Further Clarifications about the Last Entry (Was Gramsci a Marxist?)

After the last entry, I received some criticisms and questions via facebook. Therefore, I think, further clarifications would be useful for all of us.

Following the question, Was Gramsci a Marxist?, Ibrahim Efe asked whether or not Marx himself was a Marxist. As far as I know, Marx is believed to have said that "if anything is certain, it is that I myself am not a Marxist." However, perhaps my formulation of the question was not very correct. Actually, what I was trying to ask was whether or not Gramsci was successful in overcoming the liberal-idealist philosophy of Benedetto Croce - the idealist philosopher who had a significant influence on Gramsci's early thinking, that is, before he came into contact with Marxism. I was interested in that question because to a certain extent, I think, this is a common problem for many thinkers/intellectuals/philosophers.

Then Alphan joined the discussion and said: "To utilise Cox's words: the pertinent question is not: Is Gramsci a marxist, rather it is: do the inferences which he has drawn from Marx help towards understanding the historical phenomenon that was the very object of his inquiry. Surely he differed from the historical economists and had a tendency towards the historical materialist elements in Marx's work."

Then I answered as follows: "Yes, but to what extent was it the inferences he has drawn from Croce, or to what extent from Marx help towards understanding the historical phenomenon that was the very object of his inquiry? Sometimes, we think that we are utilizing the ideas, concepts of a certain philosopher, a certain philosophical system, and criticizing others, but rarely do we realize that we actually in a way reproduce the philosophical system or the philosopher we criticize. In some ways, I know that perhaps it is not a very important question because in the final analysis you're right. Probably what matters more is whether or not it helps us toward understanding (and maybe also changing) the social/political phenomena that is the object of our inquiry. But also, sometimes the boundaries or the border lines between different theories, different philosophers and philosophical systems get blurred so considerably, it even becomes meaningless to continue speaking with the old concepts, such as marxist, idealist, materialist, etc. I think I saw this problem in Carl Schmitt's critique of liberal democracy as well. When you read Carl Schmitt's criticisms, and then see how he tries to differentiate his approach, you see that he cannot really succeed in that; he cannot escape liberal democracy. Also, like Jürgen Habermas continues to call himself a Marxist. Zizek calls himself a Marxist as well. But then, what is the limit of Marxism? Can you deny everything, change or ignore many essential core elements of Marxism, and still consider yourself a marxist? I mean, perhaps you still can, but what is the purpose anyway? Why would you bother about that?"

And I added: "Furthermore, I think it's also about being fair to the philosophers whom we criticize. I think it's not just/fair that we give a lot of credits to Marx in influencing Gramsci's thought, but not Croce."

Alphan: "I dont kow Feyzullah. Gramsci is a very complex personality as far as I understood. Of course he had ties with Croce, for example the concept of passive revolution is directly taken from his writings. I guess Gramsci was busy in moving beyond Marxist orthodoxy by opening new paths. And I think in this way he also tried to integrate Croce to his writings. I said he is a complex human being, for example he had Sorel in mind whilst writing about the "historic bloc", but Sorel only touches the topic of "social myths" that move history like the trade union activism or the general strike."

"Furthermore, if my memory is not misleading me, Gramsci also knew well Croce's interest in Vico and I even remmember that Pareto helped Gramsci while he was in prison by sending money. So at the final analysis I agree with you that in understanding and explaining the development of a philosophers thought we should try to 'phantasise' as Vico puts his life and the influences which had an impact on his writings. In this respect, i do think that Croce had a profound impact on his personal and philosophical development and singling out Marx as the only "mentor" is a misleading idea."

Was Gramsci a Marxist?

