R

"..--*x.*

MI\.ru(:ISM'IODAY,

JIJLY,

19??

205

fnalron^l-O

s*

GramsCl and Politrcal Theory

E,. J.
(IYe

Hobsbawm

print belrtw' an article

19,f"1"n-r" c;rganised jointlv

March

based

by

.5-6, 1977. The subheads are ours.)

&

Antonio Cramsci died 40 years'ago. For the

first l0 of these 40 y:irs he wai virtuaiiy unknown
except to his old comrades from ihe i920s. sinc.,
very litrle of his wrirings were published or avaii_
able. This tloes nor tnean thal he lacked influence,
for Palmiro Togliatri nray be saicl to have led the
Italian Cc,mmuntsr partl on Crrmscian lines, or
at ieast on his inrer-prei,rriur t,i Grar,rs"ion i,r,"".
Nevertheless, lbr mosl pr:ople anywhere until &e

end of r.vorld war I l, ever] lor

communists,

Granisci rvas liftle more than a name. For the

second cleca<1e o{- these 40 vcars he became

extrernelv ir.cll knou,n

fi. J. Hobsbawiit at the Gramsci

ind rhe poiytechnic: of Centra! ljnioi on

on the paper reort Qy. Profbssor

''

Lowren:e'

in Iral,,,.:rrrd rvas admired

far beyond cornmunist circles His works rverg
extensively published by the Llommunist party,
but above all bi, the house of Einaudi. Whatever

Wishari'

criticisms rvere subsequently rlade cf these early

,editions, they nra'Je Gramsci widely available and

allowed ltalians to.iudge his stature as a major

marxisi

th

inker and, more

generall-y,

majoi

figure in 20th-century ltalian culture. But only

Italiatrs. For during this decade Gramsci remained for
p,o.ii,ol yurpuirs r;,i; ui;k;;;;,'L ouls;.j; h;: o...,-;:
coDntry, since he was virtually untranslated. Indeed, atternpts to get even his moving.prrsor

lel/eru pub!ished irr Britain and the USA laileri.

Except for a handful of people with persortal contacts in ltaly and rvho could read Italian-n-rost!1.
c.omnrunists-he might as well not have existed

of thc Alps
f)uring the third dcuade of

this sidc

rhese

{0

ycars, rhere

206

N,IARXISM TODAY. JUI.,Y. I97?

were the first s.erious stirrings of interest in for his importance: his theory of potitics.
Gramsc.i abroad' They were no doubt stimulated It is an elementary observaiion oi marxism
rhat
by de-Stalinisation und. ."Y"L m-ore by the in- thinkers clo not invent their ideas in the abstract,
dependent attitude of rvhich Togliatti made him- bur can only be understood in the historical
and
self the'spokesmern after I956. At all events in this political
ol their times. lf Marx a[vays
period rve finci the first Engiish selections from his itressed tiriit
"oit"^,
nren irracle their ow.r history, or, if
work and the first discussions ol his ideas outside you like, rhink out their own ideas, 'he also
Communist parties. As it happens outside ltaly, itressed that rhey can only do so (to quote a
the English-speaking countries seem to have been famous passage from the tSth Brumoirej
under
the frrst to develop a sustained interest in Cramsci. the condition-i in which they
find themselves
Paradoxically in Italy itself, during the same immediately, under conditions which are given
decade' criticism of Gramsci became articulate and inherited. flramsci's thought is quite orilinal.
and. sometimes shrill, and arguments about the He is a marxist, and indeed -a leninlst,
and'l do

interpretation of his work by the ltalian Com- not propose to lvasts any time by defending
him
munist Party developed
against the accus&tions of varioui sectariani who
claim to knoly e.ractlv.arvhat is anci r.vhat is not
Part of our Inlellectual Universe
marxist and to have copyright in their own
Finally, in the last decade of these 40 years version o{ tnarxisnr. Yet lor those of us brought
Gramsci has come fully into his own. In Italv itsell up in thc classical rradition of marxism, both pre
the publication ol his w,orks was for the flrit time l9l4 antl post-1917, he is often a rathersurpriiing
put on a satislaclory scholarly basis by the com- marxist. For instance, he w-role relatively Iittle
plete edi.tion of the Prison Letters itSOS), rlr. aboul econorric development, -and a greit deal
publication of various early and political ,*,riiingr, about politics. including about and in rerms of
and above a11 by Ccrratana's monument if
theorists Iike Croce, Sorel and Machiavelli, who
scholarship, the chronologicaily ordered edition of don't usualiy iitgrc much or a! all in the classical
the Prisort ' Notebooks (1975)- Both Cramsci's writings. So it is important to discover how lar his
biography and his role in the histo,ry -9f'the Com-. background and historicaI experience explain this
rnunist Party no\v beclme ririrch.'ctearer, thanks originality. I neecl not add that this does nol in
largely to the s1'stematic historical woik on its any !vay diminish his intellectual stature.

grvn records prolnoted and

encouraged

by

the

Comrnunist Partl
rhe discussion c-ontjn*s";-ard.+his i, ,.r
n. *,,
place to survey the Italian Gramsci debate since tbe leacler o1- the ltalian Communist pariy.
Nor"
-ltaly.
the middle 1960s. Abroad translations olcrarnsci's
in crrrnscr's day had u nu*b., oitr,irto.lroi
rlritings for the first time became available in peculiarities rvhich encouraged original departures
1dt9lu1" selec-tions, notably in the two'Lawrence in marxist thinking. I shall mention several of
& Wishart volumes edited by Hoare and Nowell thenr briefly.
Smith. So have transfatjgn:
9f irnportant second- (t) ltal)/ iuas. as ir rvere, a mrcrocosm oi world
dary
.

