Views in brief

Advice for understanding Gramsci

IN HIS response to an article by Todd Chretien ("Would Gramsci be #WithHer?"), Bill Crane argues (in a recent Readers' Views in Brief column) that the reason Gramsci wrote obliquely in prison--substituting, for example, "modern Prince" for "revolutionary party"--was not because he was eluding his fascist censors, but because (and here he is making a case laid out by Peter Thomas) he was low on paper, penning fragmentary thoughts with no access to a library and developing new ideas that required new terminology.

I find some of these arguments unconvincing. I agree that a great deal of the problem of deciphering Gramsci is that he was writing fragmentary notes. Go back and look at your own notes after a meeting, or at Lenin's notes on Philosophy and you'll see what I mean.

However, If Gramsci had no concerns about who was going to read his writing, then why suddenly, once he gets to prison, does he begin using this Aesopian language, and not before? Why not draw parallels with Machiavelli, but then revert back to established Marxist language once he had established the connection? After all, though they are fragmentary notes, he does often write in full sentences, and even lengthy stretches of articulate prose.

In 1920, Gramsci writes: "The fundamental and indispensible condition for attempting any experiment with Soviets is the existence of a cohesive and highly disciplined Communist Party that can coordinate and centralize the whole of the proletariat's revolutionary action in its central executive committee, by means of its nuclei within the factories, unions and cooperatives."

In prison, he writes: "The modern prince must be and cannot but be the proclaimer and organizer of an intellectual and moral reform, which also means creating the terrain for a subsequent development of the national-popular collective will towards the realization of a superior, total form of modern civilization."

Whatever differences can be discerned in the content of what is being said, it's clear that the language of the second one can't simply be put down to Gramsci's interest in Machiavelli.

Why also did Gramsci change the names of well-known revolutionaries like Lenin and Trotsky in the notebooks? This certainly can't be accounted for by the reasons Bill gives. For example, Gramsci writes: "Translatability of scientific and philosophical languages. In 1921: organizational issues. Vilici said, and wrote: 'We have not been able to "translate" our language into the "European" languages.'"

This is a fairly well-disguised reference to Lenin's speech at the third congress of the Communist International, in which he noted that the resolution on the structure of the Communist Parties was "too Russian"--i.e., it was written in such a way that the European delegates would not be able to really grasp its meaning and be able to apply it to their own conditions.

It seems to me, moreover, these sorts of cases, which are all over his notes, can't be explained by Gramsci's desire to reach for new terminology.

Finally, I'd like to offer yet another speculation for why at least some of the notebooks are so oblique. In the notes, there are no direct references to Stalinism or Stalin. On the other hand, there does seem to be critical references to bureacratism that could very easily be interpreted as critiques of Stalinism. For example, he writes:

The prevalence of bureaucratic centralism in the State indicates that the leading group is saturated, that it is turning into a narrow clique which tends to perpetuate its selfish privileges by controlling or even by stifling the birth of oppositional forces--even if these forces are homogeneous with the fundamental dominant interests (e.g. in the ultra-protectionist systems struggling against economic liberalism). In parties which represent socially subaltern classes, the element of stability is necessary to ensure that hegemony will be exercised not by privileged groups but by the progressive elements--organically progressive in relation to other forces which, though related and allied, are heterogeneous and wavering. In any case, it needs to be stressed that the unhealthy manifestations of bureaucratic centralism occurred because of a lack of initiative and responsibility at the bottom, in other words because of the political immaturity of the peripheral forces, even when these were homogeneous with the hegemonic territorial group (phenomenon of Piedmontism in the first decades of Italian unity). The creation of such situations can be extremely damaging and dangerous in international bodies (League of Nations).

I think that the parts in parenthesis are clearly designed to throw an unknowing reader off the scent; that by "League of Nations," Gramsci means "Communist International"; and that he is discussing the rise of bureaucratism inside the Russian Communist Party rather than "the ultra-protectionist systems of struggling against economic liberalism" or "Peidmontism."

If I had to come up with an answer here, I would say that it is very likely that he is being evasive about his subject because his wife and child at this time were living in Russia, and he would have been concerned for their safety.

We will likely never know the complete answer as to why Gramsci wrote the notes the way he did, and I don't think that we can say that Thomas' explanation is definitive.
Paul D'Amato, Chicago

Admiration for the Standing Rock struggle

REGARDING "STANDING up at Standing Rock": I have nothing but respect and admiration for the First Nations folk who not only believe that nature and all its gifts are equal to man, but also take on the responsibility to all our grandchildren and those yet to be born to protect our Mother and all the Creator's gifts for their future.

At present, the world is crumbling at the hands of fossil-fuel corporations and greedy self-serving governments. We need to convince the energy corporations that building a solar or wind generation plant and hiring laid off fossil-fuel workers will guarantee that our future will be cleaner and safer for all our grandchildren. Should any CEO of these fossil fuel corporations turn one quarterly profits into a solar/wind plant, the experience of doing so will allow him/her an opportunity to know how it feels to give and do the right thing.

To the First Nation folk: Keep handing out the eagle feather to those entering your sovereign territory and know you are pleasing the Creator with your actions.
Ron Teska, Belleville, W.V.