New York Review of BooksVolume 21, Number 5 April 4, 1974ReviewThe re!" r!ms#iB$ %& '& (obsb!wmSelections from the Prison Notebooks of Antonio Gramsciedited and translated by Quintin Hoare, by Geoffrey Nowell SmithInternational Publishers, 483 !, "4!#$ %aer&Letters from Prisonby Antonio Gramsci, selected, translated, and introduced by 'ynne 'awnerHarer ( )ow, #*$ !, "+,!,,)Antonio Gramsci, robably the most ori-inal communist thin.er roduced in the twentieth/century 0est, has until recently been 1irtually inaccessible to non/Italians, and not 1ery accessible e1en to Italians!2+3 Anyone who reads only 4n-lish has hitherto had to rely chiefly on some fran.ly inade5uate te6tual selections, on the usual scatterin-s of articles in left/win- 7ournals, and, more than anythin- else, on 8ohn 9! :ammett;s most useful boo. of +he situation is now radically chan-ed with the ublication of Giusee ?iori;s ioneer bio-rahy233 and, abo1e all, with the e6emlary edition of a selection from the Prison Notebooks by Quintin Hoare and Geoffrey Nowell Smith! 0e can now see Gramsci as a man rather than as a shadow! @ut, as he himself would ha1e obser1ed, men can only be understood in and throu-h their olitics!0hen Gramsci died in +his made ossible his osthumous career as a 9ar6ist theoretician, for thou-h the -uardians of orthodo6y were susiciousAhe did not recei1e an official )ussian imrimatur until +o-liatti& and to his ersonal friends!Gramsci;s martyrdom is rele1ant to his subse5uent fame, for it was the Letters from Jail, first ublished in an incomlete edition in +he Party emer-ed leadin- a new Bhistoric blocB283 in ost/fascist Italy, where caitalist ower, thou-h shored u by the ES, seemed unstable or e1en ro1isional and temorary! Not least, the :P established an imressi1e osition of leadershi in Italian intellectual and cultural life! >he new Risorgimento of the +he critical in1esti-ation of Gramsci;s olitical career is erhas less imortant than the e1aluation of his ideas! >his is a rather esoteric acti1ity, -i1en the fra-mentary nature of the writin-s and their hi-hly abstract and not always consistent terminolo-y, desi-ned artly for his own uroses, artly to fool the fascist 7ailers! 0hen Gramsci writes about secific olitical issues which a contemorary Italian communist mi-ht reco-niCe, intelli-ent -uesswor. hels, thou-h it is difficult enou-h to follow a coo.in- recie e6ressed entirely in -eneral chemical rinciles e1en if one .nows that it is suosed to tell us how to ma.e iCCa! Dn the other hand, it is not always clear when Gramsci;s -eneralities conceal concrete references, when they do not, when they are both secific and -eneral, and to what e6actly they may refer! >he editors of the Prison Notebooks ha1e done a slendid 7ob of clarification, but ha1e not eliminated all difficulties!>wo thin-s are ne1ertheless clear about Gramsci;s thou-ht! ?irstAand to the sorrow of forei-n readers unfamiliar with his intellectual contentAGramsci;s ideolo-ical bac.-round is that of the dominant Italian hilosohy of the eriod, the He-elianism of the Neaolitan school, and esecially @enedetto :roce! >he noteboo.s are in one sense a lon-, half/rebellious, half/admirin- dialo-ue with this intellectual father/fi-ure! Gramsci;s ideolo-ical road from the simle anticolonialist Sardinianism of the star1in- hunchbac.ed schoolboy to 9ar6ism is not fully clear e1en from ?iori;s e6cellent and athbrea.in- bio-rahy! Still, it seems clear that it owed little to the orthodo6ies of re/+urin! Gramsci combined, as no other Italian 9ar6ist did, the caacity to -eneraliCe both from the secific e6erience of the easantry %there is no better -uide to the social history of Brimiti1e rebellionB& and that of industrial roletarians, whose factory or-aniCation he made into the .eystone of an Italian so1iet strate-y! >he Dctober )e1olution reciitated this ideolo-ical mi6ture! Dne mi-ht almost say that he finally came to 9ar6 1ia 'enin, thus by/assin- the normal intellectual ro-ress of most contemorary 9ar6ists! Since his interests were also those of a humanist academicAhe entered 3olitics as a hilosoher/7ournalist, critic, and teacherAhe also by/assed the hase of socio/economic analysis on which so many other 9ar6ists cut their teeth!2++3 His re1olutionism led him directly to hilosohy and olitics! Suitably enou-h