What do you think?
Rate this book
Selections From The Prison Notebooks
Antonio Gramsci (1891-1937) is widely celebrated as the most original political thinker in Western Marxism and an all-around outstanding intellectual figure. Arrested and imprisoned by the Italian Fascist regime in 1926, Gramsci died before fully regaining his freedom. Nevertheless, in his prison notebooks, he recorded thousands of brilliant reflections on an extraordinary range of subjects, establishing an enduring intellectual legacy.
Columbia University Press's multivolume Prison Notebooks is the only complete critical edition of Antonio Gramsci's seminal writings in English. The notebooks' integral text gives readers direct access not only to Gramsci's influential ideas but also to the intellectual workshop where those ideas were forged. Extensive notes guide readers through Gramsci's extraordinary series of reflections on an encyclopedic range of topics. Volume 3 contains notebooks 6, 7, and 8, in which Gramsci develops his concepts of hegemony, civil society, and the state; reflects extensively on the Renaissance, the Reformation, and Machiavelli's political philosophy; and offers a trenchant critique of the cultural and political practices of fascism. A detailed analysis of positivism and idealism brings Gramsci's philosophy of praxis and conception of historical materialism into sharp relief. Also included are the author's extensive observations on articles and books read during his imprisonment.
Columbia University Press's multivolume Prison Notebooks is the only complete critical edition of Antonio Gramsci's seminal writings in English. The notebooks' integral text gives readers direct access not only to Gramsci's influential ideas but also to the intellectual workshop where those ideas were forged. Extensive notes guide readers through Gramsci's extraordinary series of reflections on an encyclopedic range of topics. Volume 3 contains notebooks 6, 7, and 8, in which Gramsci develops his concepts of hegemony, civil society, and the state; reflects extensively on the Renaissance, the Reformation, and Machiavelli's political philosophy; and offers a trenchant critique of the cultural and political practices of fascism. A detailed analysis of positivism and idealism brings Gramsci's philosophy of praxis and conception of historical materialism into sharp relief. Also included are the author's extensive observations on articles and books read during his imprisonment.
483 pages, Paperback
First published January 1, 1947
404 people are currently reading
18921 people want to read
About the author
Antonio Gramsci
562 books981 followersAntonio Francesco Gramsci was an Italian Marxist philosopher, linguist, journalist, writer, and politician. He wrote on philosophy, political theory, sociology, history, and linguistics. He was a founding member and one-time leader of the Italian Communist Party. A vocal critic of Benito Mussolini and fascism, he was imprisoned in 1926, where he remained until his death in 1937.
During his imprisonment, Gramsci wrote more than 30 notebooks and 3,000 pages of history and analysis. His Prison Notebooks are considered a highly original contribution to 20th-century political theory. Gramsci drew insights from varying sources — not only other Marxists but also thinkers such as Niccolò Machiavelli, Vilfredo Pareto, Georges Sorel, and Benedetto Croce. The notebooks cover a wide range of topics, including the history of Italy and Italian nationalism, the French Revolution, fascism, Taylorism and Fordism, civil society, the state, historical materialism, folklore, religion, and high and popular culture.
Gramsci is best known for his theory of cultural hegemony, which describes how the state and ruling capitalist class — the bourgeoisie — use cultural institutions to maintain wealth and power in capitalist societies. In Gramsci's view, the bourgeoisie develops a hegemonic culture using ideology rather than violence, economic force, or coercion. He also attempted to break from the economic determinism of orthodox Marxist thought, and so is sometimes described as a neo-Marxist. He held a humanistic understanding of Marxism, seeing it as a philosophy of praxis and an absolute historicism that transcends traditional materialism and traditional idealism.
During his imprisonment, Gramsci wrote more than 30 notebooks and 3,000 pages of history and analysis. His Prison Notebooks are considered a highly original contribution to 20th-century political theory. Gramsci drew insights from varying sources — not only other Marxists but also thinkers such as Niccolò Machiavelli, Vilfredo Pareto, Georges Sorel, and Benedetto Croce. The notebooks cover a wide range of topics, including the history of Italy and Italian nationalism, the French Revolution, fascism, Taylorism and Fordism, civil society, the state, historical materialism, folklore, religion, and high and popular culture.
Gramsci is best known for his theory of cultural hegemony, which describes how the state and ruling capitalist class — the bourgeoisie — use cultural institutions to maintain wealth and power in capitalist societies. In Gramsci's view, the bourgeoisie develops a hegemonic culture using ideology rather than violence, economic force, or coercion. He also attempted to break from the economic determinism of orthodox Marxist thought, and so is sometimes described as a neo-Marxist. He held a humanistic understanding of Marxism, seeing it as a philosophy of praxis and an absolute historicism that transcends traditional materialism and traditional idealism.
Ratings & Reviews
Friends & Following
Create a free account to discover what your friends think of this book!
Community Reviews
Displaying 1 - 30 of 124 reviews
December 2, 2016
this is a very pleasant book. it helps a lot if you read it while writing job applications. of course it also makes you want to go to prison but let's stop here.
September 9, 2020
Without writing a book on this book (and believe me, I'm tempted) I'm going to try to keep this simple.
However, this classic working-Marxist text is anything but simple.
The first more-than-half of it has enough variations on political principles to make an Ism out of Isms, going into vast detail about enough 1910-1930 Italian politics INCLUDING the rise of Mussolini, post-revolution Russia political movements, and even some French.
As for me, I know enough history to be slightly dangerous, but trying to follow THIS Trotskian/Italian Fascism/polemical nightmare without having BEEN there and STEEPED in the times makes me realize that I am out of my depth. Slightly. BUT these Selections from the Prison Notebooks come with a pretty awesome bonus.
It has commentary. Whew!!!
Getting something out of the almost Naturalist descriptions, all the play-by-play political dealings of all these countries as they undergo a Marxist transformation, is more of a matter of letting the IDEAS sink in rather than hearing a formal statement. Indeed, the text is full of short maxims that felt more like reading Nietzsche than anything resembling a Social Science.
However, for me at least, none of THAT was as impressive or thought-provoking as what came in the second half of his writings.
The rest is philosophy. Fine philosophy that tries to drag the study of massive social movements out of the realm of art and into the realm of science. I swear, he was probably trying to pull a Wittgenstein on his logic, but really, I know he was just pulling a Hegelian argument.
Here's the weird thing about Gramsci: most of the later Marxist thinkers love the hell out of him, but first they had to pour over his overly complicated text to root out those rare nuggets of wisdom like pigs hunting for truffles. There is nothing overly clear about anything he has written.
Almost ALL of my understanding of Gramsci comes from the (much) later commentaries.
Some exceptions exist, however.
I got the clear impression that Common Sense, in the parlance that he uses it, is the core of any nascent or growing political theory. But Common Sense, as he uses it, is often very uncommon and is almost ALWAYS used to drive the unthinking masses into positions that may not (or likely probably not) be in their best interests. It's the idea that if you want to drive the people to do what you want, then first you must convince them that YOUR ideas are simple Common Sense whether or not it has anything to do with whether it BENEFITS them or not.
A common modern example is using any or all of the moral foundations See Here to whip a people into a frenzy (Pro-Life, for example,) and use this as a COMPLETE platform to push through a wide set of policies that will probably drain the constituents of all their self-respect, drive them to perform horrendous acts of racism, or even steal their money -- but it's perfectly valid because at least the prime tenet of (Pro-Life) is kept sacrosanct.
As Gramsci would put it, you must never get so intellectual that you lose the heart of the argument, and never be so emotionally riled up that you lose the core intellectual awesomeness. In other words, you always need to find that sweet spot and change tactics for your audience. (Gramsci was never so straightforward, however. We get our modern concepts of this from him, distilled over time and use.)
Another great (or disturbing) feature of Gramsci is the full, detailed descriptions of how Fascism came to its rise in Italy. How it could convince so many people to dehumanize and create enemies out of the other side.
It is a slow, painstaking process, but please refer to the Moral Foundations Theory I linked to above and couple it with massive, massive repetitions. This is the core of changing the basic Common Sense of a people. If you change the dialogue, if you change the fundamental NARRATIVE, then you can drive people to believe and do ANYTHING.
