecticism once more.

Philosphically, Gramsci was a bit of a dualist, in the sense that he did not believe that either being determines consciousness or consciousness determines being, but that the two affect each other equally. It is truly hard not to notice the problems with such a viewpoint.

[chegitz guevara]

Gramsci was imprisoned in 1926, so I suspect that's unlikely that Gramsci did any such thing.

[Hit The North]

In the struggle between the Left Opposition and the Stalinists, Gramsci took Stalin's side, and even persecuted and eventually expelled the Bordiga faction of the party (which wasn't Trotskyist, but left communist - at any rate, anti-Stalinist).


Gramsci's position is more ambiguous than you present it. It's true that he supported the centre against the Left opposition, but this was way before the term 'Stalinist' was thought of, before it was far from clear what Stalin represented and certainly can't be used to characterise Gramsci's politics.

As for the Bordiga faction, they deserved explusion. It was their extreme sectarianism, withdrawing support from defense organisations which were not controled by the Communist Party, which helped to divide the opposition to the Fascists.


That the SWP so closely embraces Gramsci just shows their contempt for Trotskyism and their eclecticism once more.


You're weird. Revolutionary Marxism doesn't need purists. Don't you think Marx and Engels were eclectic? Just because the SWP have attempted to gleen the revolutionary kernel of Gramsci's ideas, doesn't in any way imply an uncritical affiliation to everything he did and said.

Anyway, you keep polishing your brass bust of the Old Man and see if it conjours up the genie of revolution.


Philosphically, Gramsci was a bit of a dualist, in the sense that he did not believe that either being determines consciousness or consciousness determines being, but that the two affect each other equally. It is truly hard not to notice the problems with such a viewpoint.

So you don't think consciousness acts back upon being? Anyway, there is no human 'being' without consciousness. It's what separates us from the vegetables.

[KC]

Philosphically, Gramsci was a bit of a dualist, in the sense that he did not believe that either being determines consciousness or consciousness determines being, but that the two affect each other equally. It is truly hard not to notice the problems with such a viewpoint.Um, no. They don't "affect each other equally" because they are essentially two sides of the same coin. So this is a straw man.

[Yehuda Stern]

Gramsci was imprisoned in 1926, so I suspect that's unlikely that Gramsci did any such thing.

Unlikely as it may be, it happened. Anyway, the faction fight in the CPSU started in 1923, so Gramsci had plenty of time to intervene in it.


It's true that he supported the centre against the Left opposition, but this was way before the term 'Stalinist' was thought of, before it was far from clear what Stalin represented and certainly can't be used to characterise Gramsci's politics.

It was always clear what "socialism in one country" meant. That started in 1924. Gramsci supported the nationalist centre of the CPSU against the revolutionary left. That should be enough to condemn him as at least a centrist.


As for the Bordiga faction, they deserved explusion. It was their extreme sectarianism

Ah, the old Brit ortotrot excuse returns. Bordiga's "sectarianism" did not allow the fascists to come to power, it was the SP's attitude towards the Italian state and police that did. It is quite disgusting that you support this undemocratic and counterrevolutionary act of Gramsci.


Don't you think Marx and Engels were eclectic?

There's not much thinking involved; I know they weren't.


Just because the SWP have attempted to gleen the revolutionary kernel of Gramsci's ideas, doesn't in any way imply an uncritical affiliation to everything he did and said.

And yet you uncritically support both his theories and his politics, including the expulsion of a left wing opposition from the CP. Some critical support.


Anyway, you keep polishing your brass bust of the Old Man and see if it conjours up the genie of revolution.

Lord no! We don't need Trotsky. That's too old fashioned and not attractive enough for college kids. We need Gramsci and Bukharin and Chomsky instead.


So you don't think consciousness acts back upon being?

That's a nice attempt at being smart, but although they act upon each other, one of them has to be primary. Marx, Engels, Lenin and Trotsky made that point repetadly. However, since they're too "pure" for you, I guess it doesn't matter - you keep going with the Gramscist school.


Um, no. They don't "affect each other equally" because they are essentially two sides of the same coin. So this is a straw man.

This sentence means nothing. Not anything I can glean from it, anyway.

