Trotsky and Gramsci

[metalero]

any of you have info, links to letters or writings which shows a refutal, criticism or direct reference from either one to the other?

[Janus]

I can't find any links but I do know that Trotsky and Gramsci did correspond with each other concerning the political significance of the futurist movement.

[Leo]

Gramsci was some sort of a "critical" Stalinist, Trotsky obviously was against Stalin and Gramsci was harsh on Trotsky for that.

[Die Neue Zeit]

Originally posted by Leo [email protected] 08, 2007 01:59 am
Gramsci was some sort of a "critical" Stalinist, Trotsky obviously was against Stalin and Gramsci was harsh on Trotsky for that.
^^^ That's REALLY surprising, considering his hegemony theory! :o :mellow:

[metalero]

Gramsci's bit of fault in the stalinization of the Italian Communist Party was consequence of wrong approach to avoid the factionalism in order to put more attention on the national issues concerning the relation between the party and the masses, the struggle against fascism, rather than a commitment to realize the legitimate struggle in the Comintern and the Communist party of Rusia led by trotsky. However many of his principles, were exactly the same as Trotsky, who proposed an united front of all workers organizations to fight fascism. Gramsci strongly critized the ultra-left position adopted by the ICP regarding the tactic against fascism, from Bordiga to Toggliati; the same position the KPD in Germany, directed by the Stalinized Comintern, would adopt to fight nazism. He strongly opposed socialism in one country as well.

[Leo]

Well, Gramsci was actively against Trotsky and Trotskyism, supporting Stalin and Stalinism. In the PCI, Trotsky supported Bordiga [at the beginning] where Stalin supported Gramsci and Togliatti, who were acting together. I never read anywhere that Gramsci criticized socialism in one country, nor that he criticized Togliatti's policies. Can you tell me your sources for those?

[Marion]

Part of Gramsci's theory of hegemony that there are active and passive periods in revolution (hence the need for 'wars of position' or 'maneouvre' depending on the circumstances) is a direct criticism of Trotsky's theory of permanent revolution and dovetailed neatly with Stalin's one country socialism. He thought Trotsky over-exaggerated internationalism and failed to take account of national differences. He did however, share with Trotsky a belief that the 'principle of coercion, direct or indirect, in the ordering of production and work, is correct'.

According to Forgacs ('The Antonio Gramsci Reader') Gramsci initially (1924) judged the 'divisions among the Bolsheviks from Trotsky's viewpoint' and was 'alarmed by the ferocity of Stalin's criticisms of Trotsky' but by 1926 had sided with Stalin and Bukharin against Trotsky, Zinoviev and Kamenev.

Not sure if that helps at all, but is worth discussing Gramsci's Stalinist tendencies particularly as he is so often held up (particularly in educational circles) as basically libertarian...

[Hit The North]

According to Gramsci himself, the theory of hegemony is first found in Lenin's 'Two Tactics' where he discusses the relationship between the proletariat and the peasantry. This formulation was also quoted by Stalin as a repudiation of Trotsky's position. But, for Gramsci, it is above all, a Leninist conception and therefore I think its a bit much to see in this any particular devotion to 'socialism in one country' or any particular "Stalinist tendencies".

[Marion]

Quite prepared to accept that Gramsci saw hegemony as primarily a Leninist conception (although it used by Russian Social Democrats such as Axelrod earlier than Lenin its doubtful he was aware of this). Certainly Gramsci interpreted Lenin's view of hegemony as suggesting a war of position being necessary in the West under a United Front. However, it sounds to me that this depends on Lenin's view of hegemony in What is to be Done rather than any later views expressed by Lenin.

I'm not sure if Gramsci ever said he was particularly wedded to the notion of socialism in one country (perhaps someone else knows) but certainly in the course of the major Trotsky vs Stalin argument over it his rejection of Trotsky's views seem to me at best a passive acceptance of Stalin's position. That he used the arguments of early Lenin to buttress his position and saw hegemony as a Leninist concept seems neither here nor there.

[TC]

Gramsci wasn't a "Stalinist" just because he rejected Trotskyism in favour of Leninism, he was critical of both Trotsky (theoretically and politically) and Stalin (politically).

