Date: Wed, 29 Mar 2000 21:26:23 +0300 From: Alain Kessi <kessi at kein.org>
Here comes another icon of the left that we should probably start having a critical look at - Gramsci. I've been tempted (and still am) to quote Gramsci in a fundamental critique I'm planning to write of the current discourse on "civil society" (another right-left topic) with which the New Center would like to make us believe that their powerful attack against people's autonomy (after the neoliberalist attack had come to a stop because it didn't manage to further break up people's resistance) with the help of NGO elites and a thoroughly elitist concept of "civil society" is "for the good of everyone". Gramsci's concept of civil society (societa civile) is definitely more political than the social-democratic blabla that Habermas and Giddens have gotten us used to. But there's a problem...
You see this problem in the article below: Why is Gramsci attractive to the racist right-wing? But if you read his works, maybe you'll discover problematic points independently of the empirical fact that De Benoist and other racists love Gramsci.
The point, and this brings Gramsci close to "leftists" like Juergen Habermas ("the bombs of reason"/Kosovo, or was that particular quote from his buddy Ulrich Beck?) or Max Weber ("the primitive Slavs in the way of German efficiency"), is that Gramsci despises "primitive peasants" and other barriers to capital accumulation. His position, it seems, is not far from that of the capitalists. He just disagrees with them on who should be the one to destroy people's autonomy and lives and incorporate their working power into the effectiveness of capitalist production and profit-making, and wants to challenge them on the field of hegemony (of civil society). They find it should be private capitalists. Gramsci thinks it should be the communist party. Much like Stalin thought when he killed them peasants in the Ukraine and elsewhere. (Stalin was an expert in breaking up the "backwardness" of peasants and creating favorable conditions for the accumulation of capital. Wonder whether he had read Joseph Schumpeter and his amazingly accurate description of capitalist attacks as "creative destruction"... now more fashionable than ever in mainstream business analysis papers, see Paul Krugman et al., more and more with open references to the full brutality of the process of "progress", sometimes to Nazism as a good example of how to proceed.)
I surmise that many of the "former leftists" are "former" because even when they were "leftists" they were "progressive", meaning they felt uncomfortable with a fossilized "old system" that didn't provide them with enough opportunities to exercise their innovative spirit. At the beginning of their struggle, they seem to agree with the "left" in that they are fighting the oppressors. But the only reason they do is in order to install a new oppressive regime in which their innovation will dictate the force and the speed of the destruction (more forceful and faster than that of the "old system", a new cycle of capitalist attack) of the "backwards people" who are to be made available for exploitation. Joseph Fischer (some think he's still their friend and persevere in calling him "Joschka") is a prime example of that process. Listen to his war rhetoric and see behind the rhetoric the overall innovative attack (of technology, finance, culture, philosophy), primarily against Eastern Europe whose societies need to be broken up and made useable, integrateable into a process of sucking off "surplus" value.
Any thoughts anyone?
Cheers,
Alain
P.S.: Does anyone have the writings of Marc Spruyt at hand (even in Dutch I'd like to have them)? See footnote [7].
-------------------
http://darkwing.uoregon.edu/~ucurrent/uc6/6-gramsci.html
--------------------------------------------------------------------
Whose Gramsci?
Right-wing Gramscism
Rob Van Craenenburg
We are in the proces of losing our foremost thinker of and on concrete historical scenarios, Antonio Gramsci, to a reactionary right-wing cause. Gramsci himself has become entangled in a position that he has given much thought about, Ceasarism. Ceasarism can be said to express a situation in which the forces in conflict balance each other in a catastrophic manner: But Ceasarism "does not in all cases have the same historical significance. There can be both progressive and reactionary forms of Ceasarism; the exact significance of each form can, in the last analysis, be reconstructed only through concrete history, and not by means of any sociological rule of thumb. Ceasarism is progressive when its intervention helps the progressive force to triumph, albeit with its victory tempered by certain compromise and limitations. It is reactionary when its intervention helps the reactionary force to triumph in this case too with certain compromises and limitations, which have however, a different value, extent and significance than in the former."[1]
Although Gramsci makes it very clear that Caesarism is "a polemical ideological formula, and not a canon of historical interpretation" (220), that "a Caesarist solution can exist even without a Caesar, without any great, `heroic' and representative personality" (220), we may well add Gramsci's own name to his very own list compiled of Caesar, Napoleon I, Napoleon III, and Cromwell, to name but a few. For although Tony Bennett wrote a decade ago that :
It is always tempting these days and especially at the
end of long essays to wheel on Gramsci as a
`hey-presto' man, as the theorist who holds the key to
all our current theoretical difficulties [2]
nevertheless his `hey-presto' qualities seem to have faded somewhat in the progressive positions in cultural studies; unfortunately, however, not in extremely right-wing circles where his fundamental notion of hegemony is being hailed as a politically effective and productive way of gaining influence and political power. This seems to me to be one of the foremost fundamental productive questions in literacy studies: to what extent is Gramsci's notion of hegemony politically neutral, and if so to what extent are we willing to let it be compromised? Not only is Gramsci misunderstood, as in the new elitist focus of McGuigan who blames the uncritical embracement of mass consumption on the hegemony theorists who have closed their eyes to an economic grounding of all cultural production, a position which can be easily refuted within Gramsci's own framework:
Can there be cultural reform, and can the position of
the depressed strata of society be improved culturally,
without a previous economic reform and a change in
their position in the social and economic fields?
