THE ARTIST FORMERLY KNOWN AS (MODERN) PRINCE
GREGOR GALL in the Morning Star on why Britain’s fractured left could do with looking at the ideas of Italian Marxist Antonio Gramsci.
GEORGE Galloway’s recent proposals to reform the Respect coalition entitled It was the best of times, it was the worst of times borrowed from the well-known opening line of Charles Dicken’s Tale of Two Cities.
Galloway was making the argument that, although Respect had done well, it needed to change to do even better.
Following the Socialist Workers Party response, a series of events was set in train that is likely to have destroyed Respect as a broad coalition of the left. This is another depressing turn of events for left-of-Labour projects.
Indeed, the dialectic of “best” and “worst” seems quite apt for the current period the left faces - plenty of opportunities but considerably less ability to take advantage of them.
And this reminded me of Italian Marxist Antonio Gramsci’s motto “pessimism of the intellect, optimism of the will.”
He used it frequently in the pages of L’Ordine Nuovo, the newspaper that he edited in the post-World War I political upheaval in Italy, which saw factory occupations in the “red years” of 1919-21.
In fact, the motto’s origin comes from the French humanist, pacifist and Nobel prize-winner for literature Romain Rolland, who used the motto to indicate the tension that he saw between the existence of misery and the hope of dignity.
In Britain since the 1970s, Gramsci’s borrowed motto has become quite well known.
Back then, the left was grappling with a critical issue. How was it that, after the upsurge of 1968-74, a period that saw increasing numbers of strikes and the rise of the women’s, gay, peace and civil rights movements, left-wing consciousness remained so limited among workers?
Put more bluntly, why, so quickly after a big upsurge, did many workers support the reactionary Thatcherism in the 1979 and ‘83 general elections?
This difficult period of the 1970s and ’80s must have played some part in shaping the way that the left now thinks.
When he used Rolland’s motto, Gramsci was saying that socialists had to be hardheaded enough to see things as they actually were and not as socialists would really like or prefer them to be.
In other words, Gramsci was saying: “Don’t overstate the possibilities for socialism and be prepared to work long and hard along a long and winding path.”
His argument was that only with hard-headed analysis could socialists then productively push forward in a certain direction towards the ultimate goal. Otherwise, socialists risked going in the wrong direction and having unrealistic expectations of what they could achieve.
This related to Gramsci’s notions of the “war of manoeuvre” and the “war of position.”
The “war of manoeuvre” means quick, outright assaults on the economic and political power of capitalists in revolutionary periods. By contrast, the “war of position” means a long struggle in civil society to build up the forces of socialism through cultural and ideological means.
The “war of position,” which is what socialists face most of the time, means working for the “long haul,” where a sense of perspective is needed to understand that what seem like hopeless causes may not always be so.
Nearly a century after Gramsci used the motto, it is common for the left in Britain to trade blows with one another in a sectarian manner over who is optimistic and pessimistic.
But this trading of blows is now well past its sell-by date.
These terms mystify rather than clarify the issues. Using them is a form of political moralising.
It is deluded to think that the different bits of the small and fractured left hold the key to the future in their hands if only they had said or done something different.
Not to mince words, the frustration of the left about where it is, compared to where it wants to go, finds an easy outlet in this moralistic castigation of other socialists and fellow travellers.
In the case of Respect, it is said by his opponents that Galloway is hell-bent on targeting the Muslim community as the only way of making further electoral advances. And this, his opponents say, means moving to the right.
If this was true, Galloway’s view could be called both optimistic and pessimistic.
On the one hand, it is optimistic because the view is that further members of the Muslim community can be won over to Respect. On the other hand, it is pessimistic because it sees the white working class as effectively a no-go area for Respect.
Both are equally facile. So this kind of simplistic sloganeering does not comprehend how people come together collectively to form instances of progressive causes and how the left should relate to them.
Currently, the left is not in the best position to be able to influence the formation of progressive causes. And, therefore, it is all the more important that the left tries to learn how, when and why progressive causes are created and how they operate.
Studying Gramsci could go some way to helping the left gain a more grounded and more rounded perspective on these issues.
Personally, despite all the nastiness of the renewal conference, I’d be happy to put all this behind us and try to get back on track. Better than arguing over the name, possible legal fights, avoiding each other at left events, having an even more fragmented left etc etc.
But I’m not sure the other side would want that anyway - Salma said it’s all ‘crocodile tears’ from the SWP and both her and George don’t ever want to hear about the SWP again. How’s that going to work in the future then? It will be impossible unless they weren’t serious about not wanting this to spill over into the anti-war movement.
Hopefully once they’ve both cooled down they will start thinking more rationally again. The same for everyone, although it did seem the renewal side were somewhat more bitter and ranty.
It would be easy to stay angry after all the really terrible things that have been said, but it really would be counter-productive if we are serious about gettng anywhere. I think it would be good to see less pointless attacks from this site too as they aren’t doing anyone any good, are they?
Comment by MA — 21 November, 2007 @ 2:53 am
I agree. But beyond a simple injunction to ’study Gramsci’ it would be usefull if Gregor could have actually extracted some Gramscian ideas to suggest a counter-hegemonic strategy for today!
Maybe we can try to do that on this thread?