As people in Italy used to say, "Eh, I hate fascism, but at least they got the trains to run on time."
LET'S NOT TAKE THIS AS A GREAT EXAMPLE, EH?
After all, a little intelligence can get any train to run on time. It doesn't take fascism to do anything except have a whole people eat itself.
All in all, this is some pretty interesting food for thought. And trust me, I barely scratched the surface. I hope I piqued your interest, however.
If we don't know our history, we will always be doomed to repeat it.
However, this classic working-Marxist text is anything but simple.
The first more-than-half of it has enough variations on political principles to make an Ism out of Isms, going into vast detail about enough 1910-1930 Italian politics INCLUDING the rise of Mussolini, post-revolution Russia political movements, and even some French.
As for me, I know enough history to be slightly dangerous, but trying to follow THIS Trotskian/Italian Fascism/polemical nightmare without having BEEN there and STEEPED in the times makes me realize that I am out of my depth. Slightly. BUT these Selections from the Prison Notebooks come with a pretty awesome bonus.
It has commentary. Whew!!!
Getting something out of the almost Naturalist descriptions, all the play-by-play political dealings of all these countries as they undergo a Marxist transformation, is more of a matter of letting the IDEAS sink in rather than hearing a formal statement. Indeed, the text is full of short maxims that felt more like reading Nietzsche than anything resembling a Social Science.
However, for me at least, none of THAT was as impressive or thought-provoking as what came in the second half of his writings.
The rest is philosophy. Fine philosophy that tries to drag the study of massive social movements out of the realm of art and into the realm of science. I swear, he was probably trying to pull a Wittgenstein on his logic, but really, I know he was just pulling a Hegelian argument.
Here's the weird thing about Gramsci: most of the later Marxist thinkers love the hell out of him, but first they had to pour over his overly complicated text to root out those rare nuggets of wisdom like pigs hunting for truffles. There is nothing overly clear about anything he has written.
Almost ALL of my understanding of Gramsci comes from the (much) later commentaries.
Some exceptions exist, however.
I got the clear impression that Common Sense, in the parlance that he uses it, is the core of any nascent or growing political theory. But Common Sense, as he uses it, is often very uncommon and is almost ALWAYS used to drive the unthinking masses into positions that may not (or likely probably not) be in their best interests. It's the idea that if you want to drive the people to do what you want, then first you must convince them that YOUR ideas are simple Common Sense whether or not it has anything to do with whether it BENEFITS them or not.
A common modern example is using any or all of the moral foundations See Here to whip a people into a frenzy (Pro-Life, for example,) and use this as a COMPLETE platform to push through a wide set of policies that will probably drain the constituents of all their self-respect, drive them to perform horrendous acts of racism, or even steal their money -- but it's perfectly valid because at least the prime tenet of (Pro-Life) is kept sacrosanct.
As Gramsci would put it, you must never get so intellectual that you lose the heart of the argument, and never be so emotionally riled up that you lose the core intellectual awesomeness. In other words, you always need to find that sweet spot and change tactics for your audience. (Gramsci was never so straightforward, however. We get our modern concepts of this from him, distilled over time and use.)
Another great (or disturbing) feature of Gramsci is the full, detailed descriptions of how Fascism came to its rise in Italy. How it could convince so many people to dehumanize and create enemies out of the other side.
It is a slow, painstaking process, but please refer to the Moral Foundations Theory I linked to above and couple it with massive, massive repetitions. This is the core of changing the basic Common Sense of a people. If you change the dialogue, if you change the fundamental NARRATIVE, then you can drive people to believe and do ANYTHING.
As people in Italy used to say, "Eh, I hate fascism, but at least they got the trains to run on time."
LET'S NOT TAKE THIS AS A GREAT EXAMPLE, EH?
After all, a little intelligence can get any train to run on time. It doesn't take fascism to do anything except have a whole people eat itself.
All in all, this is some pretty interesting food for thought. And trust me, I barely scratched the surface. I hope I piqued your interest, however.
If we don't know our history, we will always be doomed to repeat it.
Read
June 6, 2011What's strange about Gramsci is the way he works within a very Marxist-theory framework (discussion of whether or not Americanism can constitute a historical epoch, for instance) but whole huge sections of work draw conclusions about the nature of fascism and Italian history are by no means explicitly Marxist. I suppose that's what's so appealing about all the more liberatory, less orthodox, less deterministic Marxist thinkers.
The cultural turn is wonderful, and his criticism of "common sense" is just as forceful today as it was then. Hegemony, intersubjectivity, these are all fascinating topics, and it's easy to see how Gramsci's writing became the seedbed of cultural studies.
I must say though, he's very fixed in his time period, especially when he talks about the shocking immorality of the rich. Oh, the horrors of the wealthy sodomite!
He's also-- and I can't tell if this is humility or just laziness-- happy to posit questions without providing answers. But I think that's OK. We read Gramsci, and we see the birth of Western Marxism. For followers of Negri, Adorno, Benjamin, Lukács, Castoriadis, Marcuse, Althusser, Jameson, you're all on board with this dude, no?
The cultural turn is wonderful, and his criticism of "common sense" is just as forceful today as it was then. Hegemony, intersubjectivity, these are all fascinating topics, and it's easy to see how Gramsci's writing became the seedbed of cultural studies.
I must say though, he's very fixed in his time period, especially when he talks about the shocking immorality of the rich. Oh, the horrors of the wealthy sodomite!
He's also-- and I can't tell if this is humility or just laziness-- happy to posit questions without providing answers. But I think that's OK. We read Gramsci, and we see the birth of Western Marxism. For followers of Negri, Adorno, Benjamin, Lukács, Castoriadis, Marcuse, Althusser, Jameson, you're all on board with this dude, no?
May 13, 2023
Prison Notebooks is a rather fragmentary collection of notes that Antonio Gramsci wrote while the Mussolini regime locked him up in an Italian prison for 20 years. Gramsci would never see freedom again - he died in prison in 1937 - and was isolated most of the time (both in terms of visits by people as in terms of information access). Still, he was able to write hundreds and hundreds of pages of critique, commentary, etc. relating to events taking place in the world prior to him ending up in jail and on general (marxist) theories.
The problem with Gramsci is that many of his notes contradict earlier notes and many of his ideas are vague, open-ended and obscure (on purpose: to cicrumvent the fascist prison censorship). This makes it very hard to spot clear and distinct ideas. Nevertheless, this approach also allows for insightful comparative analyses and viewing Gramsci's ideas from various perspectives (e.g. one could argue that the modern 'right wing' has learned a thing or two from Gramsci).
Still, it is possible to distill a certain theoretical approach which characterizes Gramsci's thoughts on politics, history and culture.
The first important concept in Prison Notebooks is the infamous base-superstructure distinction of society. Society is founded in social relations (i.e. relations determined by economic production) in reality. Built on top of this foundation are society's superstructures: its institutions that originate in and promulgate the particular social relationships. So, a capitalist system of production will produce capitalist superstructures which in one sense resemble the system and in another sense help to keep the system functioning effectively. For example, institutions which regulate sexual behaviour (marriage) or those which sustain productive labour (trade unions) are all part of the superstructure. (This by the way also explains Gramsci's rejection of trade unions as solutions to the capitalistic contradictations.)
Another concept of Gramsci's - and one related to the above mentioned distinction - is the triad of civil society, the State and 'war of position'. Civil society is the mediator between the State and economic production. This relation is very important since Gramsci distinguishes the term 'hegemony' from 'authority'. The State in and of itself is nothing but the power of coercion and in this form will never be able sustain the current structure of economic production: it needs moral and ideological leadership and those can only come from intellectuals within society and the public sphere.
In setting up his theories in this way, Gramsci is able to overcome a fundamental problem of Marxism: the problem of acquiring power to overthrow the current system and build a new one (i.e. revolution). Gramsci recognizes the problem of this 'frontal attack' approach - any violent coup or revolution (as well as any reform, by the way) plays itself out *within* the current system and thus will be absorbed *by* the system. The end result will most times be utter failure to accomplish any preconceived set of goals, and at most it will cancel a few contradictions and create new ones in its turn. In other words: a violent attack on the State and the subsequent grab of State power mostly won't change anything and if it does change a thing, it'll be local and temporary as it creates new problems in its wake.
