What do you think?
Rate this book
A Gramsci Reader
Antonio Gramsci is the twentieth century's most original and wide-ranging Marxist thinker. While jailed by Mussolini he wrote a series of notebooks which have become increasingly influential in the post-war period, both in Italy and elsewhere. The flexibility of Gramsci's approach to politics has helped to rescue Marxist thinking from the determinism and economic reductionism to which it has often fallen prey.
This reader offers the first comprehensive selection of Gramsci's writings in one volume. It includes his pre-prison writings as well as the most important passages from the Prison Notebooks. It covers political, cultural, historical and philosophical themes and subjects as diverse as the nature and role of the political party, education, popular culture, fascism and folklore.
Gramsci's use of terms such as hegemony and historical bloc has often confused readers; this edition sets out to make these terms clear and comprehensible, through a glossary which is carefully linked to the selection of key texts from Gramsci's work.
This reader offers the first comprehensive selection of Gramsci's writings in one volume. It includes his pre-prison writings as well as the most important passages from the Prison Notebooks. It covers political, cultural, historical and philosophical themes and subjects as diverse as the nature and role of the political party, education, popular culture, fascism and folklore.
Gramsci's use of terms such as hegemony and historical bloc has often confused readers; this edition sets out to make these terms clear and comprehensible, through a glossary which is carefully linked to the selection of key texts from Gramsci's work.
448 pages, Hardcover
First published January 1, 1937
100 people are currently reading
4030 people want to read
Ratings & Reviews
Friends & Following
Create a free account to discover what your friends think of this book!
Community Reviews
Displaying 1 - 30 of 44 reviews
December 8, 2016
I think I'm going to have to declare a moratorium on all liberal or reactionary thinkers until this shit is over.
Put down the phenomenology. Pick up the fucking Gramsci.
*
Antonio Gramsci, it's widely agreed, was the greatest strategic thinker in the history Marxism. If, as Perry Anderson famously argued (see Considerations on Western Marxism), all of 'western' Marxism was essentially a reckoning with defeat, Gramsci was the one least inclined to take this defeat lying down. This anthology provides a good overview of his basic ideas.
*
On the 1920 workers' occupation of factories
*
Unlike the Frankfurt school, Gramsci doesn't seem to have had much contact with modern Hollywood-derived pop culture. However, he was deeply attuned to folk culture, and considered it a front in the struggle for socialism
In the 80+ years since the Prison Notebooks were written humanity has seen American pop culture spread throughout the world to become well-nigh universal and hegemonic. To a large extent, this has meant the elimination of local folk cultures everywhere. Gramsci is describing a very different kind of process in the passage above. Still, even though it's extremely tempting to dismiss pop culture as simply propaganda for emptiness, maybe we should be open to the possibility that the creation of a universal culture contains potential seeds of emancipation.
Put down the phenomenology. Pick up the fucking Gramsci.
*
Antonio Gramsci, it's widely agreed, was the greatest strategic thinker in the history Marxism. If, as Perry Anderson famously argued (see Considerations on Western Marxism), all of 'western' Marxism was essentially a reckoning with defeat, Gramsci was the one least inclined to take this defeat lying down. This anthology provides a good overview of his basic ideas.
*
On the 1920 workers' occupation of factories
It was really necessary to see with one's eyes old workers, who seemed broken down by decades upon decades of oppression and exploitation, stand upright even in a physical sense during the period of the occupation - see them develop creative activities; suggesting, helping, always active day and night. It was necessary to see these and other sights, in order to be convinced how limitless the latent powers of the masses are, and how they are revealed and develop swiftly as soon as the conviction takes root among the masses that they are arbiters and masters of their own destinies.
*
Unlike the Frankfurt school, Gramsci doesn't seem to have had much contact with modern Hollywood-derived pop culture. However, he was deeply attuned to folk culture, and considered it a front in the struggle for socialism
It is clear that, in order to achieve the desired end, the spirit of folklore studies should be changed, as well as deepened and extended. Folklore must not be considered an eccentricity, an oddity or a picturesque element, but as something which is very serious and is to be taken seriously. Only in this way will the teaching of folklore be more efficient and really bring about the birth of a new culture among the broad popular masses, so that the separation between modern culture and popular culture of folklore will disappear. An activity of this kind, thoroughly carried out, would correspond on the intellectual plane to what the Reformation was in Protestant countries.
In the 80+ years since the Prison Notebooks were written humanity has seen American pop culture spread throughout the world to become well-nigh universal and hegemonic. To a large extent, this has meant the elimination of local folk cultures everywhere. Gramsci is describing a very different kind of process in the passage above. Still, even though it's extremely tempting to dismiss pop culture as simply propaganda for emptiness, maybe we should be open to the possibility that the creation of a universal culture contains potential seeds of emancipation.