But first I’ll indulge myself with a little sectarian snipe! (Doh!) Or a useful observation, even:
It was symptomatic that our Tony Cliff chose to write a 4 volume work on Lenin in the crucial moments of the 1970’s - but wrote nothing of significance on Gramsci! Although of course, Gramsci would have been of more use to Marxists in the West in the late twentieth century (who were not organising under anything like the conditions of Tzarist Russia). But Cliff’s agenda in writing ‘building the party’ was to Leninise the International Socialists (the forerunner of the SWP). So this book helped justify the internal tactics of control, and arbitrary line changes under terms like ‘bending the stick’ that helped shape the SWP we know and love today.
Of course, this lack of attention to Gramsci by Cliff also surrendered Gramscian ideas to the Euro-communists, who could only be the court theoreticians to Kinnock. All we in the SWP got of Gramsci was a tiny little pamphlet by Chris Harman.
This has implications for today. The kind of organisation Cliff and co built just wasn’t up to the task of coalescing a long term strategic counter-hegemonic project like Respect could have been. So we got a brittle ‘united front of a special kind. But there were also objective limiting factors. In composing a counter-hegemonic bloc of diverse oppressed forces, from Muslim’s to Lesbians and Gays, the working class must play a leading role. This would be the only force capable of holding the different groups that launched Respect together. But only a confident working class that was making progress could do this - not one defeated for twenty years, still being recomposed on a global scale, its organs and consciousness weakened.
Comment by Larry R — 21 November, 2007 @ 3:26 am
It might be a good idea for the Morning Star to analyse the use (or misuse) of Gramsci by the Eurocommunists before everyone starts going overboard about Hegemony, Praxis and Civil Society again.
I see it all in the same light as Depeche Mode and crap synthesiser bands.
Comment by Alex Nichols — 21 November, 2007 @ 8:12 am
The trouble I have with MA’s contribution is that it still seems to me that it was the SWP and allies that was most bitter and ranty, if not frothing with a fury that looked unreasonable and was pointless in that it clearly wasn’t intended to convince, but instead to disrupt. Think of it as putting hands over ears and chanting ’splitters, witchhunters, communalists, anti-SWP bile’ over and over again. Like any faction fight the events have had a large element of psychodrama about them and like any break-up we need to move on, but it’s not going to happen by just repeating a ‘we was right, you’re wrong’ mantra, which is what I take MA’s contribution to amount to.
Meanwhile Alex seems to want to continue the fight ovwer even older battles -
Morning Star was of course opposed to the Eurocommunists back in the ’80s and attacked them then. And I think of the ’80s as being full of a whole host of interesting New Wave bands.
And I would defend the SWP against Larry. Cliff’s account of Lenin was an intelligent account of Leninism that can’t be dismissed. Harman made a good defence of Gramsci against the Eurocommunist/Cultural Studies appropriation of his name, and the SWP are devoting attention to Gramsci with what I believe are successful day-schools on him in London and Edinburgh. And at least the SWP have attempted to build a counter-hegemonic project in Respect, even if a certain ‘SWP-egoism’ finally got in the way (and their opponents are not without flaws either!). Larry seems to end up blaming the SWP for problems he rightly locates in the wider political field. If we need that confident working clas to engage with this project, what precissely should we be doing in currrent circumstances?
I thought
Comment by Matthew Caygill — 21 November, 2007 @ 8:53 am
In fact at the beginning the cultural studies appropriation of Gramsci, and the Eurocommunists , were not so drifting towards the liberal centre and multiculturalist mish-mashes as it appears in hindsight. There si fine stuff written by people at the Centre of Contemporary Cultural Studies in the late ’seventies on Gramsci. It treats of the importance of ideology - something appearently dismissed in dealing with, notoriously, conservative forms of Islamicism by those defending an alliance with the Jamaat-i-Islami and or,on the other side of the coin, purist leftists who focus on the working class’s struggles alone.
For a counter-hegemonic strategy you ahve to have some grasp of hwo to relate to the masses. Honesty pays in this. I note that on France-Inter and in Liberation this morning OLivier of the LCR (’la LCR star’ title in Libe) gave a very frank and realistic balance-sheet (a kind of SWOT analysis) of the potential of the present wave of public sector worker strikes in France. This appears to have been very much appreciated. The Ligue has its associated public forum going for some time where disgreements can be publicly aired. Will either Respect sponser anything similar
Comment by Andrew Coates — 21 November, 2007 @ 9:44 am
I joined the SWP in 1882. One of the first books I read was John Molyneux’s Marxism and the Party. In it, John compared the ideas on of Marx/Engels, Luxemburg, Lenin, Trotsky and Gramsci. Molyneux’s book, and a subsequent book he wrote on Trotsky were very controversial within the SWP. He took the standard position vis-a-vis Lenin. However, he was impressed by Gramsci’s Prison Notebooks to a greater extent than any other leading SWP member. He also adopted an attitude towards Trotsky that was relatively dismissive, an attitude he revised a few years later. Molyneux argued that Gramsci is the only Marxist to have added to Lenin, while Trotsky’s writings represented a backward step, hampered by a failure to break from the mechanical materialsm of the Second International, that Gramsci subjected to a devastating critique. Duncan Hallas wrote a review of Molyneux’s book on Trotsky, taking issue with his low opinion of Trotsky’s alleged mechanical materialism. I can also recall Molyneux intervening from the floor at Marxism (around 1985) to take issue with Chris Harman. Harman had just compared Gramsci’s contribution to the theory of the party as on a par with the ideas of James cannon, which Molyneux took to be an insult.
