Antonio A. Santucci, "Antonio Gramsci"

Antonio Gramsci, by Antonio A. Santucci. New York: Monthly Review Press, 2010.  $0.00; paper, $0.00 US. ISBN: 978-1-58367-210-5. Pages: 7-201.

Does Gramsci still have something to tell us in a world “without communism”? Can we, as Joseph A. Buttigieg argues, consider Gramsci’s writings as a classic which is both an expression of its epoch, and also an effort to resist contingency and remain open to dialogue with future generations? (p. 19). Antonio A. Santucci’s, an eminent philological scholar of Gramscian texts, well-written intellectual biography of Antonio Gramsci can be viewed as an attempt to answer these questions. In doing this, Santucci provides us not only with a critical evaluation of Gramsci’s ideas, but also tries to explain how they might still be valid for today. It is important to pay attention to Santucci’s interpretation of Gramsci because, as Buttigieg makes it clear, it is through his philologically scrupulous editions of L’Ordine Nuovo [The New Order] (with Valentino Gerratana), Letters: 1909-1926, and Letters from Prison, scholars and students have reliable access to some of Gramsci’s most important writings. (p.10).

In addition to a Preface written by Eric Hobsbawm and a Foreword by Joseph A. Buttigieg, the book consists of five chapters which are Introduction, The Political Writings, The Letters from Prison, The Prison Notebooks, and End-of-Century Gramsci. The chapters reflect Santucci’s distinguishing of Gramsci’s “writings preceeding his incarceration and those of his prison years. To the former belong the hundreds of articles published in various periodicals until the end of 1926; to the latter belong the Letters from Prison and the Prison Notebooks.” (p. 30).

In an intellectual biography, the author tries to provide his/her readers in a coherent manner of the ideas and events that surround intellectual’s life. It can be said that Santucci deals successfully with this challenge by presenting the life-story of Antonio Gramsci without losing the in-depth analysis of his ideas. The links between the text and the context throughout the life of the intellectual is presented in a successful way, that is, Santucci presents both the impact of the context on the ideas of Gramsci, and also the efforts of Gramsci to influence the context through his ideas and writings.

The book’s contributions to the debates regarding Gramsci and his ideas can be gathered under two headings: theoretical and methodological. Theoretically, Santucci tries to contribute to the debates by pointing out to Gramsci’s criticisms of Marx, and of different interpretations of Marxism. For instance, he argues that Gramsci’s criticisms were directed toward Bukharin’s dogmatic Marxism which was mechanistic, lacked dialectical spirit, and produced historical and political determinism. (p. 149). Santucci argues that Gramsci was both against the attempts to canonize Marxism and also to mechanistic and determinist interpretations of Marxism. In place of this determinism and economism, Gramsci tried to open up more space for the subjective element of the will, or in other words, the power of the agency. What is more interesting, I think, is Santucci’s attempt to show the intellectual evolution of Gramsci from being a Crocean to being a Marxist. Being strongly influenced by the idealist Italian philosopher Benedetto Croce, Young Gramsci’s idealistic formation is evident in many of his writings in this period, says Santucci. (p.65). However, later, in a similar way to Marx’s relation with Hegel, Gramsci left Croce behind and developed an anti-Crocean stance with the help of Marx. Finally, the closer Gramsci approached Marx, the more his intellectual path diverged from that of Croce. (p. 146).

Reading Gramsci is also useful to be reminded of various methodological issues and problems that can emerge while studying political theory. Some of the issues Gramsci is concerned with are the idea of leitmotif, importance of dialectical thinking and anti-dogmatism, and particularism as opposed to totalizing approaches. While approaching a political philosopher, Gramsci argues that instead of isolated quotations, one should be interested in the leitmotif that provides the general motivation for this particular philosopher. Again, instead of universalism, totalizing theories and determinism, one should pay attention to particularism, inseperability of theory and practice, and dialogical and dialectical thinking. By presenting Gramsci’s own approach to the classics of political theory, Santucci warns scholars who utilize Gramsci’s ideas and concepts in their studies to not to look for isolated sentences or supporting arguments, but instead to be faithful to Gramsci’s general message, or his leitmotif.

In addition to these theoretical and methodological debates, in the first chapter, Santucci discusses the method of Gramsci, the outline of his notebooks, and how to categorize his writings. He talks about Gramsci’s concerns about temporary, perhaps superficial writings on the one hand, and philosophical, more coherent and systematic writings on the other. Also he explains Gramsci’s ability to combine practice and theory, thought and action, and how his thinking of the intellectual is related with other parts of his theory, such as culture, politics, education.