April 15, 2009
Okay, stop me if i'm wrong.
Gramsci is a critic of revolutions, taking an anarchist’s stance in that a state-structure will eventually obfuscate revolutionary goals on the basis of those-in-power's personal interest. He most closely dissects the Russian Revolution as the most recent (and successful) revolution to his time, though thoroughly criticizes Italian government and state as well (he was in their prison, after all). His complaint is that revolutionaries become invested in personal interest once they come to power. The remodeling of state for the specific interests of those in power develops a purely ‘economic-corporate’ economy, with no basis for human need, and Gramsci describes this as ‘the worst kind of feudalism.’ He praises the Jacobins in the 1790s of France for violently quashing any party to be reactionary towards the revolution, including revolutionaries who had seemingly changed. This violent period, where every one and their mother were guillotined gave way to the Napoleonic Wars, because the anarchism got so out of control it elapsed into chaos. To avoid this chaos, he implores cultural identity to be drawn for all classes. He says a nation must be formed nationally before it is deemed international. The growth must be organic and humanistic. Peasants and intellectuals chose their own culture, it grows from them and is accepted as national character: this is the dispersion of hegemony.
The basis for Gramsci is the ability of the individual: A proletarian, no matter how intelligent, no matter how fit to become a man of culture, is forced either to squander his qualities on some other activity, or else to become a rebel and autodidact—i.e.(apart from some notable exceptions) a mediocrity, a man who cannot give all he could have given had he been completed and strengthened by the discipline of school. Culture is a privilege. Education is a privilege. And we do not want it to be so. All young people should be equal before culture.
Accessibility is key.
He believes in the power of contradiction, the dialectical necessity for difference: In life no act remains without consequences, and to believe in one theory rather than another has its own particular impact on action. Even an error leaves traces of itself, to the extent that its acceptance and promulgation can delay( but certainly not prevent) the attainment of an end.
And that the ability to impart knowledge and progress comes not from the state’s implementation of culture, but from individual growth. He is a liberal, which by his definition makes him an economist. He believes in individual decisions to govern necessity. The necessity for that freedom: man knows himself, he knows how much his individual will can be worth, and how it can be made more powerful in that, by obeying, by disciplining itself to necessity, it finally dominates necessity itself, identifying it with its own ends. Who knows himself? Not man in general, but he who undergoes the yoke of necessity.
Gramsci is a critic of revolutions, taking an anarchist’s stance in that a state-structure will eventually obfuscate revolutionary goals on the basis of those-in-power's personal interest. He most closely dissects the Russian Revolution as the most recent (and successful) revolution to his time, though thoroughly criticizes Italian government and state as well (he was in their prison, after all). His complaint is that revolutionaries become invested in personal interest once they come to power. The remodeling of state for the specific interests of those in power develops a purely ‘economic-corporate’ economy, with no basis for human need, and Gramsci describes this as ‘the worst kind of feudalism.’ He praises the Jacobins in the 1790s of France for violently quashing any party to be reactionary towards the revolution, including revolutionaries who had seemingly changed. This violent period, where every one and their mother were guillotined gave way to the Napoleonic Wars, because the anarchism got so out of control it elapsed into chaos. To avoid this chaos, he implores cultural identity to be drawn for all classes. He says a nation must be formed nationally before it is deemed international. The growth must be organic and humanistic. Peasants and intellectuals chose their own culture, it grows from them and is accepted as national character: this is the dispersion of hegemony.
The basis for Gramsci is the ability of the individual: A proletarian, no matter how intelligent, no matter how fit to become a man of culture, is forced either to squander his qualities on some other activity, or else to become a rebel and autodidact—i.e.(apart from some notable exceptions) a mediocrity, a man who cannot give all he could have given had he been completed and strengthened by the discipline of school. Culture is a privilege. Education is a privilege. And we do not want it to be so. All young people should be equal before culture.
Accessibility is key.
He believes in the power of contradiction, the dialectical necessity for difference: In life no act remains without consequences, and to believe in one theory rather than another has its own particular impact on action. Even an error leaves traces of itself, to the extent that its acceptance and promulgation can delay( but certainly not prevent) the attainment of an end.
And that the ability to impart knowledge and progress comes not from the state’s implementation of culture, but from individual growth. He is a liberal, which by his definition makes him an economist. He believes in individual decisions to govern necessity. The necessity for that freedom: man knows himself, he knows how much his individual will can be worth, and how it can be made more powerful in that, by obeying, by disciplining itself to necessity, it finally dominates necessity itself, identifying it with its own ends. Who knows himself? Not man in general, but he who undergoes the yoke of necessity.