his code name for 9ar6ism in the noteboo.s is Bthe hilosohy of ra6is!BHowe1er, what distin-uished Gramsci from other intellectual communists who came to 9ar6ism in a similarly unorthodo6 manner, such as 'u.Ics and Horsch, was that he became and remained rimarily a political and not a rofessorial fi-ure! He was the academic who actually abandoned his studies before -raduation to turn himself into a rofessional re1olutionary! He was, e1en for the +he critics of the >o-liattist 1ersion of Gramscian theory ha1e therefore in -eneral ta.en one of three lines! Some ha1e attemted to rehabilitate a syndicalist Gramsci, chamion of wor.ers; control, a-ainst bolshe1ism! >his interretation, oular amon- anti/Stalinists after +his is the aroach of 'ouis Althusser, whose resect for Bthis enormously delicate and subtle wor. of -eniusB and an6iety to use some Gramscian concets for his own uroses ma.e his criticism both acute and courteous!2+33 >here is some force in the accusation that Gramsci remains e6cessi1ely :rocean/He-elian, but the ar-ument of the third and most e6treme school of critics, which flatly denies that he was a 9ar6ist or 'eninist at all, seems fairly ointless!2+43 ))0e need not send much time on Gramsci;s hilosohical 1iews, in site of their considerable interest, because as a hilosoher he does not stand alone! Indeed, he forms art of that curiously assorted re1olutionary Bnew leftB of +he intensi1e discussion of the structure, or-aniCation, and leadershi of socialist mo1ements which de1eloed under the Second International was about ractical 5uestions! Its theoretical -eneraliCations were incidental, e6cet erhas in the 1irtually 1ir-in field of Bthe national 5uestionB where the absence or unsuitability of the classic te6ts made a fundamental analysis indisensable!@y and lar-e, 9ar6ists tended to ta.e the -eneral framewor. of olitics %includin- that of their own or-aniCations& for -ranted in rere1olutionary eriods, and to discuss concrete 5uestions of or-aniCation, strate-y, tactics, etc!, as they arose, within this acceted framewor.! 41idently, as witness 'enin, this did not e6clude considerable and rofound theoretical inno1ations! Ket these were, arado6ically, ra-matic rather than theoretical, thou-h underinned with 9ar6ist analysis! It is surrisin- how little 9ar6ist theory entered into the famous debate on 'enin;s new concet of the arty in the early +hose who disa-reed with 'enin also reached bac. directly to socio/economic analysis! @eyond this, their ob7ections were ta.en from historical e6erience %e!-!, of 8acobins or @lan5uists& or consisted of commonsense obser1ations about democracy, dictatorshi, the dan-ers of the Bcult of ersonalityB %a hrase re1i1ed in the +his does not ma.e them less ersuasi1e! >he oint is that a 9ar6ist theory of olitics remained at best imlicit in this debate! >he nearest aroach to it may be found in the olemic about whether Bsocialist consciousnessB de1eloed sontaneously within the roletariat or had to be introduced into it by intellectuals! @ut e1en this was little more than a series of summary assertions and counterassertions bac.ed by suitable citations from 9ar6, Hauts.y, and, with 'enin, Sidney and @eatrice 0ebb!So lon- as the 1ictorious roletariat re1olution remained somewhere in the unredictable future, but ne1ertheless aeared historically Bine1itable,B 9ar6ists could robably mana-e without an e6licit olitical theory, i!e!, without systematic thou-ht about the relations between BbaseB and Bsuerstructure!B It could be ta.en for -ranted that de1eloments in the economic base would necessarily brin- about the Be6roriation of the e6roriators,B and that this would conse5uently roduce suitable chan-es in the suerstructure!>he roletarian re1olution did remain hyothetical until +he simultaneous collase in +he Italian intellectuals lac.ed a national/oular character, but were cosmoolitan, accordin- to the model of the :hurch! 'eonardo did not mind sellin- the lans of the ?lorentine fortifications to Gu.e Lalentino! Hence the :ommunes were a syndicalist state, which failed to de1elo beyond this hase into an inte-ral State! 9achia1elli ointed this out, but in 1ain! 0hat he roosed was that the city should or-aniCe its he-emony o1er the =countryside by means of the or-aniCation of a %oular& army! Hence he may be described as the first Italian 8acobinJ! 