[KC]

This sentence means nothing. Not anything I can glean from it, anyway.

My entire point was that they are not two separate "things" that play off each other mechanistically but simply different relations of the same whole. They don't simply "affect each other" because they are each contained in the other.

[Hit The North]

It was always clear what "socialism in one country" meant. That started in 1924. Gramsci supported the nationalist centre of the CPSU against the revolutionary left. That should be enough to condemn him as at least a centrist.


Perhaps. I'll admit that I need to read up on this aspect of CPI history. It's clear that Gramsci and Bordiga represented two different reactions to the down-turn in class struggle in the early 1920s. The move right of the Third International, led by Lenin and Trotsky, was taken up by Gramsci and opposed by Bordiga. For Bordiga, I think the right thing to do was to exist in isolation and wait for the masses to turn leftward once more. The exponents of the move right, argued that the CPs should move away from maximialist programmes and towards building united fronts with reformist worker organisations.

In many ways, as Harman points out in his article, Gramsci's theoretical work is best seen as an elaboration of united front strategy - or war of position. The reason the SWP has considered the theoretical legacy of Gramsci is because it, too, is attempting to build a mass workers party in a situation of low class struggle.


There's not much thinking involved; I know they weren't.So you don't appreciate the eclecticism inherent in the creation of historical materialism: the synthesis of German idealism, French materialism and socialism, and British Political Economy? Marx took this work and he extracted what was necessary for the development of his own thought and rejected those elements which were redundant.


And yet you uncritically support both his theories and his politics, including the expulsion of a left wing opposition from the CP. Some critical support. Who said I accepted his ideas uncritically? Meanwhile, I'm not clear if the SWP has a 'party line' on Gramcsi.

But are you saying that you reject all of Gramsci's ideas? Even when they were in accordance with Lenin's? Do we accept every written word and every deed of Lenin? If we disagree with one aspect, do we turn against him in total?

I'd also like to add that in the spirit of my eclecticism, I find some of Bordiga's ideas interesting too.



Lord no! We don't need Trotsky. That's too old fashioned and not attractive enough for college kids. We need Gramsci and Bukharin and Chomsky instead.
That's not what I meant. And, anyway, the pages of ISJ contain far more scrutiny and elaboration of the ideas of Trotsky and Lenin than they do of Gramsci. As for Bukharin and Chomsky...?


That's a nice attempt at being smart, but although they act upon each other, one of them has to be primary. Marx, Engels, Lenin and Trotsky made that point repetadly. However, since they're too "pure" for you, I guess it doesn't matter - you keep going with the Gramscist school.
Yep, we're a smart bunch here on RevLeft :). I don't disagree that being logically precedes consciousness. You have to be before you can think. How could it be otherwise? Nevertheless consciousness is not a passive reflection of material being. We cannot grasp reality by seeing the relation as one way. I think Marx, Engels, Lenin and Trotsky emphasised that point repeatedly, too.

As for Gramsci, furnish me with the quotation where he opposes the primacy of material being over consciousness and we'll take a critique of him from there.

[Yehuda Stern]

My entire point was that they are not two separate "things" that play off each other mechanistically but simply different relations of the same whole. They don't simply "affect each other" because they are each contained in the other.

This is a dualist point of view, which finds no support in Marx. For Marx, being determines consciousness. While the two may affect each other, being is primary.


The move right of the Third International, led by Lenin and Trotsky

http://www.cartoonwatcher.com/scooby-doo/assets/scooby-doo-pictures/scooby-doo-picture-Scooby_307.gifWHAAT?

Sorry, couldn't resist - it's so fantastically delusional and ridiculous to claim that the turn right of the Comintern was led by Lenin and Trotsky. I know it's very fashionable in SWP circles to condemn the original Bolsheviks for allowing Stalinism to come to power, but please do not try that line on anyone who knows anything about the revolution.


So you don't appreciate the eclecticism inherent in the creation of historical materialism: the synthesis of German idealism, French materialism and socialism, and British Political Economy?I just don't call that eclecticism. Not any combination of ideas from different people / countries is eclectic - then, anyone who takes ideas from both Marx and Lenin would be eclectic. The point is that the SWP incorporates into its theories many ideas that do not logically fit in with the Marxist ideas that it purports to hold, all in the name of being more accessible to the middle class left by adopting whatever figures are fashionable with it.