For Gramsci, the succes of a Communist Party in building a totalitarian society according to communist goals depends on first acquiring hegemony within civil society and only after this to grabbing State power. This means organizing and uniting classes; growing organic intellectuals representing their classes; and having these occupy 'enemy positions' (hence the 'war of position' term). Only by taking over most of the enemy's positions can an effective coup be launched to grab State power to build a totalitarian society modelled on communist theories. So, where Marxist and Marxist-Leninists organized class power to attack the State, Gramsci wants Marxists to infiltrate the civil institutions, win over the masses through moral and ideological leadership, and in so doing to 'organically' accumulate social force to overthrow the State. In other words: the ground has to be seeded first in order to reap the rewards later on - the infamous 'long march through the institutions'.
Connected to the ideas set out above is Gramsci's conception of philosophy: to him all thinking is grounded in reality and done by all human beings. This means that in effect all human beings are intellectuals. His conception of philosophy (critique, i,e, viewing the objects of knowledge as fundamentally connected with the process of acquiring knowledge, cf. Hegel) is rooted in praxis: the actual lives and actions of people of flesh and blood; instead of the usual abstractions many philosophers use. This results in Gramsci's view that all philosophy (or rather: all thinking) is political.
Since all thinking is political, and politics is rooted in the real world, this means that all philosophy (i.e. all critical thinking) should be firmly rooted in its social-historical context. In claiming this, Gramsci sticks to Marx's historicism while at the same time giving it his own twist, offering room for idealism as well as strategic-practical approaches.
The above outlines sum up Gramsci's core ideas and central theses. In Prison Notebooks he uses hundreds and hundreds of pages to work out his ideas, offering detailed historical analyses of, for example, the 19th century Risorgimento and the rise of Fascism in the 1920s. This makes the book a very interesting historial time capsule while at the same time offering modern readers highly biased and outdated material... It depends mostly on one's reading angle whether the former or latter conclusion holds.
Perfectly in line with Gramsci's dialectics I found this book to have continuous contradictions and pros and cons. Certain passages I skipped, while others were truly interesting. Let's leave it at three stars for an interesting and very influential work. I think one can get a representative and comprehensive account of Gramsci's core theories and ideas without having to plough through 400+ pages of the Prison Notebooks (which, by the way, was a small selection of all his notebooks he wrote while in prision).
The problem with Gramsci is that many of his notes contradict earlier notes and many of his ideas are vague, open-ended and obscure (on purpose: to cicrumvent the fascist prison censorship). This makes it very hard to spot clear and distinct ideas. Nevertheless, this approach also allows for insightful comparative analyses and viewing Gramsci's ideas from various perspectives (e.g. one could argue that the modern 'right wing' has learned a thing or two from Gramsci).
Still, it is possible to distill a certain theoretical approach which characterizes Gramsci's thoughts on politics, history and culture.
The first important concept in Prison Notebooks is the infamous base-superstructure distinction of society. Society is founded in social relations (i.e. relations determined by economic production) in reality. Built on top of this foundation are society's superstructures: its institutions that originate in and promulgate the particular social relationships. So, a capitalist system of production will produce capitalist superstructures which in one sense resemble the system and in another sense help to keep the system functioning effectively. For example, institutions which regulate sexual behaviour (marriage) or those which sustain productive labour (trade unions) are all part of the superstructure. (This by the way also explains Gramsci's rejection of trade unions as solutions to the capitalistic contradictations.)
Another concept of Gramsci's - and one related to the above mentioned distinction - is the triad of civil society, the State and 'war of position'. Civil society is the mediator between the State and economic production. This relation is very important since Gramsci distinguishes the term 'hegemony' from 'authority'. The State in and of itself is nothing but the power of coercion and in this form will never be able sustain the current structure of economic production: it needs moral and ideological leadership and those can only come from intellectuals within society and the public sphere.
In setting up his theories in this way, Gramsci is able to overcome a fundamental problem of Marxism: the problem of acquiring power to overthrow the current system and build a new one (i.e. revolution). Gramsci recognizes the problem of this 'frontal attack' approach - any violent coup or revolution (as well as any reform, by the way) plays itself out *within* the current system and thus will be absorbed *by* the system. The end result will most times be utter failure to accomplish any preconceived set of goals, and at most it will cancel a few contradictions and create new ones in its turn. In other words: a violent attack on the State and the subsequent grab of State power mostly won't change anything and if it does change a thing, it'll be local and temporary as it creates new problems in its wake.
For Gramsci, the succes of a Communist Party in building a totalitarian society according to communist goals depends on first acquiring hegemony within civil society and only after this to grabbing State power. This means organizing and uniting classes; growing organic intellectuals representing their classes; and having these occupy 'enemy positions' (hence the 'war of position' term). Only by taking over most of the enemy's positions can an effective coup be launched to grab State power to build a totalitarian society modelled on communist theories. So, where Marxist and Marxist-Leninists organized class power to attack the State, Gramsci wants Marxists to infiltrate the civil institutions, win over the masses through moral and ideological leadership, and in so doing to 'organically' accumulate social force to overthrow the State. In other words: the ground has to be seeded first in order to reap the rewards later on - the infamous 'long march through the institutions'.
Connected to the ideas set out above is Gramsci's conception of philosophy: to him all thinking is grounded in reality and done by all human beings. This means that in effect all human beings are intellectuals. His conception of philosophy (critique, i,e, viewing the objects of knowledge as fundamentally connected with the process of acquiring knowledge, cf. Hegel) is rooted in praxis: the actual lives and actions of people of flesh and blood; instead of the usual abstractions many philosophers use. This results in Gramsci's view that all philosophy (or rather: all thinking) is political.
Since all thinking is political, and politics is rooted in the real world, this means that all philosophy (i.e. all critical thinking) should be firmly rooted in its social-historical context. In claiming this, Gramsci sticks to Marx's historicism while at the same time giving it his own twist, offering room for idealism as well as strategic-practical approaches.
The above outlines sum up Gramsci's core ideas and central theses. In Prison Notebooks he uses hundreds and hundreds of pages to work out his ideas, offering detailed historical analyses of, for example, the 19th century Risorgimento and the rise of Fascism in the 1920s. This makes the book a very interesting historial time capsule while at the same time offering modern readers highly biased and outdated material... It depends mostly on one's reading angle whether the former or latter conclusion holds.
Perfectly in line with Gramsci's dialectics I found this book to have continuous contradictions and pros and cons. Certain passages I skipped, while others were truly interesting. Let's leave it at three stars for an interesting and very influential work. I think one can get a representative and comprehensive account of Gramsci's core theories and ideas without having to plough through 400+ pages of the Prison Notebooks (which, by the way, was a small selection of all his notebooks he wrote while in prision).
August 11, 2015
There’s so much in Gramsci’s Prison Notebooks. Italian history, practical Marxism, a 1920's Italian perspective on American business. How could you not want to read it?
Gramsci’s writings cover a wide ground. He interprets Machiavelli in a modern context, describing political parties as “the modern Prince” and explores the opportunities consequences that follow. He muses about America’s capitalistic spirit, its connection to Taylorism, and if Ford’s invasive approach to managing personal morality in employees’ lives will come to affect Europe. He discuss Italian history in depth, particularly exploring the city-countryside conflict and how regional differences between northern and southern Italy affect political movements.
Where his writing remains the most relevant a century later, though, is his “Study of Philosophy”. Gramsci is intensely focused with the practical application of philosophical theory. How are new philosophical conceptions of the world accepted into “common sense”? How are masses of people turned into active citizens interested in revolution? Certainly his own experience as political activist and leader contributes.
