Neither an intellectual or an ideologue, just a thug.

Yes, Kim, Gramsci’s thought is a many splendid thing, not given to easy explanation, difficult to summarise and, I think, impossible to exhaust. Virtually everything is in Gramsci somewhere (except JH Abott - was he Tone’s dad?).

Two questions for Jack Strocchi:

Gramsci was one of a number of 20th century intellectuals and ideologues who wrote their most famous works in prison. Others include Russell, Hitler, Bonhoeffer, Mandella and JH Abott.

Forgive my lamentable ignorance. Who is/was JH Abott?

And secondly, isn’t your comment reinscribing a (not even slightly inverted a la Engels) idealistic vs. materialist “dialectic”? In other words, you yourself are (vis a vis the “Cultural Wets”) something of a materialist and dare I say economist and you see yourself as such yet not being in the slightest bit aware that your culturalist discourse is pre-eminently idealist and (just quietly) a tad Gramscian?

Would you agree with this proposition?

Shorter Jack Strocchi: “It’s all about the superstructure, culture warriors”…?

I now see cs got there first with the JH Abott wtf?

Rather, it appears that to know more than bugger all is to jerk a few knees, as Chris obviously expected. Shame; it’s a piece worthy of further input.

More than once has an essential revolutionary thought been born of several minds, without clear collusion between them, and this has to be taken into account while invited to entertain the concept Chris has placed.

It’s often as though the nature of the times lived itself forces the issue, from above so to speak, to be taken by certain minds made in part receptive from events below, and given expression - and yet in that very process we are asked to explore more then that collusion need not be so clear for it to exist in some way. Already quoted:..in which he does not, from the beginning, expropriate terms, usually pretty well established, in order to decree entirely new meanings for them, meanings which sometimes vary from work to work, but, in any case, depart from current usage, this could well speak of but one person undergoing this process.

“I must invent my own system”, Blake said more succinctly, “or be enslaved by another man’s”. And that may well speak of why some feel so potently the need to undergo it.

Perhaps indeed Gramsci was the ghost in Keynes’ genius. Scholars I hope do accept Chris’s invitation, and engage in further exploration for perhaps some empirical evidence for how this could be so. Unscholarly, my humble input is to suggest that the unspoken collective process of (to them) unique individual expression to be also valid in the exploration. That is, does the collusion between Gramsci and Keynes have to be clear, empirical? Can the brainiacs here explore the supposition in wider terms?

Why? I reckon it’s terrific a piece has been thoughtfully crafted to challenge historical traditions and provide a new [I trust it’s new] and unique concept.

And this: “Everything possible to be believed is an image of the truth”, offered as it was in conclusion, could well suggest our explorative author, given rightly to the understanding that individual creativity is an act of collectivity or collusion at some level, has not only justified the concept introduced - in his own terms, and fair enough, that it can be introduced - but has sought also to drag revolutionary thoughts from history and combine them as part of that image to write up today a wonderful new one of his own.

Good on you, Chris. I hope it gets a good working through, and is enjoyed for having been placed.

I might, purely for the sake of the argument, allow your interpretation of the so-called ‘New Left” (there are, now, several generations of ‘New Lefts’), but your summary of Gramsci’s thought - like that of many in the many New Lefts - is substantially deficient (I could - and would - argue at length). He was, above all, concerned to analyse the balance of political forces, so called ‘culturalist’ or not, and the relationship between the state and civil society. I dare say we could do with a damn sight more analyses along these lines these days, not less. What, after all, is less than practically zero? Perhaps you might cite which of Nino’s many essays you are referring to. Alternatively, more study recommended.

PS Who is friggin’ JH Abott?

Gramsci’s basic idea was to take on board, by the early thirties, the failure of the revolutionary international socialist (Trotskyite) Left movement. The radical Left was defeated in the First World by democratic labourists (eg Labor parties) and the Second World by dictatorial communists (eg Stalinist Bolsheviks).

Both the Broad Left (intellectual elites and industrial populus) of most nation states were mostly interested in getting their hands on economic power. But focus on money power reduced the overall radical potential of the working and under-classes. In both cases the broad Left was won over by national economistic parties, the labourists focusing on controlling the means of distribution, the communists focusing on owning the means of production.

Gramsci’s conclusion was to focus on “culturalism”, as opposed to economism. This meant that radical intellectuals and ideologues should concentrate on owning and controlling the means of cognition, through the “long march through [cultural] institutions”.

This idea was taken up by the New Left in the aftermath of the 1956 Hungarian revolt and the conservative tendencies of trade unions in the post war era. The discovery of the Young Marx’s cultural philosophy books reinforced this change of political strategy.