My own attitude towards Gramsci is pretty much the same as Chris Harman’s. Every Marxist should read the Prison Notebooks, and the two volumes of his political writings translated into English, and anything else you can get your hands on. However, it is essential to realise that the PN is written in code, and it has to be decyphered. This means that it is often unclear and it also gives us all good reason to believe that his having to write it in code tangled up some of his own best ideas. Additionally, what he wrote has to be read in the context of what he was free to write before being subject to fascist censors. Gramsci made loads of mistakes prior to arrest, most of them ultra-left from a Leninist and Trotskyist point of view, under the influence of Amadeo Bordiga. In the year or two before his arrest, Gramsci moved more and more towards an orthodox Leninist position, and any evaluation of his merits has to focus on what he wrote between 1924 and 1926, in particular his Leon Theses.
Comment by Tom — 21 November, 2007 @ 10:12 am
Actually, I joined in 1982. Typo, obviously
Comment by Tom — 21 November, 2007 @ 10:12 am
Imagine what could have been achieved in Tower Hamlets if Galloway had behaved like Lavellete in Preston, or (despite my political differences) like Yakoob in Birmingham. Imagine the different constituencies he could have reached out to. Now imagine a contrast between the impact of this nationally (even at the level of how it would have impacted on other figures within our movement building locally) and what George actually did (I won’t go into gory details). Now think about Gramsci’s discussion of the failure to translate Machivelli’s Republican ideals into practice in Italian history. And think about how he might have used Ranciere’s formulation of pessimissism of the intellect, optimism of the will to outline the two different paths open to Respect on the basis of the actual behaviour of leading politicians within it.
Of course at one level its foolish to draw an equivilance between our best councilers and a major national, or even global figure, like George. But how little of that justified global reputation was translated into practice at the local level. What kind of pessimissm of the will are we confronted with here? And isn’t this problem, in many ways, the unstated premiss of many of our difficulties?
Comment by johng — 21 November, 2007 @ 11:02 am
Of course the tragedy of the current situation is that for those in Respect Renewal such a discussion would be political suicide. On the other hand for us, we can have these discussions, and we can go foward, but from a much weaker position. These it seems to me are Gramscian dilemma’s for the movement as a whole.
Comment by johng — 21 November, 2007 @ 11:24 am
Johng: this is now staggering. So “Yakoob” is now a model. Why then was Salma ostracised by John Rees from the summer of 2005 onwards? And look at what has been achieved in Tower Hamlets - until four councillors walked away, with the support of Rees, handing a gift to Respect’s opponents. Were you at the SWP meeting where one of the two SWP councillors called Galloway a mad dog who needs to be shot? I think Matthew Caygill has got it right over who’s consumed by bitterness.
Comment by Nas — 21 November, 2007 @ 3:20 pm
I don’t see how anything I’ve said is ’staggering’ at all. I said earlier, that despite political differences, Salma was much closer to the shop steward model then some of the councilers in TH, and certainly closer to that model then Galloway was. This just strikes me as a reality. Its not inconsistant with anything I’ve said. Its also true that in terms of the differences between John Rees and Salma, whilst I do not know exactly what was involved, in the intitial period of this dispute it was suggested that this ought to be discussed. The main thing however, and what left all of us with a series of much more unpalatable choices then I think was neccessary, was the failure really to relate Georges national and indeed global politics, to local grass roots activity on the ground. I can remember the magnificant rally at the Friends Meeting House when George came back from Washington. I can remember the enourmous excitement as George talked about what he was going to do in Tower Hamlets. It was a great speech.
Would we not all be in an entirely different situation today if deeds had matched words in this case? Saying this is not to damn the magnificant contribution George DID make (such a rally and such expectations would have been impossible without that real contribution). But were those possibilities, created both by the movement and by George, capitalized on? No they were not. And is George, in drawing up a balence sheet, really entitled to preach to other components of the coalition about this (including people on the other side to me).
The answer for any fair minded person I’m afraid would be a resounding no.
Comment by johng — 21 November, 2007 @ 3:36 pm
In “Problems of Marxism”, “basic problems in the study of the philosophy of praxis”, “statement of the problem”, Prison Notebooks pg 381, Lawrence and Wishart, 1971, Gramsci writes the following:
“I have referred elsewhere to the philosophical importance of the concept and the fact of hegemony for which Ilyich is responsible.”
In his footnotes, editor of the English edition, Quinton Hoare, decodes this surprising remark thus:
“The ‘fact of hegemony’ is of course the Soviet Revolution.”
Hoare didn’t feel the need to explain who Ilyich is. He adds:
“The attribution of the “concept of hegemony” to Lenin is more difficult to interpret, since the word hegemony as such does not figure prominently in Lenin’s work. It seems most likely that what Gramsci has in mind are aspects of Lenin’s general theory of proletarian revolution as they evolved in the struggle against economism and as they are expressed in for example Two Tactics of Social Democracy.”
Anyone who has actually read The Prison Notes, and Gramsci’s political writings (as well as Quinton Hoare’s outstanding introductions and notes to both) will know that Gramsci was not trying to be particularly novel, certainly not in the sense that his anti-Leninist would-be fans would have us believe. Gramsci was attempting to DEVELOP the ideas of Lenin, NOT jettison them. Gramsci wanted to produce a manual for revolutionary Marxists, to help them replicate in Italy the vanguard role of the Bolshevik Party in Russia. Lenin developed strategy and tactics essential to lead the proletariat, which in turn lead the peasantry. And lead them both to the fact of hegemony: in other words, the Bolshevik revolution! The same Bolshevik revolution for which renegades from the SWP now express utter indifference. The same Bolshevik Revolution for which the entire membership of Respect Renewal expresses so much indifference, if not actual contempt.
