Antonio Gramsci's Marxism: Class, State and Work Author(s): James P.

Hawley Reviewed work(s): Source: Social Problems, Vol. 27, No. 5, Sociology of Political Knowledge Issue: Theoretical Inquiries, Critiques and Explications (Jun., 1980), pp. 584-600 Published by: University of California Press on behalf of the Society for the Study of Social Problems Stable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/800198 . Accessed: 14/03/2012 12:26
Your use of the JSTOR archive indicates your acceptance of the Terms & Conditions of Use, available at . http://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp JSTOR is a not-for-profit service that helps scholars, researchers, and students discover, use, and build upon a wide range of content in a trusted digital archive. We use information technology and tools to increase productivity and facilitate new forms of scholarship. For more information about JSTOR, please contact support@jstor.org.

University of California Press and Society for the Study of Social Problems are collaborating with JSTOR to digitize, preserve and extend access to Social Problems.

http://www.jstor.org

SOCIAL Vol. PROBLEMS, 27, No. 5, June1980

ANTONIO GRAMSCI'S MARXISM: STATE ANDWORK* CLASS, JAMES P. HAWLEY

University of California, Davis Threethings are attemptedin this paper:to locate (briefly) in Gramsci'sMarxism its historicalcontext;to describe Gramsci'sMarxism an attemptat the creationof as a theory of advanced capitalist society, especially in his treatmentof the central of concepts and/orrealitiesof class, state and work;and to evaluate the limitations his Marxism a criticaltheory of society, specificallyhis discussion of work,sexas ualityand technology. The paper develops Gramsci's concepts of the historical bloc, his use of historicism,the importanceof organic intellectualsand his concept of hegemony and its relation the modalitiesof class rule,and suggests thatthese are aspects of to a stunningand new criticaltheory of society. His-analysisof work, however, was based on a Taylorist ultimately conceptionof productive technologyand of the social relationsand organization which necessitated the "regulation" human(sexual)inof stincts in the divorce of mindfrombody, object fromsubject and, ultimately, theory frompractice.This reintroduced throughthe back doorthe Hegeliandualitybetween of and thoughtand being. I stress the conservativeimplications these formulations conclude that Gramsci'sanalysis lacked both an holistic discussion of workand a criticalanalysis of production-as-technique. The totalityis the territory the dialectic of

Lukacs Georg

Antonio Gramsci's Prison Notebooks (1971;hereafterPN) were writtenbetween1929-1935 underconditionsof extremephysicalduress,nearcompleteisolationandwithalmosta total lack of research material.Gramscihimselfstressedthat the ideas and historyin the Notebookswere tentativeand initial.Nevertheless, one extremely they represent of the few originalcontributions to Marxism the westduringthis period,alongwiththe workof the HegelianMarxists, in George Lukacsand KarlKorsh(Piccone, 1974:32-45). The Notebookswerewrittenduringthe rise of fascismin Italyand laterin Germany, of duringan era characterized the retrenchment the inby movementwhose primaryrole turned out to be the defense of the ternationalrevolutionary U.S.S.R. and the developmentof antifascistfronts. This situation is often reflectedin the concernwith defensivestrategies. Notebooks by Gramsci's TheNotebooksexaminethe specificItaliannationalexperience culture(withthe exception and of the noteson "Americanism Fordism")in orderto createthe basisfor a globalcritique,an and of of and forcesdetermining formof the the analysis the specific conjuncture national international crisisandthe resultant Gramsci's concernwithItaly(e.g., the extended discussion the of strategy. of mezzogiorno,the southernquestion)reflectshis criticismof the purelyformalcharacter the of reformist internationalism the SecondInternational withtheoutbreak World of (whichcollapsed WarI) andwitha similar of internationalism the ThirdInterformal,albeitrevolutionary-inclined, national."Thedevelopment in thedirection internationalism," is of wroteGramsci, "butthe point of departure 'national,' it is fromherethatone muststart"(quoted Merrington, is and in 1968:149.) Gramsci'swritingsand life experienceas a revolutionary in representa breakthrough the of debatewithinsocialdemocracy as parameters the revisionist priorto the Russian Revolution, well
* An earlier version of this paper was presented to the annual meetings of the American Sociological Association, Boston, Massachusetts, August, 1979. I have benefited from the critical comments of a number of people, especially Gary Hamilton, Bruce C. Johnson and two anonymous reviewersfor Social Problems. Richard Gambrell and Bernie Tarallo assisted me in parts of the researchas well as in their comments and suggestions. (Translation of a few quotations from the French are mine.)

Gramsci's Marxism

585

as with the line of thinkingof the earlycommunistmovement.His influencewas not to emerge until after the SecondWorldWar, and even then was restricted the ItalianCommunist to Party. of Only with the development a Europeannew left in the 1960'sand its theoretical development in the 1970's was the importanceof his work fully realizedand perhapseven transcended. Gramsci'scritiqueof the limitsof the "revisionist debate" (fromleft to right, from Luxemburg to Bernstein) revolvedaroundthreeproblems:1) the reductionof superstructure appearance to or epiphenomena emanationsfrom the economicbase; 2) the development economism,a of of relianceon the objectiveeconomicsituationand contradictions createthe revolutionary to crisis; and 3) more generally,the tendencyto reduceMarxism (the philosophyof praxis)to positivism and empiricism-to the level of a naturalscience. This reductionisttendencyobjectifiesthe discrete,atomisticdata of immediateactivity,breaksdown the totalityof social processesinto facts of reality,and consequently createsuniversal fragmentary categories.
Gramsci argued that Marxism in the west ". . . has been a 'moment" of modern culture" which

enriched to a certain and extent"determined" in currents thatculture. the "orthodoxy"(social But hadnot beenself-reflective. hadignored owndevelopment, It its because .. the most ". democracy) combinationthat has taken place has been betweenthe philosophyof importantphilosophical and to praxis[Marxism] variousidealistictendencies... [e.g., Croceand Sorel]whichappeared social democracy be 'an absurdity,'if not an actualpieceof chicanery.""The philosophyof to " has and of praxis itselfbecomea 'prejudice' a 'superstition' (PN:388).Marx'sdialectical synthesis and Feuerbach of Frenchmaterialism and createda "man walkingon his feet," a revoluHegel of had in tionarypraxis.For Gramsci,the historyof the "laceration" Hegelianism beenrepeated
Marxism: ". . . from dialectical unity there had been a regressto philosophical materialism on the

one hand,whileon the otherhand,modernidealisthigh culturehas triedto incorporate part that of the philosophy praxis of whichwasneededin orderfor it to finda newelixir"(PN:396).In short, Marxismhad becometransformed from a way of interpreting worldand actingupon it, to the materialist elixirof scientism positivism; an idealistelixirof the and and alchemy:a philosophical pure idea, pure spirit(or for Croce, pure history). In placeof thepositivist of as interpretation Marxism a scienceof society,yet beyondsocialwill, Gramsci reintroduced elements willandconsciousness. the of meantcol("Will"for Gramsci always wrotethat "Gramsci lective,politicalwill-not individual will.)WhenEugeneGenovese (1967:84) did for European Marxism whatMao Tse-tung for Asian," he meantthatGramsci did introduced an authenticLeninism into the west (Paggi, 1979:113-67):2 the development a critical of Marxism
based on praxis which, in one critic's words, ". .. actualizes theory in relation to each specific con-

centersof contradiction the capitalist in worldandelaborating the juncture, locatingthe changing In of appropriate strategy" (Merrington, 1968:146). placeof all formsof determinism socialforces andobjective Gramsci's Marxism of situation-a conditions, positsthe development a determinate creationof historical forceswhichdo not predetermine makeinevitable direction nature and the or of socialaction.Rather Gramscian Marxism to the of attempts create consciousness pastconditions whichlive in the presentin humanmindsand institutions ideology.The historicist as character of Gramsci'sthought is rooted in part in his originsin and criticismof Croce's school of Italian it that factorsareonly determining in idealism; is alsobasedon Engels'famousstatement economic the final analysis.That last lonely day, of course, neverarrives.3
1. Moment of time and an aspect, a feature as well as a motive force. 2. Whether, to what degree, and at what period of his life Gramsci was a "Leninist" is the subject of a substantial, if somewhat sterile, debate. There are many Lenins (and many more readings of these Lenins), as well as many Marxs and Gramscis (see for instance: Davidson, 1977:232-43; de Giavanni, 1979:259-88; Hobsbawm, 1974:39-44; Paggi, 1979:113-67; Piccone, 1976:485-512; Salamini, 1974:364-69; and Salvadori, 1979:237-58.) 3. See also Boggs, 1976:21-36.

