Cadernos do Cárcere v. I

Quaderni del carcere #1

by Antonio Gramsci

-- Times Literary Supplement

Genres: Philosophy, Politics, Nonfiction, History, Theory, Classics, Economics

496 pages, Paperback

First published January 1, 1948

About the author

Antonio 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.

Reviews

[danny · Rating 4 out of 5]

This book was upsetting and did not contain very much theory or exploration of ideas. And yet, I was completely drawn into these letters. I had a deep morbid curiosity for all of the details of Gramsci's suffering. He is always trying to talk himself and his relatives into believing that he is well, and yet, he just as often writes about his loneliness, pain, anxiety, boredom, despair. This alternation between shouting "I'm fine!" to myself and the world and then experiencing emotional pain was familiar to me.

As the years pass, he realizes that his family has accepted his indefinite imprisonment, and the letters grow more and more sparse. He goes for months at a time without hearing from his wife, who seems to be too distraught to remember him, and so he leans on his sister in law for support. They seem to develop feelings for each other that perhaps move into the romantic. Gramsci speaks of trying to grow flowers for her, but unable to give them enough water, they dry up and never bloom.

It is interesting to me that he had little perspective of how Marxism / capitalism influence peoples' personal lives and suffering. During one letter to his brother, he talks about how he pushed through high school on one meal a day, and fainted during a college exam 3 or 4 times. And then he says that he thought it built character in him, and taught him not to rely on others. To me, the core of socialism is interdependence, kindness, caring for people. So why is he advising his brother to learn independence from others? This way I have of applying socialism to the personal details of my own life must be a newer way of thinking.

The stories about training sparrows as pets and learning mafia knife fighting techniques were interesting. I think it really says something that they would not allow him to speak with any other prisoner who was educated. It was an intentional punishment to deepen his loneliness.

Overall, the letters drip with despair, despite all the determination he has to resist, and to remain active, which he did achieve.

[Julio Pino · Rating 5 out of 5]

"We live in a time when the old is dying and the new cannot yet be born. In this strange interregnum, many weird symptoms appear." Gramsci has been going in and out of style, but he's always guaranteed to raise an eyebrow. Here he's talking about Mussolini and fascism but could just as easily be describing Trump and the decline of the American empire. Gramsci composed these notebooks while serving a life sentence under Il Duce. I particularly recommend his thoughts on "Fordism"---the American way of organizing not only an industry but all of society as one vast assembly line.

[Leopold Benedict · Rating 3 out of 5]

This one is just the first out of many volumes of the Prison Notebooks by Antonio Gramsci (1891-1937). The most notable idea in it is that of cultural hegemony. The dominant or leading class' values and norms permeate all of society's cultural and social spheres. This can only be achieved when the leading class is constructing prudent alliances with other groups in order to establish their cultural hegemony. For example, the Bourgeoisie allied with Christianity and the Catholic Church in order to establish their cultural hegemony. Similarly, Marxism would need to ally with the Reformation and Humanism in order to establish its cultural hegemony.
Even though Gramsci is a Marxist author, his ideas have been utilised by Fascists, the New Right and other political groups. Gramsci does not develop the idea of hegemony in any of his essays explicitly. The term hegemony just appears at some point and by reading it in various essays you slowly get an idea of it. Most essays deal with the details of Italian intellectual life of the 19th and early 20th century or the Risorgimento, the Italian Unification, which he uses as his case study to induce his theory. Even though he introduced me to new thinkers, such as Benedetto Croce, a lot of the essays can seem a bit dull and lost their appeal for the 21st century reader.