At first look, it sounds like an awkward question. First time I started to be bothered by that question was when I read a short introductory article on Gramsci's thought written by John Hoffman. (Hoffman, John, "Antonio Gramsci: The Prison Notebooks", in The Political Classics: Green to Dworkin, (ed.) Murray Forsyth and Maurice Keens-Soper, (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1996, pp. 58-77) 

Hoffman tries to identify a central dilemmatic problem in Gramsci's thought. He argues that "as a committed Marxist, he (Gramsci) identified with the vision of an emancipated society which is not only classless, but stateless as well. At the same time his political allegiances meant that he embraced authoritarian arguments for revolution, class war, and party organization. The question inevitably arises: how was a stateless end to be realized through statist means?" (p.58)

According to Hoffman, Gramsci's attempt to overcome this dilemmatic situation through incorporating the ethical-political concepts of the Italian humanist Benedetto Croce into his Marxist framework had two significant consequences for Gramsci's thought and his version of Marxism. Hoffman argues that on one hand, the liberal-idealist philosophical background derived, intentionally or unintentionally, from Croce "made it possible to raise questions of morality, culture, and freedom which he believed that a fatalistic form of Marxism had suppressed." (p. 58) But at the same time, Hoffman thinks, "this attempt at a synthesis was unsuccessful and undermined a coherent argument for emancipation, since the abstract idealism of Croce coexists uneasily in Gramsci's work with authoritarian arguments for class war, revolution, and the proletarian state." (p. 59)

In my view, mainly two types of individuals play important roles in a scholar's intellectual/philosophical development. On one hand, a scholar feels himself/herself close to, or associated with, the ideas, thoughts, theories and methodology of a certain philosopher. He/she gets influenced by these ideas and tries to understand the world around him/her through these ideas. The role of French socialists for Karl Marx, and the role of Marx for Antonio Gramsci can be mentioned as two examples of this case. One the other hand, the scholar may find the ideas and thoughts of a certain philosopher problematic or even disturbing, and he/she may choose to deal with these disturbing points to correct them, to improve them, or to refute them. In that regard, the role of G.W.F Hegel for Marx, and the role of Benedetto Croce for Gramsci can be good examples. It is through a philosophical converstaion or a struggle with the philosophers of the second types which I think is what actually helps a scholar to develop his/her own ideas and come up with new theories or philosophical systems.

But then was Gramsci successful in overcoming an early philosophical influence on his thought, that is the influence of the idealist Italian thinker Croce, and develop a new philosophical system? Hoffman argues that he was not. "A loyalty to Marxism saddled Gramsci with authoritarian concepts that he sought to dilute with Crocean idealism. This explains why his work was received with particular enthusiasm by Eurocommunists who sought to pursue a liberal politics within a Marxist framework. If, then, Gramsci's Marxism is tantalizing, it is also incoherent, for he was ultimately unable to develop the concepts necessary for promoting a self-governing world in place of the hierarchical and repressive institutions of the state." (p. 75-76)

What do you think?

New Book: Global Crises and the Crisis of Global Leadership, Edited by: Stephen Gill

Global Crises and the Crisis of Global Leadership

Edited by: Stephen Gill, York University, Toronto

•                Paperback

•                ISBN: 9781107674967

•                Publication date:   October 2011

•                320 pages

•                £18.99

 

More information & ordering: 

http://www.cambridge.org/gb/knowledge/isbn/item6532949/?site_locale=en_GB#

Book Description

This groundbreaking collection on global leadership features innovative and critical perspectives by scholars from international relations, political economy, medicine, law and philosophy, from North and South. The book's novel theorization of global leadership is situated historically within the classics of modern political theory and sociology, relating it to the crisis of global capitalism today. Contributors reflect on the multiple political, economic, social, ecological and ethical crises that constitute our current global predicament. The book suggests that there is an overarching condition of global organic crisis, which shapes the political and organizational responses of the dominant global leadership and of various subaltern forces. Contributors argue that to meaningfully address the challenges of the global crisis will require far more effective, inclusive and legitimate forms of global leadership and global governance than have characterized the neoliberal era.

Table of Contents

Part I. Concepts of Global Leadership and Dominant Strategies: 
 
1. Leaders and led in an era of global crises Stephen Gill
2. Leadership, neoliberal governance and global economic crisis: a Gramscian analysis Nicola Short
3. Private transnational governance and the crisis of global leadership A. Claire Cutler


Part II. Changing Material Conditions of Existence and Global Leadership – Energy, Climate Change and Water: 
 
4. The crisis of petro-market civilization – the past as prologue? Tim Di Muzio
5. Global climate change, human security, and the future of democracy Richard A. Falk
6. The emerging global freshwater crisis and the privatization of global leadership Hilal Elver