586

HAWLEY

The collective will of a class, its potential praxis, leads Gramscito formulate "laws of or futurepraxisflows froma determinate situation; tendency possibility tendency"-lawsbecause viewof Marxism summed in his phrase is becausehistoryis made, not determined. Gramsci's up "dialectical historicism" -not "dialecticaland historicalmaterialism." to both of and Marxism meantexplicitly overcome was Gramsci's critique automatic reductionist of the materialist idealist and interplay philosophy (Martinelli, 1968:2-8)andto reassert dialectical concludes: "Gramsci's historicism and Salamini (1974:370) correctly subject/object past/present.' ratherthan in termsof fostersthoughtand actionin termsof differentand alternative strategies is or economic laws."Thus,for Gramsci, historicism revolutionary constant, immutable necessary, in fromtheir'objective continues, .. it seeksto freesocialstructures since,Salamini ". facticity,' the for Durkheimian sense, and revealsnew possibilities social existence." the Thussocialact of will(whatMarxoftencalledclass"for itself")is for the modernproletariat of of of creation a counterhegemonic the development a worldviewautonomous andopposed force, becomesrootedin the revolutionary to capitalist socialrelations.In PrisonNotebookshegemony of The intellectuals." partyis an organization cultureandeducation, partywhichis ledby "organic In to workers' councilperiod(1919-22),he attributed the a stateof a newtypein gestation. Gramsci vehicles As councilsthe task of hegemonic below, thesetwo organizational leadership. discussed of each maywellcontradict other;butbothhavein commona theoryof consciousness, superstrucwith it in the form of a interactive ture, autonomousfrom the economicbase and dialectically it of alliance: is an "ensemble bloc. An historical is morethana political bloc determinate historical historical ideasandsocialrelations" PN:366-67). givena specific conjuncture (Boggs,1976:80-81; of consciousness does not flow innatelyfroma particular social Thedevelopment revolutionary of Imand of but situation life experience oppression, is a stagein theprocess socialself-realization. of plicit is a criticismof what Genovese(1967:89)calls Marx'slapses into the abstraction the of predominance the materialover the ideological, and what Wellmarcalls Marx's "latent to positivism."Gramsciquotesoften from Marx'sPrefaceto The Contribution the Critique of thatit is ". .. theideological formsin whichmenbecomeconsciousof Political Economy(1970:12) the and of thisconflict[between forcesof production therelations production] andfight it out." In for otherwords,the forcesof production-most of all the proletariat itself, a "material" forceout theissueof therelations production the levelof superstructure. of on Gramsci viewedthe fight and as rather thanin thetraditional morenarrow senseof forceof proletariat a forceof production, the material of production. the proletariat itselfbecomes Thus, implements production beingonly and of the contradiction betweenthe relationsof production the forcesof production.This part subjectand object, whichalwaysexistsin a unifiedform sincecontentcannot unityof historical exist withoutform, is an "historicalbloc." the the of ForGramsci, understanding bothstateandclasscenter of around analysis the developmentof a specifichistorical bloc. The stateis an historical bloc of a specificrulingclass.Marxdid not develop theoryof theroleof thestatein society,thatis, a theoryof rule,butlimited a himselfto about the state, treatingit often as a coerciveforce. In 1875Marxwrote: observations
suborthe abovesocietyinto one completely consistsin converting statefroman organstanding Freedom dinatedto it, and todayalso the formsof the statearemorefreeor less freeto the extentthattheyrestrict the Workers' the 'freedomof the state'. . . . The German Party. . . insteadof treating existingsociety... its as as the basisof theexistingstate. .. treatsthe staterather an independent entitythatpossesses ownintellectual,moralandfree bases(n.d.:576;emphasisin original). Marx's historical writings (especially The Eighteenth Brumaire [1963] and Class Struggles in

in abovesociety,that is, in a France[1964])describe somedetailthe processof the statestanding

4. Gramsci's historicism has been especially attacked by Marxist structuralists. See Althusser and Balibar, 1971; Mouffe, 1979:168-204; and Poulantzas, 1976.

Gramsci's Marxism

587

throughoutCapitaland otherwritingsare similardiscussions. positionof domination.Scattered But nowhereis found a theoryof the state in its relationto the mode of capitalistrule (Jessop, 1977:353-73).The centralityof the state in Marxismis evident from the very idea of a ruling class.Marx'sfailureto developa theoryof the stateis rootedin his historical limitedas experience it was by the then only recentdevelopment industrial of His was capitalism. historical experience not much greaterthan Hegel's-limited by the only embryonicdevelopment craft organizaof tions, "friendlysocieties," Jacobinclubs, secretconspiracies small groupsand journalistic by organizations (Thompson, 1964). In addition, his failureto develop a theory of the state was becauseof his death priorto completionof a numberof projectedvolumesof Capital,one of whichwas to be on the state. The consolidationof bourgeoisrule, of bourgeoissocial relations and of the bourgeoisieitself by the end of the 19th and the beginningof the 20th centuriesin western Europe placed new demands on the role of the state, ultimatelytransformingit It qualitatively. was this new situationwhichGramscimadethe focal point of his analysis. Bourgeoisrule ("rationality"in Weber's[1978:85-90]terms)opens up new channelsof democracy,Gramsciargued,in that it tends " . . . to constructan organicpassagefrom the other classesinto theirown, i.e., to enlargetheirclasssphere'technically' ideologically .... " The and
bourgeoisie is a class in continuous movement, " . . . capable of absorbing the entire society,

it assimilating to its own culturaland economiclevel. The entirefunctionof the state has been the to transformed; statehas becomean 'educator'... " (PN:260; my emphasis),Assimilation its own economicand culturalleveldoes not implyequaldistribution incomeand power,but of of ratherthe universalization bourgeoissocial relationsand aspirations. is precisely quesIt this tion of rulingthat is the problematic Gramsci'swritings. of Withthe Bolshevikseizureof powerin 1917,the revisionist debatehad beenredefined through but definedon the terrainof Russianpoliticaldevelopments on the and revolutionary practice, foundation of Russian backwardness typified, in Gramsci'sanalysis, by the overdeveloped of character the czariststate and the underdeveloped of character the overwhelmingly peasant civilsociety.Withthe formation the ThirdInternational, of Bolshevism in (later"Leninism") the west becamedefinedprimarily termsof the seizureof power,the rejectionof economismand in spontaneity,and an often contradictoryanalysis of the relation between the state-as-means (socialism)and society-as-end (communism)-Lenin's WhatIs to Be Done? (1964)vs. Stateand Revolution(1964):in short, the substitution a theoryof the seizureof powerfor a theoryof of it society. For Gramsci,Leninismin Russiawas a correctanalysisand strategy; wasa theoryof Russiansociety,but mechanically to activitransposed the westbecamea fetteron revolutionary the of ty. In Gramsci's writingsis an analysisof stateand classin westerncapitalism: beginnings and a groundwork a theoryof advancedcapitalism. for
CLASS AND STATE