[Caleb Pykkonen]

Notes on Prison Notebooks volume 1
• Introduction
o An interesting question research would be: Where and who are the political prisoners in the United States in the 21st century? Edward Snowden and Julian Assange are the first two that come to mind, but there are most certainly others. Additionally, what can be learned from who the political prisoners are in a country at any given time?
 In the United States, there is almost no reporting in main stream media publications about leftist political prisoners, aside from Assange or Snowden. If we assume that this is because there are currently not many leftist political prisoners in the United States, this could indicate that the left is not healthy, or at least not presenting an active threat to the ruling neoliberal bourgeois class.
o Another interesting research question: were sports teams in the United States ever supported by/representative of leftist or socialist groups? It seems that there is a history of support by such groups for association football in Europe, historically, but I have not seen any history of leftist support for sports in the United States, at least in the big four leagues (MLB, NBA, NHL, NFL).
o Gramsci’s ironic perspective and appreciation of prison life is fascinating. I think it can be generalized to a view of many aspects of modern life, which have been stripped of any meaning and commoditized.
 Personally, I find myself appreciating the NFL through the same ironic lens that Gramsci appreciates prison life. The NFL is arguably the most exciting sport to watch, almost every game is close, and there is a growing use of analytics in the sport which makes it both more accessible and interesting. However, this is all caveated by the acknowledgement that the sport should not exist and is a sign of a decaying culture and society, much like gladiators.
Notebook 1
• Note 15 – On Italian Universities
o There are many similarities between what Gramsci describes as the situation in Italian Universities at the time and the current existing universities in the United States. Lectures in US universities are the same as those in Italian universities wherein the professor gives a lecture to the entire class with little dialogue between professor and students. To the extent that students wish to have a dialogue with the professor it is mediated through the process of pursuing a thesis. However, thesis research is highly specialized and thus limits the scope of any dialogue.
o There is no dialectical process between students and teachers. Therefore, Universities are only a place to disperse bourgeois propaganda, which obviously is the priority of both university administrators and donors.

• Note 25 – Achille Loria
o There are many current intellectuals in the west that remind one of Gramsci’s description of Achille Loria. Positivism seems to have continued to the present day in the west, and we can now look back on the effects that positivism has had as the dominant “progressive” political ideology in the west (read: the United States) for more than 50 years. An obvious effect is the utter defeat of the left and a nearly-dead labor movement in the west. A less obvious effect is the near-death of culture and media. Cultural and media institutions are often presented as being progressive (aside from things like Fox News/the Murdoch media empire). Positivism allows these institutions to present themselves as such; positivism allows one to feel that it is ok to feel powerless because there are scientific justifications for the decay of the planet.

• Note 42 – Father Bresciani’s Progeny
o Gramsci is interested in the view of groups of people through the “scientific” lens that positivism uses. He points out places where the detached, scientific view allows one to view other groups of people as inferior. “…one reaches the implicit conclusion that a whole people are ‘inferior’ and that, therefore, nothing can be done.”
 This has been borne out by the west since the end of WWII, and the defeat of leftist movements around the world. We live in a post-racial world today where power imbalances between the global south and the global north have been baked in. The dominant neoliberal bourgeois ideology has eliminated discussions of race from the mainstream – this may be good at the ideological and psychological level; however, it is meaningless at the material level. Both within the United States and around the world in the global south, materials differences abound across racial lines. In the United States non-white people are significantly worse-off from a material perspective. However, we are not allowed to talk about that because we have erased race from any serious discussion.
• Norm Macdonald had a joke about this on a radio interview that was instructive. He said something along the lines of “I wouldn’t want to live in a neighborhood with black people because it would be violent.” Now, of course we cannot fall into the trap that Gramsci has pointed out which arises from the positivist view – the neighborhood Norm is referring to is not more violent because black people are inherently more violent. It is more violent because the neighborhood is more likely to be poor if it is predominantly black, because black people are more likely to be poor than white people in the United States, due to structural designs created by the white bourgeois ruling class during the country’s conception. The radio interviewer Norm is talking to falls into the trap, ridiculously arguing that black neighborhoods are not more likely to be poor, which is not factually true.
o It seems like there has been a proliferation of ignorance about where ideology comes from. People have a vague sense that their ideology is grounded in “science”, but people do not understand why this is or what it means. It is as if positivism has succeeded in eliminating any other mainstream liberal ideology, and as a result people have no reason to think about ideology any more.
 As a result, any time someone tries to have a conversation surrounding morals, they are completely lost. They must base their opinion on their own personal experience, which is good up to a point. But when they are presented with a novel situation, they have no moral structure to fall back on.