Part III. Global Leadership Ethics, Crises and Subaltern Forces: 
 
7. Global leadership, ethics and global health – the search for new paradigms Solomon R. Benatar
8. Global leadership and the Islamic world – crisis, contention and challenge Mustapha Kamal Pasha
9. Public and insurgent reason – adjudicatory leadership in a hyper-globalizing world Upendra Baxi


Part IV. Prospects for Alternative Forms of Global Leadership: 
 
10. Global democratization without hierarchy or leadership? The world social forum in the capitalist world Teivo Teivainen
11. After neoliberalism – left versus right projects of leadership in the global crisis Ingar Solty
12. Crises, social forces and the future of global governance – implications for progressive strategy Adam Harmes
13. Organic crisis, global leadership and progressive alternatives Stephen Gill.

Reviews

'This book provides an insightful Gramscian analysis of the forms of privately-based expert leadership that characterizes the current global order. The authors explore the weak material foundation of this leadership - made evident by climate change, water shortages, and the end of cheap oil - and they point to the emergence of new potential sources of global leadership in professions (such as medicine) and a new global network of courts committed to a broad interpretation of human rights, in global social movements, and in the transformation-oriented traditions of a politically energized Islam.'

Craig Murphy, Professor of Global Governance, University of Massachusetts, Boston

'In this wide-ranging, interdisciplinary volume, radical political economist Stephen Gill and his collaborators trace the economic, political, social and ecological crisis-tendencies within contemporary global capitalism and trace their ramifications for emergent forms of political agency and leadership both in the global North and the global South. This book is an essential contribution to our understanding of global neoliberalism - and to the ongoing work of envisioning, and forging, alternatives to it.'

Neil Brenner, Professor of Urban Theory, Harvard University

New Book: Adam David Morton, Revolution and State in Modern Mexico: The Political Economy of Uneven Development

Adam David Morton, Revolution and State in Modern Mexico: The Political Economy of Uneven Development (Rowman & Littlefield, 2011). Critical Currents in Latin American Perspective Series. ISBN: 978-07425-5489-4, £49.95. www.rowmanlittlefield.com

About the Book:

This groundbreaking study develops a new approach to understanding the formation of the post-revolutionary state in Mexico. In a shift away from dominant interpretations, Adam Morton considers the construction of the revolution and the modern Mexican state through a fresh analysis of the Mexican Revolution, the era of import substitution industrialization, and neoliberalism. Throughout, the author makes interdisciplinary links among geography, political economy, postcolonialism, and Latin American studies in order to provide a new framework for analyzing the development of state power in Mexico. He also explores key processes in the contestation of the modern state, specifically through studies of the role of intellectuals, democratization and democratic transition, and spaces of resistance. As Morton argues, all these themes can only be fully understood through the lens of uneven development in Latin America.

Centrally, the book shows how the history of modern state formation and uneven development in Mexico is best understood as a form of passive revolution, referring to the ongoing class strategies that have shaped relations between state and civil society. As such, Morton makes an important interdisciplinary contribution to debates on state formation relevant to Mexican studies, postcolonial and development studies, historical sociology, and international political economy by revitalizing the debate on the uneven and combined character of development in Mexico and throughout Latin America. In so doing, he convincingly contends that uneven development can once again become a tool for radical political economy analysis in and beyond the region.

New Book: Rethinking Gramsci

This edited volume provides a coherent and comprehensive assessment of Antonio Gramsci's significant contribution to the fields of political and cultural theory. It contains seminal contributions from a broad range of important political and cultural theorists from around the world and explains the origins, development and context for Gramsci's thought as well as analysing his continued relevance and influence to contemporary debates.

It demonstrates the multidisciplinary nature of Gramscian thought to produce new insights into the intersection of economic, political, cultural, and social processes, and to create a vital resource for readers across the disciplines of political theory, cultural studies, political economy, philosophy, and subaltern studies.