A discussionof Gramsci'sanalysisof class and state must begin with a brief outline of his social democracy viewedits intellechad theoryof the social role of intellectuals. Traditionally, tuals as refugeesfrom differentsectionsof the bourgeoisiewho had allied themselves with the workers(usuallyin positionsof leadership) wereinstrumental the creationof theory.The and in of intellectuals the bourgeoisordertendedto be defined professionally-for example,literati, technicalor scientific.In contrast,Gramscisuggeststhat Lenin'sdemandfor the obliteration of all distinctionsbetweenintellectuals and workersin the revolutionary WhatIs to Be party (in Done? [1969])shouldbe relatedto the theoryof the formationof the classas a whole;that is, to the verydefinitionof class"for itself." Thus,Gramsci from distinguishes "organicintellectuals"
traditional ones. The former have "entrepreneurial qualities"; that is, they " . . . must have the

of all of capacityto be an organizer societyin general,including its complexorganism conditions most favorableto the expansionof theirown class." The entrance a newclassin historyis acof

588

HAWLEY

companiedby the developmentof its own organic intellectuals,". .. which every new class
creates alongside itself and elaborates in the course of its development ... " (PN:5-6). Feudal

technicalcapacity,militarycapacity,and it is preciselords, for example,possesseda "particular losesits monopolyof technico-military ly fromthe momentat whichthe aristocracy capacitythat the crisisof feudalismbegins" (PN:5-6). Organicintellectuals,such as ecclesiastics were to the landedaristocracy, economicand social structure: emergeinto historyfrom a preceding they are an expressionof this past, dying culture. There are "categoriesof intellectualsalreadyin exan istencewhichseemedindeedto represent historical even by the most continuityuninterrupted complicatedand radicalchangesin politicaland social forms" (PN:7). In a fundamental but sense, all peopleareintellectuals, not all functionas suchin society.This centralidea underlinesthe importanceof all forms of ideologicalleadershipand the abilityof subalterngroups and classes to break certain forms of ideologicalleadershipat a particular historicalmoment. Traditionalintellectualsdo not exerciseany political function over the instrumentalmasses;or if they do, the political aspect of leadershipis supersededby the more A sociallygeneralized ideologicalleadershipof organicintellectuals. factorytechnician,for exintellectual constitutewhat Moscacalled ample,is a traditional (PN:9, 15). Organicintellectuals the "politicalclass," but for Gramsci(PN:6, footnote) are "nothingother than the intellectual categoryof the dominantsocial group." The transitionof a class from "in itself" to "for itself" is indicatedespeciallyby the development of its own organicintellectuals. The development proletarian of what (and moregenerally Gramsci of calls "subaltern"class)hegemonydependson the development intellectuals a new of as L'OrdineNuovo (The type. Gramsci,reflectingon his experiences editor of the newspaper New Order)duringthe factorycouncilmovementof 1919-20,wroteten yearslaterthat a major reasonfor its successwas that, "The mode of beingof the new intellectual no longerconsist can in eloquence. . . but in active participation practicallife, as constructor,organizer,'permain
nent persuader' and not just a simple orator . . . from technique-as-work one proceeds to

and technique-as-science to the humanisticconceptionof history, without which one remains and political)"(PN:4).' 'specialized'and does not become 'directive'(specialized It is the processof becomingdirective thatlinksGramsci's analysisof the economicfoundation of class rule to the natureof rule itself; that is, to the state. Centralto Gramsci'sthoughtis the autonomyof ideas-ideas as a social (material)force. Politics thus becomes an autonomous scienceand is the basisfor Gramsci's of development the idea of praxis-the " . . . conceptof the 'historical and bloc,' i.e., unitybetweennatureand spirit(structure superstructure), unityof opposites and of distincts .
.

. " (PN:137). As one critic of Gramsci has written:

One cannot envision that structurecan be separatedfrom superstructure. They form an "historical bloc"-a dialecticalinteraction-and such a determinatestructure("structure donn6e always cor") ideologywhichis historically respondswith a determined organicratherthanarbitrary (Buzzi, 1967-174). The State, therefore, can never be considered an epiphenomenon of economic structure; that is,

all politicaland social forms have their own nature,their own history, preciselybecauseof the
necessary reciprocal relations they have with economic structures. There cannot be an actual, real dualism between structure and superstructure, between two necessary relations, relations which result in the making of a real identity between the economic, pholosophical and political (Buzzi, 1967:274). The rejection of metaphysical materialism-the scienticism common to both vulgar Marxism and sociology from Comte to Pareto (Salamini; 1975:65-86)-is based on an epistemology For of 5. In Italian,"dirigente"--leading, hegemonic,directive. a tellingcriticism theproblemof producing withina socialistmovement,see Karabel(1976:146-56). organicintellectuals

Gramsci's Marxism

589

neither pholosophically materialist nor idealist, but historicist: "The educator himself must be educated" (PN:445). Praxis becomes the only social mode of scientific prediction:
. o.one can 'scientifically' foresee only the struggle, but not the concrete moments of the struggle, which cannot but be the result of opposing forces in continuous movement, which are never reducible to fixed quantities since within them quantity is continually becoming quality. In reality one can only 'foresee' to the extent that one acts . . and therefore contributes concretely to creating the result 'foreseen.' Prediction reveals itself thus not as a scientific act of knowledge, but as the abstract expression of the effort made, the practical way of creating a collective will (PN:438).

In short, there can be no separation of the thing known (object) from the process whereby knowledge is acquired (subject). Gramsci credited Lenin with the development of the modern doctrine of hegemony, "as a complement to the theory of the State-as-force, and as the present form of the Forty-Eightest doctrine of 'permanent revolution'."6 A class is a ruling class in two ways: it is leading and dominant. evenbefore those whichare its enemies.Therefore, It leadsthe classeswhichare its allies, and dominates
attaining power a class can (and must) 'lead'; when it is in power it becomes dominant, but continues to 'lead' as well ... there can and must be a 'political hegemony' even before the attainment of governmental power, and one would not count solely on the power and material force which such a position gives in order to exercise political leadership or hegemony (PN:56-57, footnote).

Gramsci defines the state not only as political society, not only as the coercive apparatus to bring the mass of people into conformity with the specific type of production and economy, but in addition as an "equilibrium between political society and civil society (or hegemony of a social group over the entire national society exercised through the so-called private organizations, like the Church, the trade unions, the schools, etc.); it is precisely in civil society that intellectuals operate especially" (PN:56). Gramsci's concept of civil society, and more generally the numerous meanings of civil society in western political theory, is controversial and somewhat confusing. For instance, Bobbio (1979:30-56) suggests that Gramsci introduces a profound innovation within the Marxist tradition, stressing that civil society "does not belong to the structural [political-economic] moment," as in Marx, but "to the superstructural one" (Bobbio, 1979:30). For Bobbio this distinguishes Gramsci from Marx, and links Gramsci directly to Hegel's use of civil society (Bobbio, 1979:31)-as the political and cultural (that is, normative and ethical) hegemony of a ruling social group over the whole of society. Yet Bobbio's reading of Gramsci as a theorist of the primacy of superstructure over structure misses Gramsci's essentially historicist unification between an historical bloc and its hegemony over civil society. Bobbio reverts to a dualism between base and superstructure, thereby negating Gramsci's innovative concept of the historical bloc as a dialectical unity and interpenetration.7
6. Gramsci's credit to Lenin for the concept of hegemony belies his own unique contribution which went far beyond anything Lenin articulated concerning hegemony. (See Karabel, 1976:136-46.) 'Forty-Eightest' refers to the revolutionaries of 1848 in Paris. Marx wrote that communism is the " declaration of the permanence of the revolution, the class dictatorship of the proletariat as inevitable transit point to the abolition of class differences generally, to the abolition of all the production relations on which they rest, to the abolition of all the social relations that correspond to these relations of production, to the revolutionizing of all the ideas that result from these social connections" (Marx, n.d., Vol II: 188-89). That is, the permanence of the social character, of the totality of the revolutionary process in a society, and not in Trotsky's sense of permanent-that is the immediate transition from bourgeois rule to proletarian rule in socialist Russia given an underdeveloped bourgeoisie incapable of rule in its own right. 7. Bobbio has a rather simplistic reading of Marx (as merely the determinist) on ideology and superstructure, relying selectively on a reading of The Preface to The Critique of Political Economy and German Ideology. Yet, were he to contrast these admittedly more economistic and deterministic works with Marx's more historical and dialectical writings (e.g., The Eighteenth Brumaire, The Civil Wars in France and sections of Capital and the Grundrisse), he would observe the profound ambiguities and contradictions within Marx's works. See, for instance, Jessop (1977:353-73) on Marx's theories of the state; Texier (1979:48-79) for a