The New Left believed that the working class were not to be trusted - to petty bourgeois in their attitudes once their bellies were full. The focus of political agit-prop had to be changed to marginalised members of the underclass - women, coloureds, ethnics, gays.

This strategy was a tremendous success through the period 1965-95. It is only in the past decade that Buckley’s cultural conservatives have clawed back the gains made by Gramsci’s cultural constructives.

In that sense, Gramsci was the intellectual godfather of the (post-modern) Cultural Wets. Its way past time that he be discreetly interred to allow the Left to undergo one of its periodic reconstructive spasms.

Nationalism should be taken seriously notwithstanding Hitler and Mussolini, just as Marxism should be taken seriously notwithstanding Stalin and Pol Pot, and Religion should be taken seriously notwithstanding Jerry Falwell and Osama bin Laden. These ideas created the world we live in.

But if you want to consider moral differences between political ideas consider Christopher Hitchens’ observation that while plenty of communists rejected Communism because it failed to live up to its ideals, no fascist rejected Fascism because it failed to live up to its ideals.

Yes Anna, it is chilling. There is a famous historical irony in all this, which is that only a month before his arrest, Gramsci had taken a stand against Stalin in writing, the letter showing that Nino foresaw the way in which Stalinism would inexorably lead to the liquidation of all opposition. The appalling irony is, as many have noted, that by shutting Nino up and keeping him shut up, in his long death sentence, Mussolini saved him from Stalin, and ultimately saved his ideas for the benefit of the world.

“we must stop this brain from functioning� went the famous words of the fascist prosecutor

What a statement. That sentence has been playing in my head over and over this morning. Such a succinct way to admit you want to kill people for their ideas.

As for the polemic that has arisen in this thread….

To label all who joined, were labeled or attended a communist meeting as evil is a destructive form of intellectual mudslinging. I would not be so quick to dismiss the contribution of Gramsci to the history of philosophy in an extreme reaction against the peversion of Stalinism. There are plenty of people from the 1930s to today who would label themselves as socialists/marxists/communists yet share the level of revulsion of what was done in the name of workers under Stalin - just as many Germans would share a similar revulsion to that which was done by the Nazi’s in the ame of Germany.

So question his ideas but try to be a little more specific and less barbarian in your methodology people.

Homer Adonis, I have no intention of essaying on the other Cambridge cahoots. Joan of course owed her intellectual start on competition theory to Piero, who she loved dearly, and, as is often remarked, died a few days before him. There is an amusing story about how Joan always raved about The Production of Commodities from Commodities, but was never able to convince Piero that she understood it!

Any chance of another thread writing about Sraffa,Robinson and the rest and Keynes.

I missed most of this when I studied at University. I have recently started to read Joan Robinson and have found much to my delight Homer was right.
She is a good writer and by no means a ‘lefty’.

Any chance of a thread showing their contribution and perhaps where they also depart?

Any recomendations on books from any of them as well?

If a person makes their life in the communist movement that is first and foremost how they ought to be remembered. He was the leader of the communist movement and therefore that’s where he made his bed. The rest are footnotes.

For too long we have been beautifying commis. In view of the fact that this ideology brought death to millions of people around the world it shouldn’t be happening and be made just as disdainful as Nazism.

He may not have aware of what was going on in Moscow, although I have my doubts, but we do now.

This is like “Trot” wearing that offensive moniker as though it was a joke. It isn’t a joke and ought to be brought to book over it.

He was also an astonishingly original thinker who is admired for this by those interested in such people across the political spectrum (as an extreme example of a case where his brilliance completely defeated anti-communist prejudice, B A Santamaria regarded him as a genius, and said so frequently in his writing).

Gramsci was arrested when Mussolini extended his ban on opposition parties to the communist party deputies, the list being extended at about 8 pm on 8 November, and Nino being arrested on his way home at 10.30 pm.

The possibility of Gramsci’s release arose in 1932 as a consequence of negotiations between the Vatican and the Kremlin. It was long thought that Stalin vetoed the deal because Nino refused to follow the Stalinist line. More recent research has established that Mussolini intervened personally and rejected the proposal.

I happy to put my hand up as being prejudice against communism, murder, adultery, etal

I think Joe has a point.

only you could write about Keynes and Gramsci.
not Sraffa, Kalecki,Robinson or the other giants at Cambridge but Gramsci!

He wrote about about the indoctination of kids at an early age.

Demonstrating his importance to the commi movement old Joe wanted an exchange of political prisoners with the facists and Godfather Nino was one of the chosen few. So of ocurse his commi leanings have an important determinent on what is written about him.
I’m sorry if you think it doesn’t because it is important!