• Note 43 – types of periodicals
o At this point it seems like most of Gramsci’s insights are not grounded in historical materialism. He talks about the development of ideologies and how they progress from one stage to the next. However, he does not connect this development to underlying historical material conditions. This can probably be attributed, at least in part, to the fact that he did not have materials to ground his research in at this point of his imprisonment.
o “Futurism” smacks of the “third way” politics of the Clintons and modern neoliberal Democrats in the US. Bourgeois liberals are always forced to come up with new justifications for the fact that liberal ideology is inherently reactionary.

• Note 44 – Political class leadership before and after assuming government power
o Just as Gramsci has defined the class that the Moderates represented during the Risorgimento, it would be interesting to define the class that the Democratic and Republican parties represent in the United States. In many ways the classes that each party represent are similar, in fact it is likely that they both represent the same elite class. If this is the case, then the only real way to differentiate them is through factions that appear through operations of what has been called the Deep State.
o Gramsci talks about the Jacobins advancing the revolution by establishing the conditions for bourgeois political dominance. “The Jacobins, therefore, forced their hand, but always in the direction of real historical development, because they not only founded the bourgeois state and made of the bourgeoisie the ‘dominant’ class, but they did more (in a certain sense), they made of the bourgeoisie the leading hegemonic class, that is, they provide the state with a permanent base.”
 Traditional Marxist analysis says that the bourgeois rule needs to precede the dictatorship of the proletariat. However, often such analysis seems to feel that the rule of the bourgeoisie will be short-lived, on the scale of decades, when it seems that the rule of the bourgeoisie will last for centuries.
 This is because the bourgeoisie needs to establish power over the entire global political economy before the conditions arise wherein the proletariat is fully self-conscious and ready to assume power. We are closer to that situation now than, for example, the Bolsheviks were in the Russian Revolution of 1917. But it is unclear when the conditions will be right for the worldwide proletariat revolution.

• Note 47 – Hegel and Associationism
o Gramsci’s ideas around intellectualism, ideology, and hegemony are starting to become more concrete, as he pulls examples from the French Revolution of political formations and how they formulated ideas.

• Note 48 – Charles Maurras’ reverse Jacobinism
o Gramsci places such weight on ideology and intellectualism without interrogating the underlying historical material reasons such ideologies developed.
 This again is probably in large part due to the dearth of research materials Gramsci had access to at the time.

• Note 61 – Americanism
o Gramsci points out that intellectual currents in Europe are influenced by the long history and development of Capitalism on the continent. He contrasts this with the situation in America, where there is not the same long history of Capitalist development.
 Gramsci also describes the result of the ingrained intellectual structures in Europe as being that a class of “lazy” people has been created which rely on their generational wealth.
 I would prefer if these structures were defined by material conditions instead, but again this is probably impossible given Gramsci’s imprisonment.
o Interesting that Gramsci points out that hegemony is preceded by the development of superstructure. So, in the United States, which is relatively new, the superstructure has not yet been created, so the question of hegemony has not yet been posed.
 Would Gramsci feel that the superstructure is developed now? (and following the conclusion of WWII)? Or, maybe a better question is when would Gramsci say that the superstructure is developed in the United States?
• I would say that the superstructure becomes defined in the 1970s, aka the start of the era of neoliberalism.

• Note 76 – The crisis of the “west”
o Gramsci draws a line between the decline of the church and the rise of the “west.” It seems useful to draw a distinction between the two eras – the era of the church and the era of the west – even though much of western culture and development owes itself to the church.
 In a way the West is its own religion, but with a metaphysics based in capitalism and positivism, and no form of true spirituality.

• Note 78 – the public and Italian literature
o Gramsci has a great insight about literature (and true art, for that matter): “…literature must be simultaneously an act of culture (civilization) and a work of art (beauty).”

