antonio gramscis marxism class, state and work. hawley.texto

8/2/2019 Antonio Gramscis Marxism Class, State and Work. Hawley.textO

1/18

Antonio Gramsci's Marxism: Class, State and WorkAuthor(s): James P. HawleyReviewed work(s):Source: Social Problems, Vol. 27, No. 5, Sociology of Political Knowledge Issue: TheoreticalInquiries, Critiques and Explications (Jun., 1980), pp. 584-600Published by: University of California Press on behalf of the Society for the Study of Social ProblemsStable 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 ofcontent 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 [email protected].

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
http://www.jstor.org/action/showPublisher?publisherCode=ucalhttp://www.jstor.org/action/showPublisher?publisherCode=sssphttp://www.jstor.org/stable/800198?origin=JSTOR-pdfhttp://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsphttp://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsphttp://www.jstor.org/stable/800198?origin=JSTOR-pdfhttp://www.jstor.org/action/showPublisher?publisherCode=sssphttp://www.jstor.org/action/showPublisher?publisherCode=ucal


2/18

SOCIALPROBLEMS,Vol.27,No. 5, June1980ANTONIORAMSCI'S ARXISM:CLASS, TATE NDWORK*

JAMESP. HAWLEYUniversity of California, DavisThreethingsare attempted n this paper: o locate (briefly)Gramsci's Marxismnits historical ontext; o describe Gramsci'sMarxism s anattemptatthe creationofa theoryof advanced capitalistsociety, especially in his treatmentof the centralconcepts and/orrealitiesof class, state andwork;and to evaluatethe limitationsfhis Marxism s a critical heoryof society, specificallyhis discussion of work,sex-ualityandtechnology.The paper develops Gramsci's concepts of the historicalbloc, his use ofhistoricism, he importanceof organic intellectualsand his concept of hegemonyandits relation o the modalitiesof class rule,andsuggests thatthese areaspects of

a stunningand new criticaltheoryof society. His-analysisof work, however,wasultimately ased on a Tayloristonceptionofproductive echnologyandof the socialrelationsandorganizationwhichnecessitated the "regulation" f human sexual) n-stincts inthe divorceof mind rombody, objectfromsubjectand,ultimately, heoryfrompractice.Thisreintroducedhrough hebackdoor he Hegeliandualitybetweenthoughtandbeing. Istress the conservative mplications f these formulations ndconclude thatGramsci'sanalysis lackedboth an holisticdiscussion of workand acriticalanalysis of production-as-technique.Thetotality s the territory f the dialecticGeorgLukacs

AntonioGramsci'sPrisonNotebooks(1971;hereafterPN) were writtenbetween1929-1935underconditionsof extremephysicalduress,nearcompletesolationandwithalmosta totallackof researchmaterial.Gramscihimselfstressed hatthe ideas andhistory n theNotebookswereextremelyentativeand initial.Nevertheless,heyrepresent ne of the feworiginal ontributionsto Marxismn the westduring hisperiod,alongwiththeworkof theHegelianMarxists,GeorgeLukacsand KarlKorsh Piccone,1974:32-45). The Notebooks were writtenduring he riseoffascism n Italyand later n Germany,duringanera characterizedythe retrenchmentf the in-ternationalrevolutionarymovementwhose primaryrole turnedout to be the defense of theU.S.S.R. and the developmentof antifascistfronts. This situation is often reflected n theNotebooksby Gramsci's oncernwithdefensive trategies.TheNotebooksexamine hespecific taliannational xperience ndculture with heexceptionof the noteson "AmericanismndFordism") norder o create hebasisfor aglobalcritique,ananalysis f thespecific onjuncturef national nd nternationalorcesdeterminingheformof thecrisisand the resultant trategy.Gramsci's oncernwithItaly e.g., theextendeddiscussion f themezzogiorno, he southernquestion)reflectshis criticismof the purely ormalcharacter f thereformistnternationalismf theSecond nternationalwhich ollapsedwith heoutbreak f WorldWarI)andwitha similarormal,albeitrevolutionary-inclined,nternationalismf the Third nter-national."Thedevelopments inthedirection f internationalism,"roteGramsci, butthepointof departures 'national,' nd t is fromhere hatone muststart" quotednMerrington,968:149.)Gramsci'swritingsand life experienceas a revolutionary epresenta breakthroughn theparametersf therevisionist ebatewithin ocialdemocracy rior o the RussianRevolution, s well* An earlier version of this paper was presentedto the annual meetings of the AmericanSociological Associa-tion, 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 reviewers or Social Problems. Richard Gambrell and BernieTarallo assisted mein partsof the researchas well as in their comments and suggestions. (Translation of a few quotations from theFrench are mine.)


3/18

Gramsci'sMarxism 585as withthe lineof thinkingof the earlycommunistmovement.His influencewas not to emergeuntilafter the SecondWorldWar,andeven then wasrestrictedo the ItalianCommunistParty.Onlywiththe development f a Europeannew left in the 1960'sand its theoreticaldevelopmentin the 1970'swas the importanceof his work fully realized and perhapseven transcended.Gramsci's ritiqueof the limitsof the "revisionist ebate"(from eft to right,fromLuxemburgto Bernstein) evolvedaround hreeproblems:1)the reductionof superstructureo appearanceor epiphenomena f emanations romthe economicbase;2) the development f economism,arelianceon theobjectiveeconomicsituationandcontradictionso create herevolutionaryrisis;and 3) moregenerally, he tendency o reduceMarxismthephilosophyof praxis) o positivismand empiricism-to the level of a naturalscience. This reductionist endencyobjectifiesthediscrete,atomisticdata of immediateactivity,breaksdownthe totalityof socialprocessesntofragmentaryacts of reality,andconsequently reatesuniversal ategories.Gramsci argued that Marxismin the west ". . . has been a 'moment" of modern culture" whichenriched ndto a certain xtent"determined"urrentsnthatculture.Butthe"orthodoxy" socialdemocracy)adnotbeenself-reflective.thad gnoredts owndevelopment, ecause". .. the mostimportantphilosophical ombination hathas takenplacehas beenbetween he philosophyofpraxis Marxism] ndvarious dealistic endencies.. [e.g., CroceandSorel]whichappearedosocialdemocracyo be 'an absurdity,' f not an actualpieceof chicanery.""Thephilosophyofpraxis as tselfbecomea 'prejudice'nda 'superstition' (PN:388).Marx'sdialecticalynthesis fHegelandFeuerbach ndof Frenchmaterialismreateda "manwalkingon hisfeet," a revolu-tionarypraxis.ForGramsci, hehistoryof the "laceration" f Hegelianism adbeenrepeatednMarxism: ". . . from dialecticalunity there had been a regressto philosophical materialism on theone hand,whileon theotherhand,modern dealisthighculturehas tried o incorporatehatpartof thephilosophy f praxiswhichwasneeded norder or it to finda newelixir" PN:396). nshort,Marxismhad becometransformed roma wayof interpretinghe world andactingupon it, toalchemy:a philosophicalmaterialist lixirof scientism ndpositivism; nd anidealist lixirof thepure idea, purespirit(or for Croce,purehistory).Inplaceof thepositivistnterpretationf Marxism s ascienceof society,yetbeyondsocialwill,Gramscieintroducedheelements f willandconsciousness."Will" orGramsci lwaysmeant ol-lective,politicalwill-not individualwill.)WhenEugeneGenovese1967:84)wrote hat"GramscididforEuropeanMarxismwhatMaoTse-tungdid forAsian,"he meant hatGramscintroducedanauthenticLeninismntothewest(Paggi,1979:113-67):2thedevelopment f a criticalMarxismbased on praxis which, in one critic'swords, ". .. actualizes theory in relationto each specific con-juncture,ocating hechanging entersof contradictionnthecapitalistworldandelaboratingheappropriatetrategy"Merrington,968:146).nplaceof allformsof determinism f socialforcesandobjective onditions,Gramsci'sMarxism osits hedevelopment f adeterminateituation-acreation f historicalorceswhichdo notpredeterminendmake nevitablehedirection rnatureof socialaction.RatherGramscianMarxism ttemptsocreateheconsciousnessf pastconditionswhich ive in thepresentn humanmindsandinstitutions sideology.Thehistoricist haracter fGramsci's houghtis rootedin partin his origins n and criticismof Croce'sschool of Italianidealism;t is alsobasedonEngels' amous tatementhateconomicactorsareonlydeterminingnthe finalanalysis.Thatlast 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 sub-stantial, if somewhat sterile, debate. There are many Lenins (and many more readings of these Lenins), aswell 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; andSalvadori, 1979:237-58.)3. See also Boggs, 1976:21-36.