th"5#J;'3l,,ill, Hi:::t",kYiliffii,

r,',orks such as Fiori's Lde (.197:0). Here again, capiialism inasnruch

as ir contained in a single
'ivithout attempting tri survey the growing liiera- country both metropolis and
colonies, advanced

ture about him in our language-ieprisenting and backrvarcr ,.giunr. s*u,rir,. -i.r- orr,.r.
different but univeisatly.respeclfuipoints of
C;;rn;.i-:;,r;f, ,rpi;.a the backward, nor ro say
"i.;' archaic,
is .enolgh to
that--on thtfortieth anniuna ..r;-iofoniai side of ltaly; Turin w.ith.___
-say
-it
versary of his death there is no. Ionger any excuse its Fiat ..vorks.
wherc
for not knorving about Gramsci. W[at is more to leader, Ihen as now he became u *or6ng-rtuii typlfies the rnost advancetl
the point,.he ls known, even.by people who have stage of industriai
capitalism and the mass rransnot actually read his writi-ngs- Such. rypically foriration of immigrant peasants into workers.
ln
Cramsc-ian terms as ,hegemony, occur in marxist other ,,vorcls, an intelligent
ltalian marxist rvas in
and even in non-marxist'
of politics an urrusuirlly goocl position to grasp the nature
anci_history as casualiy, and,discussions
sometinres as luosely, borh oi ihJ .ir,"i.,pe.j capitaiisi weritj anti iirc
as Freudian terms did between the rvars.
,Third World,
inlcractions, unlikc
"nit their
Cramsci has become part o[ our intellectual malxists frorn countries
belonging entircly to one
universe. His stature as an original marxisr thinker or the otlrer" lncidcntally, it iJthJrefore a mistake
rny view the most origin;l such thinker pro- to consider Cramsci iimply as a theo;isr of
-in
duced in the \.\'est since lftT-is pretry g"n"*lly 'western communism'- Hii ihought was neither
admitted. Yet what he said and why it ii ii,porturit designeci exclLrsirely lor industiially advanced
still not as widely knou'n as the simple lact that countries. nor rs it Lxclusively applicaile to them.
.is
he is important l shali here single out one reason (2)
One important ccnseguence ot ltaly.s

1/

l'

-)

II{ARXISM TODAY,

207

JULY, I9??

historic peculiarity was that, even before 1914, the

Italian labour movement was both industrial and

and peasant-based- ln
it stood more or less alone in Europe
before 1914, though this is not the place to
elaborate the point. Still, trvo simple illustrations
rvill suggest its relevance. The regions of the
strongest communist influence (Emilia, Tuscany,

agrarian, both proletarian

this respect

Umbria) are not industrial regions, and the great

post-war leader of the Italian trade union movement, Di Vittorio, was a Southerner and a farmrvorker. ltaly did not stand quite so alone in the
unusually important role played by intellectuals in

its labour movement-largely intellectuals

the backward and semi-colonial South.
the phenomenon is worth noting, as
important part in Cramsci's thinking.

lrom
However,

it

plays

an

in the t6th century Io Pareto and Mosca in

earty 20th; for even loreign pioneers

rvhat we
would now call pcrlitical sociology also tended .to
be linked with ltaly or to derive their ideas lrom

Italian experience-l am thinking of people like

Sorel and Michels. So it is noi surprisrng that
italian maixists should be particularly arvare of
political theory as a problem.
(6) Finally, a very signi{icanl fact. Italy was a
country in which, after 1917, several ofthe objective and even the subjective conditions ol social
revolution appeared to exist--more so than in

Britain and France even, I suggest, than in

Cermany. Yet this revolution did not come off

On the contrary, fascism came to power. It was
on! natural that italian marxists should pioneer
the analysis of why the Russian October revolution had failed to spread to western countries, and

il'hat the alternative sirategv and tactics of

Italy: Laboratory of Polltical Experiences

the

ol

the

character

transirion to socialism ought to be in suoh corintries. That, of course, is wlrat Crantsci sct out tG

bourgeois society. Here

do.

(3) The third peculiarity is the very

special

of ltaly's historir as a nation and a

again, I do not want to go
irrto details- Let me merely remind you of three
things: (a) that Italy pioneered modern civilisation and capitalism 6;3veral centuries beforc other
countries, buL rvas un'abie to rnainrain its achievemen! and drilted inlo a sort of backwater between
Renaissance and Risorgirnento; (b) that unlike
France the bourgeoisie did rrot establish its society

by a triumphant revolution, and unlike (iermany

it did not accept a comprornise solution offered it
by an old ruling class from afove. lt made a
p-art-iET-revolution:

Italian unity was

achieved

partly lrom
above-by Cavour-partly from
.Garibaldi,

bc-

(c) So, in a sense the ltalian

bourgeoisie failed-or partly failed-to achieve its
historic mission to create the Italian nation. fts
revolution rvas incomplete and Italian socialists
Iow--by

like Gramsci would, therelore be specially conscious of the possible role of iheir movement, as
the potential leader-of the nation,, the carrier ol
n?tional history.

Pioneer

of Nlarxist -l'heory of

Politics

And this brings nre to rny main point, namely

that Gramsci's rna.jor contribution to ntarxism is
to have pioneered a tnarxist theory of politics. For

though Marx and Engels wrote an immem-e

amount about politics, tiley were rather reluclant
to develop a general theory in this field, largely
since-as Engels pointed out in the famous late
letters glossing the rnaterialist conception of
history-they thought it more important to point
out that (l quotej "legal relations as well as forms
of State eould not be understood lrom themselves'
but are rooted in the material conditions of life"
(Preface to Critique of Political Economy). And
so they stressod above all (l quote) "the derivation
of political, juridicai and other ideologieal conc"piionr from the basic economic facii"'{Engels

to

Mehring).