• Note 89 – Folklore
o It is interesting to oppose folklore to the ideology of the state. The state tries to eradicate folklore to the extent that it is detrimental to the aims of the state.
 In the west the state has an ideology grounded in science and positivism (liberalism). Obviously, this is because the state is run by capital, and positivism makes the masses obedient and more ready to accept injustice.
o What does folklore look like in the modern United States, and in the west as a whole?
 Likely it is a regional phenomenon in the United States, but there are also likely aspects of liberalism that have led to a common folklore across most of the country and the west as a whole.

• Note 101 – Piedigrotta
o “There is no longer any heartfelt laughter: there are sneers and mechanical parochial witticisms.”
 In my opinion one of the signature cultural productions of the United States in the 20th and 21st century has been comedy in general, and standup comedy. However, comedy has been dying during the recent culture wars. The only good comedy right now is that which criticizes the cultural hegemon, whether directly or tongue in cheek. Nick Mullen, Adam Friedland, Shane Gillis, and any comedic product of the dirtbag left are the peak of American comedy now. They have identified the absurdity of the internal contradictions that proponents and intellectuals of the neoliberal culture are forced to hold to exist. It is funny to compare Shane Gillis to Saturday Night Live, who fired him after a joke that they deemed to be insensitive. Saturday Night Live has had had some funny moments in time, but currently it is as funny as any comedy that could be written by artificial intelligence.

• Note 114 – The Risorgimento. Political and military leadership.
o It would be interesting to study the political connections between military officers in the United States and the government, and also the deep state. In fact, an in depth understanding of the connections and constituencies of military officers in this country (including internal police forces) could shed light on the power dynamics of the government and the deep state, and who is really in control.

• Note 141 – Americanism
o Gramsci seems to be defining Americanism as a rejection of history, and comparing it to Italy where there are many centuries of history. It seems that he finds it problematic that Italian liberal forces are so interested in pursuing Americanism. (Obviously he does not hold reactionary views; rather, he sees that Americanism is the intellectual justification that capital has built to oppress the masses).

• Note 151 – The historical relation between the modern French state created by the Revolution and the other modern European states
o Gramsci points out how older economic classes transition to “caste” once a new political economic order has been created. This happened in France during the restoration, when the old Feudal class was allowed to continue to govern, even though they no longer were a defined economic class.
 This is what happened to black people in the United States following the US Civil War. Black people transitioned from a class having an economic position (slaves) to a new economic order where the grouping still existed, but now as a caste instead of a political economic class.
 How does having “caste-consciousness” differ from having class-consciousness? Having caste-consciousness does not allow for political economic action as a group, because it is not defined under current political economic conditions. As Gramsci has pointed out above, it is defined under prior political economic conditions which no longer exist. Therefore, caste-consciousness is limited in that it accepts current political economic conditions as given. The ruling class under the current political economic conditions is fine with class consciousness because it does not pose a threat to their power.

Notebook 2
• Note 6 – An article, ‘Problemi finanziari,’ signed Verax (Tittoni) in Nuova Antologia of 1 June 1927
o Gramsci compares the financing of WWI in Italy to other European in countries. It seems that in other countries the capital of all classes, or at least the upper class was used to finance the war. However, in Italy, the capital of the middle classes was used in order to save the capital of the upper class.
 It seems like this could help describe how the conditions for fascism arose in Italy (and probably Germany as well). A class of formerly wealthy, capital-holding, middle class people was suddenly without capital (and therefore, without power in the modern liberal capitalist world economy). This would obviously lead to anger and resentment, and a desire to regain that power somehow. Fascism offered that path to power, not directly through regaining capital, however, but through violence and oppressing the Other.
 This is another reason to compare the political economic situation in the United States and the rest of the West to that in Germany and Italy prior to WWII.

• Note 12 – The Italian Merchant Marine
o Gramsci is doing much more hard research in this notebook than the previous one. Initially that seems to be how he divided his work.

