On Gramsci's Prison Notebooks' Notes on Politics
“…in the case of the most advanced States…The superstructures of civil society are like the trenchsystems of modern warfare. In war it would sometimes happen that a fierce artillery attack seemed to have destroyed the enemy’s entire defensive system, whereas in fact it had only destroyed the outer perimeter; and at the moment of their advance and attack the assailants would find themselves confronted by a line of defence which was still effective…” (p. 489)
This quote captures, succintly but effectively, the main problem which Gramsci confronts in his Prison Notebooks, namely the role played by civil society in the advanced industrialized states in preventing the popular classes from carrying out a communist revolution and, in the case of Italy, from stopping fascism.
Before turning to the content of the Notebooks, and providing a sketch of Gramsci’s ideas, it is worth bearing in mind the reason for this choice of subject matter on Gramsci’s part. And largely, I think we can find it by considering the context within which Gramsci lived. On a discursive level, the influence of thinkers such as Karl Marx and Benedetto Croce is unquestionable, but more important were Gramsci’s political activities, through which he witnessed first, in September 1920, a fatal blow to the possibility of a communist revolution after the leaderships of the Italian Socialist Party and the labour unions refused to back the factory occupations that had broken out in much of the country, opting to compromise instead, and, second, shortly after, the beginnings of fascist reprisals. In passing, I think it’s also worth mentioning that Gramsci’s imprisonment, a situation of extreme duress, coupled with his physical illnesses, make his contributions to political thought all the more remarkable.
Having said this, let’s turn to the readings.
The Notebooks are divided into three sections:
I. Problems of History and Culture
II. Notes on Politics
III. The Philosophy of Praxis
These are in turn divided into subsections. The sections we’re interested in are found within the Notes on Politics and they are:
The Modern Prince
State and Civil Society
Americanism and Fordism
In The Modern Prince, Gramsci interprets The Prince as Machiavelli’s attempt to politically educate the Italian people, “those who are not in the know”, and urge them to back a political project of national unification (pp. 332-335).
Here, Gramsci begins by saying that in order to understand Machiavelli, it is imperative to appreciate the political context of his time, characterized by:
1. Florence’s internal struggles;
and
2. A peninsula composed of a multitude of small states beleaguered on the one hand by warfare between each other and the constant attempts of the Popes to exercise temporal power, and on the other by threats coming from national realities such as France and Spain.
This state of affairs is a cause of great frustration for Machiavelli, who sees the national unification of Italy as the only solution. He therefore writes The Prince to promote this political objective, and elaborates on the means to achieve it by outlining the “…qualities, characteristics, duties and requirements of a concrete individual.” But, Gramsci reasons, since what Machiavelli espouses is already known and practised by those in power, who is he addressing? And the answer Gramsci gives is that the audience is not so much the De Medici family, as the Italian people, the citizen democracy, “those who are not in the know”, but who can help achieve unification if exposed to the rules of the game and if convinced to disregard morality and religion.
Gramsci sees the Jacobin movement as an embodiment of Machiavelli’s Prince, what he calls “an exemplification of the concrete formation and operation of a collective will”. He furthermore thinks that in order to obtain the political objective he is after, a communist revolution, the formation of such a collective will is also necessary. He concludes that what is needed is another Prince, a Modern Prince.
But being aware that each historical situation is unique, Gramsci thinks it’s not plausible to simply apply Machiavelli’s model -- the Prince in the form of an individual. He suggests however that history has provided an alternative, namely the political party. In the case of his political objective, a communist revolution, he thinks the Communist Party can play the role of the modern prince. To achieve a collective will whose aim it is to carry out a communist revolution, Gramsci thinks that the Communist Party has to unite peasants and industrial workers.
Is the situation ripe for such an alliance? And here Gramsci introduces the need for historical analysis, showing innovation in method first by noting the necessity of distinguishing between organic and conjunctural movements, that is between what are permanent from what are momentary historical phenomena, and second by advocating the need “to establish various levels of the relations of force” while analyzing not only those social relations within the sphere of production -- the structure -- but also those in the domain of ideology, culture, morality -- the superstructure -- and, indeed, to appreciate the dialectic relationship that exists between these two spheres of social relations. As Gramsci himself puts it, “It is the problem of the relations between structure and superstructure which must be accurately posed and resolved if the forces which are active in the history of a particular period are to be correctly analysed, and the relation between them determined.”
