>>> LeoCasey at aol.com 10/16/00 10:16PM >>
First, on the matter of his espousal of a "totalitarian" party. It is an error of ahistorical interpretation to leave the matter simply there, which Justin does, as if the conception invoked by Gramsci with the use of that term was self-evident to the contemporary reader. The common contemporary usage of totalitarian is a product of the early 1950s, and in particular, of Hannah Arrendt's work by that name. When Gramsci used the term in the "Prison Notebooks," he could not possibly have anticipated the Arrendtian meaning of fascist and Stalinist states and parties.
CB: Here's another illogcial beaut. Gramsci , sitting in a Fascist prison, having been at ground zero from the very beginning of fascism in Italy and the world, "couldn't possibly have anticipated the Arendtian meaning of fascist and Stalinist states and parties."
Duhhhhhhhhhhhh. This guy is a one man anti-logician.
If Gramsci couldn't anticipate Arendt's idea from his experience, evidently Arendt's conception had little to do with the real facts of Fascism in Italy.