Faux Real
18th September 2007, 04:50
Originally posted by Essay on Gramsci
While Gramsci was in prison, Stalin had consolidated power in the USSR and the Third International. Gramsci saw some disturbing trends in these developments, that he called economism or mechanism. Even in his earlier writings on the Bolshevik Revolution he had attacked those who argued that Russia was not at the correct stage of history to have a socialist revolution. Economism for Gramsci consists of two important fallacies; one, economism separates the sphere of economics from its social and political context and; two, it privileges economics over the social and political spheres in ways that are mechanical. Economism occurs in both radical and mainstream views of economics. In mainstream classical economic theory economism shows up in the view of relationship of the individual to state or society. The individual follows a set of allegedly natural tendencies that are separated from the society. According to this view the individual pursues this natural self-interest. The role of state or society in the creation and support of these tendencies is downplayed or ignored. In Marxist economics, economism can be seen in a rigid adherence to what Gramsci called a mechanical historical materialism. This mechanism is the idea that history will follow a rigid set of stages that are primarily characterized by the economic role one class plays in relationship to another. The social and political nature of the revolutionary transformation of society is deemed as secondary at best.
Gramsci's attack on economism and mechanism recast the relationship between the Marxist conception of the base and superstructure, between the economic component and the social and political components. This was his most fundamental contribution to Marxist thinking. Gramsci has been called the theoretician of the superstructure. For Gramsci, Marxist economism misunderstood the proper relationship of the superstructure to the base. It is in this context that Gramsci's idea of common sense must be understood.
Gramsci believed that the politics emerging from economism and mechanism created an elitist vanguardism and a bureaucratic centralism which he opposed. For Gramsci, the modern political party, which he referred to as the modern Prince, needed to have a dialectical relationship between the leadership and the masses, not a top-down vanguardism. It was the separation of the leadership and intellectuals from the masses that lay at the root of bureaucratic centralism. Gramsci wanted a politics where the modern political party was the vehicle for a dialectical dialogue between the common sense of the masses and the philosophy of organic intellectuals, who would be connected organically to their class, the working-class.
With the premises of economism and mechanism as defined above, is it safe to say that should the revolutionary leadership in a vanguard make sure to not stray into economism nor mechanism that it could stay legitimate and in control of the proletariat?
Also, are economism and mechanism the only two main problems, that if not avoided, "dooms" a vanguard from it's inception? Besides a bureaucratic party of course...
While Gramsci was in prison, Stalin had consolidated power in the USSR and the Third International. Gramsci saw some disturbing trends in these developments, that he called economism or mechanism. Even in his earlier writings on the Bolshevik Revolution he had attacked those who argued that Russia was not at the correct stage of history to have a socialist revolution. Economism for Gramsci consists of two important fallacies; one, economism separates the sphere of economics from its social and political context and; two, it privileges economics over the social and political spheres in ways that are mechanical. Economism occurs in both radical and mainstream views of economics. In mainstream classical economic theory economism shows up in the view of relationship of the individual to state or society. The individual follows a set of allegedly natural tendencies that are separated from the society. According to this view the individual pursues this natural self-interest. The role of state or society in the creation and support of these tendencies is downplayed or ignored. In Marxist economics, economism can be seen in a rigid adherence to what Gramsci called a mechanical historical materialism. This mechanism is the idea that history will follow a rigid set of stages that are primarily characterized by the economic role one class plays in relationship to another. The social and political nature of the revolutionary transformation of society is deemed as secondary at best.
Gramsci's attack on economism and mechanism recast the relationship between the Marxist conception of the base and superstructure, between the economic component and the social and political components. This was his most fundamental contribution to Marxist thinking. Gramsci has been called the theoretician of the superstructure. For Gramsci, Marxist economism misunderstood the proper relationship of the superstructure to the base. It is in this context that Gramsci's idea of common sense must be understood.
Gramsci believed that the politics emerging from economism and mechanism created an elitist vanguardism and a bureaucratic centralism which he opposed. For Gramsci, the modern political party, which he referred to as the modern Prince, needed to have a dialectical relationship between the leadership and the masses, not a top-down vanguardism. It was the separation of the leadership and intellectuals from the masses that lay at the root of bureaucratic centralism. Gramsci wanted a politics where the modern political party was the vehicle for a dialectical dialogue between the common sense of the masses and the philosophy of organic intellectuals, who would be connected organically to their class, the working-class.
With the premises of economism and mechanism as defined above, is it safe to say that should the revolutionary leadership in a vanguard make sure to not stray into economism nor mechanism that it could stay legitimate and in control of the proletariat?
Also, are economism and mechanism the only two main problems, that if not avoided, "dooms" a vanguard from it's inception? Besides a bureaucratic party of course...