• Note 21
o Gramsci discusses a brief, recent imperial history of Ethiopia; however, he fails to discuss the situation for the population, or even touch on the intellectual situation in the country at the time.
 In part this is due to his lack of sources on the history. However, his blind spots represent a failure on his part to consider the people in Ethiopia to the same degree that he considers the people and intellectuals in Italy (he treats this through a racist lens, in other words).
 This is what Cedric Robinson is referring to when he discusses the shortcomings of Marxism in the 19th and 20th centuries – the framework of the philosophy may be correct, but the analysis falls short because it fails to consider the entire global political economy, the historical material conditions that underly other regions outside of Europe, and the failure to consider the historical material perspectives and intellectual traditions of people outside of Europe and the west.

• Note 30 – Italy and Yemen in the new Arab policy
o Gramsci take much more seriously the popular mood and intellectual traditions of Yemen in this note than he did in the previous note regarding Ethiopia. I am curious why this is the case.

• Note 75
o In part of his critique of the author of the article under consideration, Gramsci points to a more general flaw in sociological analysis; namely, that this type of analysis lacks a critical point of view.
 This reminds me of Lukacs’ critiques of bourgeois analysis, and how it tries to remain objective at all costs. In truth there is not such thing as true “objective” analysis of any social phenomenon, so the result is either drivel, or an implied support for the bourgeois class in power (the author may not even be aware that their work supports the class in power).

• Note 78 – Atlantic-Pacific
o Gramsci briefly asks whether the central hegemonic axis will shift in the future from the Atlantic to the Pacific, given the massive populations of China and India.
 Almost 100 years in the future, the axis has shifted but it has not exclusively moved to the Pacific. Instead, it seems merely stretched between the two. The US is stuck right in the middle of the hegemonic axis, but I could see it shifting much more away from the Atlantic in the next 50 years as the economic and political conditions in Europe

[Andrew · Rating 2 out of 5]

I should have read "Selections" instead...

This edition did have a nice 60-page intro by none other than noted Marxist scholar Mayor Pete's Dad.

[Sunny · Rating 4 out of 5]

in places a brilliant book. in places unless you are down with the intellecual - political scene in late 1800s early 1900s mussolini era, a lot of this will go over your head - well it did go over mine. Gramshe wrote this collection of his notes whilst in prison over about a 8 year period and its essentially a collection of his intellectual musings on a whole variery of topics from Islam, to mussololini, to gabriele d'anunzio to americanism and christianity. incredibly detailed book and very intellectual. it took me about 30 pages or so to get into his style. he also talks about creating an individal that in combine intelectual philosophical political and social characterstics and act not just talk about acting. his theroy of cultural hegemony is fascinating.

[Diego · Rating 4 out of 5]

Las reflexiones durante los años en la cárcel de Grasmci se extienden por una amplia gama de tópicos, la historia Italiana,La revolución francesa, la unificación Alemana, la económica política y los medios.

Su análisis de los Intelectuales en el movimiento de unificación italiano y posteriormente en el siglo XX es magnifico, de la misma forma la forma en que se aleja del marxismo ortodoxo y lo modifica con sus propias ideas respecto al socialismo occidental.

[Mohammad Sheydaee · Rating 1 out of 5]

کتاب خوبی نبود. در واقع نوشتن این ها احتمالا برای خود نویسنده تسکینی بوده باشد. اما برای خواننده احتملا هیچ فایده ای نخواهد داشت.
لینک طاقچه
https://taaghche.com/book/119263/%D8%...

[Bob · Rating 3 out of 5]

heavily theoretical communist writer. Less generally applicable than I had hoped.