Rethinking Gramsci

edited by Marcus E. Green

New York: Routledge, 2011

ISBN: 9780415779739

http://www.routledge.com/books/details/9780415779739/

Contents
Introduction Marcus E. Green, Rethinking Marxism and Rethinking Gramsci

I. Culture and Criticism 
1. Stuart Hall. Race, Culture, and Communications: Looking Backward and Forward at Cultural Studies
2. Paul Bové. Dante, Gramsci and Cultural Criticism
3. Daniel O’Connell. Bloom and Babbitt: A Gramscian View
4. Marcia Landy. Socialist Education Today: Pessimism or optimism of the intellect?

II. Hegemony, Subalternity, Common Sense
5. Derek Boothman. The Sources for Gramsci’s Concept of Hegemony
6. Marcus E. Green. Gramsci Cannot Speak: Presentations and Interpretations of Gramsci’s Concept of the Subaltern
7. Cosimo Zene. Self-consciousness of the Dalits as ‘subalterns:’ Reflections on Gramsci in South Asia
8. Evan Watkins. Gramscian Politics and Capitalist Common Sense
9. Frank R. Annunziato. Gramsci’s theory of trade unionism
10. Nelson Moe. Production and Its Others, Gramsci's 'Sexual Question'
11. Adam David Morton. Social Forces in the Struggle over Hegemony: Neo-Gramscian Perspectives in International Political Economy
12. Richard Howson. From Ethico-Political Hegemony to Post-Marxism

III. Political Philosophy 
13. Richard D. Wolff. Gramsci, Marxism and Philosophy
14. Carlos Nelson Coutinho. General Will and Democracy in Rousseau, Hegel, and Gramsci
15. Wolfgang Fritz Haug. From Marx to Gramsci, from Gramsci to Marx: Historical Materialism and the Philosophy of Praxis
16. Steven R. Mansfield. Gramsci and the Dialectic
17. Esteve Morera. Gramsci’s Critical Modernity

IV. On Gramsci’s Prison Notebooks 
18. David F. Ruccio. Unfinished Business: Gramsci’s Prison Notebooks
19. Joseph W. Childers. Of Prison Notebooks and the Restoration of an Archive
20. Peter Ives. The Mammoth Task of Translating Gramsci
21. William V. Spanos. Cuvier’s Little Bone: Joseph Buttigieg’s English Edition of Antonio Gramsci’s Prison Notebooks
22. Joseph A. Buttigieg. The Prison Notebooks: Antonio Gramsci’s Work in Progress

Robert W. Cox

While wandering on internet, I came across a few sources on Robert W. Cox which I thought could be interesting and useful for the visitors of this blog.

1) The first is a video of Robert W. Cox while giving a keynote address at the University of Alberta, Canada, in October 2009. The title of his speech is "Consciousness and Civilization: The Inside Story".

2) The second is an interview made with Cox. I think the interview was made in March 2010. The interview is titled as: "World Orders, Historical Change, and the Purpose of Theory in International Relations".

3) The third is another interview with Cox. It dates back to 2003, and a pdf version of it can be found here.

4) Finally, the fourth one is a lecture given by Cox at ACUNS (The Academic Council of the United Nations System) in 1992, and is titled as: "Globalization, Multilateralism, and Democracy".

Hope you will like them and find them useful. :)

INTERNATIONAL GRAMSCI JOURNAL #3 March 2011

INTERNATIONAL GRAMSCI JOURNAL #3 March 2011

C O N TE N T S

Editor’s note

GRAMSCI NOTES

Recent publications in English on Gramsci

Aggiornamento Bibliografia gramsciana Italia (primo semestre 2010)   

O Estado Novo do PT
by Luiz Werneck Vianna   

The articles by Gramsci published in English in International Press Correspondence
Introduced by Derek Boothman

• The Genoa Conference and Italy, Inprecorr Vol.2, No.28, p.211 (19 April 1922).
• The Mussolini government, Inprecorr Vol. 3, No. 102, p. 824.
• Fascism: Letter from Italy, Inprecorr Vol. 4, No. 1. (3 January1924).
• Italy and Yugoslavia, Inprecorr Vol. 4, No. 4, pp. 25-26. (24 January 1924).
• Election Results in Italy, Inprecorr Vol. 4, No. 25, p. 231.
• The situation in the Communist party of Italy, Inprecorr Vol. 5, No. 60, pp. 835-6.