4/18

586 HAWLEYThe collectivewill of a class, its potential praxis, leads Gramscito formulate "laws oftendency"-lawsbecause uturepraxis lows froma determinateituation;endency rpossibilitybecausehistory s made,not determined.Gramsci's iew of Marxisms summedupin hisphrase

"dialecticalhistoricism"not "dialecticaland historicalmaterialism."Gramsci'sritique f automatic ndreductionistMarxismwasmeant xplicitlyo overcomebothmaterialistnd dealistphilosophy Martinelli, 968:2-8)and to reassert he dialecticalnterplay fsubject/objectndpast/present.' alamini1974:370) orrectly oncludes:"Gramsci's istoricismfosters houghtand action n termsof differentand alternativetrategies ather han in termsofnecessary,onstant, r immutable conomic aws."Thus, orGramsci, istoricismsrevolutionarysince,Salaminiontinues,". .. it seeks o freesocial tructuresrom heir objective acticity,'ntheDurkheimianense,and revealsnewpossibilities or social existence."Thussocialact of will whatMarxoftencalled lass"foritself") sforthe modernproletariathecreation f a counterhegemonicorce, hedevelopmentf a worldviewautonomousf andopposedto capitalist ocialrelations. nPrisonNotebookshegemonybecomes ooted ntherevolutionarypartywhich s ledby "organicntellectuals." hepartys anorganizationf culture ndeducation,a stateof a new ype ngestation. nGramsciworkers' ouncilperiod 1919-22),he attributedo thecouncils he taskof hegemonic eadership.As discussedbelow,thesetwoorganizationalehiclesmaywellcontradict achother;butbothhave ncommonatheoryof consciousness, f superstruc-ture,autonomous rom the economicbase anddialecticallynteractivewith it in the form of adeterminate istorical loc.Anhistorical loc s more hana political lliance:t is an "ensemble fideasandsocialrelations" ivena specifichistorical onjunctureBoggs,1976:80-81; N:366-67).Thedevelopmentf revolutionaryonsciousness oes not flowinnately roma particularocialsituation nd ifeexperiencef oppression, ut s a stage ntheprocess f social elf-realization.m-plicit is a criticismof what Genovese 1967:89)calls Marx's apsesinto the abstraction f thepredominance f the materialover the ideological,and what Wellmarcalls Marx's "latentpositivism."Gramsciquotesoften from Marx'sPreface o TheContributiono theCritique fPoliticalEconomy 1970:12)hat tis ". .. the deologicalorms nwhichmenbecomeconsciousofthisconflict betweenhe forcesof productionndthe relations f production] ndfightit out." Inotherwords, he forcesof production-mostof all theproletariatoritself,a "material"orce-fightout the ssueof the relations f production n the levelof superstructure. ramsci iewed heproletariats a forceof production,ather han nthe traditionalndmorenarrowenseof forceofproduction eingonlythe materialmplementsf production.Thus,theproletariattselfbecomespartof the contradiction etween he relationsof production nd theforcesof production.Thisunityof historical ubjectandobject,whichalwaysexists n a unified orm sincecontentcannotexist withoutform, is an "historicalbloc."ForGramsci,heunderstandingf bothstateandclasscenter roundheanalysis f thedevelop-mentof a specifichistorical loc. The state s an historical locof a specificruling lass.Marxdidnotdevelop theoryof the roleof the state nsociety, hat s,a theoryof rule,but imitedhimself oobservations bout the state, treating t often as a coercive orce. In 1875Marxwrote:

Freedom onsists n convertinghestatefromanorganstanding bovesociety nto onecompletelyubor-dinated o it, andtodayalsothe formsof the stateare morefreeor less freeto the extent hattheyrestrictthe 'freedomof the state'. . . The GermanWorkers'Party . . insteadof treatingheexisting ociety ..asthe basisof theexisting tate .. treats he staterather sanindependentntity hatpossessestsown n-tellectual,moralandfree bases(n.d.:576;emphasis n original).Marx's historical writings (especially The Eighteenth Brumaire [1963] and Class Struggles inFrance 1964])describen some detail heprocessof thestatestanding bovesociety, hatis, in a4. Gramsci's historicism has been especially attacked by Marxist structuralists. See Althusser and Balibar,1971; Mouffe, 1979:168-204; and Poulantzas, 1976.