2Lettere, +hese are not a searate social cate-ory, sin-ular or lural %thou-h in some societies they may well form one&, or a secial elite of the intellect, but rather a functional secialiCation of society!2+83 >he intellectuals are the dominant -rou;s BdeutiesB e6ercisin- the social functions of he-emony and olitical -o1ernment %Notebooks, ! +#&! >wo oints are to be noted here! >he 5uestion is not en1isa-ed in institutional terms %thou-h Bthe roblem 2of bureaucracy3 artly coincides with that of intellectualsB 2Notebooks, ! +8=3&, and it is assumed that urely e6ecuti1e functions are subsumed under those of direction or orientation %Ban already e6istin- army is destroyed if it loses its -enerals, while the e6istence of a united -rou of -eneralsJsoon creates an army e1en where none e6istsB 2Notebooks, ! +$33&! >he distinction between rulers and ruled, leaders and led, at least in class societies, is also crucial to Gramsci;s thou-ht! It e6ists e1en in Bsocially homo-eneousB -rous!Dn the other hand Gramsci;s much/elaborated distinction between BtraditionalB and Bor-anicB intellectuals is of more mar-inal interest! It is historically true, and olitically rele1ant insofar as it stresses the crucial oint that if a class is to be he-emonic it cannot rely merely on intellectuals sur1i1in- from re1ious social orders or reresentin- ermanent secialiCations %e!-!, clerics or academics&, but must de1elo its own Bor-anicB cultural and intellectual cadresM and if it is he-emonic, it will do so!2+he contrast between or-anic and traditional intellectuals is no lon-er of -reat imortance in de1eloed countriesF who cares whether Hissin-er or 9acNamara is one or the otherO >he distinctions which ob1iously do e6ist amon- the intellectuals of bour-eois society today do not deri1e from the Gramscian duality! ?inally, the *roosition that the or-aniCed wor.in- class mo1ement is the only way for the roletariat to -enerate or-anic intellectuals before the re1olution does not, alas, imly the automatic or ermanent identity of class and arty or of ori-inally or-anic intellectuals with either! Df course Gramsci does not imly this, as his realistic discussion of bureaucracy shows! In any case he would ha1e been the last to belie1e in historic automatism of any .ind! Ket it cannot be said that e1en his own chamionshi of BdemocraticB a-ainst BbureaucraticB centralism %Notebooks, ! +8$/+he ractical ob7ect of Gramsci;s theoretical labors was twofold! In the first lace it was, e1idently, 1ictory! If a sin-le metahor dominates his olitical writin-s it is that of warfare, and thou-h the distinction between military and olitical combat is constantly resent, the e6tent to which e1en strictly military e6erience is ransac.ed for ossible olitical lessons is stri.in-! >he rele1ance of the e5uilibrium between state and Bci1il societyB is that it throws li-ht on the nature of that Bositional warfareB o1er a rotracted eriod which characteriCed the stru--le after the failure of the Dctober )e1olution to sread in the 0est! %He notes the di1er-ence of de1eloments in bac.ward and colonial countries, but says little about these!& Hence, incidentally, his ersistent criticism of >rots.y, whom he saw as Bthe olitical theorist of frontal attac. in a eriod in which it only leads to defeatsB %Notebooks, ! #33&, thou-h he admired him as a man and symathiCed with his criti5ue of Stalinist bureaucratiCation!2#,3 Gramsci does not seem 5uite to ha1e made u his mind about such eriods of Bositional warfare!B Dn the one hand they mi-ht once a-ain, -i1en suitable conditions, -i1e way to the warfare of maneu1er and frontal attac.! Dn the other hand %and here the analo-y of 0orld 0ar I was erhas ressed too far&, it mi-ht be the decisi1e form of combat, immediately rearin- 1ictory! At one moment he seems to ha1e thou-ht that the re1olutionary crisis of +he stru--le for he-emony therefore remains crucial, all the more so because the olitical stru--le, unli.e war, is not concluded with the mere defeat of the oosin- army, i!e!, the seiCure of ower!0arfare re5uires armies, and insofar as Gramsci;s theory is the oerational rearation for re1olution, the nature and or-aniCation of that army %the Party& reoccuy him! Here the cru6 of the roblem lies not in formal or-aniCationAGramsci is a 'eninistAbut in the nature of the relation between arty and wor.in- class! >he stress on the Bor-anicityB of this relation reflects a criti5ue not only of ast Italian mass arties but of 1oluntarist insurrectionaries and sectarian communists! B0hen one analyses the Italian olitical arties one can see that they ha1e always been arties of ;1olunteers; and in a certain sense of dclasssJ2>hey3 were not really mass arties at allJbut the 8olitical e5ui1alent of -ysy bands and nomadsB %Notebooks, ! #,3/#,4&, and hence they were defeated by the bour-eoisie, whose arties had an or-anic connection with their social base!