PEER REVIEWED ESSAYS

‘Resisting Abstraction: Gramsci’s Historiological Method’
by Nigel Greaves

‘The Centrality of the State in Neoliberal Times’
by Peter Mayo

Uluslararası İlişkilerde Eleştirel Kuram: Hegemonya, Medeniyetler ve Robert W. Cox

İkinci baskısı Eylül 2009'da İmge yayınlarından çıkan Uluslararası İlişkilerde Eleştirel Kuram: Hegemonya, Medeniyetler ve Robert W. Cox başlıklı kitap için uzun zamandır, kısa da olsa bir tanıtım yazısı yazmayı planlıyordum. Ama araya sürekli birşeyler girdi ve ben de bu işi ertelemek durumunda kaldım. Şu anda kısa da olsa kitaptan burada bahsetmiş olmak istiyorum.

Burcu Bostanoğlu ve Mehmet Akif Okur'un birlikte çıkardıkları kitap, uluslararası ilişkilerdeki en önemli eleştirel kuramlardan birini, Robert W. Cox tarafından geliştirilen kuramı, tanıtmaya çalışan güzel bir giriş kitabı. Kitap iki bölümden oluşuyor. Birinci bölümde Burcu Bostanoğlu, uluslararası ilişkilerdeki metodoloji tartışmalarına ve bu konuda Robert W. Cox'un yaptığı katkılara değiniyor. 

İkinci bölümde ise Mehmet Akif Okur, Robert W. Cox'a göre, post-hegemonik dünyanın yeni ontolojisinde sivil toplumun ve medeniyetlerin oynayacağı rolden bahsediyor. Kitabın sonuna eklenmiş olan Robert W. Cox kaynakçası da kitabın bahsedilmesi gereken diğer güzel yanlarından.

Anlatımı gayet güzel olan kitabın özellikle uluslararası ilişkiler bölümlerinde okuyan ve uluslararası ilişkiler teorilerine giriş tarzında dersler alan öğrenciler için çok yararlı olacağını düşünüyorum. Siyaset bilimi, Kamu Yönetimi vs. gibi bölümlerde olup da uluslararası ilişkiler teorisi ile ilgilenenler için de okunması gereken önemli bir Türkçe kaynak bence.

To Revolt is to Exist!

Final Words on Socio-Political Change

Gramsci’s theory on socio-political change and the role of the political party during that process is an interesting contribution to political theory. It differs from the utopian or mechanistic understandings of the socialist thought, and tries to explain the steps of the framework of a realizable change, or how change can be brought into a society. In doing that Gramsci starts from an individual and connects the individual with the social class he/she is in.

He pays an attention to the collective will, and how it can be formed both through consent and coercion. In that regard, he gives special importance to the role of the Jacobin force in persuading, directing the passive and apolitical masses to become active and political individuals who will take part in the political party and in the process of political change. At that point, the organic intellectuals of the political party and class plays a crucial role in persuading the masses to take part in the process, but the role of the organic intellectuals, it can be argued, is related with the consent dimension of the process. However, Gramsci believes that there must also be a Jacobin force to direct people to that process. Here, it can be argued that this is a missing gap in his theory because nowhere in his writings he explains who that Jacobin force could be, and how and through what ways this coercive force can direct, by using force, the people, the masses toward a goal, to take part in the political party, or to become a part of the socio-political change.

Another problematic point in Gramsci’s theory is that he gives a very great importance to the role of the political party as an agent or instrument through which the whole process of socio-political change can be organized and pursued. It looks like the political party embraces or includes everything and anything that is related with its social class, the masses, the intellectuals, the leaders, etc. This means that Gramsci leaves little, or even no, space for the other actors which can also play roles during the socio-political change. That makes it look like the political party is the only possible instrument through which this socio-political change can be organized and pursued. However, this loads great responsibilities and duties on the political party which, in fact, can hardly be realized only through the political party. For instance, the aim of founding a new type of State, being the founder of a new culture, a new society, raising the people to a new type or level of civilization are all considered by Gramsci as the “normal” roles and functions of the political party; however, it would be difficult to argue that a political party can be the organizer and carrier of such a great change even it can succeed in organizing its social base, its organic intellectuals, the media, the newspapers close to it, etc. and even it can succeed in convincing other social classes and thus their political parties to take part in their project and manage to create a new historical bloc.

