>I think that's too simplistic a way to evaluate Gramsci's idea of the party,
>since he had a very keen sense of the complexity of society and the rather
>dynamic role of the party in fighting the war of position against hegemonic
>capitalism. He specifically and vehemently criticized "bureaucratic
>centralism" as disregarding the "initiative and responsibility at the
>bottom" in favor of a "narrow clique which tends to perpetuate its selfish
>priveleges by controlling or even by stifling the birth of oppositional
>forces."("The Modern Prince")
>
>Yes, he did see a counter-hegemonic party as critical in challenging
>capitalist power with strong democratic centralism directing the battle with
>strategic military direction, but I don't think Gramsci's idea of
>philosophical hegemony should be seen as reducing people to the status of
>"sheep" but is merely a way of deeping Marx's idea of the role of ideology
>as the unspoken assumptions that motivate people in their daily unthought
>activities.
>
>Gramsci specifically downplays some special role for intellectuals as master
>thinkers for the movement, but rather sees them as serving a general
>professional role subordinate to the party's general organic goals. All
>actions by humanity have a rational basis that must be cultivated. "There
>is no human activity from which every form of intellectual participation can
>be excluded: homo faber cannot be separated from homo sapiens. Each man,
>finally, outside his professional activity, carries on some form of
>intellectual activity, that is, he is a 'philosopher', an artist, a man of
>taste, he participates in a particular conception of the world, has a
>conscious line of moral conduct, and therefore contributes to sustain a
>conception of the world or to modify it, that is, to bring into being new
>modes of thought."("The Intellectuals")
>
>This is hardly a reduction of the average person to the status of "sheep",
>even if he sees day-to-day activity by party members as subordinate for
>strategic reasons to the democratic will of party as a whole. But Gramsci's
>continual stress on the idea of "organic" decision-making that ties the
>bottom to the top of his military pyramid is a key part of his thinking, I
>believe. It is a rejection of anarchist consensus in action, but is not a
>rejection of the contribution of all party members to decision-making.
I think you will make an _outstanding_ Marxist militant (as both activist & intellectual) as soon as you repudiate lesser-of-two-evilism at home & apply it abroad. :)
Yoshie