590

HAWLEY

Marramao of (1977:226) developsthis point. He suggeststhat far frombeinga theoretician the Gramsci'snotion of intellectuals superstructure, (and hence of workingclass organicintellecof tuals)is closelyrelatedwithhis development the ideathatthe workingclass("for itself")is the developmentof the subjectiveside of the productiveforces. This importantbut relatively themein Gramsci closelyrelatedto muchcontemporary is writingon the nature underdeveloped of postindustrial and service economies in which knowledgeand consciousnessincreasingly become a productiveforce (Block and Hirschhorn,1979;Bell, 1973:49-144).Thus, Gramsci's viewof the stateis not merelyas superstructure is composedof two levels:civilsociety-"the but ensembleof organisms commonlycalledprivate,"and politicalsociety-the state. "Thesetwo on levelscorrespond the one handto the functionof 'hegemony' whichthe dominant groupexercises throughout societyand on the otherhandto that of 'directdomination'or commandexercised throughthe Stateand 'juridical' Thesetwo levelsfunctionorganizationally government." withthe intellectuals the functionsof socialhegemony politicalgovernand exercising "subaltern in is consentgivenby the greatmassesof the ment." Hegemony realized the" ... 'spontaneous' group; populationto the generaldirectionimposedon social life by the dominantfundamental this consentis 'historically' causedby the prestige. .. whichthe dominantgroupenjoysbecause of its position and function in the world of production."'The state functionsto impose its on is, discipline those groupswhichdo not consent,eitheractivelyor passively."Thisapparatus of however,constitutedfor the whole of societyin anticipation momentsof crisisof command and directionwhen spontaneous consenthas failed" (PN:12). on and In PrisonNotebooksGramsci's important writings the statearefragmentary, in several on He baseshis discussion the natureof the statein the west distinguishing placescontradictory. of between"war of position" and "war of maneuver"as two polar strategies revolution:the to formermost appropriate the west, the latterto Russia,the east. The problemis that he uses "war of position" in two differentways: one signifyingan historicalsituationwhen thereis a betweenthe fundamental classes;that is, whena stable, albeittemporary, equilibrium relatively on frontalattack(warof maneuver) the stateis impossible.The otheruse of warof positionis to signify that there is a proper relationbetweenthe state and civil society (that is, developed capitalism).This doubleusage poses the questionof the natureof the transitionprocessin the of west from war of positionto war of manuever.Somereformistinterpretations Gramsci sugno transitionat all, but Gramsci'slife experience and other writings gest that perhapsthere is makesthe connection betweenhis two uses of war arguestronglyagainstthisviewpoint.Gramsci of positiononly once: he suggeststhat in the westcivil societyresists;that is, mustbe conquered mustlead beforethe frontalattackon the stateoccurs.In otherwords,revolutionary hegemony a beforethe act of dominationoccurs.This processis, however,certainly dialectical one, as ilwith the Workers'Councils.9 lustratedby Gramsci'sown experience which" . . is resistant The structure the statein the west is like a trenchsystemin warfare of to the catastrophic of 'incursions' the immediate economicelements (crisis,depressions, ... etc.) A crisiscannotgive the attackingforcesthe abilityto organizewith lightningspeed . . still less
rather dogmatic assertion of the virtual unity of Gramsci and Marx; Davidson (1972:448-61) for a summary of aspects of the Gramsci debate; and Bates (1974:355-57) for a different interpretation of Gramsci's meaning of "civil society" which follows Croce. 8. The basis for spontaneous consent is what Gramsci (PN:419) calls "common sense"-the philosophy of the non-philosophers," the conception of the world which is "uncritically absorbed by the various social and cultural environments in which the moral individuality of the average man is developed." In other words, common sense is the folklore of philosophy characterized by being fragmentary, incoherent and inconsequential, in "conformity with the social and cultural position of those masses whose philosophy it is." This formulation is strikingly similar to Weber's (1978:941-55) concept of legitimate domination. See Karabel (1974:56-65) for a discussion of the relation between hegemony and organic intellectuals. 9. See also Anderson (1976-77:5-78) and Femia (1979:66ff).

Gramsci'sMarxism

591

can it endow them with fighting spirit" (PN:235). In the west the question is ". .. whether civil society resists before or after the attempt to seize power. . .. " Trotsky's theory of permanent revolution reflects a stituation in the east where war of maneuver is most appropriate; but it is, ". .. in the last analysis, a reflection of the general economic-cultural-social conditions in a country in which the structures bf national life are embryonic and loose, and incapable of becoming [a] 'trench and fortress'." In the west, wereof themselves capableof becomingheavilyarmedfortifications. In still . . the socialstructures ... in Russiathe Statewaseverything, societywas primordial gelatinous; the Westtherewasa proper civil and of relationbetweenStateandcivilsociety,andwhenthe Statetrembled sturdystructure civilsocietywas a at once revealed.The Statewas only an outerditch, behindwhichtherestood a powerfulsystemof fortressesand earthworks (PN:237-38). ... This terminological confusion results from Gramsci's different and contradictory uses of state: 1) as an "outer ditch," that is, separate from the social institutions of western society, the democratic-bureaucratic state of political society (PN:268); 2) the state in the "organic, wider sense of the State proper plus civil society": that is, exactly the opposite of number 1 (PN: 170); and 3) the state as a balance between political and civil society (PN:56). The terminological confusion reflects the descriptive level of Gramsci's discussion of state structure. Nonetheless, the importance of his discussion of the three typologies of the state rests in the state's relation to hegemony and the role of the state vis-a-vis the organization of hegemonic social institutionssuch as schools, media, churches and trade unions. His primary concern is with modes of rules rather than with the institutional state as such.'" It is this formulation which places strong emphasis on culture, on the then lost dialectic of object/subject, on the role of the proletariat as a productive force-in short, emphasis on the question of conscious praxis ("will") which gives Gramsci's Marxism its vitality. It transcends the revisionist debate by positing that structures and superstructures form an historical bloc: that is, " . . . the complex, contradictory and discordant ensemble of the superstructuresin the reflection of the ensemble of the social relations of production" (PN:336). There can be no objective conditions without subjective ones: that is, of past conscious social action (PN: 113, 445). The catharsis of elaborating structures into superstructure (the "purely economic into the ethico-politico") in the minds of men is the passage of objective to subjective (the ability to act) and for Gramsci also the pasage from necessity to freedom. For Gramsci this cathartic movement becomes the starting point for Marxism (PN:367). A serious omission in Gramsci's writings on the state is the absence of any discussion of the economic roles and functions of the modern (or premodern) capitalist state. Writing before the "Keynesian revolution," Gramsci seriously underestimated the important capital accumulation functions of the state, especially the use of monetary, fiscal and tax policies for the attempted regulation and direction of the economy. Anderson (1976-1977) makes proper note of this. Since the state (especially the fascist state) increasingly assumed responsibility for the regulation of overall economic development, the issues of legitimacy with which Gramsci deals so provocatively become increasingly entangled with economic policy as such. Capital accumulation, social reproduction and all forms of legitimation are qualitatively more interactive than Gramsci recognizes (Adler, 1977:71-90.) STATE AND HEGEMONY Yet while Gramsci's analysis of the economic role of the modern capitalist state was deficient, his critique of the Stalinist analysis of fascism was significant. The dialectic of subject/object relation led Gramsci to an innovative analysis of the development of Italian fascism having many
10. Anderson (1976-1977) misses this larger concern of Gramsci's and hence the provocative ambiguities in Gramsci's discussion of the state.