Gramsci explores how a new conception takes hold of a social group, comparing a rational approach to an authoritative one, and instead making a more sociologically-based conclusion in the power of groups. “Philosophy can only be experienced by faith”, faith “in the social group to which [someone] belongs”. And in fact, Gramsci makes a highly rational case for the “man of the people” to trust his social group above others:
How, then, to spread ideas? Gramsci draws from the history of organized religion, which “maintains its community of faithful” by “indefatigably repeating its apologetics… and maintaining a hierarchy of intellectuals who give to the faith… the dignity of thought”, and turns his observations into recommendations for cultural movements:
This latter point relates closely to the concept of “organic intellectuals”, a key element in Gramsci’s model — a role involved at a local, community level, diffusing ideas among people who wouldn’t encounter them otherwise. Gramsci lists occupations that typically fill this role: politicians, priests, administrators, in addition to the traditional intelligentsia. Today this seems close to occupations we’d call “knowledge workers”.
However, Gramsci is careful to separate this role from that of traditional intellectuals. He emphasizes “contact with the ‘simple’” as an antidote for “creating a specialised culture among restricted intellectual groups”. He later goes further, criticizing common trends among intellectuals:
This is a critical conclusion with relevance far beyond the time Gramsci was writing for. Pedantry and hyper-rationalism abound, particularly in debates online: writers and commenters vie for the most logical and rational argument and are shocked when it rarely convinces. Gramsci’s critiques show us that these fallacies are anything but new, while pointing in a better direction.
Taken as a whole, the book contains a challenging set of writings to get through. Gramsci’s reference points fit typically within 19th- and 20th-century Italian (and sometimes French) history. Quirks in the writing are, according to the editor, typically due to circumventing the censor, given Gramsci’s circumstances — these include misattributed quotes and articles to a list of euphemisms that grows the longer you read. The editor could have found-and-replaced all instances of “the founder of the philosophy of praxis” with “Marx”, but instead leaves the euphemistic verbosity to the reader’s experience.
Edward Said frequently cites Gramsci’s concept of “organic intellectuals” and describes his geopolitical emphasis in history as particularly influential. Gramsci’s Prison Notebooks don’t contain a system for geopolitical thinking as much as they do examples, but his concepts clearly had an impact on Said’s thinking and writing.
In conclusion: Gramsci’s ideas on public discourse and changing the contents of “common sense” alone make his notebooks worth reading, even if you skip past the Italian history. But don’t skip it if you can help it.
Gramsci’s writings cover a wide ground. He interprets Machiavelli in a modern context, describing political parties as “the modern Prince” and explores the opportunities consequences that follow. He muses about America’s capitalistic spirit, its connection to Taylorism, and if Ford’s invasive approach to managing personal morality in employees’ lives will come to affect Europe. He discuss Italian history in depth, particularly exploring the city-countryside conflict and how regional differences between northern and southern Italy affect political movements.
Where his writing remains the most relevant a century later, though, is his “Study of Philosophy”. Gramsci is intensely focused with the practical application of philosophical theory. How are new philosophical conceptions of the world accepted into “common sense”? How are masses of people turned into active citizens interested in revolution? Certainly his own experience as political activist and leader contributes.
For a mass of people to be led to think coherently and in the same coherent fashion about the real present world, is a “philosophical” event far more important and “original” than the discovery by some philosophical “genius” of a truth which remains the property of small groups of intellectuals.
Gramsci explores how a new conception takes hold of a social group, comparing a rational approach to an authoritative one, and instead making a more sociologically-based conclusion in the power of groups. “Philosophy can only be experienced by faith”, faith “in the social group to which [someone] belongs”. And in fact, Gramsci makes a highly rational case for the “man of the people” to trust his social group above others:
Anyone with a superior intellectual formation with a point of view opposed to his can put forward arguments than he and really tear him to pieces logically and so on. But should the man of the people change his opinions just because of this? In that case he might find himself having to change every day, or every time he meets an ideological adversary who is his intellectual superior. […] The man of the people thinks that so many like-thinking people can’t be wrong […] and he remembers, indeed, hearing expounded, discursively, coherently, in a way that left him convinced, the reasons behind his faith.
How, then, to spread ideas? Gramsci draws from the history of organized religion, which “maintains its community of faithful” by “indefatigably repeating its apologetics… and maintaining a hierarchy of intellectuals who give to the faith… the dignity of thought”, and turns his observations into recommendations for cultural movements:
1. Never to tire of repeating its own arguments (though offering literary variation of form): repetition is the best didactic means for working on the popular mentality.
2. To work incessantly to raise the intellectual level of ever-growing strata of the populace, in other words, to give a personality to the amorphous mass element. This means working to produce élites of intellectuals of a new type which arise directly out of the masses, but remain in contact with them to become, as it were, the whalebone in the corset.
This latter point relates closely to the concept of “organic intellectuals”, a key element in Gramsci’s model — a role involved at a local, community level, diffusing ideas among people who wouldn’t encounter them otherwise. Gramsci lists occupations that typically fill this role: politicians, priests, administrators, in addition to the traditional intelligentsia. Today this seems close to occupations we’d call “knowledge workers”.
However, Gramsci is careful to separate this role from that of traditional intellectuals. He emphasizes “contact with the ‘simple’” as an antidote for “creating a specialised culture among restricted intellectual groups”. He later goes further, criticizing common trends among intellectuals:
The popular element “feels” but does not always know or understand; the intellectual element “knows” but does not always understand and in particular does not always feel. The two extremes are therefore pedantry and philistinism on the one hand and blind passion and sectarianism on the other. Not that the pedant cannot be impassioned; far from it. Impassioned pedantry is every bit as ridiculous and dangerous as the wildest sectarianism and demagogy. The intellectual’s error consists in believing that one can know without understanding and even more without feeling and being impassioned. […] One cannot make politics-history without this passion, without this sentimental connection between intellectuals and people-nation.
This is a critical conclusion with relevance far beyond the time Gramsci was writing for. Pedantry and hyper-rationalism abound, particularly in debates online: writers and commenters vie for the most logical and rational argument and are shocked when it rarely convinces. Gramsci’s critiques show us that these fallacies are anything but new, while pointing in a better direction.
Taken as a whole, the book contains a challenging set of writings to get through. Gramsci’s reference points fit typically within 19th- and 20th-century Italian (and sometimes French) history. Quirks in the writing are, according to the editor, typically due to circumventing the censor, given Gramsci’s circumstances — these include misattributed quotes and articles to a list of euphemisms that grows the longer you read. The editor could have found-and-replaced all instances of “the founder of the philosophy of praxis” with “Marx”, but instead leaves the euphemistic verbosity to the reader’s experience.
Edward Said frequently cites Gramsci’s concept of “organic intellectuals” and describes his geopolitical emphasis in history as particularly influential. Gramsci’s Prison Notebooks don’t contain a system for geopolitical thinking as much as they do examples, but his concepts clearly had an impact on Said’s thinking and writing.
In conclusion: Gramsci’s ideas on public discourse and changing the contents of “common sense” alone make his notebooks worth reading, even if you skip past the Italian history. But don’t skip it if you can help it.
November 7, 2012
I decided to read this book in order to presenting a simple essay for "Critical Theory" subject at my university. Gramsci was a Neo-Marxist, he writes all the essay when he was at prison. In the beginning of chapter you will see Gramsci's brief biography. The translator nicely tells us the history and background of Gramsci's writing.
Gramsci notable work was his theory about "Hegemony", but you will never found a chapter about hegemony itself. He was spread the hegemony words in every single pages of this book. Although in his writing Gramsci never ever mentioned "The Role of Media", many scholar (who I assume never read this book) often mentioned Gramsci's Hegemony was all about media. To be able understand Gramsci's writing you should read the first chapter of this book, titled "Intellectual Organics". Then you will understand the entire process of hegemony. Gramsci's writing is related to political studies, but you can also relating his works with media as case study. Happy reading!
Gramsci notable work was his theory about "Hegemony", but you will never found a chapter about hegemony itself. He was spread the hegemony words in every single pages of this book. Although in his writing Gramsci never ever mentioned "The Role of Media", many scholar (who I assume never read this book) often mentioned Gramsci's Hegemony was all about media. To be able understand Gramsci's writing you should read the first chapter of this book, titled "Intellectual Organics". Then you will understand the entire process of hegemony. Gramsci's writing is related to political studies, but you can also relating his works with media as case study. Happy reading!