In the second chapter, Political Writings, which is devoted to the analysis of the journalistic writings of Gramsci, Santucci tells about Gramsci’s journalism, the Ordine Nuovo experience, and about the intense and close relationship between Gramsci as the journalist, and the proletariat life in the industrial city of Turin. Although Gramsci considers his journalistic writings as superficial and temporary, in his pre-prison writings, as Santucci shows, one can find the initial core thoughts and arguments which later will become the basis of his more theoretical concepts and ideas, such as historical bloc, political party, and hegemony.

In the third chapter, Santucci explains how Gramsci’s personal letters which were mostly sent to his relatives can help us understand his theoretical development. Later, in the fourth chapter, he discusses the Prison Notebooks.

In the final chapter, Santucci returns to the question of whether or not Gramsci can guide us today, but sounds a bit ambigious. Despite the crisis of the historical communism and the disappearance of the Italian Communist Party from the political scene, which are important in thinking about Gramsci’s relevance today, (p. 162) Santucci argues that as long as questions related to justice, freedom and equality remain unsolved, Gramsci’s ideas would remain valid in confronting current problems. However, he argues that “if Gramsci is not relevant in these cases, it is because major politics, which goes beyond the simple administrative tasks, […] has lost topicality as well. If they continue to stand on the sidelines, then indeed Gramsci’s ideas will definitely be defeated. However, a defeat of Gramsci’s ideas could also signify a collective defeat." (p. 173).

In brief, Santucci tackles well with the challenge of providing the reader an integrated story of the ideas and life of Antonio Gramsci. It can make significant contributions  to the methodological and theoretical debates about Gramsci. Especially his emphasis on the concept of leitmotif, dialogical and dialectical thinking, anti-dogmatism, particularism can serve as guiding principles for scholars who continue to study on Gramsci’s ideas.

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?

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.

What is Political Party?

Gramsci argues that for a party to exist, three fundamental elements have to converge. That is to say, they can exist in a certain society on their own; however, they have to come together in organized way to become a political party.

The first of these three fundamental elements, according to Gramsci, is the mass element. It is composed of ordinary, average men, whose participation takes the form of discipline and loyalty, but nothing more.[1] Without this element, a party cannot exist; however, a party cannot exist with this element alone either. As Gramsci indicates, “they are a force in so far as there is somebody to centralize, organize and discipline them. In the absence of this cohesive force, they would scatter into an impotent diaspora and vanish into nothing.”[2] Deriving from this, it can be followed that the next fundamental element should be the cohesive element which centralizes, organizes and disciplines the masses. Gramsci argues that with the power of innovation and disciplinary powers, this element becomes the basis for the other elements; but “it is also not true that neither could this element form the party alone; however, it could do so more than could the first element considered.”[3] To support this argument with an example, Gramsci, then, talks about the generals and the army relationship, and says that:

“One speaks of generals without an army, but in reality it is easier to form an army than to form generals. So much is this true that an already existing army is destroyed if it loses its generals, while the existence of a united group of generals who agree among themselves and have common aims soon creates an army even where none exists.”[4]

That is to say, the masses hold the potential to become formed as a party by the cohesive element: the generals, the organizers. However, without the cohesive element, the masses continue to stay in their potential form and cannot become active in the form of a party. This can only be maintained by the cohesive element. In that regard, the cohesive element turns the passive masses into an active organization which is the party or in other words, the Modern Prince.

In addition to these two elements, cohesive element being the basis, there must be one more element, which Gramsci calls the intermediate element, which articulates the first element (the mass element) with the second one (the cohesive element), and maintains contact between them, not only physically but also morally and intellectually.[5] 

From this background, it can perhaps be argued that the masses for Gramsci have relatively a secondary role in the establishment and the development of the party. Or in other words, the existence of the mass element is like necessary condition for the founding of a party, but not a sufficient condition. The sufficient condition is the existence of generals, the cohesive element, which can lead this mass element to a certain direction.

Finally, when does a party cease to exist? A party ceases to exist when the classes, or the certain class of which the party is an expression, no longer exist since every party is only the nomenclature for a class, or in other words, the expression of a particular social class. When the cohesive element doesn’t exist, it can also be argued that a political party cannot exist. Gramsci argues that, the second element, the cohesive element, “must necessarily be in existence (if it is not, discussion is meaningless); its appearance is related to the existence of objective material conditions, even if still in fragmented and unstable state.”[6]

---

[1] Ibid., p. 152.

[2] Ibid., p. 152.

[3] Ibid., p. 152.

[4] Ibid., pp. 152-153.

[5] Ibid., p. 153.

[6] Ibid., p. 153.