Could Someone Explain Gramsci's Theories?

[Flying Trotsky]

I've never had a chance to get my hands on the works of Gramsci, and I was hoping someone would be able to explain (in basic terms) what his theories were. Can anyone help me out here?

[Red Commissar]

There's a lot to describe, it's not too easy to make it simple with out taking up a long block of text.

If you want to have a chance to read them and judge them for yourself, and ask for help on specific parts, that's probably a better approach.

The Antonio Gramsci Reader, Foracs

http://ifile.it/2mkez7t

The Pre-Prison Writings. This has some of his L'Ordine Nuovo writings and

http://www.megaupload.com/?d=EEYFXHU0

Of these, they are only interesting if you want to see his political revolution. The "significant" ones are his L'Ordine Nuovo articles and the "Southern Question" article. Those can all be found in the Pre-Prison writings collection.

And the "Selections from the Prison Notebooks"

http://uploading.com/files/A1QR6XF7/071780397x%20gramsci-notebooks.rar.html

http://rapidshare.com/files/259329830/071780397x_gramsci-notebooks.rar.html

The last upload is where his more well-known contents come in, mainly what he writes on Hegemony in the "State and Civil Society", the political party in "The Modern Prince", his analysis of Italian history, and the theory of Intellectuals. There's some other stuff on "Americanism and Fordism" which is interesting too.

His "main" thoughts for starters would probably be the following:

-The Intellectuals: Gramsci makes a distinction between "traditional" and "organic" intellectuals. The former refers to more expected "intellectuals"- such as professors, philosophers, etc., while the latter refers to those with skills that grew out of a particular demand within their class. Gramsci seems to indicate the "organic" intellectual from the working class is to be the one that organizes and agitates.

-The Passive Revolution: an attempt to explain how the "bourgeoisie" are able to withstand tumults and pressures. He posits that they undergo a "passive" revolution, where they make concessions on certain reforms while retaining their power. This would in the end undercut revolutionary fervor. Gramsci describes various regimes at the time that could be described as the bourgeoisie undergoing such a process, such as social democracy, "grand" coalitions (like MacDonald's government in the UK), and to an extent, fascism.

-Hegemony: Gramsci borrows this term from formulations by previous theorists, which refers to the means by which the "ruling class" is able to rule in their respective states. He makes a distinction from previous Marxist analysis when he posits that this process by which the ruling class rules through "consent" by the other classes is by the power it exercises through the superstructure (civil society), rather than the base (or the means of production). The ruling class gets its rule by a sort of coerced consent, disseminating their values through various faucets in society. Only in moments of chaos does this deception go away and the force becomes apparent.

-The Modern Prince: Gramsci here basically describes the "revolutionary" party. It's probably one of his more overlooked contributions, and it's worth reading I think to put into context all his other writings.

He basically goes into the nature of the "civil society" and the nature of the state, their relation and impact on one another. This presents problems to those who overthrow the old order because it will "rebound" against it. Here he then makes the distinction between the "War of Position", forming a counter-hegemonic block around the workers in the Civil Society, and the "War of Maneuver" or the actual revolution against the state. The role of the Communist Party is to do this, acting as a force of the workers in forming their hegemony and reaching out to other downtrodden classes, namely the peasants. He also sees the "Communists" as the modern Jacobins, who were able to form the hegemony of their ideas over the rural segments to make an effective block against the forces of reaction (vendee armies, foreign intervention, etc.), and this is mainly something he takes from Lenin concerning the relationship between the workers and peasants.

-Americanism and Fordism: This is basically an attempt by Gramsci to explain why capitalism developed the way it did in the United States compared to Europe. Essentially he attributes it to the United States not having a parasitic feudal remnant (beyond the slave holding classes), which allowed it to progress as most liberals desired. Lenin's Tomb had a good explanation, much better than I can do, about this:

http://leninology.blogspot.com/2011/02/gramsci-on-americanism-and-fordism.html

And while I'm at Lenin's Tomb, he also wrote a good one on hegemony:

http://leninology.blogspot.com/2011/05/hegemony-war-of-position-and-organic.html

I suggest though you get a good knowledge of Marx and Engels, as well Lenin before you go onto Gramsci. He bases much of his thought on the analysis of those guys, and you need to know what they say before you understand what he is getting at. He tends to write not too clearly in his prison writings due to prison censors and expected those versed in Marxism to understand what he was getting at. You won't gain much out of him if you don't understand his predecessors.

[Flying Trotsky]

So if I understand you correctly, a lot of Gramsci's work is focused on dealing with how the ruling class retains and extends power through the use of "concessions" and pacification?

[Red Commissar]

So if I understand you correctly, a lot of Gramsci's work is focused on dealing with how the ruling class retains and extends power through the use of "concessions" and pacification?