Gramsci argues that there are three different levels in the relations of forces. First, there is the relation born out of the development of the material forces of production, which creates the class composition of a society. This level can be measured objectively and quantitatively. Secondly, there is the relation born out of the level of class consciousness and the organizational configuration that arises from the latter. Here, it is possible to distinguish further, by identifying the different moments of development, going from the creation of corporate unions, to unions and political parties created along class lines, to political associations that unite all subordinate groups under a single leadership which gives the formation economic, political, as well as intellectual and moral unity. Gramsci then defines the final level in the relations of forces as military, the latter itself being divided between a purely military level and a politico-military level, that is political actions which provoke military repercussions.
In State and Civil Society Gramsci develops his notion of hegemony further, looking at the conditions which render the latter effective and outlining the general strategies to be adopted by the working class for a project of counterhegemony in the West.
He begins by elucidating the concept of Caesarism, a situation characterized by a stalemate between the conservative and progressive forces of society, and the entrustment of power to a single charismatic leader to transcend the equilibrium and prevent the destruction of both forces. Gramsci suggests that up until Napoleon III, Caesarism may have come about through the military actions of an individual, but that in the modern world it was necessary to consider organic entities, such as labour unions and political parties, as responsible for maintaining hegemony.
Gramsci thinks this is the case in the advanced industrialized states, where he considers the institutions of civil society as determinant for the realization of hegemony by the ruling class. After distinguishing between war of movement, an action characterized by the rapid conquest of power, and war of position, a more prolongued and constant struggle that seeks to wear down the enemy’s capabilities, Gramsci concludes, in agreement with Lenin, that a war of position is more appropriate for a project of counterhegemony by the working class here.
The Notebooks then turn to what at the time was a revolution within the capitalist mode of production, what Gramsci calls Americanism and Fordism. He uses these terms to capture industrial paradigms defined by mass production and undertaken in the context of a Taylorized labour process, paradigms which were becoming so prominent in the industrial sector of the United States. Gramsci thinks that this model is appropriate to America but not Europe, because the latter, unlike the former, is plagued by the survival of large groups of people (i.e. civil servants, the clergy, landowners etc.) with no productive function in the economy.
The higher degree of efficiency granted by the lack of these parasitic forces, has allowed a larger accumulation of capital, increases in wages, and lower commodity prices. The Fordist model has also required the influx of more workers. Hence the appearance of large groups of immigrants and young people, who have, as a result of their arrival, altered the composition of the working class, as well as its political outlook.
According to Gramsci, these shifts in the socioeconomic structure of the United States have made it necessary for the ruling classes to intensify their hegemonic activities, giving rise to educational and political programs aimed to regulate the private affairs of the workers, including restraining deviant sexual tendencies and the consumption of alcohol, activities which it was thought could interfere with muscular-nervous integrity and thus erode the labour power necessary for the continuation of production.
Gramsci notes that as is the case with more traditional industries such as farming, Fordism entails the creation of divisions within the workforce. As he puts it,
These are in essence the themes explored in the three subsections mentioned, but three other definitions must be kept in mind when reading the Notebooks. The first is Gramsci’s uderstanding of the term organic intellectual, by which he has in mind people with an organizational function towards their respective social classes. In the case of the ruling classes, intellectuals are to perform the dual task of obtaining consent from the subaltern classes through cultural and ideological means, and, when this is not possible, to administer political domination through the coercive apparatus of the state. Not unlike in the army, within the intellectual category Gramsci notes that the division of labour is also subjected to hierarchy, and that often it is the lower intellectual strata to “display the most blatant espirit de corps.”
A second term which may be useful in performing historical analysis and which is utilized by Gramsci is that of passive revolution, by which is meant “A revolution that does not include a role for the masses.” Gramsci mentions the example of the Risorgimento.
Finally, he elucidates the concept of transformism, a word that has come to have a long tradition in Italian politics, and that is the “expression of intellectual, moral and political hegemony” by the absorption of elements from allied but apparently antagonistic groups.