But are you saying that you reject all of Gramsci's ideas?Probably any that he has formulated originally. I'm very open minded about it, though - you are more than welcome to present any idea by Gramsci that you consider to be good and helpful to Marxist theory, outside of his philosophical ideas, here in any other form of dialogue, and I promise to consider them. This, however, has nothing to do with the current debate.


the pages of ISJ contain far more scrutiny and elaboration of the ideas of Trotsky and Lenin than they do of Gramsci. As for Bukharin and Chomsky...?I would beg to differ. To your question, Bukharin is often glorified in the writings of SWPers, though I admit that with Chomsky I may be confusing you with the American ISO (though you can't really blame me for that, now can you?).


I don't disagree that being logically precedes consciousness. You have to be before you can think. How could it be otherwise?Idealists claim that humans are born with consciousness that does not change as a function of their life experience and place in the productive process. That's what the debate is about. I agree that it's absurd, but it's pretty common nontheless.


Nevertheless consciousness is not a passive reflection of material being. We cannot grasp reality by seeing the relation as one way. I think Marx, Engels, Lenin and Trotsky emphasised that point repeatedly, too.
I agree.


As for Gramsci, furnish me with the quotation where he opposes the primacy of material being over consciousness and we'll take a critique of him from there.I don't know if there's a specific quote where he does that - however, I seem to recall that the notion that the superstructure affects the structure as much as the other way around underlies much of his work. Then again, I haven't read anything by Gramsci in a while, having found more interesting things to do such as staring at walls (if I were an SWPer or IMTer, I would surely add here "and participate in actions with workers and such!." They really can't resist.).

[KC]

This is a dualist point of view, which finds no support in Marx. For Marx, being determines consciousness. While the two may affect each other, being is primary.

Only because you are failing to understand me, the same way that you failed to understand Gramsci (as well as Marx).

[Yehuda Stern]

Of course that's the problem:


Materialism
Those philosophical trends which emphasise the material world (the world outside of consciousness) as the foundation and determinant of thinking, especially in relation to the question of the origin of knowledge. Compare with idealism (http://www.marxists.org/glossary/terms/i/d.htm#idealism). For materialism, thoughts are “reflections (http://www.marxists.org/glossary/terms/r/e.htm#reflection)” of matter (http://www.marxists.org/glossary/terms/m/a.htm#matter), outside of Mind, which existed before and independently of thought. According the Marx:
“The chief defect of all hitherto existing materialism - that of Feuerbach included - is that the thing, reality, sensuousness, is conceived only in the form of the object or of contemplation, but not as sensuous human activity, practice, not subjectively.”
[Theses on Feuerbach (http://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1845/theses/theses.htm#001)].


From MIA Encyclopedia.

[Hit The North]

Originally posted by Yehuda Stern
Sorry, couldn't resist - it's so fantastically delusional and ridiculous to claim that the turn right of the Comintern was led by Lenin and Trotsky. I know it's very fashionable in SWP circles to condemn the original Bolsheviks for allowing Stalinism to come to power, but please do not try that line on anyone who knows anything about the revolution.

I suggest you read the materials from the 4th world congress: http://www.marxists.org/archive/trotsky/1924/ffyci-2/index.htm

Especially the Political Perspectives, written by Trotsky:
http://www.marxists.org/archive/trotsky/1924/ffyci-2/24.htm

[KC]

Of course that's the problem:Of course it is, because you think that I am saying that social being and consciousness affect each other equally. This is not what I am saying at all; the reason you are misinterpreting me in such a way is because you are assuming social being and consciousness to be two separate, independent things, which is exactly what I am addressing.

I am not saying that social being and consciousness affect each other equally. I am saying that each is included as a component of the other.

[Yehuda Stern]

Bob: Please avoid the SWP habit of assuming you are smarter than everyone. I know quite well of what Trotsky wrote; instead of sending me to read volumes of his work, perhaps you should just quote the relevant parts.