April 14, 2013
I’m not always a fan of “Readers” – I’d usually rather read someone’s best book than sort through disconnected bits and pieces (particularly with fiction writers), but in this case it seemed reasonable to get a sampler, since Gramsci’s imprisonment makes for a somewhat odd publication chronology, and I was interested in some explanatory notes.
Gramsci’s early writings are fairly straightforward Leninism – he was in Moscow in the early 1920’s, participated in the Second International, etc. Maybe that’s not quite correct, though – Eric Hobsbawm points out in his introduction that many Leninists from countries that weren’t quite ready for a Bolshevik revolution looked to Gramsci as a different path toward the same goal. At any rate, Gramsci is focusing entirely on Italy in these sections: most of the writing here is related to specific events in the communist party or the immediately pre-Mussolini era. A great deal of it is written for a specific audience, and other than the Lyons Theses, I wasn’t terribly taken with the editorials and columns that made up most of this section.
The Prison Notebooks, however, are much more interesting. Gramsci was arrested and imprisoned for what would turn out to be the rest of his life after the Fascists banned all political parties, and during the ten years he spent in jail he changed his focus to more philosophical and theoretical topics. Rather than particular issues within the Italian communist world, he begins to write about larger concepts within the “philosophy of praxis” and its potential political implementation. Topics like “hegemony” and “wars of position” allowed him to take a step back and analyze various historical and economic forces without grounding them in obscure moments of Italian history. This part of the work is something I’m much more interested in following up on, though the Reader seems to have given a decent if limited overview of the larger work.
Gramsci died immediately after being released, and a martyr’s passing is probably the ideal way to go for a revolutionary – his theories are captivating, and they don’t have the same memories of bloody history to weigh them down.
Gramsci’s early writings are fairly straightforward Leninism – he was in Moscow in the early 1920’s, participated in the Second International, etc. Maybe that’s not quite correct, though – Eric Hobsbawm points out in his introduction that many Leninists from countries that weren’t quite ready for a Bolshevik revolution looked to Gramsci as a different path toward the same goal. At any rate, Gramsci is focusing entirely on Italy in these sections: most of the writing here is related to specific events in the communist party or the immediately pre-Mussolini era. A great deal of it is written for a specific audience, and other than the Lyons Theses, I wasn’t terribly taken with the editorials and columns that made up most of this section.
The Prison Notebooks, however, are much more interesting. Gramsci was arrested and imprisoned for what would turn out to be the rest of his life after the Fascists banned all political parties, and during the ten years he spent in jail he changed his focus to more philosophical and theoretical topics. Rather than particular issues within the Italian communist world, he begins to write about larger concepts within the “philosophy of praxis” and its potential political implementation. Topics like “hegemony” and “wars of position” allowed him to take a step back and analyze various historical and economic forces without grounding them in obscure moments of Italian history. This part of the work is something I’m much more interested in following up on, though the Reader seems to have given a decent if limited overview of the larger work.
Gramsci died immediately after being released, and a martyr’s passing is probably the ideal way to go for a revolutionary – his theories are captivating, and they don’t have the same memories of bloody history to weigh them down.
January 22, 2008
Gramsci is beautifull and this reader is something I'll always come back to. Abused by academics and underread by organizers. 'Notes on the Study of Philosophy' piece and Gramsci's understanding of consciousness is a must read for all serious radicals in my opinion.
June 28, 2020
Antonio Gramsci (1891-1937) was a Marxist intellectual who was jailed by Mussolini. While in prison he wrote extensively on a wide range of subjects pertaining to politics, social organization, and education.
While attending the Univerity of Turin on a scholarship, he developed an interest in linguistics. To me, his writings on the subject of education are particularly interesting. For example, he writes in this book: "Latin (like Greek) appears to the imagination as a myth, even for the teacher. One does not study Latin in order to learn the language. For a long time, as a result of a cultural and scholarly tradition whose origin and development one might investigate, Latin has been studied as an element in an ideal curriculum, an element which combines and satisfies a whole series of pedagogic and psychological requirements. It has been studied in order to accustom children to studying in a specific manner, and to analyzing a historical body which can be treated as a corpse which returns continually to life; in order to accustom them to reason, to think abstractly and schematically while remaining able to plunge back from abstraction into real and immediate life, to see in each fact or datum what is general and what is particular, to distinguish the concept from the specific instance."
This is remarkably honest and insightful. Gramsci was acutely sensitive to the strong value of a classical education, which is why conservative educational theorists today cite him with approval.