5/18

Gramsci'sMarxism 587positionof domination.ScatteredhroughoutCapitaland otherwritingsaresimilardiscussions.But nowhere s found a theoryof the statein its relation o the mode of capitalist ule(Jessop,1977:353-73).The centralityof the state in Marxism s evidentfromthe veryidea of a rulingclass.Marx's ailure o developatheoryof the state s rooted n his historical xperienceimitedasit wasby thethenonlyrecentdevelopment f industrial apitalism.Hishistorical xperiencewasnot muchgreater hanHegel's-limited by the only embryonicdevelopment f craftorganiza-tions, "friendlysocieties,"Jacobinclubs, secretconspiracies y smallgroupsandjournalisticorganizationsThompson, 1964).In addition,his failureto developa theoryof the state wasbecauseof his deathpriorto completionof a numberof projectedvolumesof Capital,one ofwhich was to be on the state.Theconsolidationof bourgeoisrule,of bourgeois ocial relationsand of the bourgeoisie tselfby the end of the 19th and the beginningof the 20th centuries nwesternEurope placed new demandson the role of the state, ultimately transformingtqualitatively. t wasthis new situationwhichGramscimadethe focal pointof his analysis.Bourgeoisrule("rationality" n Weber's[1978:85-90] erms)opensup new channelsof de-mocracy,Gramsciargued, n that it tends" . . . to constructan organicpassage romthe otherclasses nto theirown, i.e., to enlarge heirclasssphere technically' ndideologically.... " Thebourgeoisie is a class in continuous movement, " . . . capable of absorbing the entire society,assimilatingt to its own culturaland economic evel. The entirefunctionof the statehasbeentransformed;he state has becomean 'educator' .. " (PN:260; my emphasis),Assimilation oits owneconomicandcultural evel does not implyequaldistribution f incomeandpower,butrather he universalizationf bourgeois ocial relationsandaspirations. t is preciselyhisques-tion of ruling hat is the problematic f Gramsci'swritings.Withthe Bolshevik eizureof power n 1917,therevisionist ebatehadbeenredefinedhroughrevolutionary ractice,but definedon the terrainof Russianpoliticaldevelopments ndon thefoundation of Russianbackwardnessypified, in Gramsci'sanalysis, by the overdevelopedcharacter f the czariststateandthe underdevelopedharacter f the overwhelmingly easantcivilsociety.With heformation f theThird nternational, olshevismlater"Leninism")nthewestbecamedefinedprimarilyn termsof the seizureof power,the rejectionof economismandspontaneity,and an often contradictoryanalysisof the relationbetween the state-as-means(socialism)andsociety-as-endcommunism)-Lenin'sWhat s to Be Done? (1964)vs. StateandRevolution 1964): n short,the substitution f a theoryof the seizureof powerfor a theoryofsociety.ForGramsci,Leninismn Russiawas a correctanalysisandstrategy;t was a theoryofRussian ociety,butmechanicallyransposedo the westbecamea fetteron revolutionaryctivi-ty. InGramsci'swritingss ananalysisof state andclass n western apitalism:hebeginnings fand a groundworkor a theoryof advanced apitalism.

CLASS AND STATEA discussionof Gramsci'sanalysisof class and state mustbeginwith a brief outline of histheoryof the social role of intellectuals.Traditionally,ocialdemocracyhadviewed ts intellec-tuals as refugees romdifferentsectionsof the bourgeoisiewho hadalliedthemselveswiththeworkers usually n positionsof leadership) ndwere nstrumentaln thecreationof theory.Theintellectuals f the bourgeoisorder tendedto be definedprofessionally-for example, iterati,technicalor scientific.In contrast,Gramsci uggests hatLenin'sdemand or the obliteration fall distinctionsbetween ntellectuals nd workers n the revolutionary arty (in WhatIs to BeDone? [1969]) houldbe related o thetheoryof the formationof theclassas a whole;thatis, totheverydefinitionof class"foritself."Thus,Gramscidistinguishes organicntellectuals"romtraditional ones. The former have "entrepreneurial qualities"; that is, they " . . . must have thecapacity o be anorganizer f society ngeneral, ncluding ll itscomplexorganism f conditionsmostfavorable o theexpansionof theirownclass." The entrance f a new class nhistory s ac-


6/18

588 HAWLEYcompaniedby the developmentof its own organicintellectuals,". .. whicheverynew classcreates alongside itself and elaborates in the course of its development ... " (PN:5-6). Feudallords,forexample,possesseda "particularechnical apacity,military apacity,andit is precise-ly fromthemomentatwhich hearistocracyoses tsmonopolyof technico-militaryapacity hatthe crisis of feudalismbegins" (PN:5-6). Organic ntellectuals, uch as ecclesiasticswereto thelandedaristocracy, merge nto history rom a preceding conomicandsocial structure:heyarean expressionof this past, dyingculture. There are "categoriesof intellectualsalready n ex-istencewhichseemed ndeedto represent n historical ontinuityuninterruptedvenbythe mostcomplicatedand radicalchanges n politicalandsocial forms"(PN:7).In a fundamentalense,allpeopleare ntellectuals, utnot all functionas such n society.Thiscentral dea underlines he importanceof all forms of ideological eadershipand the abilityofsubalterngroupsand classes to break certain forms of ideological eadershipat a particularhistoricalmoment.Traditional ntellectualsdo not exerciseany politicalfunction over the in-strumentalmasses;or if they do, the political aspectof leaderships supersededby the moresociallygeneralized deological eadership f organic ntellectuals.A factorytechnician, or ex-ample, s a traditional ntellectualPN:9, 15). Organic ntellectuals onstitutewhat Moscacalledthe "politicalclass," but for GramsciPN:6, footnote)are"nothingother than the intellectualcategoryof the dominantsocialgroup."Thetransitionof a classfrom "in itself" to "for itself" is indicated speciallyby the develop-ment of its own organic ntellectuals.Thedevelopment f proletarian andmoregenerallywhatGramsci alls"subaltern" lass)hegemonydependson thedevelopment f intellectuals f a newtype. Gramsci,reflectingon his experiences s editor of the newspaperL'OrdineNuovo (TheNewOrder)during he factorycouncilmovementof 1919-20,wrotetenyears aterthat a majorreason or its successwasthat, "The mode of beingof the newintellectual anno longerconsistin eloquence . . but in activeparticipationn practical ife, as constructor,organizer, perma-nent persuader' and not just a simple orator . . . from technique-as-work one proceeds totechnique-as-sciencend to the humanisticconceptionof history,without which one remains'specialized'and does not become 'directive' specialized nd political)"(PN:4).'It is theprocessof becomingdirectivehat inksGramsci's nalysisof the economic oundationof classrule to the natureof ruleitself;thatis, to the state. Central o Gramsci's hought s theautonomyof ideas-ideas as a social (material) orce. Politics thus becomesan autonomousscienceand is the basis for Gramsci'sdevelopment f theidea of praxis-the " . . . conceptof the'historicalbloc,' i.e., unitybetweennatureandspirit structure ndsuperstructure),nityof op-posites and of distincts . . . " (PN:137). As one critic of Gramsci has written:

One cannot envision that structurecan be separated rom superstructure. hey form an "historicalbloc"-a dialectical nteraction-and such a determinate tructure "structuredonn6e") alwayscor-respondswitha determineddeologywhich s historicallyrganicratherhanarbitrary Buzzi, 1967-174).The State, therefore, can never be considered an epiphenomenon of economic structure;that is,all politicaland social forms havetheirown nature,their own history,preciselybecauseof thenecessaryreciprocal relations they have with economic structures. There cannot be an actual, realdualism between structure and superstructure,between two necessary relations, relations whichresult 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 Marxismand sociology from Comte to Pareto (Salamini; 1975:65-86)-is based on an epistemology

5. InItalian,"dirigente"--leading, egemonic,directive.For a tellingcriticism f theproblemof producingorganic ntellectualswithina socialistmovement, eeKarabel 1976:146-56).


7/18

Gramsci'sMarxism 589neither pholosophically materialist nor idealist, but historicist: "The educator himself must beeducated" (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, whichcannot but be the result of opposing forces in continuous movement, which are never reducible to fixedquantities since within them quantity is continually becoming quality. In reality one can only 'foresee' tothe extent that one acts . . and therefore contributes concretely to creating the result 'foreseen.' Predic-tion reveals itself thus not as a scientific act of knowledge, but as the abstract expression of the effortmade, 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 wherebyknowledge is acquired (subject).Gramscicredited Lenin with the development of the modern doctrine of hegemony, "as a com-plement to the theory of the State-as-force, and as the presentform of the Forty-Eightestdoctrineof 'permanent revolution'."6 A class is a ruling class in two ways: it is leading and dominant.