Gramsci’s Prison Notebooks ought to be read NOT as a criticism of Lenin, but as SELF-criticism. It is a critique of Gramsci’s own role as an ultra-left sectarian, one who rejected Lenin and Trotsky’s advocacy of the united front, who rejected their support for reformist/centralist government “like the rope supports the hanged man.” Fascism took power in Italy thanks, of course, to the betrayals of Italy’s very own Kautsky’s. But also thanks to the sectarian refusal of Gramsci’s own ultra-left trend inside the PCI. Additionally, the Prison Notebooks has to be read as a damning indictment of third period stalinism. Gramsci felt unable to publicly criticise the Stalinist leadership of the PCI, or the Comintern. He kept schtoom partly out of misguided loyalty. And partly because he needed them to help offer him some kind of protection from his fascist jailers. Reading between the lines, it is obvious that a lot of Gramsci’s condemnation of Trotsky in the Prison Notebooks was in fact a coded attack on his own former colleagues in the PCI leadership.
The people who can use Gramsci’s best writings today are Respect national council member John Molyneux, and the SWP’s key strategist: ISJ editor Chris Harman. The individualist renegades from the SWP (Hoveman, Wrack, Ovenden, Francis, Bird and co) have zilch to learn from Gramsci. That is because they, unlike the great man, care nothing for the concept nor the fact of hegemony as understood by Gramsci.
For those interested, Harman’s pamphlet on Gramsci can be found here: http://www.isj.org.uk/index.php4?id=239
Comment by Tom — 21 November, 2007 @ 3:50 pm
Johng: what does this: “Its also true that in terms of the differences between John Rees and Salma, whilst I do not know exactly what was involved, in the intitial period of this dispute it was suggested that this ought to be discussed. The main thing however, and what left all of us with a series of much more unpalatable choices then I think was neccessary,” actually mean? Rees refused to speak to Salma. Her letter to the SWP CC got a perfunctory response. This was over two years ago. Rees and the SWP tops have to take responsiblity for the breakdown in relations. Why, for example, did they start to freeze George Galloway out in autumn 2005 after his successful tour of the US? You’re right: the options now are unpalatable. But the lion’s share of responsibility for that goes to the SWP tops.
Comment by Nas — 21 November, 2007 @ 4:14 pm
Johng: were you at the meeting when the SWP councillor called Galloway a mad dog who needed to be shot?
Comment by Nas — 21 November, 2007 @ 4:16 pm
Tom (post # 12) is of course right (so is Gramsci)!
Lenin’s revolutionary strategy was a perfect example of the working class and its party leading a hegemonic bloc of other classes to complete the Russian bourgeois revolution - and simultaneously push it to grow over into the socialist revolution ‘en permanence’. And so also is the formulation of the united front an excellent counter-hegemonic strategy.
However, the situation of early twentieth century Russia was in many senses exceptional - the interconnected factors of a Tsarist autocracy, an uncompleted bourgeois revolution with a bourgeoisie unable to lead it, and a small but highly advanced working class in its midst.
In countries where the bourgeoisie already held power, this alignment of forces could not exist, and the tasks of socialists are much harder. Hence the value of Gramsci’s experience. Although 1920’s Italy is also very different to contemporary Britain.
I know that Lenin took this peculiarity of the Russian situation into consideration, but still argued it possible to generalise the experience of the Bolsheviks into a formula that could be applied in western countries when building the comintern. I.e the Leninist conception can help create an advance party of the socialist workers precisely to overcome the unevenness of the development of class consciousness.
But I still wonder how much Lenin’s formulas are of use to us today. I suppose this has come from my experience of the shortcomings of actually self-proclaimed Leninist parties. I don’t know if the SWP’s strategy (in where we stand) can take account of the hegemonic power of todays ruling class. But for so long this question is never raised - all the SWP can really do is attempt to grow - whether by ones and two’s, or by one or two thousand. So its real practice has been being the big fish in the small pond of UK socialist politics in an unprecedentedly prolonged period of defeat, marginalisation and neo-liberal ascendency.
In response to Matthew (post #4) yes, I agree that “Cliff’s account of Lenin was an intelligent account of Leninism that can’t be dismissed”.
But perhaps two less volumes would have sufficed, and two more volumes on Gramsci would have helped! Hallas and co did raise an eyebrow when Cliff devoted so such time in the mid 1970’s to his magnum opus. And it was exactly when we needed to be considering Gramsci and a strategy for British conditions. This was the crucial decade of the 1970’s, when one nationally organised regime of state capitalism went into crisis, and the ruling class moved towards its new strategy of globalising neo-liberalism. Of course, socialists could not clearly see this at the time.
When I was ‘building the party’, I found Cliff’s book of the same name had a singular, almost instrumental use. It would turn good recruits into party hacks as hard as nails, willing to jump when the CC said jump! I used to think that was a good thing at the time!