And how about this:
"... it will always be an effort to learn physical self-discipline and self-control; the pupil has, in effect, to undergo a psycho-physical training. Many people have to be persuaded that studying too is a job, and a very tiring one, with its own particular apprenticeship -- involving muscles and nerves as well as intellect. It is a process of adaptation, a habit acquired with effort, tedium, and even suffering. Wider participation in secondary education brings with it a tendency to ease of the discipline of studies, and to ask for 'relaxations.'"
Prescient words indeed.
While attending the Univerity of Turin on a scholarship, he developed an interest in linguistics. To me, his writings on the subject of education are particularly interesting. For example, he writes in this book: "Latin (like Greek) appears to the imagination as a myth, even for the teacher. One does not study Latin in order to learn the language. For a long time, as a result of a cultural and scholarly tradition whose origin and development one might investigate, Latin has been studied as an element in an ideal curriculum, an element which combines and satisfies a whole series of pedagogic and psychological requirements. It has been studied in order to accustom children to studying in a specific manner, and to analyzing a historical body which can be treated as a corpse which returns continually to life; in order to accustom them to reason, to think abstractly and schematically while remaining able to plunge back from abstraction into real and immediate life, to see in each fact or datum what is general and what is particular, to distinguish the concept from the specific instance."
This is remarkably honest and insightful. Gramsci was acutely sensitive to the strong value of a classical education, which is why conservative educational theorists today cite him with approval.
And how about this:
"... it will always be an effort to learn physical self-discipline and self-control; the pupil has, in effect, to undergo a psycho-physical training. Many people have to be persuaded that studying too is a job, and a very tiring one, with its own particular apprenticeship -- involving muscles and nerves as well as intellect. It is a process of adaptation, a habit acquired with effort, tedium, and even suffering. Wider participation in secondary education brings with it a tendency to ease of the discipline of studies, and to ask for 'relaxations.'"
Prescient words indeed.
June 16, 2018
Good selection, with valuable commentary between sections. Visit the Online University of the Left http://ouleft.org and pick the Lives Classes section for three 90-minute videos using this book for an overview of Gramsci and his key ideas.
May 28, 2024
I am giving three points to this book which is the average of the two points that Gramsci merits as a thinker and the four points earned by David Forgacs for his brilliant selections, edits and chapter introductions which almost but not quite convinced me that Gramsci was an important Marxist theorist.
I read a similar reader in French fifty years ago which lacked Forgacs brilliant packaging which led me to believe that Gramsci was a journalistic commentator rather than a systematic thinker. Forgacs makes a strong case that in his prison notebooks written in the last ten years of his life Gramsci did indeed develop a consistent Marxist theory for political action.
I particularly urge GR members to read Forgac's superb glossary before launching into the sections taken from Gramsci's prison notebooks. Forgac's glossary is not truly in that it is not a set of definitions; rather it is a group of short essays that explain Gramsci's key concepts ("philosophy of praxis', "hegemony", "Caesarism", etc.)
In Gramsci's view the Russian revolution had been the consequence of the catastrophic mismanagement during WWI on the part of the Czars that created sufficient popular support for the communists that they were able to seize power. In Italy, the mismanagement of the Italian government had been less worse which allowed the aristocracy and bourgeoisie to rally behind fascism thus averting a communist takeover.
Gramsci believed that to achieve political power under less extreme conditions, the communists would need true hegemony. Thus in addition to mobilizing the workers, the communists would need a group of intellectuals that could promote an ideology that would be accepted by a coalition of social interests after the takeover. The public education system, the printed press and the arts broadly defined (painting, opera, literature, etc.) would need to be properly managed in order to ensure long term public support for the Marxist regime.
Gramsci arguably offered a great plan for the achievement of power by the Communist Party in a country with a democratic regime. In the 1970s when I was at university, his ideas were extremely fashionable. I still am not impressed but Forgacs is to be commended for so brilliantly pleading Gramsci's case.
I read a similar reader in French fifty years ago which lacked Forgacs brilliant packaging which led me to believe that Gramsci was a journalistic commentator rather than a systematic thinker. Forgacs makes a strong case that in his prison notebooks written in the last ten years of his life Gramsci did indeed develop a consistent Marxist theory for political action.
I particularly urge GR members to read Forgac's superb glossary before launching into the sections taken from Gramsci's prison notebooks. Forgac's glossary is not truly in that it is not a set of definitions; rather it is a group of short essays that explain Gramsci's key concepts ("philosophy of praxis', "hegemony", "Caesarism", etc.)