So Marx's and Fngels's own discussion of such

(4) Italy was and is not merely a

Catholic

country, Iike many others, but a country in which

the Church was a specifically ltalian institution, a

of maintaining the rule of the ruling ctasses

without, aud separale from, the state apparatus. lt
rvas also a country in which a national elite culture
preceded a national state. So an Italian marxist
would be more aware than others of what Grarnscr
called 'hegemony', i.e. the ways in which authoriiy
mode

malers as the nature and structure of rule.

connftution and organisation of the state,

the
the

ol political movements, is
mostly in the forrn of observations arising out of
current commentary, generally incidental to other
arguments-.except perhaps for their thtor! of the
nature and organisation

origin and historic character of the state.

Lenin felt the need lor a morc syslemaiic

theory of the state and revoiution, logically enough

powerfu[

on the eve of taking power, but as we all know

the October Revolution supervened before lie
could complete it. And I u'ould point out that the
inrensive discussion about the str-ucture, orgrnisation and leadership of socialist movements \vhich
tleveloped in the era of the Second International

tradition of political thought-from N'lachiavelli

theoretical

is maintained which are not sirnply based on

coercive force.
(5) F'or a variety of reasons--l have suggested
some just norv-ltaly was therefore a sort of
lab<iratory ol political experieuces. It is no acci-

dent that the country has

long had a

was abuut practical questions- lts

?
i-\

208

MARXISM TODAY, JULY, 1977

generalisations were incidental and ad &oc, except

perhaps in the field of rhe nationaI question,
where the successors oi Marx and Engets had
practically to start from scratch. I am not saying.

that this did not lead to important theoretical

innovations, as it clearly did rvith Lefiin: though
these were, paradoxicaliy, pragmatic rather than
thecretical, though underpinned with marxist
analysis. If we read the discussions about Lenin,s

new concept of the party, lor instance, it is

surprising how little nrarxist theory enters the

debate, even though marxists as celebrated as

Kautsky, Luxemburg, Plekhanov, Trotsky, Martov
and Ryazanov took part in them. A theory of
politics was indeed implicit in them, but it only

partly emerged.
There are various reasons for this gap. In any
case it did not seem to matter much until the early
1920s. But then,: I would suggest, it became an

increasingly seriqus weakngss. Outside Russia the

revolution had fai.led'or never taken place. and a
systematic reconsideration became necessary, nol

only ol the rnovt:ment's strategy for

power, but _also

winning

ol the technical problems ol

transition to socialism, w,lrich had never

seriously consiclered belole.

I9l7 a:

been
concrete and

immed?at'e problem. Within rhe TJSSR the problem

of what a' sociali-st society would and should be
like, in terms of.its political structure and institu'tions.

and as a 'civil society' ernerged, as Sovier

power emerge:cj. frorn its desperate struggle s to
maintain 'itsell to become permanent-- Esienrialty
this is-the problem u,hich has troubled marxists in
recent-years, and which is at issue between Soviet
communists, Ivlaoists and'Euro-communists,, not
to mention tltose outside the communist movement.

Political Action

stress the lact.that

we are'here talking about

two dtfferent sets of political problerns: straregy
and the nature of socialist societies. Grarnsci tried
to get to grips u,ith both, though some commentators seern to me to have concentrated exces_

f-

to most of us or
lorgotten. Thus Perry Anderson has recently reminded us that some of his most characteristic
thinking derives from and develops themes which
sions which are now unknown

in the Cominter:n debates of the early

At all events, ire was led to develop the

appeared
1920s.

full political theory within marxism,

and he was probably the first marxist to do so. I
shall not try to summarise his ideas. Roger Simon
has recently dealt at greater length with some ol
them in Mamism Today (March 1977). lnsread I
shall pick out a few strands and underline rvhat
elements of a

to me to be their importance.
Cramsci is a political theorist inasmuch as he
regards politics as "an autonomous activity"
(Prison Notebook, p- I34) within the context and
limits set by historical development, and because
seems

he specifically sets about investigating .r'the place

that political science occupies or. should occupy
in a systernatic (coherent and logical) conception
ol the world" in marxism (p. l16). Yet that meant
more than that he introduced into marxism the
sort of-discussions lound in his hero. Machiavelli
'-a man r.viro does not occur very often in the

writings of Marx and Engels.

Politics for hinr is the core not only of the
strategy of ,uvinn ing socialism, but of socialism
itself. .lt is tbr him, as Hoare and Nowell SmICr
rightly .point out "the central' hurnan activiry,

the

nieans b1 .ryh!_cl1; - the single consciousness is

brought into iirntict with th social and natural
world in all its lorms" (Prison Notebooks. xxiii).
'than
In short, it is much wider
the term as cotnmonly used- Wider even than the "science and art

of poliris;" in Cramsci's own

narrower

sense,

rvhich he defines as 'ia body of practicai rules lor

research and of detailed observations useful lor
awhkening an interest in elfective reality and lor

stirnulating more'rigorous and nrore

political insights" (ibid., t15-6).

vigorous

It is partly irnplicit in the concept of proris

itsell that understanding the world and changihg
it are one.