KC: I understand what you are saying, but that's just another way of defining dualism, which is certainly not materialist in any way.

[KC]

KC: I understand what you are saying, but that's just another way of defining dualism, which is certainly not materialist in any way.

Um, no it's not; it's not even close.

[Post-Something]

I don't know if there's a specific quote where he does that - however, I seem to recall that the notion that the superstructure affects the structure as much as the other way around underlies much of his work.

I don't think that's really what Gramsci was getting at. I think he was just criticising economic determinism, because it's a stupid over-generalisation.


Anyway, what is wrong with the idea that a culture can be dominated by a class?

[Yehuda Stern]

I don't think that's really what Gramsci was getting at. I think he was just criticising economic determinism, because it's a stupid over-generalisation.

His enthusiastic support of Stalinism, which is characterized very much by economic determinism, suggests otherwise.


Anyway, what is wrong with the idea that a culture can be dominated by a class?

Where did I say anything to that effect?

[Post-Something]

Where did I say anything to that effect?

Here:


Probably any that he has formulated originally. I'm very open minded about it, though - you are more than welcome to present any idea by Gramsci that you consider to be good and helpful to Marxist theory, outside of his philosophical ideas, here in any other form of dialogue, and I promise to consider them.

[Yehuda Stern]

And do you believe that Gramsci has formulated the theory that a culture has class content on his own?

[Post-Something]

And do you believe that Gramsci has formulated the theory that a culture has class content on his own?

No, I think he expanded on Marx's theories of base and superstructure. Gramsci asserted that the values, morality and shared beliefs of a culture in capitalist society would be subject to class bias, and thus the term Cultural Hegemony. The question is though, do you think his expansion is a legitimate extension to Marx's theories or not?

[Yehuda Stern]

I don't understand how it is an expansion. Marxism always recognized that morality and culture are "subject to class bias," i.e. set by ruling class ideology at times of social peace. How is this new?

[Post-Something]

I don't understand how it is an expansion. Marxism always recognized that morality and culture are "subject to class bias," i.e. set by ruling class ideology at times of social peace. How is this new?

Because Gramsci went into far more detail, and showed how this could explain why revolutions hadn't happened in advanced capitalist countries. He showed how capitalism had advanced to such a degree to keep workers divided, which was the reason he gave for the revolutions not happening. The idea that through schooling, mass media and popular culture, the workers were indoctrined with a false class consciousness.

[Yehuda Stern]

Then yes, I think Gramsci didn't "expand" but twisted the idea. Schools and media are important, but they only have an effect in an atmosphere in which the working class' consciousness is still bourgeois. During revolutionary struggles, the workers learn quite quickly not to trust what they've been told in school and in the media.

This is a good example of Gramsci's dualism, too - the way the argument is made, consciousness is the reason why there hasn't been a revolution, not the material relation of forces between the classes.

[Post-Something]

Then yes, I think Gramsci didn't "expand" but twisted the idea. Schools and media are important, but they only have an effect in an atmosphere in which the working class' consciousness is still bourgeois. During revolutionary struggles, the workers learn quite quickly not to trust what they've been told in school and in the media.

And Gramsci is arguing that the reason those revolutionary struggles haven't gone underway is because they are trapped in this false class consciousness. I think without Gramsci's analysis, that capitalism has managed to "capture" working class ideology, Marx's prediction that the working class would overthrow the Bourgeoisie isn't a serious one. Gramsci has managed to show that the working class is structurally divided, to a degree which means we may have to rethink the revolution itself.


This is a good example of Gramsci's dualism, too - the way the argument is made, consciousness is the reason why there hasn't been a revolution, not the material relation of forces between the classes.

Erm, that's a good point, but I think it's arguable that class consciousness is determined by material conditions.

[ZeroNowhere]

Then yes, I think Gramsci didn't "expand" but twisted the idea. Schools and media are important, but they only have an effect in an atmosphere in which the working class' consciousness is still bourgeois.
Or perhaps they help to keep it that way?


During revolutionary struggles, the workers learn quite quickly not to trust what they've been told in school and in the media.
Yes, but school and the media help to keep them from revolutionary struggles.