In Gramsci's view the Russian revolution had been the consequence of the catastrophic mismanagement during WWI on the part of the Czars that created sufficient popular support for the communists that they were able to seize power. In Italy, the mismanagement of the Italian government had been less worse which allowed the aristocracy and bourgeoisie to rally behind fascism thus averting a communist takeover.
Gramsci believed that to achieve political power under less extreme conditions, the communists would need true hegemony. Thus in addition to mobilizing the workers, the communists would need a group of intellectuals that could promote an ideology that would be accepted by a coalition of social interests after the takeover. The public education system, the printed press and the arts broadly defined (painting, opera, literature, etc.) would need to be properly managed in order to ensure long term public support for the Marxist regime.
Gramsci arguably offered a great plan for the achievement of power by the Communist Party in a country with a democratic regime. In the 1970s when I was at university, his ideas were extremely fashionable. I still am not impressed but Forgacs is to be commended for so brilliantly pleading Gramsci's case.
December 29, 2024
if i could, id give this reader a 4.5 instead. gramsci's strange views on the need for the state regulation of sexuality betray his roman catholic origins a bit too much tbh (as someone who grew up in it too). otherwise, his concept on all people being intellectuals at their core and simply needing the proper guidance to nurture and bring this side of themselves to the forefront is brilliant stuff. i also enjoyed deeply his passage on folklore, as another extension of this concept. one can see where paulo freire mustve started to formulate his concepts on education as well within gramsci's thoughts on student and teacher. the fetishism passage was also intensely interesting! really need to read more of gramsci.
October 20, 2020
İtalyan Marksist militan Antonio Gramsci'nin temel yazılarından seçmeler. Kronoloji ve konulara göre bölümlendirme yapılması ve her bölüm başında derleyenin eklediği birkaç sayfalık açıklamalar metinlerin bağlamının daha anlaşılır olmasını sağlamış.
Read
April 23, 2013I didn't know how to feel about most of these essays. Some of them, in the vein of the Prison Notebooks, continue Gramsci's admirable quest into the analysis of the places where cuture and capital intersect. He was one of the most sensible Marxist minds of his era-- practical action, intellectual rigor, a willingness to ask the tough questions-- and that shines through.
On the other hand, there are the endless tactical writings and discourses on the organizational structure of the various Left movements in Italy, and other issues that would only be of interest to historians doing highly specific research-- and they would probably be reading them in the original Italian. And worse, there are the dreaded dialectical digressions on the nature of Thermidoreanism, etc., that turn off even devoted Marxists and strike humanist-socialist types like myself as Hegelian wank-offs. Yawn.
On the other hand, there are the endless tactical writings and discourses on the organizational structure of the various Left movements in Italy, and other issues that would only be of interest to historians doing highly specific research-- and they would probably be reading them in the original Italian. And worse, there are the dreaded dialectical digressions on the nature of Thermidoreanism, etc., that turn off even devoted Marxists and strike humanist-socialist types like myself as Hegelian wank-offs. Yawn.
December 1, 2014
Normalde seçme yazılar biçiminde derlemeleri okumaktansa bir yazarın kitabını ya da kitaplarını kendi bütünlüğü içinde okumayı tercih ederim. Ancak Hapishane Defterleri'nin Türkçe çevirisi gerçekten berbat. Bu derleme de beklediğimden daha başarılı. Bölümlerin başında giriş olarak yazılan kısımlar bütünlük sağlamayı kolaylaştırıyor. Gramsci okumak isteyenler için sanırım Türkçe'deki en iyi kaynak.
August 31, 2017
I read the Prison Letters and some of his other work while doing my PhD, and cited much of it, but had to put it out of my thesis after it was ruled biased and out of the scope of my work, unfortunately. I thought it put much of my work on participatory decision-making in the emission of money into a broader context, but it was not my call.
March 8, 2021
Used as a reference for my graduate thesis. I wish that I had read this first, before the Prison Notebooks. It’s laid out much better with an introduction to each subsequent grouping of notes. The notes seems better organized as well. The cultural writings book is also a good companion but this is the best introductory Gramsci text.
April 23, 2016
Can be read straight thru (the editor did a wonderful job grouping things together and making the entire book) or each essay/letter can be read individually. A good read if you already have some interest in government and political science but probably not good for people new to the subject.
March 8, 2015
Gramsci was a novel thinker, but not the most exciting writer. He covers a great deal of ground, which is a strength and a weakness of this anthology. For a less materialist & determinist view of Marxism, he is your go to man.
August 17, 2014
Too academic, doesn't go into dependency theory and his influence on that so much, more just standard marxism.
February 23, 2025
This is about as difficult a book as I can read anymore with my alarmingly deteriorated attention span. It took me awhile but I got through the important bits, and I can see why he's considered foundational to modern Marxism. This is the single best compliation of Gramsci's writing, and a must-read for any Marxist. Certain concepts like "hegemony" and "war of position/maneuver" are vital for any serious political scientist.