I would conclude by suggesting that in writing the Notebooks, Gramsci’s purpose, much as the latter saw the attempt of Machiavelli in writing The Prince, was not that of obtaining a literary accomplishment, but of producing a political tool to be used. As he states:
Before turning to the content of the Notebooks, and providing a sketch of Gramsci’s ideas, it is worth bearing in mind the reason for this choice of subject matter on Gramsci’s part. And largely, I think we can find it by considering the context within which Gramsci lived. On a discursive level, the influence of thinkers such as Karl Marx and Benedetto Croce is unquestionable, but more important were Gramsci’s political activities, through which he witnessed first, in September 1920, a fatal blow to the possibility of a communist revolution after the leaderships of the Italian Socialist Party and the labour unions refused to back the factory occupations that had broken out in much of the country, opting to compromise instead, and, second, shortly after, the beginnings of fascist reprisals. In passing, I think it’s also worth mentioning that Gramsci’s imprisonment, a situation of extreme duress, coupled with his physical illnesses, make his contributions to political thought all the more remarkable.
Having said this, let’s turn to the readings.
The Notebooks are divided into three sections:
I. Problems of History and Culture
II. Notes on Politics
III. The Philosophy of Praxis
These are in turn divided into subsections. The sections we’re interested in are found within the Notes on Politics and they are:
The Modern Prince
State and Civil Society
Americanism and Fordism
In The Modern Prince, Gramsci interprets The Prince as Machiavelli’s attempt to politically educate the Italian people, “those who are not in the know”, and urge them to back a political project of national unification (pp. 332-335).
Here, Gramsci begins by saying that in order to understand Machiavelli, it is imperative to appreciate the political context of his time, characterized by:
1. Florence’s internal struggles;
and
2. A peninsula composed of a multitude of small states beleaguered on the one hand by warfare between each other and the constant attempts of the Popes to exercise temporal power, and on the other by threats coming from national realities such as France and Spain.
This state of affairs is a cause of great frustration for Machiavelli, who sees the national unification of Italy as the only solution. He therefore writes The Prince to promote this political objective, and elaborates on the means to achieve it by outlining the “…qualities, characteristics, duties and requirements of a concrete individual.” But, Gramsci reasons, since what Machiavelli espouses is already known and practised by those in power, who is he addressing? And the answer Gramsci gives is that the audience is not so much the De Medici family, as the Italian people, the citizen democracy, “those who are not in the know”, but who can help achieve unification if exposed to the rules of the game and if convinced to disregard morality and religion.
Gramsci sees the Jacobin movement as an embodiment of Machiavelli’s Prince, what he calls “an exemplification of the concrete formation and operation of a collective will”. He furthermore thinks that in order to obtain the political objective he is after, a communist revolution, the formation of such a collective will is also necessary. He concludes that what is needed is another Prince, a Modern Prince.
But being aware that each historical situation is unique, Gramsci thinks it’s not plausible to simply apply Machiavelli’s model -- the Prince in the form of an individual. He suggests however that history has provided an alternative, namely the political party. In the case of his political objective, a communist revolution, he thinks the Communist Party can play the role of the modern prince. To achieve a collective will whose aim it is to carry out a communist revolution, Gramsci thinks that the Communist Party has to unite peasants and industrial workers.
Is the situation ripe for such an alliance? And here Gramsci introduces the need for historical analysis, showing innovation in method first by noting the necessity of distinguishing between organic and conjunctural movements, that is between what are permanent from what are momentary historical phenomena, and second by advocating the need “to establish various levels of the relations of force” while analyzing not only those social relations within the sphere of production -- the structure -- but also those in the domain of ideology, culture, morality -- the superstructure -- and, indeed, to appreciate the dialectic relationship that exists between these two spheres of social relations. As Gramsci himself puts it, “It is the problem of the relations between structure and superstructure which must be accurately posed and resolved if the forces which are active in the history of a particular period are to be correctly analysed, and the relation between them determined.”
Gramsci argues that there are three different levels in the relations of forces. First, there is the relation born out of the development of the material forces of production, which creates the class composition of a society. This level can be measured objectively and quantitatively. Secondly, there is the relation born out of the level of class consciousness and the organizational configuration that arises from the latter. Here, it is possible to distinguish further, by identifying the different moments of development, going from the creation of corporate unions, to unions and political parties created along class lines, to political associations that unite all subordinate groups under a single leadership which gives the formation economic, political, as well as intellectual and moral unity. Gramsci then defines the final level in the relations of forces as military, the latter itself being divided between a purely military level and a politico-military level, that is political actions which provoke military repercussions.