Intellectual and moral reform has to be linked with a
programme of economic reform indeed the programme of
economic reform is precisely the concrete form in which
every intellectual and moral reform presents itself.
[3]
But within the progressive framework of cultural studies, his concept of hegemony is questioned as well, especially because "there are problems with distinguishing hegemony theory from the dominant ideology thesis; [4] the feminist perspective does "not accept such a privileging of capitalism over patriarchy as the determinate structure of ideological relations," and ethnic studies claims that " the national-popular concept is in danger of suppressing specific dynamics of black and ethnic struggles" [5]. Moreover, "the problems of reconciling it [hegemony] with a theory of pleasure are insurmountable" [6].
Unfortunately, the French Nouvelle Droite mouvement headed by Alain DeBenoist and the Flemish extremely right political party Het Vlaams Blok have no such insurmountable problems whatsoever with Gramsci's notion of hegemony. On the contrary, they use it to their utmost ability and they're not being shy about it. The Nouvelle Droite was founded as an ideological perspective in the midsixties by the French theorist Alain de Benoist. Ironically, it is inspired as an active movement by Gramsci's Quaderni del Carceri, and it literally calls the metapolitical struggle for cultural hegemony the Gramscism of the Right. I was first confronted with this rightwing theft of Gramsci by the journalistic writings of Marc Spruyt, who has since published a very necessary, clear and precise account of rightwing party (meta)politics [7]. His book surely ought to be translated into English, especially given the specific French and Belgian context within which Gramsci is (mis)used in this manner. The lack of a translation enables the otherwise extensive works about Gramsci to completely miss this development: for example, Antonio Gramsci, A New Introduction (Paul Ransome, Harvester Wheatsheaf, 1992). Moreover, Ransome's very last words in the conclusion now become ominous:
To the extent that Gramsci's ideas provide Marxism with
a new degree of flexibility and adaptability, it is
likely that his influence will be felt for some time to
come. Gramsci it seems has not been "relegated to the
attic".
This conclusion about "adaptablity" acquires a very different and altogether uncomfortable dimension if we become aware whose attic it is that we may be speaking about. Gramsci's notes on hegemony in his prison writings are spread out throughout his text, deeply imbedded not infrequently within concrete historial situations and events as his was no disinterested academic exercise but a genuine attempt to understand the elements of a triumphant Italian fascism. We would however, not misrepresent him if we take his notion of hegemony to mean that in between forced consent and active dissent we find passive consent, that cultural change precedes political change, and that changes must connect to an audience that is ready to respond. As Gramsci notes,
the supremacy of a social group manifests itself in two
ways, as `domination' and as `intellectual and moral
leadership'. A social group dominates antagonistic
groups, which it tends to `liquidate', or to subjugate
perhaps even by armed force; it leads kindred and
allied groups. A social group can, and indeed must,
already exercise `leadership' [hegemony] before winning
governmental power (this indeed is one of the principal
conditions for the winning of such power); it
subsequently becomes dominant when it exercises power,
but even if it holds it firmly in its grasp,it must
continue to `lead' as well.[8]
Gramsci's notion of hegemony, or rather on how hegemony is procured, is literally restated by the leader of the reactionary Het Vlaams Blok, Filip Dewinter: "The ideological majority is more important than the parliamentary majority, the former actually mostly always precedes the latter [9]. The theft of Gramsci by the Nouvelle Droite becomes especially unseemly in the case of the extreme right wing Flemish organization, Were Di, which finds its inspiration in the views of the Nouvelle Droite for three axiomatic foundations: "hereditary inequality, hierarchic society, elitist organisation [10]. Now I will not overstate my case in claiming that most evidence in any court can be read both ways, that the corruption of notions and concepts has been reevaluated as appropriation or excorporation, but whenever there's a line to be drawn, it is most certainly in this particular moment when Gramsci's painstaking labour is turned against him in all he ever stood for. And in as much as this is a moral stand I plead firmly guilty. Because theoretically there is very little ground upon which to conclude that hegemony is not a poltically neutral concept. There is but one moment in the Quaderni where Gramsci suggests that hegemony can only be understood in relationship with democracy:
Of the many meanings of democracy, the most realistic
and concrete one in my view can be worked out in
relation to the concept of `hegemony'. In the hegemonic
system, there exists democracy between the `leading'
group and the groups that are `led', in so far as the
development of the economy and thus the legislation
which expresses such development favour the (molecular)
passage from the `led' groups to the `leading' groups.
In the Roman Empire there was an imperial territorial
democracy in the concession of citizenship to the
conquered peoples, etc. There could be no democracy
under feudalism, because of the constitution of the
closed groups estates, corporations, etc (56).