And praxis. the history that men make

themselves, .

though

in giverr-and developing-

sively on only one of them, namely the strategic. historical conditions, is rvhat they do, and not
But, whatever the nature of these problems, pr&ty
simply the-ideological forms in-which men become.
soon it became and for a long time remained' conscious"of the contradietions of society; it is, to
impossible to discuss them within the communist
quote Marx, how tlrey "frght it out": in short, it is
movemert. ln fact, one might well say that it wa-s what can be called political action- But it is also
only possible for Gramsci to grapple with them in partly a recognition of the fact that political action
his lvritings because he was in prison,.cut off from
itself is an autonomous activity, even though it is

poliucs outsitle, and rvriting not fot the present

hut lor -the furruc.
This does not rnean that he was not writing
politically in terms of the current situation of the

and early 1930s. ln facr, one ofthe difficulties in understarrding his work is that he took fbr
granted a farniliarity with situations and discus1920s

"born on the 'perrrranent' and 'organic' terrain ol

economic

life" (p.

l-19-40)

The Ccnstruction of Socialism

This appties.to the construction of socialisrn as
well as-perhaps morc than-anywhere etse. You
might say that lor Gramsci rvhat is the basis for

it
,.lj.
i:

l;

i.

r:

MARXTSM TODAY,

JLILY;

249

7?

socialism is not socialisation

in the economic sense

-i.e. the socially-owned and planned economythough this is obviously its basis and framervork.
but socialisation in the political and sociological
sense, i.e. what has been called the process of
forming habits in collective man which will make
social behaviour automatic, and elimrnate the need

for an external apparatus to impose norms: aulomatic but also conscious.

When Cramsci speaks of the role ol production
in socialism it is not simply as a means of creating
the society of material plenty, though we may note
in passing that he had no doubt about the priority
of maximising production (p. 242n). It r,vas because
man's place in pcoduction rvas central to his consciousness under capitalism; because it was the
experience ol rvorkers in the large lactory rvhich
was the natural . school ol this consciousness.
Gramsci tended to see-perlraps in the Iight of his

experience in Turin-the large modern factory

not so much as a place of alienation and more as

a school for socialism.

But the point was that production in

socialism

problem; it had cA be
and frorn his point of view

tecbnical and economic

primarily, as a p-roblem ol political educatiorr and

political . stluct{riii- Even in bourgeois society.
rvhich rvas in-this respect progressive, the concept
of rvork was educationally central, since "the dis-

covery that the sociai and nalural orders are

mg!1qlgd_ f work, by man's theoretical and practical activity, creates ttre]TEI- elements of an
intuition of the rvorld free-.from all magic and
.superstition. lt provides a basis lor the subsequent
development of an historical, dialectical conception of the world, which understands movement
and change, which conceives the contenrporary
world as a synthesis of the past, of all past generations, that projects itseif into the future. That rvas
the real basis of the primary school" (34-5). And
we may note in passing. a constant theme in
Cramsci: the continuity of human developnrent
through revolirtion, the unity of past. preseot and
ftrture.

The C-onception of Hegcmonv

'main tliemes of Cramsc
The

i's political

theory

are outlined in the lamous ietter ol September

t93t:

'

"'My study ol the inteilectuals is a \,.lst project. . . .l greatly extend the notion of inlellectuals
beyond the current meaning of the word, which
refers chiefly to great intellectuals.'l'his study
also leads me to certain determinations of the

this is understood as political

dictatorship of coercive apparatus
to bring the mass of the people into conlormity

State. Usually
sociery (i.e- the

economy

dominant at any given moment) and not-as an

equilibrium betwt'en political society and civil

sociery (i.e. the hegemony of a social Sroup over
the entire national society exercised through the
so-called private crgln:s.ations such as - th9
church, ths trade unions, the schools, etc.). Civil
society is precisely thc special field of action ol
the intellectuals."

Now the conception ol the state as an equilibrium between coercive and hegemonic institutions
(or, if you prefer, a unity of both) is not in itself
novel, at least lor those rvho look realistically at
the world. It is obvious that a ruling class relies
not only on coercive poweg and authority but on
consent deriving from hegEmony-what Cramsci
calls "the intellectual and nioral leadership" exercised by the ruiing gioup and "the general direc-

tion imposed upon social Iife by the

lundamental group".
What is new in Cramsci

dominarrt

is the observalion

that

is not automatic but

achieved through conscious political action and
organisation. The Italian Renaissance city boureven bourgeois hegemony

could therefore not simply be treated as a separate

treated simultaneously,

with the type of production and

geoisie could have become nationally hegellror.ric

only, as l\4achiavelli propos'ed, through such action

lact through a kind of Jacobinisnr. A class

--in
must transcend rvhat Cramsci calls "econorniccorporative" organisation to become polrtically
hegernonic; which is, incidentally, why even the
most rnilitant trade unionism rernains a subaltern
part.of capitalist society. It lollows that the
distinction between'dominarn-or'hegertonic" and
'subaitern'classbs is fundamental. l1 is another
Ciramscian innovation, and crucial to his thought.
For the basic problern ol'the revolution is how to
make a hitherto subaltern class cipable of

in itself as a potential ruling

as such to other classes.

hegemony, believe
class and credible

Cramsci and thc Part)

Here hes the significance f,or Cramsci of' the

party-"Lhe modern Prince - (p. 129). For quite

apart from the historic sigiirfrcance of the develop-.
rnent of the party in general in the bourgeors
period-and Gramsci has some brilliant things to
say about this-he recognises that it is only
through its movemenl and its organisation, i.e. in
his vierv through the party, lhat the rvorkrng
class develops its consciousness and transcends
the spontaneous'economic-corporativer or trade
unionist phase. ln lact, as rve knorv, rvhere socialism has been viclorious it has led to and been
achieved

by the transforrnation of parties

into

states. Cramsci is profbundly Leninist in his

general vierv ol the role of the party, though not
necessarilv
or'ganisarir,,n

in his vieivs about rvhat the party

shoultl be ar rny given time or about

5
:;,

.;1

2L0

'

MARXISM TODAY,

the nature of partv lit'e. However. in my vierv. his

discussion of the nature and functions of parties
advances

beyond Lenin's.