[Raúl Duke]

Maybe he made his own -ism: Gramscism. After all, he did do his theoretical additions: the theory of cultural hegemony.

I always saw him as a M-L; never as a libertarian socialist....

I bet that has something to do with the situationist ideas, which might have been influenced by Gramsci's cultural hegemony.

[Hit The North]

Originally posted by [email protected] 11, 2007 11:28 pm
Gramsci wasn't a "Stalinist" just because he rejected Trotskyism in favour of Leninism, he was critical of both Trotsky (theoretically and politically) and Stalin (politically).
Gramsci also opposed Stalinism theoretically if we count his critique of the economism which permeated the official version of historical materialism under Stalin.

JD:


I always saw him as a M-L; never as a libertarian socialist....

I bet that has something to do with the situationist ideas, which might have been influenced by Gramsci's cultural hegemony.

It probably has some association with Gramsci's support of the council movement, of which he was the main theoretician in Italy. Nevertheless, the epithet of libertarian is completely inappropriate - except in that all socialists seek the liberation of the working class.

[Leo]

Gramsci wasn't a "Stalinist" just because he rejected Trotskyism in favour of Leninism, he was critical of both Trotsky (theoretically and politically) and Stalin (politically).

Gramsci wasn't critical of Stalin politically. He was supporting Stalin, and in turn he and the right-wing of the PCI which he was in was supported by Stalin. He never opposed Stalin politically. He was a Stalinist because he was a Stalinist, not because he criticized Trotsky but because he supported Stalin against Trotsky and he was supported by Stalin against Bordiga in the PCI. He considered the USSR under Stalin as socialist and supported it. Those are simply facts.

[Die Neue Zeit]

Originally posted by [email protected] 11, 2007 04:52 am
Part of Gramsci's theory of hegemony that there are active and passive periods in revolution (hence the need for 'wars of position' or 'maneouvre' depending on the circumstances) is a direct criticism of Trotsky's theory of permanent revolution and dovetailed neatly with Stalin's one country socialism. He thought Trotsky over-exaggerated internationalism and failed to take account of national differences. He did however, share with Trotsky a belief that the 'principle of coercion, direct or indirect, in the ordering of production and work, is correct'.

According to Forgacs ('The Antonio Gramsci Reader') Gramsci initially (1924) judged the 'divisions among the Bolsheviks from Trotsky's viewpoint' and was 'alarmed by the ferocity of Stalin's criticisms of Trotsky' but by 1926 had sided with Stalin and Bukharin against Trotsky, Zinoviev and Kamenev.

Not sure if that helps at all, but is worth discussing Gramsci's Stalinist tendencies particularly as he is so often held up (particularly in educational circles) as basically libertarian...
I was under the impression that his theory had more to do with capitalist media:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cultural_hegemony


Gramsci argued that the failure of the workers to make an anti-capitalist revolution was due to the successful capture of the workers' ideology, self-understanding, and organizations by the hegemonic (ruling) culture. In other words, the perspective of the ruling class had been absorbed by the masses of workers. In "advanced" industrial societies hegemonic cultural innovations such as compulsory schooling, mass media, and popular culture had indoctrinated workers to a false consciousness. Instead of working towards a revolution that would truly serve their collective needs, workers in "advanced" societies were listening to the rhetoric of nationalist leaders, seeking consumer opportunities and middle-class status, embracing an individualist ethos of success through competition, and/or accepting the guidance of bourgeois religious leaders.

Gramsci therefore argued for a strategic distinction between a "war of position" and a "war of movement". The war of position is a culture war in which anti-capitalist elements seek to gain a dominant voice in mass media, mass organizations, and educational institutions to heighten class consciousness, teach revolutionary analysis and theory, and inspire revolutionary organization. Following the success of the war of position, communist leaders would be empowered to begin the war of movement, the actual insurrection against capitalism, with mass support.

:huh:

Now that I think about it, Gramsci's theory of hegemony per se (as opposed to his counter-hegemonic strategy) and Lenin's consciousness stuff are more closely linked to Say's Law in microeconomics (no demand if there's no supply) than I once thought!