592

HAWLEY

similaritieswith Marx's analysis of Bonapartism.Rejecting the dominant position of the Gramsci(PN:276)arguedthat whichequatedfascism-capitalism, pre-1935ThirdInternational "Caesarism"'-dominates when a crisisof authorityoccurs, whenthe rulingclass has lost its when the masseshave become consensusand becomesno longerleadingbut only dominating; in fromtheirtraditional ". .. detached ideologies.... Thiscrisisconsistsprecisely the factthatthe old is dyingand the newcannotbe born;in this interregnum greatvarietyof morbidsymptoms a livesof all socialclasses,not only the appear."A similar phenomenon mayoccurin the historical masses (PN:210). The key factor in the rise of fascism is not the developmentof counterof hegemonyfrom below, but the degeneration consensus.Thisgivesthe traditional rulingclass the advantage becauseit has " . . . numerous trainedcadre[andis able to change]men and proand is classes,[andthereby able speedthanis achieved the subordinate grammes, with greater by to reabsorb] controlthat was slippingfrom its grasp"(PN:210).The left, Gramsciasserts, the has traditionallyneglected"to give importanceto the bureaucratic elements, both civil and of military,as a social base for the development fascism"(PN:212).Thus, fascismin Italywas the culminationof the centralweaknessof the Risorgimento: lack of mass social participaits tion-a passive revolution, a "revolutionwithout a revolution"(PN:59; Buci-Glucksmann, Fascismwas not simplya new formof bourgeoisrule, of domination-but a new 1979:207-236). contentof leading,and as suchis distinguished fromparliamentary by its abilityto mobilize rule a section or sections of social classes outside of establishedstructuresof rule (hence also of to developinga new mode of recruitment the rulingclass). The relationbetweenthe state and the concept of hegemonyhas anotheraspect:the ethical state. Everystateis ethicalin as muchas one of its most important functionsis to raisethe mass of the populationto a particular "cultural morallevel ... whichcorresponds the needsof and to the productiveforces for development,and hence to the interests of the ruling classes" czar-as(PN:258-60).The form and contentof the state-as-educator vary:from the elementary Fatherimagein Russia,to the complexcorporatist of western The quesdevelopment capitalism. tion of "who will educatethe educator?"is the basis for differenttypes of transformations of state structures the content of hegemony. and In June 1919Gramsci wrotethat, "The socialiststatealready in existspotentially the (1968:29) of institutions sociallife characteristic the exploitedworkingclass ... [whichmust]prepare of to in all its essentialfunctionsof administration controlof the national and replace... [the state] of interne(workers' heritage."The experience the Turincommissioni shop steward typeof comin movement 1919-20 witha concreteinstanceof whatthe development Gramsci mittee) provided of this "stateof a newtype"wouldbe like.Thisprefigurative "stateof a newtype"wasseenin the transition from the commissioni interne as they developed into a revolutionaryand selfdetermined consiglidifabbrice (factorycouncils)of the workingclass as a whole. The councils werenot to replacethe tradeunions, but wereratherto supplement them sincethe formerwere reflectiveof the relationsof industrial of legalitywhilethe latterwereorgansof transformation
the industrial order. For Gramsci the councils " . . . must be organs of proletarian power, replac-

and ing the capitalistin all his useful functionsof management administration" (1968:30).The councilswereelecteddemocratically, wereto represent whole workingclass-unionized and the nonunionized-and were to be politicallyrepresentative all trendsin the workingclass (e.g., of Each factory(and neighborhood) in would be represented a generalcounciland all anarchists). recall.This structure wouldincreasethe masses'readiness the for delegates subjectto immediate
exercise of power, " . . . since it has been spontaneously generated from living historical ex-

11. "Caesarism" is used as a reference to Mussolini, but also in a broader sense including nonfascist, corporatist rule, e.g., the British National Government, 1931; the development of "Fordism," etc.

Gramsci'sMarxism

593

of mustceaseto be a mereformula.... He who wants perience.The dictatorship the proletariat the end must also want the means.The Statecannotbe improvised"(1968:31).Adlersummarizes:the " .. . factorycouncilswereto be autonomous both frommanagement workers' and syndicates:Theywereto be transformative ratherthan integrative the bodies, representing workers as producersratherthan as wage-earners . . prefiguring embryonicform the proletarian . in state" (1977:72;emphasisin original). The differencebetweenthe RussianSovietsin 1905and 1917and the consiglidi fabbrice in Turinin 1919-20is that the formerturnedout to be organsin the strugglefor statepoweronly duringperiodsof acute nationalcrisis, while the latterwereseen by Gramscias institutionsof hegemony.Oncethe peak of the two Russiancriseshad passed-that is, once the Sovietshad to of serveas institutions cultureand for the transmission culture-they wererepressed failed of and For the (Adler, 1977:67-90). Gramsci, consiglidifabbriceservedalmostexactlythe oppositepurof of pose: they wereinstitutionsof hegemonicdevelopment, the development self-government and administration, the autonomousdevelopment the workingclass. The key indicatorof of of workingclasshegemonyfor the councilmovement duringthe 1920generalstrikein Turinwasthe to maintainfactoryproduction the strikeat as close to the pre-strike levelsas posability during If the workingclass could operatethe factoryas well as the capitalistand managers,so sible.'2 wentthe logic, then this was proof of the abilityof the proletariat becomea futurerulingclass to of a new type.'3The Turincouncilmovementproposedthe self-governance the factorywithin of the ideologicaland physicalboundaries the existingsocioeconomic of system;that is, it assumed and continuedthe existingdivisionof labor and mode of production. The factorysystembecamethe expression the modelof the socialrelations the newstate and of in gestation-the presentmaterial base for the workingclassas futurerulingclass. The goal was " ... to makethe factorythe nucleusof the new state,andto buildthenewstateas an expression
of the industrial relations of the factory system" (Gramsci, 1968:46; my emphasis). The social re-

lationsof the factorycreatedthe climatefor the development revolutionary of not consciousness, the organizedtrade unions and politicalpartieswhich Gramscidefined on the terrainof the of bourgeoisstatewhere" . . . relations citizento citizensubsist.The revolutionary processtakes on the terrain production. .. wherethe relations thoseof oppressor oppressed of are to place ... wherefreedomfor the workerdoes not exist, wheredemocracy does not exist. The revolutionary processoccurswherethe workeris nothingand wants to becomeeverything" (1968:32). Writingin PrisonNotebooksmorethanten yearslater,Gramsci rejectedhis previousideathat consciousnesswas primarily rooted at the point of production,replacingit with his theory of contradicorganicsocial crisis. The most importantaspectof this theorywas that fundamental tions in the complexmatrixof powerin civil society are increasingly autonomousof economic foundationsof the society. Yet whilehis conceptof organiccrisisis qualitatively differentfrom the earliertheory of consciousness-in that it locates power in the sociocultural institutionsas well as in the productive ones and in the state-it nevertheless remains lockedinto the boundaries of early20th centuryindustrialization. fundamental The questionsof the natureof the socialand

12. For a fuller discussion of the council movement and its relation to the Italian revolution that failed, see: Cammett, 1967:67-122; Clark, 1977; Davidson, 1977; Joll, 1977:36-65; Williams, 1975. 13. It was during the immediate post-Russian Revolution era (1918-21) that Gramsci most forecfully articulated what is often seen as an unreconstructed Leninism. Yet a closer reading of Gramsci and close observation of the conditions in Italy make it clear that Gramsci's celebration of the Soviets in Russia and of Lenin as their defender is based on a reading of Lenin's most visionary work, State and Revolution, as well as on Gramsci's self-admitted sketchy and secondhand knowledge of developments in Russia during this period (e.g., suppression of the Workers' Opposition, the crushing of the Kronstadt rebellion, Trotsky's attempt at the militarization of labor; see Adler, 1977:83-90; Karabel, 1976:131-33; Luke, 1977:237-39).