Comment by Larry R — 21 November, 2007 @ 5:33 pm
Actually quite a good article from Gregor Gall, I’m really interested in Gramsci and need to get round to reading Prison Notebooks. In Edinburgh recently I saw there was a day school on Gramsci and was quite excited and then saw it was organised by the SWP and disappointment set in, I couldn’t go a long to it. You see the issue is it is not sectarianism not wanting to be in the same room as members in the SWP for those who have been damaged by them it is self preservation. The past 15 years have taught me that their boorish, cultish behaviour is not only unreasonable but also impossible.
You just can’t work with them - taking us back to Gramsci, is it not wishful thinking at this point believing in left unity which would include either the CWI/SP or the SWP? Would be all not be better doing what we are good at rather than lamenting the loss of left unity, if we were to do that we would all find ourselves in the same milleu again rather than artifically trying to put a smashed humpty dumpty back tigether again.Socialists would find themselves naturally working with other activists in campaigns and lets see what might one day come from that.
Comment by Cat — 21 November, 2007 @ 5:36 pm
#4 “Meanwhile Alex seems to want to continue the fight o(v)er even older battles”: -
I wouldn’t be quite so fast to dismiss the question of misusing Gramsci’s problematical interpretation by the Euros as irrelevant to today’s politics.
For one thing I believe they are relevant to some of the problems in the PRC in Italy, which clearly has major problems in deciding how it relates to state power and the “Olive Tree” alliance.
For another, it seems rather clear that the politics of one of the component sections of Respect(R) viz Socialist Resistance and the USFI has been affected by such ideas over the years. Whereas in the 1970’s Phil Hearse described the USFI as “quasi-hegemonic” (ugh!) on the revolutionary left in Europe, it’s now moved so far in the direction of broad parties of the left as to make it’s identity and programme almost invisible.
For example the increasing un-Marxist use of the term “Civil Society”, something that Marx early on analysed as being based on “mutual plundering” and the class struggle. An state based on alienation, which the working class needed to abolish, not gradually exercise hegemony over.
The Euros certainly played a big role in forming the ideology behind the whole network of Civil Society organisations and NGO’s which has been created since the demise of the USSR. Which has been created just to divert people away from forming even reformist socialist parties and tie them up in government grants and fragment their political purpose.
Of course, the most serious issue for Respect(R) is its acceptance of a form of Popular Frontism, which could easily be intellectualised on quite trivial manipulation of Gramsci’s cryptic legacy:-
*The tacit accomodation to religious institutions and ideology.
*The idea of a cross-class plural political bloc.
*The lack of clarity on the nature of the state
*The potential justification of political alliances based on eletoralism as part of the war of position etc..
In fact on International issues, I think its already clear, at least on an individual level, the politics are already Popular Frontist. How else can I interpret George Galloway’s speech last week calling for a “Government of All the Talents” in Pakistan and focusing on Imran Khan, rather than the demands of the working class and peasantry.
That’s not even Zinovievism as exemplified by the Comintern policy at the Baku Congress of the Peoples of the East. It’s something way to the right of it.
Comment by Alex Nichols — 21 November, 2007 @ 6:08 pm
Gramsci was a pretty hard as nails operator himself who believed that Generals were more difficult to create (and hence valuable) but the job of NCO’s was to be patient persuaders arguing the same thing over and over again. A Bordigaist in Italy (yes they still exist) wrote an article on Gramsci full of venom at Gramsci’s cut throat manuevers describing him as a PCI hatchet man. Autonomists, when they’re not despising each other, loath the man as well. I’m persuaded that some of his historical and philosophical writings raise new and interesting questions, but politically he was a hard Leninist. Which is of course fine by me (as is the fact that Rosa Luxemberg robbed banks to secure party funds). All in all though political leaders of most stripes tend to be a bit hard to get along with.
On the issue of the falling out with Salma, since hearing about it, its always seemed pretty bad to me yes. But at the same time I would qualify that by saying a) I don’t actually know the full story and b) it is sadly sometimes true that leaders don’t get on with each other. I don’t know either personally, and frankly personal relationships between leaders don’t interest me greatly. If this was a political problem I would like to know how it expressed itself politically (ie not so much what the disagreement was about, but what the fall out was, and what the actual impact therefore was).
I was informed by someone that it was hard to get Salma to speak in certain areas where the SWP presence was strong (efforts had been made to book her where I work, strangely enough with Tariq Ramadan, but its just as possible that it was a co-incidence) and my response, to be honest, was not to get too excited about it. If there is a disagreement and tension sometimes thats how things go. In the end though if a broad coalition could not survive tensions like that, it would not be worth having. I certainly would not bother being part of a coalition which did not occassionally have tensions like that. It would mean there were not any significant forces in it.
I don’t particularly mind being called a jumped up white liberal. Occupational hazard.
Comment by johng — 21 November, 2007 @ 6:53 pm
I don’t mean to rain on Gregor’s journey of theoretical discovery but just a note of caution.It is always advisable to be somewhat wary when poor old Gramsci is resurrected particularly in a Stalinist rag like the Morning Star.
It has already been pointed out why Gramsci is notoriously difficult and this has proven to be very useful to academic obscurantists,Stalinists of various shades and some of the more cerebral social democrats.
I find it hard to remember anything of any value produced by these assorted Gramsci revivals over the last few decades, except a lot of windbaggery,liberalism and vacuous cultural studies nonsense. Maybe this time I’m wrong but I’m willing to take bets.
Comment by pablo's conscience — 21 November, 2007 @ 8:34 pm
6.”I joined the SWP in 1882″ Tom
The mind positively boggles……way and beyond the call of duty!