There's also quite a timely passage on political crisis (p.217-19):
Yup, Gramsci clocked us.
Not Bad Reviews
There's also quite a timely passage on political crisis (p.217-19):
At a certain point in their historical lives, social groups become detached from their traditional parties... the traditional parties... are no longer recognized by their class as its expression. When such crises occur, the immediate situation becomes delicate and dangerous, because the field is open for violent solutions, for the activities of unknown forces, represented by charismatic 'men of destiny'.
... In every country the process is different, although the content is the same. And the content is the crisis of the ruling class's hegemony, which occurs either because the ruling class has failed in some major political undertaking for which it has requested, or forcibly extracted, the consent of the broad masses (war, for example), or because huge masses... have passed suddenly from a state of political passivity to a certain activity, and put forward demands which... add up to a revolution. A 'crisis of authority' is spoken of: this is precisely the crisis of hegemony, or crisis of the state as a whole.
... the various strata of the population are not all capable of orienting themselves equally swiftly, or of reorganizing with the same rhythm. The traditional ruling class, which has numerous trained cadres, changes men and programs and, with greater speed than is achieved by the subordinate classes, reabsorbs the control that was slipping from its grasp. Perhaps it may make sacrifices, and expose itself to an uncertain future by demagogic promises; but it retains power, reinforces it for the time being, and uses it to crush its adversary and disperse his leading cadres, who cannot be very numerous or highly trained. The passage of the troops of many different parties under the banner of a single party, which better represents and resumes the needs of the entire class, is an organic and normal phenomenon, even if its rhythm is very swift... It represents the fusion of an entire social class under a single leadership, which alone is held to be capable of solving an overriding problem of its existence and of fending off a mortal danger. When the crisis does not find this organic solution, but that of the charismatic leader, it means that a static equilibrium exists... it means that no group, neither the conservatives nor the progressives, has the strength for victory, and that even the conservative group needs a master.
Yup, Gramsci clocked us.
Not Bad Reviews
October 29, 2024
definitely an introduction to his work his history and his thought. i wouldnt rly call it definitive by any means cuz some sections have some heavy omissions but its pretty useful to see where his ideas related to his hardcore activism and the way fascist opposition both forceful and ideological influenced his ideas
gramsci is super extensive in elaborating marxist thought outside of some preconceieved econonimic and materialistic grounds that lead to fatalism, mechanicalism, syndicalism and complacency to the rise of fascist reaction. he describes hegemony as BOTH ideological and material, but it seems like lots his notes focus on the ideological bit which leads to some mischaracterizations of him ignoring the emphasis he placed on both forms being dialectical and Constantly informing one another. they arent separate, they are Tied together...
still his concepts of hegemony in a cultural sphere and its methods of building consent bring some of marx's bits into a more complete and contemporary context especially reflecting on how gutted american labor and mass opposition really is. his emphasis on understanding historical processes forces etc. in relation to politics as One Mass that suffers from discrete abstraction in study is genuinely super super important to always keep in mind in any field whatsoever. like how the fuck are sociology, history, anthropology, philosophy, political science, or any form of social study supposed to exist as entirely discrete forms of study when theyre all one giant mass of knowledge and processes and contradiction???? why do we even teach and study them separately?? how can we push past that?? idk just been on my mind and i was happy to see it addressed in his notes. think critically i guess dont be passive and give into concession as an ends
gramsci is super extensive in elaborating marxist thought outside of some preconceieved econonimic and materialistic grounds that lead to fatalism, mechanicalism, syndicalism and complacency to the rise of fascist reaction. he describes hegemony as BOTH ideological and material, but it seems like lots his notes focus on the ideological bit which leads to some mischaracterizations of him ignoring the emphasis he placed on both forms being dialectical and Constantly informing one another. they arent separate, they are Tied together...
still his concepts of hegemony in a cultural sphere and its methods of building consent bring some of marx's bits into a more complete and contemporary context especially reflecting on how gutted american labor and mass opposition really is. his emphasis on understanding historical processes forces etc. in relation to politics as One Mass that suffers from discrete abstraction in study is genuinely super super important to always keep in mind in any field whatsoever. like how the fuck are sociology, history, anthropology, philosophy, political science, or any form of social study supposed to exist as entirely discrete forms of study when theyre all one giant mass of knowledge and processes and contradiction???? why do we even teach and study them separately?? how can we push past that?? idk just been on my mind and i was happy to see it addressed in his notes. think critically i guess dont be passive and give into concession as an ends
June 9, 2022
This volume seems to be a great selection of essays from one of the most interesting, relevant, and enduring political theorists of the early 20th Century. There is much to ingest here; some of it perspective changing—such as his elaboration of the theory of hegemony, and his concept of the war of maneuver against the war of position—and other parts perhaps less so—his thoughts on journalism are interesting, for instance, but are so particular (in other words, regarding the state of journalism in Italy after WWI) that I don't think they have much contemporary relevance.
