A member posted a part of this on the main boards the other day of a series I had'nt come across before of which I've only had time to hear the first part.Has anyone heard all parts and if so what do you make of them and are they worth my continuing with them when I get the time?And also what do think of Hobsbawm? Here are all Parts 1-7: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=X6Pb0...eature=related. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dXrBL...eature=related. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nagUd...eature=related. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rmh2m...eature=related. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4CsIL...eature=related. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9A0b7...eature=related http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=43Lwi...eature=related.
I don't know about Hobsbawn beyond what wikipedia tells me. Up to part three we see a biography, then the rest is overview of his main ideas. The beginning has an interesting anecdote about Togliatti I hadn't heard about before. I've watched through all seven parts while I was floating around on the internet doing other matters. I think it's good however he points out that Gramsci was born into poverty in Sardinia, which was incredibly backwards at the time of his birth. He reiterates this later as making him different from other Marxist intellectuals who typically came from a middle-class or even upper-class background. But I didn't know that Gramsci had received his dwarf cripple condition from being dropped like Hobsbawn said. more over his ability to secure a scholarship to Turin despite his shortcomings. He also highlights the importance of his years on Turin in moving Gramsci away from a Sardinian nationalist to a Marxist perspective due to the people he came into contact with, as well as the Industrial nature of Turin (and subsequently a proletarian class). He brushes over the early years of the PCd'I and goes into prison, I suppose to avoid the usual sectarian bullshit that arises out of that. He does point out though that Gramsci hadn't been able to write anything for the first three years but only allowed to read literature. He proceeds into describing again Gramsci's position of being a Marxist intellectual from the lower classes, an intellectual and theorist, as well as a leader of a mass party, which was a unique combination at that time (as opposed to having leaders who were made to be theorists of a party after the fact). Hobsbawn also pointed out that Gramsci had the ability to write because he was in jail, as opposed to have had to lead the party if he was still on the outside. He also makes a good point on how his theoretical standpoint owed more to the Russian Revolution than the experiences of the Second International and old Social Democracy- no baggage from older experiences to put it simply. I suppose this would lead to Gramsci's admiration of Lenin for being pragmatic and being able to have theory translate into action, as opposed to dogmatic defense of "theory" that could be translated into a pragmatic application. Starting at part three he describes the conditions of Italy, and what occurred after, like many other nations in Europe, a socialist revolution failed despite having the "conditions" necessary for such. Gramsci's idea of adapting theory and not being dismayed when conditions are right, as Hobsbawn points out with their own situation the 1980s and much like we are having right now- where is the socialist revolution? Part 4 he talks about important points of Gramsci's thought (going past the concept of intellectuals). 1. The role of politics, and its central importance to Gramsci. That is, according to Hobsbawn, the means by which a single human consciousness is brought into contact with the social and natural world. 2. Theory of Hegemony: domination of the ruling class is not only by state and economic power, but also by bringing the civil society inline with the interests of the ruling class (in other words, what people see as "common sense" and normal). Ruling class domination is based on the intertwining of these two factors- state and civil society-, rule, and consent (going back to the concept of a social contract). Hobsbawn goes into how the bourgeois was able to form a robust civil society that was integrated, as opposed to the forms that "civil society" took in more backwards nations like Tsarist Russia. He explores the concept of a "dominant" class, and iterates that class rule and state is not something that can be seen in arrangements like apartheid (and something that is unique, as it doesn't have consent- a component that must be there for the long-term survival of a state). Even when there is opposition to a state, some still line up behind it out of fear of what alternative might come with out- say a fascist dictatorship guarding against "godlessness" and communism in the case of Franco's Spain, or western democracies fashioning themselves as bastions of Freedom. He discusses afterwards about the struggle for state hegemony- not of just one's class but others. Or more appropriate the quest for one class's domination and the consent of others. Gramsci used the example of Italian unification (and in the notebooks, as I recall, how the French bourgeoisie were able to recruit the French peasants in the fight for the Republic). Adding on to Hobsbawn's concept here, it leads to Gramsci's support for Lenin's attempts to make a peasant-worker alliance, as Gramsci saw that the Urban