On Intellectuals
Of course, as rve know, considerable practical
problems arise from the fact that party and class,
however historically identified, are not the same
thing, and may diverge-parlicularly in socialist

societies. Gramsci was well aware of these, as well.

as of the dangers oi bureaucratisation, etc. I wjsh
I could say that he proposes adequate solutions to
these problems, but
am not sure that he does,
any more than, so far, anyone else. Nevertheless,

Cramsci's remarks

on

bureaucratic centralism,'

though concentrated and difficult (e.g.

in

JIILY, 1 977

are irrelevant lor the purposes of

the present article. Nor do I want to discuss the
second at length, because our judgment of
such discussions

Cramsci does not depend. on his assessment of

particular situations in the 1920s and 1930s.
It is perfectly possible to hold that, say, Marx's
lSth Brumaire is a profound and basic work, even
though Marx's own attitude to Napoleon III in
t852-70 and his estimate of the political stability
of his regime were olten unrealistic. This does not
however,-

imply any criticism of either

Cramsci's

own or Togliatti's strategy. Both are delensible.

Leaving aside these matters, I would like to single
out three elements in Cramsci's strategic theory.

prison

The 'War of Position'

The first is not that Gramsci opted for a strategy
of protracted or'positional' rvarfare in the West:
as against what he called 'frontal attack' or a war
some extent in its au.thoritarian form, consists of manoeuvre, but hov, he analysed these options.
essentially of intellectuals'. He defines these not- Granted that in -ltaly . and most of the West there
as a special elite or as a special social category or
lvas not going to be an October revolution from
categories, but as a sort of functional specialisathe early 1920s on-and there was no realistiction of society for these purposes. ln other words, prospect of one-he obviously had to consider a
for Gramsci ali people are intellectual, but not all strategy of the lqng haul, But he did not in fact
exercise the social function of inteJlectuals- Norv
commit himself in principle io any particu!ar outthis is important, in rhe sense thai it underlines come of the lengthy 'war of position' which he
the autonomous role of the superstrucfure in the predicted and recommended. It might fead directly
s99ia! proce-:s1 or even the sirnple facr that a into a transition to ' socialism, or . intr-r another
. politician or working-class origiir is noi necessarily phase of the war of manoeuvre and attack, or to.
the same as a worker at the benih. ,However. some other lllateglc .phase. What *'oirld' lirippii.
though it often makes for brilliait f,istoriiui must depend on the ahanges in the concrete situa.
passages in Granrsci, I cannot mys-elf see that -the
tion- Horvever, he did consider one possibility
observation is as important for Crarescirs political
rvhich few other marxists have'faced as clearly,
theory as he himsell evidently did. tn particular, I
namely that the fa.ilure of.,r-evolution-inlhe West
think that his distinction between the so-called might produce a rnuch more dangerous long-term
,organic,
'traditional' intellectuals and the
rveakening ol the forces of progress by means of
inte[_
lecruals produced by a new class itsel{ is-at least
what he called a "passive revolution". On the one
in some countries-less significant than he sug- hand, the'ruling class might grant certain demandS
gests. It may be, of course, that I hat,e not entirely
to forestall and avoid revolution, on the other, the
gr:spe! his difficult and complex thought here, revolutionary movement might f,urd itself in praeand I ought ceriainty ro stress ihat the qriestion is tice (though not necessarily in theory) accepting
oi greal importance to Gramsci himself, to judge its impotence and rnight be eroded and politically
.
integrated into the system .(See Prison Notebooks,
-by the amount of spape he devoted to it.
pp. 106 fl) In short, the 'war of position' had to
be systematically thought out as.a.fighting strategy
. Strategic Theory
On the other hand, Gramsci,s strategic thought rather than simply as something to do.for revoluis not only-as always-full of quiie britiiint lionaries when there was no prospect ol building
historical insights, but of major practical sig- barricades. Cramsci had, of course, !earned frorn
nificance. Now I think wr ought tci keep three the experience of social democracy before I9l4
nol .a historical deteiminisrn. It
things quite separate in this connection: Giamsci,s that marxism was
was nol enough 'to r.vait lor history somehorv to
general analysis, his ideas about communist
'r.vorkers
to power automatically.
strategy in specific hrstorical periods., and, Iastly, bring the
the ltalian Comrnun ist Party's actual ideas about
strategy al any given time, r,hich have certainly The Struggle for llegemony
been inspired by Togliatti's reading of Gramsci;s
T he second is Cramsci's insistence t.hat the
theory, and by that of Togliatti's successors- I do struggle to turn thc working class into a potenrial
not lvant to go into the third ol these, because ruling class,.the stnrggle for hegemony, must be
Notebooks,

p.

188-9) are

well worth

serious study.
What is also new is Cramsci"s insistence that- the
apparatus of rule, both in its hegemonic aird to

b,

i:r

I\{ARXIST,I IODAY,

.i;

JULY, 1977

waged before the transition to power, as well as

during and after it. But (and here one cannot
agree with writers like- Perry Anderson) this
struggle is not merely an aspect of a 'war position',
but it is a crucial dspect of the strategy of revolutionaries in all circumstances. Naturallv the
w'inning of hegemony, so far as pcssible, befcre
the transler of power, is particularly important in
-countries rvhere the core of ruling-class power Iies
in the subalternity of the rnasses rather than in
coercion. This is the case in most 'western' countries, whatever the ultra-left says, and however
unquestioned the fact that, il? the last anal.y,5is.
coercion is there to be.used. As we may see in, say,
Chile and Uruguay, beyond a certain point the uie

of coercion to maintain rule becomes frankly

incompatib[e with the use of apparent or real consent, and the rulers have to choose betu,een the
alternalives of hegemony and force, the velvct
glove and the iron-fist. Where they choose force,
the results have not usually been favourable to the
rvorking-class movement.
Horvever, as we lray sec even