July 15, 2017
This is another of those classics of Marxist thought that I'd never got around to reading, though I was acquainted with ideas and passages from it in other sources, much like Marx's Capital. Having finally studied all three volumes of that over the past couple of years (with the help of David Harvey's video lectures), I decided I needed to tackle Gramsci next. It was definitely worth the time and effort. I was acquainted with certain Gramscian concepts through secondary sources, such as "cultural hegemony" and "organic intellectuals" and "passive revolution." But I did not know about his thorough critique of trends in Marxist thought, such as the vulgar interpretations of historical materialism and the crudely reductionist economic determinism proposed by Bukharin and many others since. The static and fatalistic vision of laws of history existing outside human activity and acting on their own was already challenged by Engels himself at the end of his life, and Gramsci picks up right where he left off. By stressing that only mankind itself can set into motion the laws of historical materialism, Gramsci brings back the importance of human agency and praxis into Marxist ideology. Most of the final section "The Philosophy of Praxis" is devoted to this and it is my favorite section of the book. I would recommend that everyone should at least read that part of the book if nothing else.
February 23, 2010
The sense of achievement after finishing this is similar to that of finishing Capital...it is massive and, given its fractured nature, I'd say even more challenging. Gramsci is so often referenced, however, I took many of his ideas rather for granted. After reading him for myself, I'd say there is more of interest here, and more that I find problematic than I'd ever expected...and is definitely a book to think over and pick up again. Hegemony and common sense, political struggle, popular education (and not so popular education), it's all here...
April 27, 2021
one of the key leftist texts. author develops a number of innovative ideas within the context of Marxism. hard to overstate the value.
August 27, 2022
Schwer zu verstehen, aber sehr interessant
July 16, 2017
Selections from the Prison Notebooks by Antonio Gramsci – reading this tome is enlightening and firms up my appreciation of Gramsci that is totally opposed to the liberal academic appropriation of the Italian communist thinker. Majority of Gramsci’s interpreters endorse a nebulous cultural politics of hegemony that is divorced from the class struggle and historical necessity and is used to justify parliamentarism and reformist politics. For sure, The Prison Notebooks’ coded writing and fragmented form left it susceptible to misinterpretation, unintentional or otherwise. But still, the work shine as a truly revolutionary document engaged in polemics against the Left Communism of Bordiga and company and their adventurist conception of a pure revolution as well as the Rightwing orthodoxy of the Second International that has seeped through some of the more hackneyed formulations of the Comintern under Stalin and Zinoniev. I am particularly thankful for the introduction and notes by the International Publishers for proving to be very helpful in providing context to Gramsci’s writings. What we read in The Prison Notebooks are reflections forged in ideological struggle as well as in the life-and-death struggle by the Italian comrades of the early 20th Century against reactionaries amidst the rise of Fascism and intensified white terror. Of particular interest in Gramsci’s notes are his conception of the party as an assemblage of organic intellectuals of the proletariat; the necessity of military organization (as opposed to relying on pure spontaneity ) conceptualized with politics in command; the winning of hegemony by the proletariat against bourgeoisie domination not only capture of state but also in the realm of ideology and civil society; and in this context the need for building a national-popular bloc (which all find echoes in the strategy and tactics of the Chinese Revolution under Mao Zedong).
May 4, 2020
Frustrating. Dated. Intelligent. Dull. If you can't wait to read an account of pre-30's Italian political history and also have Marxist critique made by someone who had to encode and obscure every reference to Marxism for you to then try to decode and make sense of, this is the book for you.
September 8, 2022
Letta nell'edizione di Felice Platone, quella dunque dei sei tomi monografici. Approcciati principalmente per interesse filosofico, mi sono trovato in difficoltà a tratti. Inevitabilmente, avendo a che fare con un'opera di singolare unicità, non pensata per l'edizione ma solo come canovaccio, tocca avere a che fare con pensieri spesso confusi, se non totalmente sconnessi l'uno dall'altro. Da un punto di vista marxista, l'enfasi che Gramsci riserva all'egemonia, al momento culturale e soprastrutturale, alla cognizione del proletariato come classe subalterna, la centralità dell'impegno prassistico (e quindi del partito) gli permettono di varcare a testa alta l'atrio del Pantheon del comunismo novecentesco. Ugualmente, il richiamo alla realtà nazionale, inverata dagli studi sul Risorgimento e dal comparto della critica letteraria, restituisce una fotografia chiarissima dei rapporti di forza italiani, sempre e comunque a favore dei capitalisti, che li rinsaldano ora con la penna ora col manganello. Lettura molto ardua se non accompagnata ma essenziale nell'ottica della familiarizzazione con quella che si può chiamare "filosofia italiana".
April 9, 2018
كيف يرى جرامشي المجتمع المدني؟
على الرغم من أن «ماركس» أطلق مفهوم «المجتمع المدني» على البنية التحتية ونمط الإنتاج وقام بتحليله، إلا أن «جرامشي» نسب هذا المفهوم إلى البنية الفوقية، وقسّم تلك البنية الفوقية إلى قسمين: المجتمع المدني، يقابله المجتمع السياسي (الدولة).
يرى «جرامشي» أن المجتمع المدني ينتمي إلى البنية الفوقية، بعكس ما أطلقه «ماركس» عليه بأنه بنية تحتية ونمط إنتاج. وفي رأي «جرامشي» يقابل هذا المجتمع المدني؛ الدولة (المجتمع السياسي).
والمجتمع المدني في صورته المعاصرة (المعقلنة) كما فرضته الأدبيات الحديثة عند «جون لوك، وهوبز»، هو باختصار كل ما يقع خارج سيطرة الدولة بالأساس، لكونه نتج في شكل من أشكال التعاقد المجتمعي «عقد اجتماعي» تقوم عليه سلطة تحقق أمنه وضمان الحفاظ على ممتلكاته ومصالحه الشخصية كما يرى «جون لوك».
ويعرّف «جرامشي» المجتمع المدني قريبًا من تلك الأدبيات، لكنه يبعدها عن تدخل الدولة القهري، فهو يعرفه بأنه شبكة أفقية من المنظمات والعلاقات المهنية تنتظم في الحياة الاجتماعية مثل: النقابات والأحزاب والصحافة والمدارس والكنيسة، باختصار كل ما هو خارج سلطة الدولة.
أو كما يقول «هابرماس»:
«الرأي العام غير الرسمي (أي الذي لا يخضع لسلطة الدولة)»، و��ن خلال هذه المؤسسات يتم نشر القيم والأفكار وهي منطقة صراعات الهيمنة، فيها يتم إنتاج وإعادة إنتاج أيدولوجيا الطبقة المسيطرة من خلال تجسيد تلك الأيدولوجيا وتحقيق إجماع جماهيري، وقبول بالوضع الراهن، وبسياسات النخبة الحاكمة ومصالحها، و«جرامشي» يضع المجتمع المدني في موضع بين البنية التحتية (الاقتصادية)، والبنية الفوقية (الدولة والمجتمع السياسي) بخلاف ماركس.
وفي المقابل، يموضع «جرامشي» المجتمع السياسي، بوصفه المجتمع الذي يقوم على ممارسات القهر والانضباط المباشر والوظائف التنظيمية والبيروقراطية، وفي الجمع بين المجتمع السياسي، والمجتمع المدني تظهر الدولة في شكلها الجدلي، ويكون عمادها هو الهيمنة الثقافية من ناحية، والسيطرة السياسية والقانونية من ناحية أخرى.
وفي الناحيتين يكمن المثقف ممارسًا مهامه السياسية أو الاقتصادية أو الثقافية أو الإدارية، على اعتبار أن المثقف العضوي هو الطبقة الإسمنتية بين البنية الفوقية والبنية التحتية، لذلك اختصه «جرامشي» بالتنظير في المقام الأول.
يقول «جرامشي» معرفًا الدولة:
«ينبغي ألا تُفهم الدولة على أنها جهاز الحكومة، ولكن أيضًا الجهاز الأهلي (غير الحكومي والخاص) للسيطرة السياسية أو ما يعرف بالمجتمع المدني. ولابد من ذكر أن الفكرة العامة للدولة تشمل عناصر تحتاج أن نرجعها إلى فكرة المجتمع المدني. ويمكن القول إن الدولة = المجتمع المدني + المجتمع السياسي» (p524).