It leads the classeswhichareitsallies,anddominates hosewhichareitsenemies.Therefore, ven beforeattaining 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 governmentalpower, and one would not count solely on the power and material force which such a position gives inorder 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, butin addition as an "equilibrium between political society and civil society (or hegemony of a socialgroup over the entire national society exercised through the so-called private organizations, likethe Church, the trade unions, the schools, etc.); it is precisely in civil society that intellectualsoperate especially" (PN:56).Gramsci's concept of civil society, and more generally the numerous meanings of civil societyin western political theory, is controversial and somewhat confusing. For instance, Bobbio(1979:30-56) suggests that Gramsci introduces a profound innovation within the Marxist tradi-tion, stressingthat civil society "does not belong to the structural[political-economic] moment,"as in Marx, but "to the superstructuralone" (Bobbio, 1979:30). For Bobbio this distinguishesGramsci from Marx, and links Gramsci directly to Hegel's use of civil society (Bobbio,1979:31)-as the political and cultural (that is, normativeand ethical) hegemony of a rulingsocialgroup over the whole of society. Yet Bobbio's reading of Gramsci as a theorist of the primacy ofsuperstructure over structure misses Gramsci's essentially historicist unification between anhistorical bloc and its hegemony over civil society. Bobbio reverts to a dualism between base andsuperstructure, thereby negating Gramsci's innovative concept of the historical bloc as a dialec-tical unity and interpenetration.76. Gramsci's credit to Lenin for the concept of hegemony belies his own unique contribution which went farbeyond 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 proletariatas inevitable transitpoint to the abolition of class differences generally, to the abolition of all the production relations on whichthey rest, to the abolition of all the social relations that correspond to these relations of production, to therevolutionizing of all the ideas that result from these social connections" (Marx, n.d., Vol II: 188-89). Thatis, the permanence of the social character, of the totality of the revolutionary process in a society, and not inTrotsky's sense of permanent-that is the immediate transition from bourgeois rule to proletarian rule insocialist Russia given an underdeveloped bourgeoisie incapable of rule in its own right.7. Bobbio has a rathersimplistic readingof 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 morehistorical and dialectical writings (e.g., The Eighteenth Brumaire, The Civil Warsin France and sections ofCapital and the Grundrisse), he would observe the profound ambiguities and contradictions within Marx'sworks. See, for instance, Jessop (1977:353-73) on Marx's theories of the state; Texier (1979:48-79) for a


8/18

590 HAWLEYMarramao1977:226) evelops hispoint.Hesuggests hatfar frombeinga theoretician f thesuperstructure,Gramsci'snotion of intellectualsandhenceof workingclassorganic ntellec-tuals) s closelyrelatedwithhisdevelopment f theideathat theworking lass "foritself") s the

developmentof the subjectiveside of the productiveforces. This importantbut relativelyunderdevelopedheme n Gramsci s closelyrelated o muchcontemporary ritingon the natureof postindustrial nd service economiesin which knowledgeand consciousness ncreasinglybecomea productive orce (Blockand Hirschhorn,1979; Bell, 1973:49-144).Thus,Gramsci'sviewof the state s notmerelyassuperstructureutis composedof twolevels:civilsociety-"theensembleof organisms ommonlycalledprivate,"andpoliticalsociety-the state. "Thesetwolevelscorrespond ntheonehand o the functionof 'hegemony'which he dominant roupexer-cisesthroughout ocietyandon the other handto that of 'directdomination'or command xer-cisedthrough he State and 'juridical' overnment."Thesetwo levelsfunctionorganizationallywiththeintellectualsxercisinghe "subaltern unctionsof socialhegemony ndpoliticalgovern-ment."Hegemonys realizednthe" ... 'spontaneous' onsentgivenbythegreatmassesof thepopulation o the generaldirectionmposedon sociallife by the dominant undamental roup;this consent s 'historically'ausedbytheprestige .. which hedominantgroupenjoysbecauseof its positionand functionin the worldof production."'The state functionsto imposeitsdiscipline n thosegroupswhichdo not consent,eitheractivelyor passively."Thisapparatuss,however,constituted or the wholeof society n anticipation f momentsof crisisof commandanddirectionwhenspontaneous onsent has failed"(PN:12).InPrisonNotebooksGramsci'swritings n thestatearefragmentary,nd nseveralmportantplacescontradictory.Hebaseshis discussion n thenatureof thestate n the westdistinguishingbetween"war of position"and "war of maneuver"as two polar strategies f revolution: heformermostappropriateo the west, the latter o Russia, he east. Theproblem s thathe uses"war of position"in two differentways:one signifyingan historical ituationwhen there s arelatively table,albeittemporary, quilibrium etween he fundamental lasses; hatis, whenafrontalattack warof maneuver) n thestate s impossible.The otheruseof warof position s tosignifythat there is a properrelation between the state and civil society (that is, developedcapitalism).This doubleusageposesthe questionof the natureof the transitionprocess n thewest from war of positionto warof manuever.Some reformistnterpretationsf Gramsci ug-gest that perhaps here is no transitionat all, but Gramsci's ife experience nd otherwritingsargue tronglyagainst hisviewpoint.Gramscimakes he connectionbetweenhistwousesof warof positiononlyonce: he suggests hatin thewestcivilsocietyresists; hatis, mustbeconqueredbefore the frontalattackon thestateoccurs.Inotherwords,revolutionary egemonymust eadbefore the act of dominationoccurs.Thisprocess s, however,certainly dialectical ne, as il-lustratedby Gramsci'sownexperiencewiththe Workers'Councils.9The structure f the state n the west is like a trench ystem nwarfarewhich" . . is resistantto thecatastrophicincursions' f theimmediate conomic lementscrisis,depressions,tc.) ..A crisiscannotgivetheattacking orcestheability o organizewithlightning peed . stilllessratherdogmatic assertion of the virtual unity of Gramsci and Marx; Davidson (1972:448-61) for a summaryof aspects of the Gramsci debate; and Bates (1974:355-57) for a different interpretationof Gramsci's mean-ing of "civil society" which follows Croce.8. The basis for spontaneous consent is what Gramsci (PN:419) calls "common sense"-the philosophy ofthe non-philosophers," the conception of the world which is "uncritically absorbed by the various social andcultural environments in which the moral individuality of the average man is developed." In other words,common sense is the folklore of philosophy characterizedby being fragmentary, incoherent and inconse-quential, 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. SeeKarabel (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).