Comment by Paris — 21 November, 2007 @ 8:42 pm
Guys (and you seem to be mostly guys) please tell me what relevance this has to the present situation?
Comment by Graham Day — 21 November, 2007 @ 11:08 pm
At 11.30pm on 20 November 2007, Andy prints this resignation letter from Arshad Kanwar. The latter has just resigned from the SWP although he admits that he NEVER considered himself a Leninist, and NEVER had any interest in the Russian Revolution!
A mere two hours and fifty nine minutes later, Andy publishes an article by Gregor Gall, calling for a focus on the ideas of Antonio Gramsci. And what exactly were his key ideas? As I have already pointed out in the commentary to Gregor Gall’s article, Gramsci attributed both the concept and fact of hegeomony to Lenin. While Andy’s latest recruit to the ex-SWP renegades’ club boasts about his lack of interest in Lenin and the Russian Revolution, Gramsci’s Prison Notebooks were a peon of praise to both Lenin and the Russian Revolution!
And while the ex-SWP renegades pour scorn on the unwillingness of the leadership of that party to tollerate criticism, John Molyneux, the SWP leader most enthusiastic about the Prison Notebooks were recommended by the SWP to the incoming Respect national council. Excellent. While the Prison Notebooks were written by a partisan of Leninism and the Russian revolution, it is a devastating critique of the errors committed by the Stalinised Comintern. Two years ago, John Molyneux attempted to get the SWP leadership to adopt a series of democratic changes, in order to make his party better fit to do what Lenin’s party did: win hegemony over the Russian working class, and then win hegeomny over that other revolutionary class, the peasantry.
John Molyneux was right in what he said two years ago. And he was no less right in enthusiastically backing John Rees and the rest of the SWP central committee in it’s battle with the anti-Leninsts who have split off to form their fan club for George Galloway, including the explicit anti-Leninists in the SWP. Having said this, there remains unfinished business from two years ago. Unless the SWP central committee moves in the direction advocated by John then, the latest correct turn won’t pay off in the long term. John Molyneux has a blog. A rather inactive blog, unfortunately. I would recommend that John raises his game. He has much to teach SWP members, and the rest of Respect. Now that he is a member of Respect’s national council, he should attempt to emulate the prolific journalism of his hero. John should use what he has learned from Gramsci to educate members of the SWP. In the last two years before being thrown into Mussolini’s jail, Gramsci attempted to win hegemony over the PCI, against the ultra-leftist Bordiga. He knew this was essential if the PCI was to have any chance of tHis Leninist Party winning hegemony over the Italian working class, and then over the numerically large peasantry. And all for the purpose of introducing into Italy, the fact of hegemony: ie, a second Bolshevik revolution! The SWP cannot lose sight of the ultimate goal of our Bolshevik revolution. However, that remains a long way off. The SWP should operate within Respect in much the same way as Gramsci advocated the PCI operated inside the broader democratic movements of the working class and it’s allies in the years 1924 until he was arrested two years later. The SWP should be enormously grateful that those who are indifferent, even hostile, to the originater of the concept of and fact of hegemony (Lenin and the Bolshevik revolution) finally resign from their party. Indeed, they need to ask themselves how such people not even managed to remain members for some time, but even managed to get themselves selected as Respect candidates. Those hostile to Lenin and the Russian revolution have to be purged from the SWP. But not from Respect. Respect has to be a theatre for all those who want to put up resistance to the bosses offensive, and every infringement of human rights, at home and abroad. Genuine dialogue between Leninists and non-Leninists is healthy for the working class movement. In fact, this is the essence of the Prison Notebooks. As Marx, Engels, Luxemburg, Lenin, Trotsky and Gramsci argued, Marxists learn from the working class every bit as much as they teach it. By closely studying the Prison Notebooks, and Gramsci’s writings between 1924 and 1926 (as well as his earlier writings at the time of the factory occupations), the SWP can help transform Respect into an organisation that will not only strengthen the working class movement in the here and now, but one that will help re-educate the SWP for the tasks of the future: Britain’s very own fact of hegemony.
Comment by Tom — 22 November, 2007 @ 4:14 am
Paris quoted me as saying “I joined the SWP in 1882″ Tom
The mind positively boggles……way and beyond the call of duty!
Don’t you have anything more to contribute to this thread about Gramsci’s wonderful writings than drawing attention to an obvious typo? Given the fact that after I hit the submit comment button I IMMEDIATELY spotted this typo and corrected it, what was the point? The mind boggles, to coin a phrase.
Comment by Tom — 22 November, 2007 @ 4:20 am
John Molyneux’s blog: http://johnmolyneux.blogspot.com/
John Molyneux’s “What is the real Marxist tradition?”: http://www.marxisme.dk/arkiv/molyneux/realmarx/index.htm
In a footnote to the latter work, John writes the following about the academic Marxist tradition that claims Gramsci as one of their inspirations:
138. It was originally intended to include an analysis of so-called “Western Marxism” as identified by Perry Anderson, but, as so often, this essay has grown in the writing, and considerations of space now rule this out. Suffice it to say that with the exception of the early Lukacs and Gramsci (who arose in the Bolshevik tradition) all the leading figures of “Western Marxism” (Marcuse and the Frankfurt school, Della Volpe and Colletti, Althusser, Poulantzas etc.), whatever their philosophical differences, are united by their rejection of international.proletarian revolution, by their location within the upper ranks of the intelligentsia, and usually by their attachment to one or another form of Stalinism.