ويقول أيضًا:
«سوف يكون على المرء المرور من مرحلة ستكون فيها الدولة معادلة للحكومة والدولة متطابقة مع المجتمع المدني إلى مرحلة تصبح فيها الدولة أشبه بخفير ليلي – أي تصبح منظمة قهرية تقوم بحراسة تطور العناصر المتكاثرة باستمرار للمجتمع المنظم، وسوف تقلل باضطراد من سلطويتها وتدخلاتها القهرية» (p525).
ويحدد «جرامشي» مراحل نشأة المجتمع المدني وعلاقته بالدولة في 5 مراحل كالآتي:
1. القرون الوسطى حيث لم يكن هناك فصل بين الدولة والمجتمع، وكان التنظيم التعاوني للطبقات السياسية يجمع بين الاقتصاد والسياسة.
2. ثم الفصل بين الاقتصاد والسياسة دون تسيس للطبقات في دولة الحكم الملكي.
3. انحلال البنى العضوية التقليدية ذات الطابع الأخوي والطائفي والحرفي والتمهيد للحداثة المبكرة.
4. قيام الثنائية بين الدولة والاتحادات الاجتماعية الطوعية، مثل المنظمات المدنية والنقابات والأحزاب.
5. قيام التنظيم الدولي الشيوعي للمجتمع بعد انتصار البروليتاريا في حرب المواقع وسيطرتها على الدولة.
الثورة كنتيجة حتمية لفكر جرامشي
كل هذه النقاط تتجه بالضرورة صوب فكرة واحدة: الثورة، بوصفها تلك الغاية أو الفكرة الشاملة التي يمكنها إرساء القيم الجديدة في المجتمع بعد هيمنة الطبقة العاملة على مؤسساته المدنية. فهي انقلاب نوعي في الوعي أولاً من خلال حرب المواقع، قبل أن تكون انقلابًا ماديًا. يقول «جرامشي» عن حرب المواقع:
حرب المواقع تتطلب تضحيات هائلة من جانب عدد هائل من جماهير الشعب، ومن ثم من الضروري وجود سيطرة غير مسبوقة، ومن ثم حكومة أكثر تدخلاً تقوم بالهجوم بشكل أكثر صراحة على المعارضين، وتنظم نفسها دائمًا لمنع إمكانية تفككها الداخلي من خلال وسائل التحكم المتعددة السياسية والإدارية وغيره.. وتقوي أوضاع السيطرة السياسية للجماعة المهيمنة. (p481)
وهي الحرب التي تنتهي بهيمنة طبقة على طبقة أخرى من خلال المفاهيم الأيديولوجية قبل أن تتحول إلى حراك مادي في الشوارع يتم فيها تنفيذ إستراتيجية الطبقة العاملة ذات الأحقية التاريخية في السلطة.
منقول
على الرغم من أن «ماركس» أطلق مفهوم «المجتمع المدني» على البنية التحتية ونمط الإنتاج وقام بتحليله، إلا أن «جرامشي» نسب هذا المفهوم إلى البنية الفوقية، وقسّم تلك البنية الفوقية إلى قسمين: المجتمع المدني، يقابله المجتمع السياسي (الدولة).
يرى «جرامشي» أن المجتمع المدني ينتمي إلى البنية الفوقية، بعكس ما أطلقه «ماركس» عليه بأنه بنية تحتية ونمط إنتاج. وفي رأي «جرامشي» يقابل هذا المجتمع المدني؛ الدولة (المجتمع السياسي).
والمجتمع المدني في صورته المعاصرة (المعقلنة) كما فرضته الأدبيات الحديثة عند «جون لوك، وهوبز»، هو باختصار كل ما يقع خارج سيطرة الدولة بالأساس، لكونه نتج في شكل من أشكال التعاقد المجتمعي «عقد اجتماعي» تقوم عليه سلطة تحقق أمنه وضمان الحفاظ على ممتلكاته ومصالحه الشخصية كما يرى «جون لوك».
ويعرّف «جرامشي» المجتمع المدني قريبًا من تلك الأدبيات، لكنه يبعدها عن تدخل الدولة القهري، فهو يعرفه بأنه شبكة أفقية من المنظمات والعلاقات المهنية تنتظم في الحياة الاجتماعية مثل: النقابات والأحزاب والصحافة والمدارس والكنيسة، باختصار كل ما هو خارج سلطة الدولة.
أو كما يقول «هابرماس»:
«الرأي العام غير الرسمي (أي الذي لا يخضع لسلطة الدولة)»، و��ن خلال هذه المؤسسات يتم نشر القيم والأفكار وهي منطقة صراعات الهيمنة، فيها يتم إنتاج وإعادة إنتاج أيدولوجيا الطبقة المسيطرة من خلال تجسيد تلك الأيدولوجيا وتحقيق إجماع جماهيري، وقبول بالوضع الراهن، وبسياسات النخبة الحاكمة ومصالحها، و«جرامشي» يضع المجتمع المدني في موضع بين البنية التحتية (الاقتصادية)، والبنية الفوقية (الدولة والمجتمع السياسي) بخلاف ماركس.
وفي المقابل، يموضع «جرامشي» المجتمع السياسي، بوصفه المجتمع الذي يقوم على ممارسات القهر والانضباط المباشر والوظائف التنظيمية والبيروقراطية، وفي الجمع بين المجتمع السياسي، والمجتمع المدني تظهر الدولة في شكلها الجدلي، ويكون عمادها هو الهيمنة الثقافية من ناحية، والسيطرة السياسية والقانونية من ناحية أخرى.
وفي الناحيتين يكمن المثقف ممارسًا مهامه السياسية أو الاقتصادية أو الثقافية أو الإدارية، على اعتبار أن المثقف العضوي هو الطبقة الإسمنتية بين البنية الفوقية والبنية التحتية، لذلك اختصه «جرامشي» بالتنظير في المقام الأول.
يقول «جرامشي» معرفًا الدولة:
«ينبغي ألا تُفهم الدولة على أنها جهاز الحكومة، ولكن أيضًا الجهاز الأهلي (غير الحكومي والخاص) للسيطرة السياسية أو ما يعرف بالمجتمع المدني. ولابد من ذكر أن الفكرة العامة للدولة تشمل عناصر تحتاج أن نرجعها إلى فكرة المجتمع المدني. ويمكن القول إن الدولة = المجتمع المدني + المجتمع السياسي» (p524).
ويقول أيضًا:
«سوف يكون على المرء المرور من مرحلة ستكون فيها الدولة معادلة للحكومة والدولة متطابقة مع المجتمع المدني إلى مرحلة تصبح فيها الدولة أشبه بخفير ليلي – أي تصبح منظمة قهرية تقوم بحراسة تطور العناصر المتكاثرة باستمرار للمجتمع المنظم، وسوف تقلل باضطراد من سلطويتها وتدخلاتها القهرية» (p525).
ويحدد «جرامشي» مراحل نشأة المجتمع المدني وعلاقته بالدولة في 5 مراحل كالآتي:
1. القرون الوسطى حيث لم يكن هناك فصل بين الدولة والمجتمع، وكان التنظيم التعاوني للطبقات السياسية يجمع بين الاقتصاد والسياسة.
2. ثم الفصل بين الاقتصاد والسياسة دون تسيس للطبقات في دولة الحكم الملكي.
3. انحلال البنى العضوية التقليدية ذات الطابع الأخوي والطائفي والحرفي والتمهيد للحداثة المبكرة.
4. قيام الثنائية بين الدولة والاتحادات الاجتماعية الطوعية، مثل المنظمات المدنية والنقابات والأحزاب.
5. قيام التنظيم الدولي الشيوعي للمجتمع بعد انتصار البروليتاريا في حرب المواقع وسيطرتها على الدولة.
