>
> I agree with you that Gramsci didn't think of the question of intellectuals
> in the same manner as Marx or Lenin had; his thoughts are reflections of
> his historical times and different national conditions. That said, it may
> not be tenable to argue that Gramsci's conceptions of the Party, the
> intellectuals, the masses, etc. differed so much from Lenin's as to
> constitute a significant break.
Indeed. Gramsci was a Leninist (his 'code phrase' for Lenin was 'the greatest exponent of the philosophy of practice'). His understanding of philosophy, though, was not identical to Lenin's, reflecting not only different national conditions, but also a different philosophical heritage (Italian Marxism in the early years of the century was quite different from 2nd International Marxism of Kautsky and Plekhanov). This is maybe best illustrated by the bits of the Prison Notebooks where Gramsci attacks Bukharin's 'Popular Manual'.
While Sorel did have an effect on Gramsci, I think, to dispel the myth that Gramsci was some kind of Sorel-ian, it is useful to note Gramsci's attack on Sorel (in the Prison Notebooks somewhere).
Peter -- Peter van Heusden : pvanheus at hgmp.mrc.ac.uk : PGP key available 'The demand to give up illusions about the existing state of affairs is the demand to give up a state of affairs which needs illusions.' - Karl Marx