2)-1

own conception, at least in later life, of the party

as, as it were, the organised class, though he
devoted more attention than Marx and Engels,

and even than Lenin, not so much to format

organisation as to the forms of political leadership
and structure, and to the nature of what he called
the 'crganic' relaticnship between class and party.
Now at the time of the October revolution nlost
mass parties

ol the working class were

social

democratic. Most revolutionary theorists, including

the Bolsheviks belore 1917, were obliged to think

only in terms of cadre parties or groups of activists
mobilising the spontaneous discontent of the
masses as dnd when they could, because mass
movements were either not allowed to exist or
were, usually, reformist. They could not yet think
in terms of permanent and rooted, but at the sanle
time revolutionary, mass rvorking-class movements, playing a major part on the political scene

of

their, countries.
The Turin movement,

in u'hich Gramsci fonned

ideas, was a relatively rare exception. And
though it was one of the main achievements of the

his

in co-untrir's ilr
which there.has.been a revolutionarv overthrow
Communist International to create some con)ol the old rulers, such as. Portugal, in the cbsencc munist mass parties, there are signs, for tnstance
of hegemonic force even revolutions can run into in the sectarianisrn of the so-called tThird Period",
the sand. They must still rvin enough suplrort and
that the international com?dunist leadership (as
consent from strata not yet detached from the old
distinct fiom communists in sonre countries with
regimes. The' basic problem of hegemony, qgn-. '. mass labour movements) was unfamiliar with the
si{ered strateglcally,..!s. not how revoluiiohariei - problems of mass labour moverrents which had
come to power, thouBh this question is vcry irn
developed in the old iray.
portant. [t is hou, they come to be trccepted, not
Here Gramsci's insiStence cn the 'organic' relaonly as the politically existing oi unavoidable tionship of revolutionaries and liass movements
rulers, but as guide . and leaders. --The+e are
obviously two aspects to this: ho,,r, to rvin assent,
and whether the revolutionaries are ready to exercise leadership. There is also the concrete political

is impoean+- ttalian historical experibnce had

familiarised , him with revoltttionary minorities
vvhich had no such 'organic' relatiotr; but w'ere
they
- groups of 'volunteers' mobilising as and when
situation, both national and international, which
but the
mass parties at all
could,
"not
really
may make - their efforts more effective or more politicaf equivalent.of gypsy bands or nomads"
difficult. The Polish communists in 1945 were (Prison Notebooks, 202-5)- A great deal ol leftist
probably not accepted as a hegernonic force, policy even today-perhaps especially today-is
though they were ready to be one; but they estabbased in this way, and, for similar reasons, not on
lished their power thanks to the international
the real working. cless with its mass organisation,

r-

situation. The Cerman social-democrats in l9l8

wou.ld probably have been accepted as a hegemonic force, but they did not want to act as onc.
Therein lies the tragedy of the Cerman revoluticn.
The Czech communists mighf have been accepted
as a hegemonic force both in 1945 and -in 1968,
and rvere ready to play-this role, but werb unable
to do so- The struggle for hegemony before, during

and afler the transition (whatever its rr;rlure or

speed) remains crucial.

Relatio*s of Class and Party

The third is that Cramsci's strategy has as its
core a permanent organised class inovemerlt. ln
this sense his idea of the 'party' returns to lVlarx's

but on I national working.class, on a sort of

externa[ view of the working class or any other

mobilisable group. The originality of Gramsci is
thal he was a revolutioaary who never succumbed
10 this templation. The organised working class as
it is and not as in theory it ought to be, rvas the
basis of his analysis and strategy.

Continuity and Revolution

But. as I have already repeatediy

stresseci,

Gramsci's poiitical thought was not only strategic,

instrumental or operalional. lts aim was 4ot

simply victory, alter which a different order and
type ot analysis begins. It is very noticeable that
time and agaiu he takes some historical problem

lSMTODAY. JULY, 197?

incident as his starting-poinr and then generalses from it, not just about the politics of the ruling

{,}r

class

or of some similar situations, t'ut

about

politics ir general- That is because he is constantly

aware that there is something in common between
poiiticai relation! among men in ail, or at least in
a historically very rvide range of, societies; for
instance, as he liked to recall (p. 144), rhe dif_
i,::elrc* betrveen leaders and led.

iie never forgot that societies are more than

:jiiuctures of economic domination and political
poi!'er, that they have a certain cohesion even
..rli'-.n riven by class slruggles (a point
rnade long
L,rii;re by Engels), and that Iiberation

frorn

exploitation provides the possibility of constituting

rhcnr as real communities of free .men. He never

ri'rot rhat taking responsibiliiy for a societyor potential-is rrore than looking iiter
l:;;lediate class or.it
sgctional or even state inierests:

.,rr',ral

rir.rt, for instance,

presupposes continuity "with
riii past, rvith tradition or rvith the future,' tp. f +Oi.