9/18

Gramsci'sMarxism 591can it endow them with fighting spirit" (PN:235). In the west the question is ". .. whether civilsociety resists before or after the attempt to seize power. . .. " Trotsky's theory of permanentrevolution 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 acountry in which the structuresbf national life are embryonic and loose, and incapable of becom-ing [a] 'trench and fortress'." In the west,

. . the social structureswereof themselvestillcapableof becomingheavilyarmed ortifications.... InRussia he Statewaseverything,ivilsocietywasprimordialndgelatinous;n theWest herewas a properrelationbetweenStateand civilsociety,andwhen heStatetrembled sturdy tructuref civilsocietywasat once revealed.TheStatewasonlyan outerditch,behindwhichtherestood a powerful ystemof for-tressesand earthworks.. (PN:237-38).This terminological confusion results from Gramsci's different and contradictoryuses of state:

1) as an "outer ditch," that is, separate from the social institutions of western society, thedemocratic-bureaucratic state of political society (PN:268); 2) the state in the "organic, widersense 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 con-fusion reflects the descriptive level of Gramsci's discussion of state structure. Nonetheless, theimportance of his discussion of the three typologies of the state rests in the state's relation tohegemony and the role of the state vis-a-vis the organization of hegemonic social institutions-such as schools, media, churches and trade unions. His primary concern is with modes of rulesrather than with the institutional state as such.'" It is this formulation which places strong em-phasis on culture, on the then lost dialectic of object/subject, on the role of the proletariatas aproductive force-in short, emphasis on the question of conscious praxis ("will") which givesGramsci's Marxismits vitality. It transcendsthe revisionist debate by positing that structuresandsuperstructuresform an historical bloc: that is, " . . . the complex, contradictory and discordantensemble of the superstructures n the reflection of the ensemble of the social relations of produc-tion" (PN:336). There can be no objective conditions without subjective ones: that is, of pastconscious social action (PN: 113, 445). The catharsisof elaborating structuresinto superstructure(the "purely economic into the ethico-politico") in the minds of men is the passage of objectiveto subjective (the ability to act) and for Gramsci also the pasage from necessity to freedom. ForGramsci 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 theeconomic roles and functions of the modern (or premodern) capitalist state. Writing before the"Keynesian revolution," Gramsci seriously underestimatedthe important capital accumulationfunctions of the state, especially the use of monetary, fiscal and tax policies for the attemptedregulation and direction of the economy. Anderson (1976-1977) makes proper note of this. Sincethe state (especially the fascist state) increasingly assumed responsibility for the regulation ofoverall economic development, the issues of legitimacywith which Gramsci deals so provocative-ly become increasingly entangled with economic policy as such. Capital accumulation, socialreproduction and all forms of legitimation are qualitatively more interactive than Gramscirecognizes (Adler, 1977:71-90.)

STATEAND HEGEMONYYet while Gramsci's analysis of the economic role of the modern capitalist state was deficient, hiscritique of the Stalinist analysis of fascism was significant. The dialectic of subject/object rela-tion led Gramsci to an innovative analysis of the development of Italian fascism having many10. Anderson (1976-1977) misses this larger concern of Gramsci's and hence the provocative ambiguities inGramsci's discussion of the state.


10/18

592 HAWLEYsimilaritieswith Marx's analysisof Bonapartism.Rejectingthe dominantposition of thepre-1935ThirdInternationalwhichequated ascism-capitalism, ramsci PN:276)argued hat"Caesarism" -dominates when a crisisof authorityoccurs,when the rulingclass has lost itsconsensusand becomesno longer eadingbut only dominating;whenthe masseshave become". .. detachedromtheir raditionaldeologies... Thiscrisis onsistspreciselynthe factthattheold is dyingandthenew cannotbeborn; n thisinterregnum greatvarietyof morbid ymptomsappear."A similarphenomenonmayoccur nthe historical ivesof allsocialclasses,notonlythemasses(PN:210).The key factor in the rise of fascism is not the developmentof counter-hegemony rombelow,but the degeneration f consensus.Thisgivesthe traditional ulingclasstheadvantagebecause t has" . . . numerous rained adre[and s able to change]menandpro-grammes, ndwithgreater peed han s achievedbythe subordinatelasses,[andtherebys ableto reabsorb]he control that was slipping romits grasp" (PN:210).Theleft, Gramsciasserts,has traditionallyneglected"to give importance o the bureaucratic lements,both civil andmilitary,as a social base for the development f fascism"(PN:212).Thus,fascism n Italywasthe culminationof the centralweaknessof the Risorgimento:ts lack of mass socialparticipa-tion-a passiverevolution,a "revolutionwithout a revolution"(PN:59; Buci-Glucksmann,1979:207-236). ascismwas not simplya newformof bourgeois ule,of domination-but a newcontentof leading,and as such s distinguishedromparliamentaryulebyits ability o mobilizea sectionor sectionsof social classesoutside of established tructuresof rule (hencealso ofdevelopinga new mode of recruitmento the rulingclass).The relationbetween he stateand the conceptof hegemonyhas anotheraspect: he ethicalstate.Everystate s ethical n as muchas one of its mostimportantunctions s to raise he massof thepopulation o a particular cultural nd moral evel... whichcorrespondso theneedsofthe productiveforces for development,and hence to the interests of the ruling classes"(PN:258-60).Theform and contentof the state-as-educatorary:from the elementaryzar-as-Fathermage n Russia, o thecomplexcorporatist evelopment f western apitalism.The ques-tion of "who will educate he educator?" s the basis for different ypesof transformations fstatestructures nd the contentof hegemony.InJune1919Gramsci1968:29)wrote hat, "Thesocialist tatealready xistspotentiallyntheinstitutions f social ife characteristicf theexploitedworking lass .. [whichmust]prepareoreplace .. [thestate] n all its essential unctionsof administrationndcontrolof the nationalheritage."Theexperience f theTurincommissioni nterne workers' hopstewardypeof com-mittee)movementn 1919-20providedGramsciwitha concretenstanceof whatthedevelopmentof this"stateof a newtype"wouldbelike.Thisprefigurativestateof a new ype"wasseen nthetransition from the commissioni interne as they developedinto a revolutionaryand self-determinedonsiglidifabbrice(factorycouncils)of the workingclass as a whole. The councilswerenot to replace he tradeunions,butwererather o supplementhem since the formerwerereflectiveof the relationsof industrialegalitywhile the latterwereorgansof transformation fthe industrial order. For Gramscithe councils " . . . must be organs of proletarian power, replac-ing the capitalistn all his useful functionsof management nd administration"1968:30).Thecouncilswereelecteddemocratically,wereto representhe wholeworkingclass-unionized andnonunionized-and wereto be politically epresentativef all trends n the workingclass(e.g.,anarchists).Eachfactory(andneighborhood)would be representedn a generalcounciland alldelegates ubject o immediate ecall.Thisstructurewould ncrease he masses'readiness or theexercise 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, cor-poratist rule, e.g., the British National Government, 1931; the development of "Fordism," etc.