[Pável Granados · Rating 5 out of 5]

Antonio Gramsci (1891-1937) estuvo en la cárcel desde 1926 hasta casi su muerte, en 1937. Los cuadernos que dejó escritos (2,848 páginas) se fueron ordenando póstumamente y dándose a la publicación, con las consabidas dificultades pues se trata de uno de los pensadores marxistas más complejos. De hecho, para poder andar, su obra requiere de un complejo sistema de ortopedia crítica: desbrozar un camino muy difícil de andar. Lo es más aún su aplicación a la realidad, pues se debe de extraer la enseñanza concreta. Así que no siempre es buena idea acudir a las fuentes primeras, ya que en casos como éste se necesita de una buena compañía académica para comprender esta obra. Sin embargo, por aquí y por allá he arrancado pasajes, consideraciones que me apresuro a plantar aquí porque me parecen pertinentes. Por ejemplo, sobre la democracia: es un lugar común decir que el voto de “cualquier imbécil que sepa escribir” vale lo mismo que el de aquellos que se dedican sus mejores fuerzas al Estado. Esta idea le parece falsa, pues las opiniones no valen lo mismo. Si una opinión se expande en número, entonces lo importante es la opinión que influyó en las demás. Todas las ideas que profesamos tienen un origen, un sitio en el cual se crearon, y medir “democráticamente” es sólo conocer el final de todo un proceso. De tal manera que la democracia es: la lucha de una serie de caciques intelectuales, que producen ideas políticas y que son eficaces en mayor o menor medida. Así, hallando los movimientos relativamente permanentes se puede estructurar la teoría de una sociedad, pero sin dejar de lado la coyuntura. Ya entonces, Gramsci criticaba la crítica coyuntural, ese periodismo mezquino dirigido sólo a los dirigentes políticos, hecho sólo para resolver problemas inmediatos. Crítica que engloba a la inmensa mayoría de nuestro periodismo cotidiano. “Ninguna fuerza social querrá confesar jamás que está superada”: y muy pocos periodistas de hoy podrían aplicar esta sentencia a los partidos políticos, ni se toca el tema en la discusión pública actual. La pregunta de Gramsci, actualizada, sería: ¿tenemos las herramientas intelectuales para llevar a cabo esta batalla intelectual? Hace poco existía el peligro de la demasiada atomización de fuerzas: partidos pequeños, candidatos independientes. Hoy, el fenómeno es la unión en Frentes electorales. Lo que quiere decir que no había tantas visiones políticas como parecía, sino ante todo dos: neoliberalismo frente a proteccionismo. Y los intelectuales liberales, ésos llaman a la libertad, lo cual es en realidad una justificación de la dictadura del mercado. Pero eso ya es sabido, el conservadurismo difícilmente se asume como tal. Como dice Gramsci: los intelectuales pretenden decir que el Estado no debe de intervenir en la actividad económica de la sociedad civil. Pero no hay tal independencia: el liberalismo es también una reglamentación que se introduce y se mantiene por medios legislativos y represivos. Esa libertad de la que tanto leemos en las columnas editoriales no es pues una expresión espontánea de la sociedad. El peligro de hoy es que más que una nueva sociedad civil, tengamos que acudir sólo a la rotación de poderes administrando el Estado. La somnolencia social es la que sería responsable de no aprovechar una oportunidad coyuntural.
(Febrero de 2018)

Antonio Gramsci. Cuadernos de la cárcel. Notas sobre Maquiavelo, sobre política y sobre el estado moderno / Note sul Machiavelli, sulla politica e sullo stato moderno (1949), tr. José M. Aricó, 3ª ed., 2ª reimp. México, Juan Pablos, 2009. (Col. Obras de Antonio Gramsci, 1)

[Bahman Bahman · Rating 2 out of 5]

Antonio Francesco Gramsci ; (22 January 1891 – 27 April 1937) was an Italian Marxist philosopher and politician. He wrote on political theory, sociology and linguistics. He attempted to break from the economic determinism of traditional Marxist thought and so is considered a key neo-Marxist.[1] He was a founding member and one-time leader of the Communist Party of Italy and was imprisoned by Benito Mussolini's Fascist regime.