الثورة كنتيجة حتمية لفكر جرامشي
كل هذه النقاط تتجه بالضرورة صوب فكرة واحدة: الثورة، بوصفها تلك الغاية أو الفكرة الشاملة التي يمكنها إرساء القيم الجديدة في المجتمع بعد هيمنة الطبقة العاملة على مؤسساته المدنية. فهي انقلاب نوعي في الوعي أولاً من خلال حرب المواقع، قبل أن تكون انقلابًا ماديًا. يقول «جرامشي» عن حرب المواقع:
حرب المواقع تتطلب تضحيات هائلة من جانب عدد هائل من جماهير الشعب، ومن ثم من الضروري وجود سيطرة غير مسبوقة، ومن ثم حكومة أكثر تدخلاً تقوم بالهجوم بشكل أكثر صراحة على المعارضين، وتنظم نفسها دائمًا لمنع إمكانية تفككها الداخلي من خلال وسائل التحكم المتعددة السياسية والإدارية وغيره.. وتقوي أوضاع السيطرة السياسية للجماعة المهيمنة. (p481)
وهي الحرب التي تنتهي بهيمنة طبقة على طبقة أخرى من خلال المفاهيم الأيديولوجية قبل أن تتحول إلى حراك مادي في الشوارع يتم فيها تنفيذ إستراتيجية الطبقة العاملة ذات الأحقية التاريخية في السلطة.
منقول
April 4, 2015
انطونيو غرامشي ، وأخيرا .
الشيوعيون والسجن ، قصص لا تنتهي .
" أمي العزيزة
لا تقلقي بشاني ولا تفكري اني بصحة سيئة .....
يصلني من الطعام وجبتين
اقرأ ست جرائد في اليوم وثمان كتب أسبوعيا ، اضافة الى المجلات المصورة والأدبية "
رسائل غرامشي لوالدته - ١٩٢٨
الجزء الاول .
الشيوعيون والسجن ، قصص لا تنتهي .
" أمي العزيزة
لا تقلقي بشاني ولا تفكري اني بصحة سيئة .....
يصلني من الطعام وجبتين
اقرأ ست جرائد في اليوم وثمان كتب أسبوعيا ، اضافة الى المجلات المصورة والأدبية "
رسائل غرامشي لوالدته - ١٩٢٨
الجزء الاول .
May 10, 2017
I mean, it's Gramsci.
Which means there's a lot of stuff that feels dated and it's a slog to get through but at the end you feel smarter and better prepared for struggle.
Do wonder why we don't have a more updated Selections, but...
Which means there's a lot of stuff that feels dated and it's a slog to get through but at the end you feel smarter and better prepared for struggle.
Do wonder why we don't have a more updated Selections, but...
March 25, 2011
Reading this today for my orals exam. Not understanding it at all and don't have the energy to try harder. I think I'm just going to hope that no one asks me questions about this one...
October 30, 2024
"I’m a pessimist because of intelligence, but an optimist because of will"
Gramsci spent the last decade of his life imprisoned and tortured by the Mussolini regime, and he spent that time creating one of the greatest treatises on cultural hegemony lasting into the 21st century. In the defeat of his ideals, he was able to study they tools used by social fascism and lay their process bare for anyone willing to read his "prison notebooks". The Prison Notebooks are not some Marxist treatise on the nature of the state nor a Cohn-Bendit guide to a better world, but a set of mediations on surviving in the world that exists. Gramsci's optimism lies in that slow march to progress, the pull and tug of social orders towards the society he has worked for. Not exactly the most entertaining read, but a necessity for those who wish to better understand cultural hegemony and the dangers around it.
"Since defeat in the Struggle must always be envisaged, the preparation of one's own successors is as important as what one does for victory"
Gramsci spent the last decade of his life imprisoned and tortured by the Mussolini regime, and he spent that time creating one of the greatest treatises on cultural hegemony lasting into the 21st century. In the defeat of his ideals, he was able to study they tools used by social fascism and lay their process bare for anyone willing to read his "prison notebooks". The Prison Notebooks are not some Marxist treatise on the nature of the state nor a Cohn-Bendit guide to a better world, but a set of mediations on surviving in the world that exists. Gramsci's optimism lies in that slow march to progress, the pull and tug of social orders towards the society he has worked for. Not exactly the most entertaining read, but a necessity for those who wish to better understand cultural hegemony and the dangers around it.
"Since defeat in the Struggle must always be envisaged, the preparation of one's own successors is as important as what one does for victory"
December 19, 2022
This is the classic selection in English from Gramsci's writings while in prison after being incarcerated by Mussolini's fascist regime in Italy. It's taken me a long time to read this in full having study Gramsci at university 30 years ago. Gramsci's writing is wide ranging and fascinating, although sometimes difficult to get to grips with particularly in light of the elliptical language sometimes used by Gramsci to avoid the attention of the prison censor.
Without commenting in detail here on Gramsci's thought, he is one of the most significant marxist writers of the post-1917 period and his analyses have been hugely influential both within and outside the left (he was even quoted by Michael Gove of all people https://www.theguardian.com/education... ) This book remains the standard selection in English and includes a long introduction which provides overall context, along with a shorter introduction for each segment.
This is part of my current reading theme on "hegemony" which I'm documenting here https://marxadventure.wordpress.com/2...
Without commenting in detail here on Gramsci's thought, he is one of the most significant marxist writers of the post-1917 period and his analyses have been hugely influential both within and outside the left (he was even quoted by Michael Gove of all people https://www.theguardian.com/education... ) This book remains the standard selection in English and includes a long introduction which provides overall context, along with a shorter introduction for each segment.
This is part of my current reading theme on "hegemony" which I'm documenting here https://marxadventure.wordpress.com/2...
March 20, 2021
I found his writings about the renaissance, Machiavelli, and Italian history very interesting, but strangely, and maybe it’s the edition I’ve read, I didn’t quite get the essence of his theory of hegemony.
I understand it’s mainly because of the censorship and the fact he had to hide his true ideas between endless twirls of sentences and all, but it made it difficult to follow, especially when the editions that sum up his monumental work of 2,000 pages results in just having a little taste of his ideas.
nevertheless, having no real books to aid himself with, debating with himself and his memory in his prison cell, writing this book is an achievement without comparison.
I understand it’s mainly because of the censorship and the fact he had to hide his true ideas between endless twirls of sentences and all, but it made it difficult to follow, especially when the editions that sum up his monumental work of 2,000 pages results in just having a little taste of his ideas.
nevertheless, having no real books to aid himself with, debating with himself and his memory in his prison cell, writing this book is an achievement without comparison.
Read
February 22, 2024sir why you writing in code? my brain is already fried.
June 8, 2024
I'm not going to attempt to write a proper review of this book because I've been reading it off and on for nearly two years, and in between starting and finishing it I've moved twice, had a baby and bought a house so I was regularly interrupted. The book is miraculous and Gramsci was a genius. What he managed to accomplish in spite of his many obstacles is incredible.
The book is a collection of notes, essays and fragments, some more finished than others. He is dealing with history, philosophy, politics, Marxist theory and practice and more, and he's writing it from prison under the Italian Fascist regime. He wrote in an obscure style to try to get around the censorship he faced in prison. This means the book is unusually difficult and obscure. Having a reasonable background knowledge of European history, philosophy and Marxist theory and practice meant I was able to understand a lot of what wrote about. I wouldn't recommend jumping into this book without this kind of background knowledge.
Gramsci has had a huge influence on subsequent thinkers and it's easy to see why. He was a brilliant and original thinker and is credited as being the founder of Western Marxism. Many of his most celebrated ideas and concepts emerge through repeated references within the fragments rather than straightforward essays. Concepts such as Hegemony, the American system of Fordism, the Organic Intellectual, the War of Manoeuvre vs the War of Position and Caesarism have left us with a brilliant legacy to think about and debate.
I think if you are preoccupied with our political situation and you are a Socialist this book should be on your reading list as a priority.
The book is a collection of notes, essays and fragments, some more finished than others. He is dealing with history, philosophy, politics, Marxist theory and practice and more, and he's writing it from prison under the Italian Fascist regime. He wrote in an obscure style to try to get around the censorship he faced in prison. This means the book is unusually difficult and obscure. Having a reasonable background knowledge of European history, philosophy and Marxist theory and practice meant I was able to understand a lot of what wrote about. I wouldn't recommend jumping into this book without this kind of background knowledge.