proletariat had to "recruit" the agrarian workers to their cause for revolution, as the Italian nationalists and French did before. Something he referred to as the "national-popular" alliance, which he saw advanced by Machiavelli as well. Hobsbawn spends most of the video on this part. 3. "Power" may be seized and transfered- be it through election, coup, or revolution- but Hegemony can't. The two are separate. He brings up numerous examples in the past, like the Carnation Revolution of Portugal, where left-leaning revolutionaries seized power but not hegemony, and as such causing Portugal to go where it is now. He contrasts this to the Iranian Revolution where the regime was able to both seize power and hegemony over the Iranian state. He also brings up the case of the Labour Party, which according to him has backed off its ambitions of its founding years to one of merely seizing power like any other bourgeois party, and acting on the defensive to others' attempts at doing so- i.e. we're the lesser evil and they (Tories and whoever else) want to get rid of Labour's "socialist" policies, which Hobsbawn's points out with Labour's use of having people support them for maintaining the NHS and other social nets. In short, the battle of hegemony must always be waged, and not put to the back burner. 4. The question of nation and its relevance in societal progression and relevance in politics. It provides a base for integrating the "nation" into theory, not something to come to terms with (the "national question" in Italy over North and South), but something to see how it provides cohesion for the state. 5. The concept of the passive revolution. Gramsci thought of this in the framework of Fascism's role in Italy and later Germany, and how Conservatives in the 1800s watered down the danger of a liberal, and later socialist revolution by a slow process of reform that aimed at breaking of the sharp points of revolutionary demands. He talks about Bismark's social reforms to put down the SPD, and later own the various inter-war reforms in the for of the New Deal in the United States and other politicians in Europe who under took similar steps. This damages the revolutionary movements to say the least. Essentially the passive revolution means that social progression doesn't have to be done by the "revolutionary" elements and failing to realize this would lead to the group being rendered irrelevant. The last part he tries to describe how socialism ended up in these current era, and Gramsci's importance on culture and politics for a successful socialist revolution. It's a dense lecture, but it is a good overview. I think it's good to see how you can see examples of Gramsci's ideas in the ways modern states have organized themselves. From a Gramsci perspective, Hobsbawn sees that past bourgeois revolutions never established an organized form of economic planning, and left that to the civil state. Hobsbawn asserts that one issue that socialist revolutions had was the failure to institutionalize politics- that is to properly deal with people with different political views and activities. I think there is an interesting point here though on the side, where they discuss Gorbachev reforms and he relates the account of a Polish economist that his reforms were doomed to fail due to the political structure (bureaucracy) of the Soviet Union- being that the politics weren't really institutionalized but rather management. This being in 1987. Democracy in the bourgeois society, according to Hobsbawn, is a "sanction" rather than a luxury, a means by which democratic societies cope with opposing viewpoints and to dispel potential revolution. He says what we all know now, that a Labour government could never institute socialism and never will. He brings back Gramsci's statement that a socialist transformation is only possible by extended support of the people, and relates to Labour's current moves then with what would form New Labour's line. All-in-all, it's good for a rough overview on some of Gramsci's points on hegemony and politics. Having read the entirety of the Hoare edition now, I understood alot of what Hobsbawn was saying, and found myself referring back to some parts to see what he was referring too. Good find.
Thank's a lot for the detailed reply I'll look forward to listening to it.In regards to Gramsci's early life-his fall that brought on his condition and being accepted a scholarship in Turin- all the basic information that I have on that I found here http://marxists.org/archive/gramsci/intro.htm which is admittedly small so it'll be great to find out some more.I'm glad you found it useful.I don't know if you noticed http://youtube.com/watch?v=Exe5U3kFU5g&feature=related when you watched the others?There's also another in the list to the right of this and a longer one further down.I hope they can also be of interest to the group.
I know much of the biographical things- the Prison Notebooks I had had a detailed sketch of his life. I just didn't remember the bit about falling from the arms of person. I'm going to try and find some way to possibly get up the good (and thorough) introduction the Hoare edition had- best thing you can get about Gramsci besides the biography itself. I'll take a look at that video later and see. These things are helpful to set the stage before we enter the period of the notebooks, but we'll have to wrap up the journalistic career first. I'll add that one and if the other one you posted, as well as others that might be relevant, in the intro thread of materials and what not.