He wrote more than 30 notebooks and 3,000 pages of history and analysis during his imprisonment. 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 Italian history and nationalism, the French Revolution, fascism, Fordism, civil society, 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 power in capitalist societies. The bourgeoisie, in Gramsci's view, develops a hegemonic culture using ideology rather than violence, economic force, or coercion. Hegemonic culture propagates its own values and norms so that they become the "common sense" values of all and thus maintain the status quo. Hegemonic power is therefore used to maintain consent to the capitalist order, rather than coercive power using force to maintain order. This cultural hegemony is produced and reproduced by the dominant class through the institutions that form the superstructure.

[Oihane · Rating 2 out of 5]

It is profoundly upsetting to see that philosophy and politics book editors still don't know what their job actually entails in the XXI century.

A bad edition can make or break a literary work, and this is the perfect example of the latter. What could have been a richly informative book about one of socialism's most influential thinkers turned into an insurmountable wall of text so poorly structured, it leaves you with nothing in the end.

Instead of writing a 128-page, yes, one hundred and twenty-eight-page introduction that rambles on about theses you still haven't seen unfolded, and finishing the word salad sandwich with over 200 pages of notes, the editor could've simply created an agile text that provides the original notes plus notations to help the reader unravel what was Gramsci's lifework.

I wanted to dive deep into Gramsci's vital context, line of thought, tribulations, opinions and contributions to socialism. Instead, I was met with a behemoth so impossible to encompass that my reading time was extended to almost 4 months of constant dread to pick up this book. I wasn't even halfway through it when I quietly went to my to-read list to drop off the second part of the series. Somehow, I still don't know how, I finished this.

Was Gramsci good? I don't know, the editor wasn't kind enough to help answer this question.

Was the edition good? Steer away from this like it's the plague.

[Dante Cee · Rating 4 out of 5]

Though this was a rather dense read it does offer a comprehensive exploration of power, culture, and class struggle under a fascist regime. Gamsci draws from Marxism and Hegelian ideas to develop the concept of cultural hegemony, and how the ruling classes minatain dominance through civil and political society. Something else interesting about this work is Gramsci's redefinition of the intellectual. He protests that intellectuals emerge from the working class, and offer practical lived perspectives distinct from traditional elites--an idea that highlights the need to integrate technical education in political life. Gramsci also distinguishes between various methods of revolution, citing transformations to cultural foundations as the optimal method of ensuring lasting change in democratic capitalist societies.

In closing, Gramsci's work remains relevant today, as it highlights how modern states preserve inequality by blending coercion with consent, creating the illusion of opportunity while reinforcing rigid class divisions. Reading this text after the essays by Orwell and Brecht reinforced similar points made by three very different writers--that democracy often makes the working class believe that their position within the social hierarchy is naturally occurring by maintaining the illusion of freedom even when inequity is widespread.

[Krishna Avendaño · Rating 3 out of 5]

La lectura que hace Gramsci de Maquiavelo es, cuando menos, fascinante. Sus apreciaciones sobre el catolicismo son groseras, como se puede esperar de un materialista. El análisis del americanismo y el fordismo no son para nada originales, ni particularmente iluminadoras; se entiende, el autor era un pensador político y no un economista (y la economía marxista es de por sí un paradigma intelectual paupérrimo). Con todo, Gramsci es el menos despistado de los marxistas, y quizá el que tiene mejor pluma.

[Mauricio Arriaga · Rating 5 out of 5]

Contiene el pensamiento de Antonio Gramsci sobre humanismo y socialismo en la época de la Italia Fascista. Los personajes pensadores que mueren y/o son encarcelados, son los verdaderamente peligrosos para el sistema imperante por lo que voltear a ver la ideología de Gramsci es necesario en estos tiempos de incertidumbre. Altamente recomendable para la gente que se sumerge en el mundo de la verdadera izquierda, no la izquerducha liberal.

[Darrell · Rating 4 out of 5]

Interesting. My main interest in these types of books is how one can accomplish so much in the most dire circumstances. Most believe that everything needs to be running smooth to get things done. Gramsci, to me is in a long line of people; (the Apostle Paul; George Jackson; Karl Marx; and many others who were able to overcome all types of adversity to continue on with their purpose.