Another interesting part of this work is to see how Gramsci's thinking changed from when he was a young man working as a communist journalist and supporting factory occupations in Turin, to later in life, as head of the Communist Party of Italy and a member of Parliament, being imprisoned by the Fascists for the last eleven years of his life. He matured in many ways—from believing the factory occupations were on the verge of overturning capitalism, to later theorizing what it would actually take to change the minds of the majority of people—but even after such great losses, both national and personal, he never wavered from his dedication to the cause.
Another interesting part of this work is to see how Gramsci's thinking changed from when he was a young man working as a communist journalist and supporting factory occupations in Turin, to later in life, as head of the Communist Party of Italy and a member of Parliament, being imprisoned by the Fascists for the last eleven years of his life. He matured in many ways—from believing the factory occupations were on the verge of overturning capitalism, to later theorizing what it would actually take to change the minds of the majority of people—but even after such great losses, both national and personal, he never wavered from his dedication to the cause.
Read
February 18, 2020Italian Historian, Italian Communist Party Leader, Journalist, Philosopher, Italian Communist Party Senator Antonio Gramsci's "The Antonio Gramsci Reader: Selected Writings 1916-1935" is very important source to learn Italian politics and history in 20. Century from Antonio Gramsci who wrote thousands pages on Italian History and the world politics. Gramsci wrote for "working class movements in Turin", "Sicily question", "South Italy- North Italy differences and unequal developments", "Italian democracy", "1. World War and Italy" and other different questions. Gramsci wrote on socialist and communist party organizations in Italy, Gramsci thought on Italian Christian Democrat movements, Italian "fascism" and Italian liberalism. Gramsci's leadership in Italian Communist Party was very important for Italian parliamentary democracy regime. Antonio Gramsci thought on 1917 Soviet October Revolution and Lenin's leadership in the world socialism, Gramsci suggests "a historical contract" between different social classes for a modern social democracy in the world!
February 6, 2021
I am such a fan of Gramsci and feel that reading this book was a gem to finally get some direct access to his concepts based on Marxism and his analysis of Italy's period of fascism and how it got there.
I think the best part of reading this book was being part of a 7-week reading club, so that we could struggle and exchange our learnings from reading different sections of the book.
I do think to get the most of out of this book is to read more about Gramsci's biography and overview of his concepts because there are many, and his life experiences really are influential to understanding where he's developing his concepts.
Definitely a Leftist intellectual to read in your learnings about "philosophy of praxis" (Marxism).
I think the best part of reading this book was being part of a 7-week reading club, so that we could struggle and exchange our learnings from reading different sections of the book.
I do think to get the most of out of this book is to read more about Gramsci's biography and overview of his concepts because there are many, and his life experiences really are influential to understanding where he's developing his concepts.
Definitely a Leftist intellectual to read in your learnings about "philosophy of praxis" (Marxism).
Read
January 8, 2021a destruição da sociedade, requisito para a chegada do novo mundo que só existe nas mentes privilegiadas do comunismo, impossível à revolução porque as pessoas são antes pessoas e não uma classe, torna-se de repente viável por meio de uma implosão lenta, por meio de agentes anônimos, quase inocentes: talvez um professor, talvez um cantor, com certeza um jornalista, quem sabe um padre. e tanto faz o universitário que se droga ou o jovem criado na igreja logo devem estar prontos para ouvi-los. o que antes era eliminação sangrenta dos que se opunham súbito se torna um aproveitamento sutil de talentos e gostos para o mesmo fim de calar os contrários
June 27, 2024
Guter Gesamtüberblick über das Werk. Von der frühen, noch ziemlich ausdrücklich idealistischen Interpretation des Marxismus bis zu den Gefängnisheften ist alles drin. Bei der Auswahl as den Gefängnisheften gibt es zudem auch keine einfache Deckungsgleichheit mit den "Selections from the Prison Notebooks" (schätze, dass so etwa 40 Prozent der Auswahl nicht in Selections vertreten sind). Dazu n okayes Vorwort (sozialdemokratisch) und n guter Apparat (Glossar, Endnoten, Biographie in Punkten, thematischer Index, Namensindex und weiterführende Literatur). Also gute Bude, um in Gramsci einzusteigen.