594

HAWLEY

technicaldivisionof labor, of the relationsof personto person,of people to machine,are not raised:in short, the specifichistoricalcontentof freedomand necessityis ignored.
WORK, LABOR AND THE STATE

Because of Gramsci'semphasis on consciousness,his discussion of the central role of antecedent the new left in the of hegemonyin relationto the state, to power,he is an important to 1960's:he poses not only the questionof power,but as requisite that powerunderconditions of advancedcapitalism,the qualityof power (II Manifesto, 1970:30-37).While he poses the tentativeand unconquestionof the qualityof power, his answersare at once self-consciously and in visionof capitalist futuresocialistor comdetermined sciouslyanchored a technologically munistsocial relations-a vision all too often found in Marx.The essenceof this technological as underconditionsof communism afunction of sees is determinism that Gramsci socialrelations as ratherthan dialectically part of production the mode of production(technique-as-science) underconditionsof post-scarcity.14The formervisionplacesthe realmof freedomoutsideof the case to mentalfreedomduringwork. time allocatedto sociallynecessary work, or in Gramsci's in other words, by its nature is oppressive-freedom consists in nonwork, or selfWork, alienationfrom work. The questionof the natureof work and labor at the root of Gramsci'sfailureto developa of contrastto his discussions organic dialecticbetweenhumanworkand naturestandsin striking social crisis. Why was this so? Part of the answeris rooted in the historicalperiod-industrial in was mechanization only in its final stagesof completion,and manystillremained awe of it. In life theirmindsit developedan independent of its own apartfromsociety.The slogan,for examequal socialism,"capturesthe tone. This issue becomesa ple, that "Sovietsplus electrification itself to centralproblemin the transition a classlesssociety,and the verynatureof the transition crion becomesincreasingly the politicalagendaas societybecomesmore complex.Wellmar's of Marx'streatment workand technologyin his philosophyof historyis also applicable tiqueof to Gramsci:
If ... the humanpraxis which constitutesand transforms society, and with it "production,"and the and functionsof their of transformation men's societalconsciousness, appearultimatelyas derivations betweenthe world-historical workin transforming processof formanature,thenthe dialectical interplay of on and tion of consciousness socialinstitutions the one hand,andthe historical development productive as forces on the other, mustbe misconceived a functionalrelationship (1970:70-71). For Gramsci, as for Marx, the political and social development of society proceeds dialectically, through praxis: the class struggle as a process of self-creation and emancipation of the pro-

beletariat;whereas,class antagonismis a reified, objectivistcategory.Yet in the antagonism tweenhumanityand technique,Gramsci'sdialecticis displacedby a functionalrelation."
14. See Bookchin (1971) for a discussion of the concept of post-scarcity; and Block and Hirschhorn (1979) for a similar discussion of a postindustrial analysis of production and technique. 15. Wellmar takes as the starting point of his criticism of Marx, Jurgen Habermas' (1971) work, where Habermas attempts to show that in Hegel's early writings there were three equally orginal, irreducible dialectical patterns in the process of formation of Geist: language, labor and communicative interreaction. In Marx's philosophy of history (not in his political and social writings), Habermas argues these three become reduced to labor alone-Marx's political economy subsumes other forms of human self-creation and recreation. Wellmar (1970:107-09) quotes German Ideology extensively and especially he relies on the Grundrisse to substantiate his point. I find parts of his argument convincing, while other parts less so. What I am convinced of is whatever the origin in Marx's work of the problem of the relation of technique to human freedom-the theoretical possiblity of communism-the problem is unresolved by Marx, and in part confounded by sections of his work. Georg Lukacs writes: "It is undeniable that quotations from Marx and Engels can be found which it is possible to interpret in this way." "Technique is a part, a moment, naturally of great importance of the social productive forces, but it is neither simply identical with them nor . .. the final or absolute moment of the changes in these forces" (1966:29).

Gramsci'sMarxism

595

An exampleof socialrelationsbeinga functionof necessary is technique Gramsci's productive discussion sexuality.He beginswiththe insightthat the sexualquestionhasbecomeincreasingof in of ly independent the economicbasebecauseof suchfactorsas the advances medicalscienceor of changeddemographic and this in turn raisesa myriadof related"superstrucpatterns,etc., in tural"problems.He observesthat, "Untilwomencan attainnot only a genuineindependence relationto men but also a new way of conceiving themselves theirrole in sexualrelations, and of the sexualquestionwill remainfull of unhealthy characteristics " (PN:296).But whatis the ... The mass assemblyline technique,the "Taylorization" of relationof sexualityto production? in theU.S.S.R. as wellas work(whichhadbecomeof centralimportance productive to technique in westernEurope),was in the processof creating " . .. newtypeof man [sic]demanded the a by of rationalization productionand work." But this new man cannot"be developeduntil the sexand ual instincthas been suitablyregulated untilit too has beenrationalized" (PN:297).The ra"Thesenew methods[of industrial tionalizationof sexualityis important because, organization] demanda rigorousdiscipline the sexualinstincts(at the levelof the nervoussystem). .. andof of the regulationand stabilityof sexual relations."Abuse and irregularity sexual functionis, of
" . . . after alcholism, the most dangerous enemy of nervous energies .
.

. " (PN:300, 304).

Gramsci(PN:317)suggestsin only one sentencein his notes of "Americanism Fordism" and

that it is the workers " . . . who 'must' find for themselves an 'original,' and not Americanized,

systemof living, to turninto 'freedom'what is today 'necessity'."He does not definethe direcof is tion of originalsolutions.His wholediscussion the sociologyof workand production based of on the assumptionof an increasing rationalization the workprocess-in Weber's(1978:85-6; modes substantive undersocialistor capitalist 111;223-25) senseof formalreplacing rationality of industrialism. is reference "freedom/necessity" important. asksdirectly: to He "Whatis the point Gramsci's of referenceof the new world in gestation?The world of production:work. Collectiveand individuallife must be organizedwith a view to the maximum yield of the productive apparatus" point, hencethe only starting (my emphasis).Workis the sole reference point of the new society. Further,workis measured quantitatively yield-at least at the point of production.In politics by and sociallife Gramsci forcebeingboth specialized political.Butat and arguesfor the hegemoniC the level of production,techniquetendsto determine socialrelations,hencethe workertendsto become specializedonly. When revolutionary social transformation from below has createda
new society, it " .
.