And in building itself it r.vill in some sense already

establish some of the bases on which rhe new
society will be built, and somc of its outlines will
appear in and through it.
Crucial Importance oI Poiitics
Let me ask, in conclusion, why

I have chosen
in this a*icle to concentrate on Cramsci as a
political theorist. Not simply becausc'he is an

unusually interesting and exciting one. And certainly not because he has a recipe for how parties
or states should be. organised. Like Machiavelli,
he is a theorist ol how societies should be founded
or transformed, not of constitutional details, let

alone of the trivialities which preoccupy lobby

correspondents. It is because atnong marxist
theorists he is the one who most clearly appie-

ciated the importance of politics as a

dimension

of society, and

special

because he recognised

that in politics more is involved than power. 'fhis

is of major practical inrportance, not Ieast for

Hr,ice Crarnsci insists on the revolutron not socialists.

of the exproprialors,
Bourgeois society, at lcast in developed couni;l: ;rlso--in Italy-as the creation of a people, the trres.
has always paid primary altenlion {o ils
r,.:,iisation of a nation-as both the negation and
political framework and mechanisms, lor historitir: fulfilment of the past. Incieed, Gramsci\ cal reasons'into which
rrliring poses the very irnporiant problem.rvhich That is whyo political this is not the place 10.'go.
have become
iilri Lreen seldom discussed about w,hat exicily in a porverful means for arrangements
reinforcing
bourgeois
hegetil! ,ast is revolutionised in a revolution, u,hit is mony, so that slogans.such
as the defence ol the..how;
and
why,
and
..the
,lialectic
of
l;ii.cr:rr'ed_
-Republic, the delence of democracy, or the
birtileiD coltintlity and revoluti on.
defence of civil rights and freedoms, bind rulers
But, of coruse, for Cramsci rhis is important and ruled togethdr 'lor,1he primary benefit of the:
ni;t.irr ltself, but as a means of both popular rulers; but this does -not meiin that they are
lnp:"rilis6tian and selt--transformation. ol' intel_ irrelevant to the nlled. They are thus far more
-ri,.,2ly as tlie expropriation

l, r',ral and moral changc, ol colicctive selliart ol the process by which, in

:is itruggtes, a people changes and makes itself
rr,.ler the leadership.ol the rrerv hegemonic class
arrd its movement (cf. p. 133, para. 2). And though
i;:::msci shares the usual marxist suspicion;f
ri.:r'l:[opinent ds

slrculations about the socialist future. unlike

mosr

oi rrem, he does seek a clue to it in.the nature of

rirr rirovernent itselL lf he analyses its nature and
siiucture and. developmenL.l"r a political move_
ment, as a party, so elaborately and microscopi.
-,ily. if he traces, for instcnce. the emergence of

r. ilzrrllatrent and organised m6ysrnsnl-3s distinct

tioin a rapid'explosion'down to its

smallest

capillary and molecular elements (as .he calls

ttrem), then it is because he sees the future sdciety
as r,:sting on u,hat he calls ',the formation of a
co:i;ctive will" through such a movement, and
oirlr, through such a rnovement. Because only this
\\,1r can a hitherto subaltern class turn itsell into
a potentially hegemonic one-if you tike, become
lit tr: build socialisrn- Only in rhis rvay can ir,
through its party, actually become the,modern
Prince", the political engine

of

transformation,

than mere cosmetics on the face

even than sirnple trickcry.

of coercion,

or

Socialist societies, also lor comprehensible

historicaI reasons, have concentrated on other
tasks-notably those ol planning the- economy--and (with the exception of the crucial question of
power, and perhaps, in multinational countries, of
the re[ations betrveen their component nations)
have paid very much less attention to their actual

political and legal rnstitutions and processes. These

have been left to operate informally, as best they
can, sornetimes even in breach ol accepted constitutions or party statutes--{.g. the regular calling
of,Congresses-and often in a sort of obscurity.
ln extreme cases, as in China in recent years,
the major polilical de(isir)ns affccring thc fururt of
tlTe country appear to cmerge srrdderrly from the
struggles ol a small group of nrlers at the top, and
their very nature is unclear, since rhey have never
been publicly'discussed. In such cases something
is clearly wrong. Quite apirrt from the other disadvantages of this neglect ol politics, lrow can rve

expect to transform human Iife, to create

socialist society (as distinct

lrom a

socially-orvned

MAL\ISM

TOD.AY, JULY,

I9?7

managed economy) when the mass of the

people are excluded from the political process, and
may even be allowed to drift into depoliticisation
and apathy about public matters? lt is becorning
clear that the neglect of their political arrange-

and

rnents by most socialist societies

is

leading

to

serious weaknesses, rvhich must be remedied. The

luture of socialism, both in countries rvhich are

not yet socialist and in those rvhich are, may

213

depend on paying much more attention to them.

In insisting on the crucial importance of politics,
Gramsci drew attention to a crucial aspect of, the
construction ol socialisrn as well as of winning of

socialism. [t is a reminder that we shorrld heed'

And a major marxist thinker who macie politics

the core oi his analysis is therefore particularly

rvorth reading, marking and inwardly digesting

today.

0J

IB

.::'

I
I

Se.n'139

ANTONIO GRAMSCI

and the idea of ,'hegemony,,

(Thanks to victor virlanueva and his book Bitstraps:
From an
American academic of coror. Urbana, IL: NCTE, t'ggr,from
which:
sorne of this material has been

adaptecl.)