>he aoliticism and assi1ity of the Italian masses, the ready a1ailability of acti1ists from amon- the dissatisfied intellectuals and the mar-inal oor, encoura-ed this de1eloment! Incidentally, it left the labor mo1ement itself oen to the temtations of an BeconomismB and a BsyndicalismB which actually eretuated its subalternity, whether in a reformist or a utoian dis-uise %cf! Notebooks, ! +=,/+=+&! >he Party must not only lead, teach, and BreresentB the class, but must be based on its mobiliCed acti1ity as a class, the basis of which is the factory or-aniCation on which Gramsci laid such stress in his >urin eriod!>he second of Gramsci;s olitical ob7ects is less easily described!BLictory,B howe1er comle6 the stru--le for it, can be isolated and defined! Howe1er, the fi-ht for he-emony and the acti1ities of the Party are not merely instrumental! 41en before 1ictory they con1ert a subaltern class into a otentially or actually he-emonic one, and in doin- so already establish the nature of the 1ictorious new society! >here is here a continuity between ast and future, means and ends! And unli.e many other socialists, GramsciAtrue to his antideterminismAne1er concei1es the ends as the automatic by/roduct of the socialiCation of the means of roduction! Df course he ta.es the economic asects of socialism for -ranted as the necessary base for the new society, but insofar as he discusses themAwhich is hardly at allAhe does so chiefly in connection with the de1eloment of the consciousness and articiation of the roletariat!2##3 >he cru6 of the socialist re1olution is that it enables man to free himself from the domination of the economic base, Bthe assa-e from ;ob7ecti1e to sub7ecti1eB; andJfrom Bnecessity to freedom!B Structure ceases to be an e6ternal force which crushes man, assimilates him to itself and ma.es him assi1eM and is transformed into a means of freedom, an instrument to create an ethico/olitical form and a source of new initiati1es! 2Notebooks, ! 3==/3=*3>he road to this freedom is throu-h olitical action, since it is throu-h such action, in the widest sense, that man escaes from the forces which constrain him! Here, incidentally, lies the si-nificance of Gramsci;s distinction between the Beconomic/cororati1eB and the hi-her forms of arty or-aniCation e1en in resocialist societies, and of his insistence on the intellectual nature of olitics, which -i1es intellectuals a .ey function within them!In the olitical arty the elements of an economic social -rou -et beyond 2the economic/cororate3 moment of their historical de1eloment and become a-ents of more -eneral acti1ities of a national and international character! 2Notebooks, ! +=3:lasses that fail to ad1ance beyond the Beconomic/cororati1eB or-aniCation, li.e the medie1al Italian communal bour-eoisie or the BeconomistB labor mo1ements, fail to achie1e he-emony, i!e!, to create ci1il society!Politics is thus the core of praxis, which is not an alternati1e to hilosohy %9ar6;s thesis does not as. hilosohers to sto interretin- the world and to write manifestoes instead&, but which is hilosohy! And the other way round! Pra6is is olitics because it is within the scoe of conscious action to Btransform men and ma.e them different from what they were before!B2#33 :onscious action oerates in the framewor. outlined in 9ar6;s famous Preface! @ut 9ar6;s hrase about humanity settin- itself only such tas.s as it can sol1e imlies the autonomy of oliticsFPolitics becomes ermanent action and -i1es rise to ermanent or-aniCations recisely in so far as it identifies itself with economics! @ut it is also distinct from it, which is why one may sea.Jof Bolitical assionB as of an immediate imulse to action which is born on