. will permit new possibilities for self-discipline; i.e., for freedom, including

that of the individual"(PN:242). Freedomfor Gramsciultimatelybecomesdefinedas internalizing withinthe individual what was the externalization coercionandhegemony the statein the widersense.Under of formerly by conditions of self-discipline state will wither away. The state standingabove society thus the becomes transformedinto the state within each individual,much as in traditionalFreudian becomessuperego.Insteadof necessitybeing raisedto the level of theoryauthority-the-Father freedomis loweredto the levelof necessity: statewithersawayin proportion the the to freedom, of the internalstate. The conditionsand techniqueof work limit the development a of growth free personat work, while creatingthe basis for freedomaway from work, and/or necessarily and alienatedfromwork.'6Workbecomessociallynecessary Taylorization rationalizadrudgery. tion destroythe unityof humanbeingsandtheirlaborpower,as Marxdescribed the Economic in and PhilosophicManuscripts(1961); but this is not, Gramsciargues, the "spiritualdeath of man." "Once the processof adaptation[to workingconditionsand technique]has been comMarxcameto find the locusof freedomin the 16. Similarly Wellmar (1970:106-15) arguesthatin Grundrisse
"reduction of working time" and to see work as necessarily alienated independent of the social relations of capital.

596

HAWLEY

pleted, what really happens is that the brain of the worker . . . reaches a state of complete freedom. [!] The only thing that is completely mechanized is the physical gesture; the memory of the trade, reduced simply to gestures repeated at an intense rhythm . . . leaves the brain free and unencumbered for other occupations" (PN:309). [!] In other words, the material basis for freedom and the transcendence of necessity is the absolute psychic alienation from socially necessary work. All work, using Hannah Arendt's distinction, becomes labor; labor becomes necessary for freedom, but not part of freedom, and is therefore a socially coerced necessity whose cognition constitutes part of actualizing freedom. Freedom at work necessitates the divorce of mind from body, of thought from being. Thus, Gramsci revertsto the Hegelian duality between thought and being, theory and practice, and ultimately, object and subject (Lukacs, 1966:15-16). Logically, then, in Gramsci's (PN:263) terms communism is "regulated society"-regulated by the imperatives of work-as-science, as labor, where, "The new methods [e.g., Taylorization] demand a rigorous discipline of the sexual instincts at the level of the nervous system . . . and the regulation and stability of sexual relations," that is, some form of monogamy (PN:300). Two elements are lacking in Gramsci's discussion of work (and therefore in his vision of communist society). One is a vision of an ecologically sound post-scarcity society. This is understandable given the development of technology-the mass assembly line: he wrote in an era prior to cybernation and the electronics revolution. But given that limitation, what is still lacking is a vision of what Wilhelm Reich (1970a:3-40; 1970b:285-316) called "work democracy." That would be a social order based on the reorganization of the nature of work, and the integration of humanity into its own creation and recreation. This necessitates a vision of a liberatory social mode of work which dialectically transcends the constraints of the techniques of production, from the outside-that is, from the process of liberating social relations in general. Related to this weakness in Gramsci's thought is his lack of a revolutionary psychology-a concrete explanation and analysis of the psychology of oppression/repression in capitalist society, and on this basis the projection of what the content and forms of possible social relations could be under conditions of freedom. In Marcuse's (1956:81-105; 155-58; 218-37) terms, he lacks a bio-social basis for freedom, and lacking this the realm of freedom collapses into the realm of necessity. Gramsci's vision, ultimately, is limited and not transcendent. Yet a revolution must be positive. It must be capable of the reorganization not simply of production, not simply to produce more and better, but-as a critique of Gramsci by the Italian 11 Manifesto group (1970:333) states-" . . . of production in a different manner, of different suppression of capitalism as a goods, of giving a new form to the relations among men [sic]. ,The mode of social production (suppression of alienation, the social division of labor, of the individual model of consumption, of the State) must begin at the moment even where the revolution realizes itself and must even sketch it out in the course of the struggle for power" (1970:333). The lack of a transcendentvision in Gramsci's writings affects the nature and the role of the two institutions of hegemonic leadership to which he devoted his life: the workers' councils (1919-22) and the vanguard conception of the Communist Party (1922-37). The workers' councils in Turin had four main elements: 1) the ability to give strength to militancy, to pose the question of revolution, while not being bound up in the economist role of the trade union (which by necessity negotiates about the terms of the sale of labor power); 2) the embryonic appropriation of work, the work place, and the product of work by the workers; 3) the potential that the working class could become through its self-conscious activity the productive forces (a class for itself) imprisoned by capitalist social relations; and 4) the creation of a vision/reality of a new social order in gestation, the ability to rule. Gramsci in his Prison Notebooks period criticizes the "unitary character" of the problematic of the councils-the councils' vision of revolutionary struggle focusing too strongly on the work place to the exclusion of the total social character of the

Gramsci'sMarxism

597

organic crisis. Gramsci's need in Prison Notebooks was to develop an overall strategic design able to understand and cope with the total social crisis. The Party came to replace the councils as the major vehicle for hegemonic leadership-a party primarily of culture and education of a new type, but nevertheless a vanguard party of a new elite of organic intellectuals which " ... cannot be formed or developed without a hierarchy of authority and intellectual competence growing up within them" (PN:340). The Party should consist primarily in this: 1) the rank and file, whose participation is characterized by discipline and faith; 2) the leadership which provided cohesion; and 3) the cadre, which mediate between the first two. The long-term goal of the party is to eliminate the distinctions among all three groups by continously expanding the content and form of the organic intellectuals. Of the three groups, the leadership was to prove pivotal because there can be no army without generals. The most telling criticism of the role of a vanguard party in advanced industrial capitalism is that the goal of the development of a dialectic between the proletariat as historical subject in the process of self-creation and the object-the society produced by capitalist social relations-becomes displaced by the dialectic between class and vanguard. This tension exists in Gramsci's thought: between workers' councils and the "Prince" (the Party). Rossana Rossanda comments: 4" . . . in [Gramsci's] notes of Machiavelli the accent [on self-developmentof the prolethe it reality.. .. Thetruthof Gramsci's tariat]is displaced: is the vanguard, Prince,who aloneinterprets The tensionis] echoed theoretically the revolutions the last in in thoughtlies in his route ["itineraire." in of betweenspontaneity organization and twentyyears,in the reflectionon the complexity the relations the stormof concretehistory,in a periodwherethe stageof the movement seemedto leaveonlyhope with referenceto the international scene, to the U.S.S.R.; and to maintainat all costs a vanguardforce, in howeverrestricted, each country"(1970:292-93). The development of western capitalism in the past fifty years has called forth qualitative changes: the technological potentialities for post-scarcity; the domination of work by a majority of the population as working class, but at the same time the tremendous growth of all forms of stratification and hierarchy within the working class itself. These changes in the working class and aspects of the mode of production have changed the strategic problems of western capitalism: "rationalization" no longer appears socially rational, and hence the nature of the strategic historical bloc also must change. The social basis for the creation of organic intellectuals is proportionately larger than at the turn of the century; the mode of production has already moved beyond the Taylorization and the assembly line; and the social character of fundamental contradictions is greater (perhaps qualitatively so) than in the 1920's. The importance of Gramsci's thought and life experience is in his revitalization of the dialectic of human social praxis, and whatever his historical and philosophical limitations, it is necessary to understand in order to transcend. REFERENCES Franklin Adler, 1977 "Factorycouncils, Gramsciand the industrialists." Telos 31 (Spring):67-90. Althusser,Louis and EtienneBalibar 1971 ReadingCapital.New York:New Left Books. Anderson,Perry 1977 "The Antinomiesof Antonio Gramsci."New Left Review100(November1976/January 1977): 5-78. Bates, ThomasR. and 1974 "Gramsci the theoryof hegemony."The Journalof the Historyof Ideas36, 2 (April/May): 351-366. Bell, Daniel 1973 The Comingof Post-Industrial Society.New York:BasicBooks.