Gramsci has had a huge influence on subsequent thinkers and it's easy to see why. He was a brilliant and original thinker and is credited as being the founder of Western Marxism. Many of his most celebrated ideas and concepts emerge through repeated references within the fragments rather than straightforward essays. Concepts such as Hegemony, the American system of Fordism, the Organic Intellectual, the War of Manoeuvre vs the War of Position and Caesarism have left us with a brilliant legacy to think about and debate.
I think if you are preoccupied with our political situation and you are a Socialist this book should be on your reading list as a priority.
June 24, 2007
Antonio Gramsci (1891-1937) adalah seorang intelektual berkebangsaan Italia yang dipenjarakan selama 10 tahun oleh rezim fasis Mussolini. "Kita harus menghentikan otak ini untuk bekerja selama 20 tahun” demikian ujar jaksa pada saat pengadilan terhadapnya (Wikipedia). Yang terjadi justru sebaliknya, saat-saat pemenjaraan itulah ia kemudian melahirkan karya besarnya yang dirangkum dalam sebuah buku The Prison Notebooks. Kolakowski menyebutnya sebagai teoritikus politik paling orisinil sesudah Lenin yang mencoba mengkritisi kelemahan-kelemahan Marxisme dan melakukan analisis terhadap penyebab kegagalan revolusi proletariat (Huda:2006).
Gagasan sentral pemikiran Gramsci ialah konsep tentang Hegemoni. Ia menuliskan pemikirannya dengan bertitik tolak pada kritiknya terhadap pandangan marxisme ortodoks, terutama kerangka teoritis Nikolai Bukharin dalam sebuah buku The Theory of Historical Materialisme. Buku tersebut sesungguhnya bertujuan sebagai textbook yang berisi ajaran-ajaran Marxisme-Leninisme sebagai pandangan dunia proletariat.
Gagasan sentral pemikiran Gramsci ialah konsep tentang Hegemoni. Ia menuliskan pemikirannya dengan bertitik tolak pada kritiknya terhadap pandangan marxisme ortodoks, terutama kerangka teoritis Nikolai Bukharin dalam sebuah buku The Theory of Historical Materialisme. Buku tersebut sesungguhnya bertujuan sebagai textbook yang berisi ajaran-ajaran Marxisme-Leninisme sebagai pandangan dunia proletariat.
September 27, 2016
Although not a Marxist, I found this to be a masterpiece. The work itself are notes collected from the authors time in prison under Mussolini. So many topics are covered outside of the economy and revolution. There are a variety of interesting theories and the author subjects even points of view close to him to criticism. He raises many issues and identifies various problems with strands of philosophy. There is some Marxist dogma and some of his views do suffer from a materialist rigidity but there is generally so much to recommend.
December 29, 2025
Mein Kampf - written by a beta loser who served 9 months in prison and released 4 years early. Later takes power only to kill himself when his wannabe-Napoleon escapades flunked by 1942 at that
The Prison Notebooks - written by ubermenschen chad who was told his brain must stop working for 20 years. Spends 8 years writing some of the best theory of all time, smuggled out by page by page, whilst his body gradually deteriorates
The Prison Notebooks - written by ubermenschen chad who was told his brain must stop working for 20 years. Spends 8 years writing some of the best theory of all time, smuggled out by page by page, whilst his body gradually deteriorates
February 20, 2008
Italian marxist, predecessor to cultural studies. An invaluable conceptualization of hegemony. One of my favorite quotes of all time - we have to create an inventory of all the traces historical processes have left upon us in order to begin critical elaboration to understand ourselves and the world
January 21, 2025
Strongly recommended for times where (class) consciousness is constantly shaking and at risk.
L’intellettuale italiano x eccellenza, una grandezza di pensiero smisurata. Mi fa venire voglia di farmi chiudere in cella x 10 anni.
L’intellettuale italiano x eccellenza, una grandezza di pensiero smisurata. Mi fa venire voglia di farmi chiudere in cella x 10 anni.
July 13, 2012
The Italian fascist regime wanted to shut down Gramsci's brain when they imprisoned him. They failed.
November 1, 2018
One of the most revolutionary things I read in undergrad.
October 3, 2025
In a preface to Capital Vol 1, Marx writes “There is no royal road to science, and only those who do not dread the fatiguing climb of its steep paths have a chance of gaining its luminous summits.” I believe this accurately captures the feeling of Gramsci’s writings here, particularly considering the circumstances he wrote them under, which, as painfully described in the introduction, were anything but royal. The Prison Notebooks can seem mystifying and nebulous because of Gramsci’s evasions from fascist censorship, though through this he persevered in developing something even higher.
One of Gramsci’s central concept here is hegemony: the imposition of a diffused moral/intellectual structure which through a synthesis of coercion and consent brings about the internalization of the interests of the leading/directive class among the public. It is an explanation of how we are often brought to consent to, uphold, and even reproduce the terms of our own exploitation.
Intertwined with this, the Philosophy of Praxis (Gramsci’s vision of Marxism) must itself become hegemonic in which the subordinate classes will realize themselves as historical actors imbued with agency to reinvent the world. Significantly, Gramsci rejects the teleological concept of imminence of the revolution. He opposes fatalism, and stresses that when social structure has arrived at the point when a historical era may be transcended, it is still necessary to take action to seize this moment with self awareness and to act and evaluate (praxis) at every turn to instill a critical hegemony which dismantles that of the past.
In outlining his theories, Gramsci also shows an appreciation to nuances which don’t often appear from other Marxists such as to the process of education, how conflicting ideas can exist in a person’s mind, the detailed context of the nation, and forms of conflict.
I appreciated these aspects and more, yet I have some criticisms as well. The introduction of the book is overly lengthy and while much of the content on Gramsci’s background is relevant and fascinating, far too much is given in the history of the Italian Socialist and Communist Parties and their internal debates. Another concern was Gramsci’s faith in the vanguard party idea, as well as his appreciation of Machiavellian ideas, although this was in a very nuanced way: Machiavelli’s ability to envision a historical actor in the Prince and outline what was necessary for an active, not passive revolution in the societal transition of his time. Gramsci’s commentary on women and the history of their social position can also be insensitive and wrong at times.
With these things in consideration, Gramsci still illuminates very much about society and reality. And it was a revelation as well to see the perfectly dialectic outline of how his own philosophy and socialist society too, are also to be transcended for us to have freedom from necessity.
One of Gramsci’s central concept here is hegemony: the imposition of a diffused moral/intellectual structure which through a synthesis of coercion and consent brings about the internalization of the interests of the leading/directive class among the public. It is an explanation of how we are often brought to consent to, uphold, and even reproduce the terms of our own exploitation.
Intertwined with this, the Philosophy of Praxis (Gramsci’s vision of Marxism) must itself become hegemonic in which the subordinate classes will realize themselves as historical actors imbued with agency to reinvent the world. Significantly, Gramsci rejects the teleological concept of imminence of the revolution. He opposes fatalism, and stresses that when social structure has arrived at the point when a historical era may be transcended, it is still necessary to take action to seize this moment with self awareness and to act and evaluate (praxis) at every turn to instill a critical hegemony which dismantles that of the past.
In outlining his theories, Gramsci also shows an appreciation to nuances which don’t often appear from other Marxists such as to the process of education, how conflicting ideas can exist in a person’s mind, the detailed context of the nation, and forms of conflict.
I appreciated these aspects and more, yet I have some criticisms as well. The introduction of the book is overly lengthy and while much of the content on Gramsci’s background is relevant and fascinating, far too much is given in the history of the Italian Socialist and Communist Parties and their internal debates. Another concern was Gramsci’s faith in the vanguard party idea, as well as his appreciation of Machiavellian ideas, although this was in a very nuanced way: Machiavelli’s ability to envision a historical actor in the Prince and outline what was necessary for an active, not passive revolution in the societal transition of his time. Gramsci’s commentary on women and the history of their social position can also be insensitive and wrong at times.
With these things in consideration, Gramsci still illuminates very much about society and reality. And it was a revelation as well to see the perfectly dialectic outline of how his own philosophy and socialist society too, are also to be transcended for us to have freedom from necessity.
Displaying 1 - 30 of 124 reviews