Among other things. He also explores how various facets are utilized- religion, education, culture, etc. in forming the "common sense" and values in that society to line up with that of the "Ruling Class". Basically "consent" is more or less derived from indirect and direct channels and the government is stable. Only in moments of Crisis does the "force" come out.

In this respect he was influenced by Machiavelli.

[Flying Trotsky]

Sounds like his works are more relevant now than ever..

[Red Commissar]

Sounds like his works are more relevant now than ever..

Problem with Gramsci is the way he wrote, which led to wildly different interpretations of what he was getting at. The initial translations after WW II were edited or tilted to provide support for the PCI's turn towards what would become termed "Eurocommunism", even though the actual translations would have made Gramsci out to be what the party would later blast others for being "insurrectionist". And we saw what path Eurocommunism eventually led to in the end. Here is a two part article from Chris Harman about this Eurocommunist use of his thought. It's from a Trotskyist perspective, though I think it makes some good points.

http://www.marxists.org/history/etol/writers/harman/1977/05/gramsci1.html
http://www.marxists.org/history/etol/writers/harman/1977/06/gramsci2.html

Then on the other end, the conservatives who lump Gramsci in with the Frankfurt School in the conspiracy of the "Cultural Marxists". In fact, if you look up the Norwegian shooter's manifesto, there are a number of references to Gramsci in there as he goes on and on in his rantings. He even goes as far as to use one of the most commonly misattributed quotes to Gramsci, "The Long March through the Institutions" (eg slowly effecting change from within), which actually finds its source in Rudi Dutchske, who himself had his own odd interpretation of a combination of the Frankfurt School, Gramsci, and Maoism.

There were many of those who I think found a correct interpretation of Gramsci and worked him in their party direction, along with other figures rather than the sole figure. That is what he should be viewed as.

Really, in the end it depends on your perspective. In my opinion, like any other Marxist we should be able to acknowledge what is a good point and worth looking into, and what should be critiqued and improved. We shouldn't solely rely on one theorist, it is a constant process. On the shoulder of giants, so to speak.

Edit:

Though he himself was a part of the Eurocommunist trend, Eric Hobsbawm had a good grasp of Gramsci. There's a long speech by him on youtube about it. The first three parts is his history, and the last three about his theory- though even the theory is still from a historical POV. This is Hobsbawm's field though.

X6Pb0Ttkerw

[Jimmie Higgins]

Sounds like his works are more relevant now than ever..Yeah I though he was a dificult read but very interesting and rewarding too. He was a bolshevik who was going through a revolutionary time in a country that had a more established capitalist class than Russia - and unlike Rosa Luxembourg or other revolutionaries of that period he was not killed, but ended up in jail with lots of time to think about the way the ruling class maintains a hold on society. He was an activist radical who was sort of forced into talking about things in a general and also deliberately coded way.

[Flying Trotsky]

I thought Mussolini had Gramsci executed...

[Red Commissar]

I thought Mussolini had Gramsci executed...

No, where did you get that idea? However, the prison took its toll on his frail health- he was a hunchback of sorts due to being born with Pott's Disease. He was also dropped as a baby which gave him some developmental problems. So he went into jail with pretty debilitating conditions that were exacerbated by the conditions and moved him closer to death.

His sentence was reduced from 20 years to 10 in 1932 after agitation by his contacts like Romain Rolland and Piero Sraffa. He was already beginning to show problems with his isolation and was developing insomnia.

By mid-1933, he began to suffer mental breakdowns and hallucinations, which were prompted by news of the death of his mother. Shortly afterwards he was taken to a prison clinic and he spent the rest of his life slowly rotting away under guard. Through 1934 he had sporadic attacks and couldn't do much. By 1935 his output of writings began to slow down to almost nothing. He continued to have his health worsen as he developed gout and hypertension on account of internal swelling from complications of Pott's Disease. He was given "conditional freedom", meaning he could call on people to visit them and he took that opportunity to give his last goodbyes through much of 1935 and 1936.

By April 21st, 1937, his sentence expired and he was let go, but in really bad health. He ended up suffering a cerebral hemorrhage on April 25th, and died two days later on April 27th at the age of 46. Essentially the Fascists basically cleaned their hands of his death, by ensuring that he technically didn't die in their custody. Though technically the jail time did pretty much break him down and kill him, and to that end they achieved their goal.

The fact he was able to write anything at all- and at the volume he did- is pretty spectacular considering the pains he had to go through. He never really met for anyone to look at his notebooks, but someone smuggled it out. As to who exactly did that, it is unclear. Someone got it to his sister-in-law who managed to get it to Moscow.

[Flying Trotsky]

Not sure where I heard the claim that Mussolini had Gramsci executed- whoever said it must've just meant that Gramsci died as a result of Mussolini's regime...