Comment by Tom — 22 November, 2007 @ 5:59 am
For anyone at all interested in the real Gramsci, as distinct from the poster boy for academic Marxists and apologists for Stalinism, you ought to check out the following links at the Marxist Internet Archive:
http://www.marxists.org/archive/gramsci/1926/01/lyon_congress/lyon_thesis.htm
This link will take you to a page that supplies links to the following key sections of this wonderful document, the Leon Theses, written a few months before he was thrown in jail by Mussolini:
http://www.marxists.org/archive/gramsci/1926/01/lyon_congress/lyon_thesis.htm#Fundamental_Tasks_of_the_Communist_Party
Under thesis 23, Gramsci wrote:
Fundamental Tasks of the Communist Party
23. Having victoriously resisted the reactionary wave which sought to engulf it (1923); having contributed with its own actions to marking a first halt in the process of dispersal of the working-class forces (1924 elections); having taken advantage of the Matteotti crisis to reorganize a proletarian vanguard which, with notable success, opposed the attempt to instal a petty-bourgeois predominance in political life (Aventine); and having laid the basis of a real peasant policy of the Italian proletariat – the party today finds itself in the phase of political preparation of the revolution.
Its fundamental task can be indicated by these three points:
(a) to organize and unify the industrial and rural proletariat for the revolution;
(b) to organize and mobilize around the proletariat all the forces necessary for the victory of the revolution and the foundation of the workers’ State;
(c) to place before the proletariat and its allies the problem of insurrection against the bourgeois State and of the struggle for proletarian dictatorship, and to guide them politically and materially towards their solution, through a series of partial struggles.
I agree. This is, or should be, the fundamental tasks of the SWP in Britain today. Clearly this is at variance with the notions of Andy Newman and the rest of Respect Renewal.
Thesis 24 has Gramsci arguing the following: http://www.marxists.org/archive/gramsci/1926/01/lyon_congress/lyon_thesis.htm#The_Construction_of_the_Communist_Party
The Construction of the Communist Party as a “Bolshevik” Party
24. The organization of the proletarian vanguard in a Communist Party is the essential feature of our organizational activity. The Italian workers have learnt from their experience (1919-20) that where the leadership of a Communist Party, built as the party of the working class and as the party of revolution, is missing, no victorious outcome of the struggle to overthrow the capitalist order is possible. The construction of a Communist Party which really is the party of the working class and the party of revolution – in other words, that is a “Bolshevik” party – is directly related to the following basic points:
(a) the party’s ideology;
(b) its form of organization and degree of cohesion;
(c) its capacity to operate in contact with the masses;
(d) its strategic and tactical capacity.
Each of these points is closely linked with the others, and cannot logically be separated from them. Each of them, in fact, points to and contains a series of problems whose solutions are mutually interconnected and overlapping. Examining them separately will only be useful if it is borne in mind that none of them can be resolved, without all being tackled simultaneously and brought to a solution.
This is, or should be, the task the SWP sets for itself in Britain today. Clearly, this is not the task of Andy Newman’s favorite SWP member: Nick Wrack, Kevin Ovenden, Rob Hoveman, Neil Williams, Arshad kanwar etc, which is why a parting of the ways was necessary. In the words of Lenin, inappropriately quoted by ant-Leninist Ger Francis a couple of days ago, “better fewer, but better.” Purging itself of these anti-Leninists, strengthens the SWP.
The following links to key sections of Gramsci’s most mature political perspectives can be found as follows. All of this should be read by every SWP member, and by the rest of Respect. Genuine Leninists not only will find nothing to disagree with, they will find it a magnificent confirmation of the strategy and tactics of Lenin. And a devastating critique of the politics of George Galloway, Gregor Gall, Andy Newman and all supporters of Respect Renewal.
http://www.marxists.org/archive/gramsci/1926/01/lyon_congress/lyon_thesis.htm#The_Party’s_Ideology
http://www.marxists.org/archive/gramsci/1926/01/lyon_congress/lyon_thesis.htm#The_Basis_of_Party_Organization
http://www.marxists.org/archive/gramsci/1926/01/lyon_congress/lyon_thesis.htm#The_Functioning_of_the_Party_Organization
http://www.marxists.org/archive/gramsci/1926/01/lyon_congress/lyon_thesis.htm#Strategy_and_Tactics_of_the_Party
In addition to these key sections, the Leon Theses necessarily included sections on the contemporary situation in Italy: the class structure in Italy, the policy of the Italian bourgeoisie, the numerical strength of the peasantry which has to be won as an ally of the working class, and the attempt by Mussolini’s fascists to entrench themselves in power. None of these sections has a direct bearing on the situation in Britain in 2007. They should, however, be read to help understand some of the historical references in the far more important sections in this text.
Comment by Tom — 22 November, 2007 @ 6:58 am
Actually I think there is a connection between the revival of Gramsci in the PCI in the 1950’s and 60’s and the academic revival of the 1970’s. Gramsci equivicated on the question of Stalinism (its simply not true that his work is a devestating critique of the policies of the comintern, whilst he has some criticisms to make, he veils them by pretending they’re directed at Trotsky!). This was largely of course because he was in a fascist jail. So Gramsci is rediscovered and popularised, not because of his strengths (which were real) but because of his weaknesses. Its impossible to tell whether Gramsci would have turned into a Stalinist hack if not imprisoned by the Fascists. The point is though that for both Stalinists and academics he provided a route back to a more sophisticated classical Marxist tradition, without the troubling political questions inevitably raised by a close reading of the latter. You just have to think of the way in which even what would today seem rather anodyne (Frolich’s book on Rosa Luxemberg) was political dynamite in the hands of the New Left, to understand the great advantages of having access to a great mind surrounded by prison walls.
