Gramsci's Political Thought (Historical Materialism Book)
criticised. In one July 1916 article, he said: All or nothing, we used to say. And the war proved us right. All or nothing must be our programme for tomorrow. A strike of the club, not a patient and methodical weakening. The irresistible phalanx, not a fight put up by moles in fetid trenches.22 21. This is one of the many points on which the ideological formation of the young Gramsci and that of Lukács are similar. Lukács himself, in a 1967 interview, considered it positive to have been
Popular Manual [by Bukharin] is completely mistaken . . . [I]t seems that Loria was the first person who arbitrarily . . . put the expression ‘technical instrument’ in the place of ‘material forces of production’ or ‘complex of social relations.’33 Thus we can see that Gramsci identified the economic structure with the ‘complex of social relations’, that is, the totality. But, distancing himself from Hegel and, once again, following in the footsteps of Marx, Gramsci’s dialectic is not idealist,
struggle of renewal.28 Based on the theory of the extended state, Gramsci did not hesitate to draw the political consequences of such a replacement: It is one of the cases in which these groups have the function of ‘domination’ without that of ‘leadership’: dictatorship without hegemony. The hegemony will be exercised by a part of the social group over the entire group, and not by the latter over other forces in order to give power to the movement, radicalise it, etc. on the ‘Jacobin’ model.29
4. G. Lukács provides an excellent analysis of German neo-Hegelianism (Lukács 1980, Chapter Five). 4 • Chapter One is part of a movement for cultural restoration that follows ideologically the romantic reaction. The anti-positivist polemics for the sake of ‘the dignity of the spirit’ were part of political concerns that had their source in the great fear provoked by the Paris Commune and by the growth of the socialist movement. . . . This led to the abandonment of certain conquests of
demonstrated in the course of the French Revolution, after the triumph of the Thermidorian reaction over the Jacobins. Moreover, this radical contrast between individual and general will led Rousseau to pay insufficient attention, to put it mildly, to the conditions of pluralism in modern society. Rousseau, as we know, categorically criticised the presence of private associations within legitimate society: he supposed that such associations, while creating their own ‘general’ will (or, to be 8.