11/18

Gramsci'sMarxism 593perience.Thedictatorship f theproletariatmustceaseto be a mereformula. .. He whowantsthe end must also wantthe means. The State cannotbe improvised" 1968:31).Adlersummar-izes: the" .. . factorycouncilswere o beautonomousbothfrommanagementndworkers' yn-dicates:Theywereto be transformativeather hanintegrative odies,representingheworkersas producersratherthan as wage-earners . . prefiguringn embryonic ormthe proletarianstate" (1977:72; mphasis n original).The differencebetweenthe RussianSoviets n 1905 and 1917and the consiglidi fabbriceinTurin n 1919-20 s thatthe former urnedout to be organs n the struggle or statepoweronlyduringperiodsof acutenationalcrisis,while the latterwere seenby Gramscias institutionsofhegemony.Once thepeakof the two Russian riseshadpassed-that is, once theSovietshad toserveas institutions f cultureand for thetransmission f culture-they wererepressednd failed(Adler, 1977:67-90).ForGramsci,heconsiglidifabbriceservedalmostexactly heoppositepur-pose: theywere nstitutionsof hegemonicdevelopment, f the development f self-governmentandadministration, f the autonomousdevelopment f the workingclass. Thekeyindicatorofworking lasshegemony orthe councilmovementduring he 1920general trike nTurinwastheability o maintain actoryproductionduring hestrikeat as close to thepre-strikeevelsas pos-sible.'2If the workingclasscouldoperate he factoryas well as the capitalistandmanagers, owent thelogic, then thiswasproofof theabilityof theproletariato becomea futurerulingclassof a newtype.'3The Turincouncilmovementproposed heself-governancef thefactorywithintheideologicalandphysicalboundaries f theexisting ocioeconomic ystem; hatis, it assumedandcontinued he existingdivisionof labor and modeof production.Thefactory ystembecame heexpression nd the modelof the socialrelations f the newstatein gestation-the presentmaterialbase for the workingclassas futurerulingclass.Thegoalwas" ... to makethefactory he nucleusof the newstate,and to build henewstateas anexpressionof the industrialrelations of thefactory system" (Gramsci, 1968:46;my emphasis). The social re-lationsof thefactorycreated he climate or thedevelopment f revolutionaryonsciousness, otthe organized radeunions and politicalpartieswhichGramscidefined on the terrainof thebourgeois tatewhere" . . . relations f citizen o citizensubsist.Therevolutionary rocess akesplaceon theterrain f production .. where he relations re those of oppressoro oppressed..where reedom or theworkerdoes not exist,wheredemocracy oes not exist. Therevolutionaryprocessoccurswherethe worker s nothingandwants to becomeeverything"1968:32).WritingnPrisonNotebooks morethantenyears ater,Gramsci ejectedhispreviousdeathatconsciousnesswas primarily ooted at the point of production,replacingt withhis theoryoforganicsocial crisis. The most importantaspectof this theorywas that fundamental ontradic-tions in the complexmatrixof power n civilsocietyareincreasingly utonomousof economicfoundationsof the society.Yet while his conceptof organiccrisis s qualitatively ifferent romthe earlier heoryof consciousness-in that it locatespowerin the socioculturalnstitutionsaswell as in theproductive nes andinthe state-it nevertheless emainsocked ntotheboundariesof early20thcenturyndustrialization. hefundamental uestionsof 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 ar-ticulated what is often seen as an unreconstructed Leninism. Yet a closer readingof Gramsci and close obser-vation of the conditions in Italy make it clear that Gramsci's celebration of the Soviets in Russia and of Leninas their defender is based on a reading of Lenin's most visionary work, State and Revolution, as well as onGramsci'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 atthe militarization of labor; see Adler, 1977:83-90; Karabel, 1976:131-33; Luke, 1977:237-39).


12/18

594 HAWLEYtechnicaldivisionof labor,of the relationsof personto person,of peopleto machine,are notraised: n short,the specifichistorical ontentof freedomandnecessitys ignored.

WORK,LABORAND THE STATEBecause of Gramsci'semphasison consciousness,his discussionof the central role ofhegemonyn relation o the state,to power,he is an important ntecedent f the newleft in the1960's:he posesnot onlythequestionof power,but as requisiteo thatpowerunderconditionsof advancedcapitalism, he qualityof power(II Manifesto,1970:30-37).While he poses thequestionof the qualityof power,his answersareat once self-consciouslyentativeand uncon-sciouslyanchoredn a technologically eterminedisionof capitalist nd future ocialistor com-munistsocialrelations-a visionall too often foundin Marx.The essenceof thistechnologicaldeterminisms thatGramsci ees socialrelationsunderconditionsof communism safunction ofthe mode of production technique-as-science)ather han dialectically s partof productionunderconditionsof post-scarcity.14The formervisionplaces he realmof freedomoutsideof thetime allocated o sociallynecessarywork,or in Gramsci's ase to mentalfreedomduringwork.Work, in other words, by its natureis oppressive-freedom consists in nonwork, or self-alienation rom work.The questionof the natureof work and labor at the root of Gramsci's ailureto developadialecticbetweenhumanworkand nature tands nstriking ontrast o his discussions f organicsocial crisis.Whywas this so? Part of the answer s rootedin the historicalperiod-industrialmechanizationwasonlyin its finalstagesof completion,andmanystill remainedn aweof it. Intheirminds t developedanindependentife of its ownapart romsociety.Theslogan,forexam-ple, that "Sovietspluselectrificationqualsocialism,"captures he tone. This issue becomesacentralproblemn the transitiono a classless ociety,andtheverynatureof the transitiontselfbecomes ncreasingly n the politicalagendaas societybecomesmorecomplex.Wellmar's ri-tiqueof Marx's reatment f work andtechnologyn hisphilosophyof history s alsoapplicableto Gramsci:

If ... the humanpraxiswhichconstitutesand transformsociety,andwith it "production,"and thetransformationf men'ssocietalconsciousness, ppearultimately s derivations nd functionsof theirwork ntransforming ature, henthe dialecticalnterplay etweenhe world-historicalrocessof forma-tion of consciousness nd social nstitutions n the onehand,and the historical evelopment f productiveforceson theother,mustbe misconceived s a functionalrelationship1970:70-71).For Gramsci, as for Marx, the political and social development of society proceeds dialectical-

ly, through praxis: the class struggle as a process of self-creation and emancipation of the pro-letariat;whereas,classantagonisms a reified,objectivistcategory.Yet in the antagonismbe-tweenhumanityandtechnique,Gramsci'sdialectic s 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, whereHabermas attempts to show that in Hegel's earlywritings there were three equally orginal, irreducibledialec-tical patterns in the process of formation of Geist: language, labor and communicative interreaction. InMarx's philosophy of history (not in his political and social writings), Habermas argues these three becomereduced to labor alone-Marx's political economy subsumes other forms of human self-creation and recrea-tion. Wellmar (1970:107-09) quotes GermanIdeology extensively and especially he relies on the Grundrisseto substantiate his point. I find parts of his argument convincing, while other parts less so. What I am con-vinced of is whatever the origin in Marx's work of the problem of the relation of technique to humanfreedom-the theoretical possiblity of communism-the problem is unresolved by Marx, and in part con-founded by sections of his work.Georg Lukacs writes: "It is undeniable that quotations from Marx and Engels can be found which it ispossible to interpret in this way." "Technique is a part, a moment, naturally of great importance of thesocial productive forces, but it is neither simply identical with them nor . .. the final or absolute moment ofthe changes in these forces" (1966:29).