[gilhyle]

"Comrades, it has never happened before in history that a dominant class, in its entirety should be experiencing worse living conditions than those of certain elements and strata of the dominated and subjected class.......the proletariat cannot become the dominant class if it does not overcome this contradiction by sacrificing its corporate interests......for the general and permanent interests of the class......This is the root of the errors of the Joint Oppositionand the origin of the latent dangers contained in its activity.......Only a firm unity and discipline in the Party that governs the workers State an ensure proletarian hegemony under the regime of the New Economic Policy- that is amid the ful development of the contradiction to which we have referred. But unity and discipline cannot be mechanical and enforced, they must be sincere and arise from conviction.......Comrades Zinoviev, Trotsky and Kamenev have played a very important part in educating us for the revolution.....It is to them that we are addressing ourselves in particular......The damage caused by the error of a united party can be easily mended. The damage caused by a split or a prolonged period where a split is immanent may be irreparable and fatal."

Letter to the Central Committee of the Soviet Communist Party, 14th October 1926

Togliatti disagreed with this letter, believing it overemphasised the effects of a 'split' and underestimated the importance of formulating and following the correct line.

[More Fire for the People]

There were no recorded personal contacts or meetings between Gramsci and Trotsky. Gramsci was imprisoned in '26 and Trotsky was exiled in '27 so any window of opportunity for a meeting of the two would have been cut short. However, Trotsky was aware of Gramsci's insights into the situation in Italy and highlighted him as the most prominent figure in the Italian anti-fascist movement. Gramsci was critical of Trotsky but opposed Stalin's purges and defended the Left Opposition in one of his letters — a letter suppressed by one of his former comrades for years.

[gilhyle]

The suppressed leter is, I think, the one I hve quoted, which was held back by Togliatti cos he disagreed with it.

For the record, there is a 1922 letter from Gramsci to Trotsky answering a query on Italian Futurism.

But on the substance of his position, it was, in effect, Bukharinite - continue with the NEP, build up cooperative agriculture so that, with the backing of the State, it can compete and win within the market over private agricultural capital.

[Luís Henrique]

Originally posted by [email protected] 17, 2007 10:27 pm
The suppressed leter is, I think, the one I hve quoted, which was held back by Togliatti cos he disagreed with it.

For the record, there is a 1922 letter from Gramsci to Trotsky answering a query on Italian Futurism.

But on the substance of his position, it was, in effect, Bukharinite - continue with the NEP, build up cooperative agriculture so that, with the backing of the State, it can compete and win within the market over private agricultural capital.
Yes, Gramsci's position was closer to Bukharin's.

It should be reminded that the struggle in 1926 was not between "Stalinism" - such thing didn't exist at that moment - and Trotskyism, but between two different platforms on what should be done considering the relationships between proletariat and peasantry. Trotsky and the "Joint Opposition" wanted to socialise agriculture (the brutal Stalinist colectivisation a few years later was in fact a caricature of that position), while Bukharin, backed, for different reasons, by Stalin*, defended the continuation of the NEP, with some corrections.

*Stalin's reasons, of course, were to play Bukharin and Trotsky against each other, in order to get rid of the two most important revolutionaries of the time. Once the Opposition was destroyed, he turned against Bukharin with even more brutality.

Luís Henrique

[Leo]

Gramsci was critical of Trotsky but opposed Stalin's purges and defended the Left Opposition in one of his letters


The suppressed leter is, I think, the one I hve quoted, which was held back by Togliatti cos he disagreed with it.

The letter in 1926, although critical of Stalin, still supported and defended Stalin against Trotsky.

[gilhyle]

It defended the 'majority'....whether that amounted to a defence of Stalin is doubtful.

WHat Togliatti would have found difficult about the letter is the argument that the party might be wrong, but without a split this can be corrected. This was, of course, Trotsky's logic in 1923-25 and was the logic of those charicatured in Darkness at Noon by Koestler. It is a logic which implies that the party is wrong.

That said, there is no evidence that Gramsci shared the oppositionist critique.