598

HAWLEY

Block, Fred and Larry Hirschhorn 1979 "New productive forces and the contradictions of contemporary capitalism." Theory and Society 7, 3 (May):363-395. Bobbio, Norberto 1979 "Gramsci and the conception of civil society." Pp. 21-47 in Chantal Mouffe (ed.), Gramsci and Marxist Theory. London: Routledge, Kegan Paul. Boggs, Carl 1976 Gramsci's Marxism. London: Pluto. 1977 "Review of Pedro Cavalcanti and Paul Piccone (eds.), History, Philosophy and Culture in the Young Gramsci; Paolo Spriano, The Occupation of the Factories: Italy 1920; and Gwyn A. Williams, Proletarian Order: Antonio Gramsci, Factory Councils and the Origins of Communism in Italy, 1911-1921. Telos 31 (Spring). Bookchin, Murray 1971 Post Scarcity Anarchism. Berkeley: Ramparts. Buci-Glucksmann, Christine 1979 "State, transition and passive revolution." Pp. 207-236 in Chantal Mouffe (ed.), Gramsci and Marxist Theory. London: Routledge, Kegan Paul. Buzzi, A. R. 1967 La Theorie Politique d'Antonio Gramsci. Louvain: Editions Nauwelaerts. Cammett, John M. 1967 Antonio Gramsci and the Origins of Italian Communism. Stanford, Calif: Stanford University Press. Clark, Martin 1977 Antonio Gramsci and the Revolution that Failed. New Haven, Conn.: Yale University Press. Colletti, Lucio 1971 "Antonio Gramsci and the Italian revolution." New Left Review 65 (January/February):87-94. Davidson, Alastair 1972 "The varying seasons of Gramscian studies." Political Studies XX, 4 (December):448-461. 1977 Antonio Gramsci: Towards an Intellectual Biography. London and New Jersey: Merlin/Humanities. Femia, Joseph 1975 "Hegemony and consciousness in the thought of Antonio Gramsci." Political Studies 23 (March): 28-48. 1979 "Gramsci, the Via Italiana, and the classical Marxist-Leninist approach to revolution." Government and Opposition 14 (Winter):66-95. Fiori, Giuseppe 1970 Antonio Gramsci, Life of a Revolutionary. London: New Left Books. Genovese, Eugene D. 1967 "On Antonio Gramsci." Studies on the Left 7, 2 (March/April):83-107. De Giovanni, Biagio 1979 "Lenin and Gramsci: State, politics and party." Pp. 559-588 in Chantal Mouffe (ed.), Gramsci and Marxist Theory. London: Routledge, Kegan Paul. Gramsci, Antonio 1971 Selections from the Prison Notebooks of Antonio Gramsci. Quintin Hoare and Geoffrey Nowell Smith (eds. and trans.) New York: International. 1968 "Soviets in Italy." New Left Review 51 (September/October):28-58. [1920] 1967 The Modern Prince and Other Writings. New York: International. Habermas, Jurgen 1971 Knowledge and Human Interest. Boston: Beacon. Hobsbawm, E. J. 1974 "The great Gramsci." The New York Review of Books 25, 5 (April 4):39-42. Jessop, Bob 1977 "Recent theories of the capitalist state." The Cambridge Journal of Economics 1, 4 (Dec.):353-373. Joll, James 1977 Gramsci. Glasgow: Penguin. Karabel, Jerome 1976 "Revolutionary contradictions: Antonio Gramsci and the problem of intellectuals." Politics and Society 6, 2:123-172. Lenin, V. I. 1964 Collected Works. Moscow: Progress. [1901-2]"What Is to Be Done?" Vol. 5 in Collected Works. Moscow: Progress. [1917] "State and Revolution." Vol. 25 in Collected Works. Moscow: Progress.

Marxism Gramsci's

599

Lukacs, Georg 1971 History and Class Consciousness. Cambridge, Mass.: Oxford University Press. 1966 "Technology and social relations." New Left Review 39 (September/October):27-34. [1925] Luke, Tim 1977 Review of Antonio Gramsci, Selections from Political Writings (1910-1920). Telos 31 (Spring): 237-242. Marcuse, Herbert 1956 Eros and Civilization. Boston: Beacon. Marramao, Giacomo 1977 Review of Nicola Badaloni, II Marxismo di Gramsci. Telos 31 (Spring):224-229. Martinelli, Alberto 1968 "In defense of the dialectic: Antonio Gramsci's theory of revolution." The Berkeley Journal of Sociology XIII: 1-27. Marx, Karl 1959 Capital, Vols I, II and III. Moscow: Progress. [1867-94] 1961 Economic and Philosophical Manuscripts of 1844. Moscow: Progress. [1844] 1963 The Eighteenth Brumaire of Louis Bonaparte. New York: International. [1852] 1964 The Class Struggles in France: 1848-1850. New York: International. [1850] 1968 The Civil War in France. New York: International. [1850] 1970 A Contribution to the Critique of Political Economy. New York: International. [1859] 1973 The Grundrisse. New York: Penguin. [1857-8] n.d. Selected Works, II. New York: International. Marzani, Carl 1957 The Open Marxism of Antonio Gramsci. (Trans. and annotated.) New York: Cameron. Merrington, John 1968 "Theory and practice in Gramsci's Marxism. Pp. 145-176 in Ralph Milliband and John Saville (eds.), Socialist Register. New York: Merlin. Mouffe, Chantal 1979 "Hegemony and ideology in Gramsci." Pp. 168-204 in Gramsci and Marxist Theory. London: Routledge, Kegan Paul. Paggi, Leonardo 1979 "Gramsci's general theory of Marxism." Pp. 113-167 in Chantal Mouffe (ed.), Gramsci and Marxist Theory. London: Routledge, Kegan Paul. Piccone, Paul 1974 "Gramsci's Hegeliam [sic] Marxism." Political Theory 2, 1 (February): 32-45. 1976 "Gramsci's Marxism: Beyond Lenin and Togliatti." Theory and Society 3, 4 (Winter):485-512. Poulantzas, Nicos 1976 Political Power and Social Class. Atlantic Highlands, N.J.: Humanities. Reich, Wilhelm 1970a The Sexual Revolution. New York: Farrar. 1970b The Mass Psychology of Fascism. New York: Farrar. Rossanda, Rossana (ed.) 1970 II Manifesto. Paris: Editions de Seuil. Salamini, Leonardo 1974 "Gramsci and Marxist sociology of knowledge: An analysis of hegemony-ideology-knowledge." The Sociological Quarterly 15 (Summer):359-380. 1975 "The specificity of Marxist sociology in Gramsci's theory." The Sociological Quarterly 16 (Winter). Salvadori, Massimo 1979 "Gramsci and the PCI: Two conceptions of hegemony." Pp. 237-258 in Chantal Mouffe (ed.), Gramsci and Marxist Theory. London: Routledge, Kegan Paul. Schroyer, Trent 1971 Review of Albrecht Wellmar, Kritische Gesellschaftstheorie und Positivismus; and Paul Breines (ed.), Critical Interruptions:New Left Perspectives on Herbert Marcuse. Telos 7 (Spring):150-159. Texier, Jacques 1979 "Gramsci, theoreticism of the superstructure." Pp. 48-79 in Chantal Mouffe (ed.), Gramsci and Marxist Theory. London: Routledge, Kegan Paul.

600

HAWLEY

Thompson, E. P. 1964 The Making of the English Working Class. New York: Pantheon. Weber, Max 1978 Economy and Society, Berkeley: University of California. [1956] Wellmar, Albrecht 1970 Critical Theory of Society. New York: Herder. Williams, Gwyn 1960 "Gramsci's concept of egomania." Journal of the History of Ideas 21, 4:586-599. 1975 Proletarian Order: Antonio Gramsci, Factory Councils and the Origins of Italian Communism, 1911-1921. London: Pluto.