'

Gramsci's life was dramatically affected by the forces he tried

all his life to oppose. Born in Italy of working class parents in Ig9l,
he dropped out of schoot in sixth griide to he$ his family
afterhis
father was arrested for opposing a local politital figure's bid for reelection. As a child, he worked ten-houi days, tholgh he was often
ill and in pain- He had been dropped down a flight Jf ,tui* when he
was six, and his body was so twisted by this accident
that as an adult
he appeared a dwarfJike hunchback

After some years spent carrying around accounting ledgers

that weighed more than he did, Gramsci retumed to
schoor and then
went on to college on a scholarship reserved for ,,peasantry
of
promise." Later, he worked as a joumarist for a number oiradicar
newspapers, got invorved in workers' poriticar education,
and helped
to lound the Italian communist party. while Gramsci was
traveling
in Russia, the fascist dictator Benito Mussolini came to po*.,
in Italy.
By now, Gramsci was lveil-known tbr his r,vriting and poritical
acti,ity. and Mussoiini comrnented that he had ,,in ,,nq,,"rtionabry
pow'erful brain." But intellect and ideas are threatening
to dictators,
so in 1928 Gramsci was sent off to prison r.vith the woids
of the
ptiblic prosecutor echoing in his ears: "For twenty years
\,ve m!{st slop
this brain from functioning." Neverth6less. thinki[g was
Cramsci,s
orriy solace in prison, and unrir ne ciieo in 1937,Ire ipent
his time
r'r'orking out his most varuabre ideas in thirty-trvo noiebook
s - 2g4z
pages'of tiny handwriting -- which later becarne his
most famous
rvork.
One of Gramsci's ideas was the concept of ,,hegemo.rr,,,
o,
ideological domination. When one ideology, or w,orld view,
dominates, it suppresses or stamps out, oftin cruelly,
uny:ort". ways
of explaining reality. Actually, hegemony can contain a variety
of
ideo.logies. some are artificiar -- theoreticar explanation,
Ly
aeademics or politicar activists or phitosophers. other
".*u[o
ideologies are
"organic," which means they come from the common p.opt",
Urea
experience. These consist of a curture's way of seeing
and berieving,
and the institutions that upholdihese beliefs, tit<e retifron,
education,
family, and the media. Through these beliefs and institut
onr, *.i.ty
endorses the ethical beliefs and manners wlrich ,'th.
po*..r-that be,,
agree^are true, or right, or logical, or moral.
The insiitutions and
beliefs that the dorninant culture supporr are so powerful,
and get
hold of people rvhen they ar9,o yourg, that alternative
ways of
envisio,ing reality ar: v:ry hard to im-agine. This
is how h"g".nony
is created and maintained.

According to Gramsci, hegemony Iocks up ? society

even more
tightly because of the way ideas are transmitted by ianguageThe
yords we use to speak and write have been constructed by sociai
interactions through history and shaped by the dominant
ideorogy of
_

lo

.
''

they are loaded with cultural meanings thht

condition us to think in particularways, and to not be able to think
i.li ,,e.Y well in other waysthe timeisi Thus

i:'i

Foi a modem, U.S. example, consider the word "welfare." What

--. feelings and images come tomind? Someone who is poor. Unhappy,
'-'' perhaps. Passive. Irresponsible- Overloaded with children.
. : Struggling to go to school. Ashamed. Maybe out to cheat the system.
A drain on the taxpayers. A bureaucratic institution that needs
, I continual attention and reform. All negative images, evoking anger or
pity. Think abbut it. We have had no word to describe this system of
govemment payments that carries a positive connotation. No word
, that evokes images of dignity and family pride or of a nation's debt
to those it cannot or';rill not fumish with the opportunity for
meaningful work and a relevant education- Gramsci's point is that
rve have been conditioned by our language to think -- and feel about
that thinking -- in ways that serve the dominant ideology. And if
that dominant ideology insists that poverty is the lault of the
- individual rvhile systematically keeping certain groups or classes of
'"
' people poor, tha! hegemony must be dislodged by substantive,
revolutionary clrange.

.,

Gramsci added another dimension to the deiinition of

hegemony: domination by consent. It seems impossible that anvone
-'vcuid consent to be oppressed, or that we ourselves might be
consenting to oppress others. But no matter hor.v outraged rve are at
the poverly that exists in the richest country in the rvorld, all most of
us do

to fight it is tinker rvith the sJstem. We know that the rich.trre

getting richer while the poor and the middle cla*ss are feeling less
'and less securej:' We knorv, but we accept. "What can one person
do?" rl,e say. ''The poor have always been rvith us." It's a fataiistic
feeling we have, but Gramsci doesn't blame us for it. "Indeecl," he
says. "fatalism is nothing other than the ctotliing worn by real and
"- active will when in.a weak position."(1)

'

,
.
,:,

Gramsci believed that everyone, no matter what their

occupation, lheir interests, or their education, is able to work out
their own coherent ideas of horvthe world realll, works. Despite his
description of hegemonpas society's brainwashing. he had great faith
in people's ability to go beyond the mere acceptance of the ideas
they grew up with and become critical thinkers.

'
-' "To criticize one's own conception of the world means to-make
.: it a coherent unity and to raise it to ihe level reaFhid by the most
. - advanced thought in the world." Gram-sci *rote from his prison cell.
i "The starting-point of critical elaboration is the product of the
historical process to date which has deposited in you an infinity of'
without leaving an inventory."(2)

traces,

In other words, critical thinking about our own thinking

process can move us toward ourown coherent philosophy when we
begln to trace the origins of ourmostdeeply held beliefs. "What do I
, really
think about this difficult teenager I'm tutoring?" "Where did
'':; these beliefs come from?" 'lWhat people and what institutions taught
i., me to think this way?" "And where did their beliefs come from?"
'' Gramsci's fate might lead us to think of ways people in our own

,i.;

country with disturbing ideas have beerf silenced'.= by censorship,

\1

, "'

i,teitiienti,r"o-#o;;;;;;;ffi;

of crezuive, cleeply
discussing, writing and growing as human beings in much
the same
way Gramsci did -- despite the sometimes cruel and retaliatory
conditions of their incarceration.
(1) Gramsci, Antonio. Selections from The Prison Notebooks
of Antonio
Gramsc i. NY: International publishers, ' 1 995
t97tl.
p. 337
[copyright
(2) ibid. p.324

\q/
'''_

:r "-:::'