In State and Civil Society Gramsci develops his notion of hegemony further, looking at the conditions which render the latter effective and outlining the general strategies to be adopted by the working class for a project of counterhegemony in the West.
He begins by elucidating the concept of Caesarism, a situation characterized by a stalemate between the conservative and progressive forces of society, and the entrustment of power to a single charismatic leader to transcend the equilibrium and prevent the destruction of both forces. Gramsci suggests that up until Napoleon III, Caesarism may have come about through the military actions of an individual, but that in the modern world it was necessary to consider organic entities, such as labour unions and political parties, as responsible for maintaining hegemony.
Gramsci thinks this is the case in the advanced industrialized states, where he considers the institutions of civil society as determinant for the realization of hegemony by the ruling class. After distinguishing between war of movement, an action characterized by the rapid conquest of power, and war of position, a more prolongued and constant struggle that seeks to wear down the enemy’s capabilities, Gramsci concludes, in agreement with Lenin, that a war of position is more appropriate for a project of counterhegemony by the working class here.
The Notebooks then turn to what at the time was a revolution within the capitalist mode of production, what Gramsci calls Americanism and Fordism. He uses these terms to capture industrial paradigms defined by mass production and undertaken in the context of a Taylorized labour process, paradigms which were becoming so prominent in the industrial sector of the United States. Gramsci thinks that this model is appropriate to America but not Europe, because the latter, unlike the former, is plagued by the survival of large groups of people (i.e. civil servants, the clergy, landowners etc.) with no productive function in the economy.
The higher degree of efficiency granted by the lack of these parasitic forces, has allowed a larger accumulation of capital, increases in wages, and lower commodity prices. The Fordist model has also required the influx of more workers. Hence the appearance of large groups of immigrants and young people, who have, as a result of their arrival, altered the composition of the working class, as well as its political outlook.
According to Gramsci, these shifts in the socioeconomic structure of the United States have made it necessary for the ruling classes to intensify their hegemonic activities, giving rise to educational and political programs aimed to regulate the private affairs of the workers, including restraining deviant sexual tendencies and the consumption of alcohol, activities which it was thought could interfere with muscular-nervous integrity and thus erode the labour power necessary for the continuation of production.
Gramsci notes that as is the case with more traditional industries such as farming, Fordism entails the creation of divisions within the workforce. As he puts it,
“It would be uneconomic to allow the elements of an organic whole so laboriously built up to be dispersed…This is a limitation on the law of competition determined by the reserve army and by unemployment, and this limitation has always been at the origin of the formation of privileged labour aristocracies.”Thus, in Americanism and Fordism, Gramsci sees the expansion and intensification of more absolute forms of capitalist social relations, and can instinctively feel that their consequences in civil society will be profound.
These are in essence the themes explored in the three subsections mentioned, but three other definitions must be kept in mind when reading the Notebooks. The first is Gramsci’s uderstanding of the term organic intellectual, by which he has in mind people with an organizational function towards their respective social classes. In the case of the ruling classes, intellectuals are to perform the dual task of obtaining consent from the subaltern classes through cultural and ideological means, and, when this is not possible, to administer political domination through the coercive apparatus of the state. Not unlike in the army, within the intellectual category Gramsci notes that the division of labour is also subjected to hierarchy, and that often it is the lower intellectual strata to “display the most blatant espirit de corps.”
A second term which may be useful in performing historical analysis and which is utilized by Gramsci is that of passive revolution, by which is meant “A revolution that does not include a role for the masses.” Gramsci mentions the example of the Risorgimento.
Finally, he elucidates the concept of transformism, a word that has come to have a long tradition in Italian politics, and that is the “expression of intellectual, moral and political hegemony” by the absorption of elements from allied but apparently antagonistic groups.
I would conclude by suggesting that in writing the Notebooks, Gramsci’s purpose, much as the latter saw the attempt of Machiavelli in writing The Prince, was not that of obtaining a literary accomplishment, but of producing a political tool to be used. As he states:
“…analyses cannot and must not be ends in themselves (unless the intention is merely to write a chapter of past history), but acquire significance only if they serve to justify a particular practical activity, or initiative of will. They reveal the points of least resistance, at which the force of will can be most fruitfully applied; they suggest immediate tactical operations; they indicate how a campaign of political agitation may best be launched, what language will best be understood by the masses.”
posted by Thomas @ 9:30 am
0 comments
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
<< Home