But of course this will not stop anti-egalitarian, totalizing users of his ideas as they work within parliamentary democracy towards a dictatorship in which any of these considerations become ineffective and academic. So we are experiencing Ceasarism with "Gramsci" as the discursive battle field, a catastrophic moment where a sound, productive concept "hegemony" is being abandonded by progressive positions and revitalised by reactionary forces. And again it is Gramsci himself who gives us the basic clue from which we have to try to start our understanding of his contemporary position. For his remarks on Machiavelli can now be read as referring to his current position:
The habit has been formed of considering Machiavelii
too much as the man of politics in general, as the
`scientist of politics', relevant in every period [11].
This is exactly what has happened with Gramsci's notion of hegemony in progressive positions, they have overstretched its productive capacity to the extent that its inability to reconcile it with specific historical (contemporary) positions such as a theory of pleasure, a recognition of ethnic or feminist struggles has become to be viewed as a drawback of the original concept, an intrinsic inability that produces `insurmountable' difficulties. But Gramsci of course would have been among the first to recognize that these are genuine critical contemporary problems that have to be taken into account in any reading of our concrete historical scenario, he, unfortunately, was concerned `only' with his specific situation and his specific reading of the mechanisms of the making of Italian fascism. The position that suggests that the problems of reconciling hegemony theory with a theory of pleasure are insurmountable, has not understood Gramsci at all, does not acknowledge the plain fact that contemporary hegemony theory if it wants to be effective would include pleasure and a theory of pleasure as an important contemporary factor and yet another disguise of economic imponderables dressed up as cultural critique. Currently, it seems as if these self-proclaimed progressive positions still hold on to a teleological natural essentialism, trying to find an essence, a particular system, but the system as a whole can be looked upon, muddying the waters to such an extent that this looking upon is mistaken for explaining these mechanisms. And in the meantime, while we were talking, Gramsci has suddenly become an obscure man who died of pneumonia in a prison somehow, somewhere, and hegemony is something that has to do with the way the Nouvelle Droite sees thi ngs, right? Wrong:
Now they were walking down a narrow street, with old
men on wicker chairs, and grandmothers playing with
balloons to amuse their grandchildren. At the end of
the street was suspended another gigantic portrait: a
great domed head, like a beehive of thought, wearing
glasses. That's Gramsci. He put his arm round her
shoulders so that she could lean her head against his
damp flannel shirt. Antonio Gramsci, she said. He
taught us all. You wouldn't mistake for a horse dealer!
he said [12].
---------------------------------------------
NOTES
1. Selections from the Prison Notebooks of Antonio Gramsci, Quintin Hoare, Geoffrey Nowell Smith (ed), Lawrence and Wishart, London, 1971; p.219
2. Tony Bennett, "Marxism and Popular Fiction" In: Popular Fictions, Essays in Literature and History Peter Humm, Paul Stigant & Peter Widdowson (ed.) Methuen, London and New York, 1986; p.263
3. Notes, p. 133
4. Mercer, "Complicit Pleasures", In T. Bennett, Mercer, Popular Culture and Social Relations, Milton Keynes, Open University Press, 1986, p.66.
5. Ibid., p.66
6. Ibid., p. 67
7. Grove Borstels, Stel dat het Vlaams Blok morgen zijn programma realiseert, hoe zou Vlaanderen er dan uitzien?, van Halewijck, 1995.
8. Notes, p.254. A very similar passage in his notebooks reads: "A social group can, and indeed must already `lead' [i.e. be hegemonic] before winning governemental power (this indeed is one of the principal conditions for the winning of such power)". (Notes, p.47).
9. Filip Dewinter in Zwartboek `Progressieve leraars', cited from MarcSpruyt: Grove Borstels, p. 164.
10. Nationalistische Grondslagen, Were Di, 1985, p.3.
11. Notes, p. 140.
12. John Berger in the story "Play Me Something" in his book Once in Europa Granta Books, London, 1991; p.189.
For a look at the American rightwing use of Gramsci, see Charlie Bertsch's Gramsci Rush: Limbaugh on the 'Culture War'
---------------------------------------------
Gramsci, the then thirty five year old leader of the Italian Communist Party and democratically chosen member of parliament was illegally imprisoned on November 8 1926, on the evening of Mussolini's final coup towards total fascist control. He died on April 27 1937, six days after his prison term had officially ended. In these eleven years, under extremely harsh conditions, he wrote 2848 pages. He died as a direct result of medical neglect, and not as De Benoist writes of `pneumonia'. For a clear and biographical and theoretical story of his life and writings see GiuseppeFiori, Vita di Antonio Gramsci, Gius Laterza & figli Spa, Roma, 1966. See also Gramsci and Marxist Theory, Routledge & Kegan Paul, London, 1979.
---------------------------------------------
© Copyrights for contents revert to the authors upon publication. Downloading, copying, and printing of this text for personal use is allowed and encouraged. However, no republication or commercial use in any form is permitted without prior arrangements with the authors.
_______________________________________________ Right-left mailing list Right-left at savanne.ch http://coyote.kein.org/mailman/listinfo/right-left