Notes on Italian History is however a wonderful read.
Even despite this, put Gramsci outside the prison walls, and the kinds of questions I raised earlier are really too disturbing to discuss for those who self consiously describe themselves as ‘gramscians’.
Comment by johng — 22 November, 2007 @ 10:02 am
I’ve just seen someone complaining about the obscurity of these discussions. This is fair comment. Gramsci’s central concern in my view, was to explain the huge distance that seperated the ideas and public platforms of liberal politicians and their practice (ie what they actually did), in an Italy which had yet to experiance the kind of liberal revolutions which had transformed Northern European societies in the 19th centuries. He was also concerned to relate this distance between words and actions both to the rise of fascism and to the problems that even Communists faced operating in a society of this kind.
In Britain one can imagine a discussion of why what trade union leaders say, and what they do, is so different. To explain this socialists have devised theories about the function of trade unions in capitalist societies, and sometimes sociological theories about either the working class or the trade union bureacracy. Gramsci’s arguments belong, in my view, to this tradition of argument, but in the very different circumstances of Italy in the first part of the 20th century. Thats how I see his writings anyway (others might see them differently) and its that way of seeing his writings that explains some of the fascination with his work amongst some intellectuals in third world countries, who see in his problems some of their own.
If someone asked me to explain what Gramsci wrote about, thats what I’d say.
Comment by johng — 22 November, 2007 @ 11:29 am
#12 ‘I’m really interested in Gramsci and need to get round to reading Prison Notebooks. In Edinburgh recently I saw there was a day school on Gramsci and was quite excited and then saw it was organised by the SWP and disappointment set in, I couldn’t go a long to it. You see the issue is it is not sectarianism not wanting to be in the same room as members in the SWP for those who have been damaged by them it is self preservation. The past 15 years have taught me that their boorish, cultish behaviour is not only unreasonable but also impossible.
You just can’t work with them’
Thankyou Cat - Catrina Grant
The Edinburgh day school on Gramsci - with around 90 attending - was organised by the International Socialism Journal and opened by the Director of the Italian Cultural Institute.
Comment by solidarity — 22 November, 2007 @ 2:56 pm
response to #16 not #12
Comment by solidarity — 22 November, 2007 @ 3:00 pm
This might not be the best thread to post the following. However, this should be something that unites Respect with Respect Renewal, the SSP with Solidarity. It is vital that the entire left mobilises in defence of civil liberties lawyer, Aamer Anwar. Could I suggest to Andy that he starts a thread on this very important question, and invites all readers of this blog to sign the on-line petition in defence of Aamer, and to raise this issue within the movement.
From: “SACC” Add to Address BookAdd to Address Book
Subject: Support Aamer Anwar - Open letter goes live
Date: Wed, 21 Nov 2007 17:30:10 +0000
News from Scotland Against Criminalising Communities - SACC (www.sacc.org.uk)
Please DON’T REPLY TO THIS EMAIL - use the ADDRESS AT THE BOTTOM OF THE MESSAGE
Support Aamer Anwar - Open letter goes live
Glasgow solicitor Aamer Anwar is facing contempt of court proceedings over a statement that he released on behalf of his client, Mohammed Atif Siddique, who was convicted for “terrorism” in Glasgow High Court in September. This is deeply worrying and is an unprecedented attack on freedom of speech.
Last Tuesday, Aamer Anwar received a fantastic display of support at a vibrant public meeting in Glasgow. Members of the Siddique family and the Chokkar family joined anti-war campaigners, civil liberties campaigners, campaigners for refugees, trade unionists and ordinary people from many of Glasgow’s communities to stand up for freedom of expression.
The Stop the War Coalition has issued a statement in the form of an open letter (the letter was first published in the Herald newspaper on 8 November)
If you have already emailed with your support for the letter - THANK YOU
If you haven’t yet given your support to the letter:
Join Moazzam Begg, Gareth Peirce, Tony Benn, Mohammad Sarwar MP, Sandra White MSP, Tommy Sheridan, Paddy Hill and others
Sign up today at www.sacc.org.uk/defendaamer/
(the Open Letter is now live. Don’t email with your support - just visit the address above)
Please help spread the word:
* Ask you friends and contacts to sign up
* If you have a website or a blog, please add a link to the open letter. Find out how at http://www.sacc.org.uk/aameranwar/makealink.php
Comment by Tom — 22 November, 2007 @ 10:37 pm
Gramsci was a Comintern hack. All his writings are a sophisticated defence of Stalin’s popular front politics and an assault on Trotsky’s theory of permanent revolution. Gramsci’s move is to shift the class struggle into the superstructure, a clear revision of Marx for whom the class struggle was the base.
For ex-Stalinist centrists he has the considerable merit of writing Stalinism but looking (physically) a lot like Trotsky which means they never have to actually break from their past they can simply rationalise it.
Comment by David Ellis — 26 November, 2007 @ 10:08 am