13/18

Gramsci'sMarxism 595An exampleof social relationsbeinga functionof necessary roductiveechniques Gramsci'sdiscussion f sexuality.Hebeginswiththeinsight hat thesexualquestionhasbecome ncreasing-ly independent f the economicbasebecauseof suchfactorsasthe advancesn medical cienceor

of changeddemographic atterns,etc., andthis in turn raisesa myriadof related"superstruc-tural"problems.He observes hat, "Until womencan attainnot onlya genuine ndependencenrelation o men but also a newwayof conceiving f themselves nd theirrolein sexualrelations,the sexualquestionwillremain ull of unhealthy haracteristics.. " (PN:296).But what s therelationof sexuality o production?The massassembly ine technique, he "Taylorization" fwork(whichhad becomeof centralmportanceo productiveechniquenthe U.S.S.R. as wellasin westernEurope),wasintheprocessof creating " . .. newtypeof man[sic]demanded ytherationalization f productionand work." But thisnew mancannot"be developeduntil the sex-ual instincthas beensuitablyregulated nd until t too has been rationalized"PN:297).Thera-tionalizationof sexualitys importantbecause,"Thesenew methods of industrial rganization]demanda rigorousdiscipline f the sexual nstincts atthelevelof thenervous ystem) .. and ofthe regulationand stabilityof sexual relations."Abuseand irregularity f sexualfunction s," . . . after alcholism, the most dangerous enemy of nervous energies . . . " (PN:300, 304).Gramsci PN:317)suggests n only one sentence n his notes of "Americanism nd Fordism"that it is the workers " . . . who 'must' find for themselves an 'original,' and not Americanized,systemof living,to turn nto 'freedom'whatis today'necessity'."He doesnot definethe direc-tion of original olutions.His wholediscussion f thesociologyof work andproductions basedon the assumption f an increasing ationalizationf the workprocess-in Weber's 1978:85-6;111;223-25)senseof formalreplacing ubstantive ationalityundersocialistor capitalistmodesof industrialism.

Gramsci's eference o "freedom/necessity"s important.He asksdirectly:"What s thepointof referenceof the new worldin gestation?The worldof production:work.Collectiveandin-dividual ife must be organizedwitha view to the maximum ieldof theproductive pparatus"(myemphasis).Work s the solereference oint,hence heonly startingpointof thenewsociety.Further,work s measured uantitatively y yield-at least at thepointof production. npoliticsandsocial ifeGramsci rgues or thehegemoniCorcebeingbothspecialized ndpolitical.Butatthe levelof production, echnique ends to determine ocialrelations,hencethe worker endstobecomespecializedonly. Whenrevolutionaryocial transformation rom belowhas createdanew society, it " . . . will permit new possibilities for self-discipline; i.e., for freedom, includingthat of the individual" PN:242).Freedom or Gramsciultimatelybecomesdefined as internalizingwithinthe individualwhatformerlywas the externalization f coercionandhegemonybythestate nthe wider ense.Underconditions of self-discipline he state will witheraway. The state standingabove societythusbecomes transformednto the state within each individual,much as in traditionalFreudiantheory authority-the-Fatherecomessuperego.Insteadof necessitybeingraised o the leveloffreedom,freedom s lowered o thelevel of necessity:hestate withersaway n proportiono thegrowthof the internal tate. The conditionsand techniqueof work limit the development f afree personat work, whilecreating he basisfor freedomawayfromwork,and/or necessarilyalienatedfromwork.'6Workbecomes ociallynecessary rudgery.Taylorizationndrationaliza-tiondestroy heunityof humanbeingsand their aborpower,as Marxdescribednthe Economicand PhilosophicManuscripts 1961);but this is not, Gramsciargues,the "spiritualdeathofman." "Oncethe processof adaptation to workingconditionsand technique]has beencom-

16. SimilarlyWellmar1970:106-15) rgues hat n GrundrisseMarxcame o find the locusof freedomnthe"reduction of working time" and to see work as necessarily alienated independent of the social relations ofcapital.


14/18

596 HAWLEYpleted, what really happens is that the brain of the worker . . . reaches a state of completefreedom. [!] The only thing that is completely mechanized is the physical gesture;the memory ofthe trade, reduced simply to gestures repeatedat an intense rhythm . . . leaves the brain free andunencumbered for other occupations" (PN:309). [!] In other words, the material basis forfreedom and the transcendence of necessity is the absolute psychic alienation from sociallynecessary work. All work, using Hannah Arendt's distinction, becomes labor; labor becomesnecessary for freedom, but not part of freedom, and is therefore a socially coerced necessitywhose cognition constitutes part of actualizing freedom. Freedom at work necessitates thedivorce of mind from body, of thought from being. Thus, Gramscireverts to the Hegelian dualitybetween 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 "regulatedsociety"-regulated by the imperativesof 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 ner-vous system . . . and the regulation and stability of sexual relations," that is, some form ofmonogamy (PN:300).Two elements are lacking in Gramsci's discussion of work (and therefore in his vision of com-munist society). One is a vision of an ecologically sound post-scarcitysociety. This is understand-able given the development of technology-the mass assembly line: he wrote in an era prior tocybernation and the electronics revolution. But given that limitation, what is still lacking is a vi-sion of what Wilhelm Reich (1970a:3-40; 1970b:285-316)called "work democracy." That wouldbe a social order based on the reorganization of the nature of work, and the integration ofhumanity into its own creation and recreation. This necessitates a vision of a liberatory socialmode of work which dialectically transcends the constraints of the techniques of production,from the outside-that is, from the process of liberatingsocial relations in general. Relatedto thisweakness in Gramsci's thought is his lack of a revolutionary psychology-a concrete explanationand analysis of the psychology of oppression/repression in capitalist society, and on this basis theprojection of what the content and forms of possible social relations could be under conditions offreedom. In Marcuse's (1956:81-105; 155-58; 218-37) terms, he lacks a bio-social basis forfreedom, and lacking this the realm of freedom collapses into the realm of necessity. Gramsci'svision, ultimately, is limited and not transcendent.Yet a revolution must be positive. It must be capable of the reorganization not simply of pro-duction, not simply to produce more and better, but-as a critique of Gramsci by the Italian 11Manifesto group (1970:333) states-" . . . of production in a different manner, of differentgoods, of giving a new form to the relationsamong men [sic]. ,Thesuppressionof capitalism as amode of social production (suppression of alienation, the social division of labor, of the in-dividual model of consumption, of the State) must begin at the moment even where the revolu-tion realizesitself and must even sketch it out in the course of the struggle for power" (1970:333).The lack of a transcendentvision in Gramsci'swritingsaffects the nature and the role of the twoinstitutions 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 Turinhad four main elements: 1) the ability to give strength to militancy, to pose the question of revo-lution, while not being bound up in the economist role of the trade union (which by necessitynegotiates 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 classcould become through its self-conscious activitythe productive forces (a class for itself) imprison-ed by capitalist social relations; and 4) the creation of a vision/reality of a new social order ingestation, the ability to rule. Gramsci in his Prison Notebooks period criticizes the "unitarycharacter" of the problematic of the councils-the councils' vision of revolutionary strugglefocusing too strongly on the work place to the exclusion of the total social character of the


15/18

Gramsci'sMarxism 597organic crisis. Gramsci's need in Prison Notebooks was to develop an overall strategicdesign ableto understand and cope with the total social crisis. The Party came to replace the councils as themajor vehicle for hegemonic leadership-a party primarily of culture and education of a newtype, but neverthelessa vanguard party of a new elite of organic intellectuals which " ... cannotbe formed or developed without a hierarchyof authority and intellectualcompetence growing upwithin them" (PN:340).The Party should consist primarily in this: 1) the rank and file, whose participation is char-acterized 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 distinc-tions among all three groups by continously expanding the content and form of the organic in-tellectuals. Of the three groups, the leadership was to prove pivotal because there can be no armywithout generals.The most telling criticism of the role of a vanguard party in advanced industrial capitalism isthat the goal of the development of a dialectic between the proletariat as historical subject in theprocess of self-creation and the object-the society produced by capitalist social rela-tions-becomes displaced by the dialectic between class and vanguard. This tension exists inGramsci's thought: between workers' councils and the "Prince" (the Party). Rossana Rossandacomments:

4" . . . in [Gramsci's]notes of Machiavelli the accent [on self-developmentof the prole-tariat] s displaced:t is thevanguard,hePrince,who alone nterpretseality. .. Thetruthof Gramsci'sthought ies in his route["itineraire."The tension s] echoedtheoreticallyn the revolutionsn the lasttwentyyears, n the reflectionon thecomplexity f therelationsbetween pontaneity ndorganizationnthe stormof concretehistory, na periodwhere hestageof the movement eemed oleaveonlyhopewithreference o the internationalcene, to the U.S.S.R.; and to maintainat all costs a vanguard orce,howeverrestricted,n eachcountry" 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 majorityof the population as working class, but at the same time the tremendous growth of all forms ofstratification and hierarchy within the working class itself. These changes in the working classand aspects of the mode of production have changed the strategic problems of westerncapitalism: "rationalization" no longer appears socially rational, and hence the nature of thestrategichistorical bloc also must change. The social basis for the creation of organic intellectualsis proportionately larger than at the turn of the century; the mode of production has alreadymoved beyond the Taylorization and the assembly line; and the social characterof fundamentalcontradictions 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 dialecticof human social praxis, and whatever his historical and philosophical limitations, it is necessaryto understand in order to transcend.

REFERENCESAdler,Franklin1977 "Factorycouncils,Gramsciand the industrialists."Telos 31 (Spring):67-90.Althusser,LouisandEtienneBalibar1971 ReadingCapital.New York:New Left Books.Anderson,Perry1977 "The Antinomiesof AntonioGramsci."New LeftReview100(November1976/January 977):5-78.Bates,ThomasR.1974 "Gramsci nd thetheoryof hegemony."TheJournalof theHistoryof Ideas36,2 (April/May):351-366.Bell, Daniel1973 TheComingof Post-Industrialociety.New York:Basic Books.


16/18

598 HAWLEYBlock, Fred and Larry Hirschhorn1979 "New productive forces and the contradictions of contemporarycapitalism." Theory and Society7, 3 (May):363-395.Bobbio, Norberto

1979 "Gramsci and the conception of civil society." Pp. 21-47 in Chantal Mouffe (ed.), Gramsci andMarxist Theory. London: Routledge, Kegan Paul.Boggs, Carl1976 Gramsci's Marxism. London: Pluto.1977 "Review of Pedro Cavalcanti and Paul Piccone (eds.), History, Philosophy and Culture in theYoung Gramsci; Paolo Spriano, The Occupation of the Factories: Italy 1920; and Gwyn A.Williams, Proletarian Order: Antonio Gramsci,Factory Councils and the Originsof Communismin Italy, 1911-1921. Telos 31 (Spring).Bookchin, Murray1971 Post Scarcity Anarchism. Berkeley: Ramparts.Buci-Glucksmann, Christine1979 "State, transition and passive revolution." Pp. 207-236 in Chantal Mouffe (ed.), Gramsci andMarxist 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 UniversityPress.Clark, Martin1977 Antonio Gramsci and the Revolution that Failed. New Haven, Conn.: Yale University Press.Colletti, Lucio1971 "Antonio Gramsci and the Italian revolution." New Left Review 65 (January/February):87-94.Davidson, Alastair1972 "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/Human-ities.Femia, Joseph1975 "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." Govern-ment and Opposition 14 (Winter):66-95.Fiori, Giuseppe1970 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, Biagio1979 "Lenin and Gramsci: State, politics and party." Pp. 559-588 in Chantal Mouffe (ed.), Gramsciand Marxist Theory. London: Routledge, Kegan Paul.Gramsci, Antonio1971 Selections from the Prison Notebooks of Antonio Gramsci. Quintin Hoare and Geoffrey NowellSmith (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, Jurgen1971 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, Bob1977 "Recent theories of the capitalist state." The Cambridge Journal of Economics 1, 4(Dec.):353-373.Joll, James1977 Gramsci. Glasgow: Penguin.Karabel, Jerome1976 "Revolutionary contradictions: Antonio Gramsci and the problem of intellectuals." Politics andSociety 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.


17/18

Gramsci'sMarxism 599Lukacs, Georg1971 History and Class Consciousness. Cambridge, Mass.: Oxford University Press.1966 "Technology and social relations." New Left Review 39 (September/October):27-34.[1925]Luke, Tim1977 Review of Antonio Gramsci, Selections from Political Writings (1910-1920). Telos 31 (Spring):237-242.Marcuse, Herbert1956 Eros and Civilization. Boston: Beacon.Marramao, Giacomo1977 Review of Nicola Badaloni, II Marxismo di Gramsci. Telos 31 (Spring):224-229.Martinelli, Alberto1968 "In defense of the dialectic: Antonio Gramsci's theory of revolution." The Berkeley Journal ofSociology XIII: 1-27.Marx, Karl1959 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, Carl1957 The Open Marxism of Antonio Gramsci. (Trans. and annotated.) New York: Cameron.Merrington, John1968 "Theory and practice in Gramsci's Marxism. Pp. 145-176 in Ralph Milliband and John Saville(eds.), Socialist Register. New York: Merlin.Mouffe, Chantal1979 "Hegemony and ideology in Gramsci." Pp. 168-204 in Gramsci and Marxist Theory. London:Routledge, Kegan Paul.Paggi, Leonardo1979 "Gramsci's general theory of Marxism." Pp. 113-167 in Chantal Mouffe (ed.), Gramsci andMarxist Theory. London: Routledge, Kegan Paul.Piccone, Paul1974 "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, Nicos1976 Political Power and Social Class. Atlantic Highlands, N.J.: Humanities.Reich, Wilhelm1970a 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, Leonardo1974 "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, Massimo1979 "Gramsci and the PCI: Two conceptions of hegemony." Pp. 237-258 in Chantal Mouffe (ed.),Gramsci and Marxist Theory. London: Routledge, Kegan Paul.Schroyer, Trent1971 Review of Albrecht Wellmar, Kritische Gesellschaftstheorie und Positivismus; and Paul Breines(ed.), CriticalInterruptions:New Left Perspectives on Herbert Marcuse. Telos 7 (Spring):150-159.Texier, Jacques1979 "Gramsci, theoreticism of the superstructure." Pp. 48-79 in Chantal Mouffe (ed.), Gramsci andMarxist Theory. London: Routledge, Kegan Paul.


18/18

600 HAWLEYThompson, E. P.1964 The Making of the English Working Class. New York: Pantheon.Weber, Max1978 Economy and Society, Berkeley: University of California.

[1956]Wellmar, Albrecht1970 Critical Theory of Society. New York: Herder.Williams, Gwyn1960 "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.

antonio gramscis marxism class, state and work. hawley.texto

Documents