[Nicole Kruse · Rating 3 out of 5]

This was a helpful introduction into what Gramsci's prison experience was like, and pieced together holes in the long-term political prisoner experience that will be helpful for my research. I think the translator did a good job of incorporating Sardinian, as we know Gramsci was somewhat of a Sardinian nationalist. I look forward to reading his political theory!

[Nobody · Rating 4 out of 5]

Gives information on how this man thought and studied while in prison. This text lays the foundation of Hegemony and gives examples for a war of position and a war of movement. Definitely worth a read not even if you are a Marxist.

[Francesco Cagnoni · Rating 4 out of 5]

Patato il Gramsci, feminist king

[Kassidy Wheeler · Rating 5 out of 5]

as president of the PCI and a staunch opponent of Mussolini, I wonder what he would think of Giorgio Meloni today, oh how we've fallen so far.

[Dylan Grace · Rating 5 out of 5]

never met a poli prof who didn’t want to hop on this guys dick. can’t lie tho after reading the prison notebooks i kinda get it

[Daniel Lang · Rating 5 out of 5]

"Prison Notebooks: Volume I" by Antonio Gramsci stands as a monumental work that not only offers a profound insight into the mind of one of the most influential Marxist thinkers but also serves as a cornerstone in the realm of political philosophy and critical theory. This collection of Gramsci's writings, penned during his imprisonment under Mussolini's fascist regime, provides a rich tapestry of ideas that continue to shape discourse on power, culture, and revolution.

At its core, this volume reflects Gramsci's intellectual resilience in the face of adversity. Incarcerated for his political beliefs, Gramsci turned his prison confinement into a crucible for intellectual exploration. The sheer breadth and depth of his observations, spanning from reflections on historical materialism to analyses of cultural hegemony, showcase the intellectual prowess that allowed him to transcend the confines of his physical imprisonment.

One of the key themes that reverberates throughout "Prison Notebooks: Volume I" is Gramsci's nuanced understanding of power dynamics. His concept of "cultural hegemony" unveils the subtle ways in which dominant classes maintain control not only through coercion but also by shaping the cultural and ideological landscape. Gramsci's exploration of the role of intellectuals in this process remains particularly relevant, underscoring the pivotal role of cultural producers in shaping societal norms and values.

Furthermore, Gramsci's engagement with the concept of the "organic intellectual" adds another layer of complexity to his analysis. By emphasizing the potential for transformative action within various social groups, Gramsci challenges traditional Marxist notions and opens up avenues for understanding the agency of individuals in shaping their destinies.

The volume also delves into Gramsci's reflections on historical materialism and the role of the state. His nuanced examination of state power goes beyond a mere instrumental understanding, emphasizing the importance of ideological and cultural elements in sustaining the authority of the ruling class. This perspective has had a profound impact on subsequent thinkers and movements, influencing critical approaches to state theory.

What makes "Prison Notebooks: Volume I" particularly compelling is the combination of theoretical rigor and personal reflection. Gramsci's writings often blur the lines between academic analysis and introspective musings, providing readers with a unique window into the mind of a political theorist grappling with the challenges of his time.

The meticulous editorial work in compiling and organizing Gramsci's scattered and fragmented notes into a coherent volume deserves commendation. The footnotes and annotations offer valuable contextualization, aiding readers in navigating the intricate web of Gramsci's ideas and references.

In conclusion, "Prison Notebooks: Volume I" is a tour de force that transcends the confines of its historical context. Antonio Gramsci's intellectual legacy is vividly illuminated through this collection, making it an indispensable resource for scholars, students, and anyone interested in understanding the intricacies of power, culture, and resistance. This volume serves as an enduring testament to the enduring relevance of Gramsci's ideas in navigating the complexities of our contemporary world.

[Mariam Arafat]

Here is where Gramsci sat in a cold cell & articulated his revolutionary insights on hegemony & false consciousness. More enjoyable & consistent than Engels & Benjamin (even Marx himself). All in all, an essential read if you consider yourself a serious radical & want a bold breakout from classical Marxism.