Finally, Gramsci’s theory, if not a grand theory, is at least a middle-range theory. As a result, Gramsci doesn’t concern himself with doing micro analyses almost nowhere in his writings. For instance, Gramsci creates new theoretical concepts, such as historical bloc; however, he does not explain in details how and through what ways a historical bloc can be built. Generally, historical bloc is understood as a broad political and economical alliance between different social classes and political parties; however, one could ask whether any kind of broad political and economical alliance between social classes can be considered as historical bloc as well? For instance, from time to time, different political parties come together and form alliances, but can these be called as historical bloc, or are they just simply political alliances? These points in Gramsci’s thought, it seems, are not very clear and detailed; thus further elaboration is needed, and further micro analyses would be useful in making these concepts clearer.

Political Party and Hegemony

To understand Gramsci’s concept of social class, political party and their role in socio-political change we also need to understand his theory of hegemony since these are all connected with each other in his thought and serve as the different instruments of bringing change to a society.

For instance, in the quote below Gramsci talks about the political party as the expression of a social class; however, in addition to that, he also argues that, at some periods, a single social group, through its political party, can, or even should, exercise a balancing and arbitrating function, role between the interests of its own group, and those of other groups. Here “a balancing and arbitrating role” actually refers to being hegemonic, and through that being able to lead the other social classes under its own leadership.

“Although every party is the expression of a social group, and of one social group only, nevertheless in certain given conditions certain parties represent a single social group precisely in so far as they exercise a balancing and arbitrating function between the interests of their group and those of other groups, and succeed in securing the development of the group which they represent with the consent and assistance of the allied groups – if not out and out with that of groups which are definitely hostile.”[1]

Political parties and their role in socio-political change in Gramscian theory can only be understood through the concept of hegemony because it can be argued that political parties function as no more than the agents of change according to Gramsci. However, they are probably the most complex and mature agents which can pursue the process and carry the mission of realizing such a goal: socio-political change. The crucial point here is related with the direction of this change, and whether what it envisages for the end of the process. It can be argued that change is directed toward the establishment of a hegemony, which is a desirable type of governing according to Gramsci, and that political party can play the role of leadership in carrying out the national-popular collective will,

As mentioned above, the political party, for Gramsci, is not merely a political expression, thus representative of a social class. In addition to that, the political party is the agent of socio-political change which is found to raise the people in the society to a new level political, legal, social and economic order, that is to say, to a new level of civilization. This role or function of founding a new State is related with the concept of hegemony because as Sassoon rightly explains, “each moment of hegemony represents a certain relationship between class forces.”[2] This certain relationship, hegemony, in the State level, in Gramsci’s thought, refers to an ethical State. In that regard, Gramsci argues that;

“Every State is ethical in as much as one of its most important functions is to raise the great mass of the population to a particular cultural and moral level, a level (or type) which corresponds to the needs of the productive forces for development, and hence to the interests of the ruling classes.”[3]

---

[1] Gramsci, Selections From Prison Notebooks, ibid., p. 148.

[2] Sassoon, Gramsci’s Politics, ibid., p. 115.

[3] Gramsci, Selections From Prison Notebooks, ibid., p. 258.

Political Party and Historical Bloc

One of Gramsci’s very important theoretical concepts is historical bloc. On the one hand, the concept of historical bloc, in Prison Notebooks, is referred to a unity between the structure and the superstructure.[1] On the other hand, Gramsci uses the concept as a homogeneous politico-economic alliance which does not have internal contradictions.[2] Stephen Gill argues that a historical bloc is a process which is initiated by a conscious social force which intends to establish a new hegemony.

“An historical bloc refers to an historical congruence between material forces, institutions and ideologies, or broadly, an alliance of different class forces politically organized around a set of hegemonic ideas that gave strategic direction and coherence to its constituent elements. Moreover, for a new historical bloc to emerge, its leaders must engage in conscious planned struggle. Any new historical bloc must have not only power within the civil society and economy, it also needs persuasive ideas, arguments and initiatives that build on, catalyze and develop its political networks and organization – not political parties such.”[3]

The concept of historical bloc is important because it refers to a moment during the process of change which indicates that a political party has been built, and it is seeking to establish a hegemony. To do that, Gramsci argues that this social class, through its political party, has to organize other social classes and political parties as well to take part in their wider political, economical alliance, which in theory by Gramsci called as “historical bloc”. In that process, the organic intellectuals of the political party and the social class also play a fundamental role in producing the persuasive ideas and arguments needed in convincing other classes to be a part of their historical bloc, thus their upcoming hegemony.

However, as Anne Showstack Sassoon rightly points out, “an historical bloc is not to be reduced to a mere political alliance since it assumes a complex construction within which there can be sub-blocs such as, for example, an agrarian bloc, a complex formation of its own right, and an industrial bloc, each of these containing different elements and potential contradictions. The historical bloc can produce various political blocs made up of different combinations of political allies which none the less maintain the general configuration of the fundamental historical bloc.”[4] 

As previously mentioned, the political party, the historical bloc and the hegemony are interconnected instruments in Gramsci’s thought through which a socio-political change can be realized. As Sassoon explains, “the historical bloc in implying necessarily the existence of hegemony also implies that in order to create a new historical bloc alternative to the existing one, the new, progressive class must create its own hegemonic apparatuses. The way in which the working class is able to do this, according to Gramsci, is through the party.”[5]

---

[1] See Gramsci, Selections from the Prison Notebooks, ibid., p. 137. Also see p. 366. “Structures and superstructures form an historical bloc.”

[2] Ibid. p. 168.

[3] Gill, Stephen, Power and Resistance in the New World Order, Palgrave, Macmillan – 2002, p. 58.

[4] Anne Showstack Sassoon, Gramsci’s Politics, Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press, 1987, p. 121.

[5] Ibid., pp. 123-124.

What are the Roles and Functions of the Political Party?

In Gramsci’s thought, political party has a very wide meaning. In accordance with that, the responsibilities or the functions of the party are also very broadly defined. The political party, for instance, is thought to have the aim of founding a new type of State, and for Gramsci a political party is actually rationally and historically created for that end.[1] 

Secondly, it can be said that a party’s role is to represent its social base, the social class, and defend its interest in the society. Gramsci argues that a “party is the expression and the most advanced element of the social group.”[2] 

In accordance with the aim of founding a new state, we can speak of a third role of the political party in Gramsci’s thought. In that regard he argues that “the Modern Prince must be and cannot but be the proclaimer and organizer of an intellectual and moral reform, which also means creating the terrain for a subsequent development of the national popular collective will towards the realization of a superior, total form of modern civilization.”[3] 

The political party, it can be argued, has a dual relationship with the collective will. That is to say, the political party is both an expression of the collective will, but also the carrier and developer of it. This can be counted as the fourth role or function of the political party. As Gramsci puts it, “these two fundamental points – the formation of a national-popular collective will of which the modern Prince is at the same time the organizer and active working expression, and a moral and intellectual reform – should constitute the structure of the work.”[4] 

In addition to these, parties also have policing functions, that is to say they function to safeguard a certain political and legal order. In doing that, parties can either be progressive or regressive. That is to say, whether the party carries out its policing function “in order to conserve an outward, extrinsic order which is a fetter on the vital forces of history; or does it carry it out in the sense of tending to raise the people to a new level of civilization expressed programmatically in its political and legal order?”[5]

For Gramsci, the policing function of a party is progressive when “it tends to keep the dispossessed reactionary forces within the bounds of legality, and to raise the backward masses to the level of the new legality.”[6] On the other hand, “it is regressive when it tends to hold back the vital forces of history and to maintain a legality which has been superseded, which is anti-historical, which has become extrinsic.”[7] Furthermore, Gramsci argues that when the party is progressive it functions democratically, while in the second case, when it is regressive, it functions bureaucratically.[8]

---

[1] Ibid., p. 147.

[2] Ibid., p. 151.

[3] Gramsci, The Modern Prince and Other Writings, ibid., p. 139.

[4] Ibid., p. 140.

[5] Gramsci, Selections From Prison Notebooks, ibid., p. 155.

[6] Ibid., p. 155.

[7] Ibid., p. 155.

[8] Ibid., p. 155.