April 30, 2019
Not to everyone's taste, I'm sure. But the writing is literate, eloquent and astute --as the best Marxist thinkers usually are. The chief reason for investigating Gramsci is for his illuminating perceptions into the rise of Italian fascism; and fascism is always relevant subject matter in a capitalist society. I'm also interested in how this thinker stood up to the test of incarceration. As often happens, his mental efforts were all redoubled and intensified by the ordeal. A fine body of thought; well-organized, and much easier to digest than Lukacs.
Read
January 14, 2021no mar onde marx se afogou Gramsci nada de braçada. a destruição da sociedade como a conhecemos, requisito para a chegada do novo mundo que existe nas mentes privilegiadas do socialismo, impossível à revolução porque as pessoas são antes indivíduos e não coletivos, torna-se de repente viável por meio de uma implosão lenta via agentes anônimos, quase inocentes: talvez um professor, talvez um cantor, com certeza um jornalista, quem sabe um padre. e tanto faz o universitário que se droga ou o jovem criado na igreja logo devem estar prontos para ouvi-los. o que antes era eliminação sangrenta dos que se opunham súbito se torna um aproveitamento sutil de talentos e gostos para o mesmo fim; e, todavia, mal começou 2021 e vê-se que mesmo essa dimensão cultural vai ficando defasada...
March 25, 2024
Through Gramsci you can see how the left has operated for almost a century now, having read his stuff as a marxist shocked me.
Today the left media tries to portray people who show what the marxists are trying to achieve by infiltrating media, education and different aisles of the political spectrum as "conspiracy theorists" but when you read Gramsci you can see that they are to the point following his doctrine.
They want to corrupt the Western democracies to lead to their fall in hopes of making space for a marxist comeback.
Today the left media tries to portray people who show what the marxists are trying to achieve by infiltrating media, education and different aisles of the political spectrum as "conspiracy theorists" but when you read Gramsci you can see that they are to the point following his doctrine.
They want to corrupt the Western democracies to lead to their fall in hopes of making space for a marxist comeback.
January 26, 2025
Een must om te bestuderen voor iedere serieuze communist.
Zeker het tweede deel, de geschriften uit de gevangenis, zijn absoluut tijdloos en een nuttige aanvulling op hedendaagse linkse analyse.
Het eerste deel, artikelen die Gramsci heeft geschreven, zijn wat minder concreet toepasbaar en erg tijdgebonden. Een nuttige toevoeging, maar als het je enkel om de theorie gaat kan je beter direct naar het tweede deel gaan.
Verder bevat de uitgave helaas wat fouten, waaronder een index waarvan de paginanummering niet klopt, waardoor die onbruikbaar is.
Zeker het tweede deel, de geschriften uit de gevangenis, zijn absoluut tijdloos en een nuttige aanvulling op hedendaagse linkse analyse.
Het eerste deel, artikelen die Gramsci heeft geschreven, zijn wat minder concreet toepasbaar en erg tijdgebonden. Een nuttige toevoeging, maar als het je enkel om de theorie gaat kan je beter direct naar het tweede deel gaan.
Verder bevat de uitgave helaas wat fouten, waaronder een index waarvan de paginanummering niet klopt, waardoor die onbruikbaar is.
July 30, 2015
I am in the awkward situation of wanting to write something about a book that I scarcely understood. Part of the problem is that I read it in roughly 20 page chunks over a span of two weeks, so I wasn't able to track the continuity and the discontinuities in Gramsci's thought. But the bigger problem is the same that I had when reading Lenin many years ago: both authors wrote many polemics, arguing with their fellow socialists about the correct tactics to take in their current situation. But without having a deep understanding of that situation, and without being aware of the arguments put forth by the other side, it is hard to grasp the main points of the polemic, let alone form an opinion. But, of course, forming an opinion on tactics is not really the point of reading Gramsci: you might as well form an opinion about the accession of Charles II. The point of reading Gramsci is to gain an understanding of his principles and methods.
The book spans the period from just before the Russian revolution to near the time of Gramsci's death in 1937, including the ten years that he was imprisoned by the Fascist regime. The first third of the book contains excerpts from his articles in Avanti!, L'Ordine Nuovo, and Il Grido del Popolo. The period from 1917 to 1920 was one of great revolutionary possibility because of the terrible suffering caused by the world war. The industrial north of Italy saw tremendous growth in working class membership in socialist / revolutionary parties. Gramsci advocated for something beyond trade unionism, calling for workers' councils to take over management of the large industrial enterprises. This idea fell apart when the weak Gioditti government managed to break the largest strike in Turin. Throughout that period, and after, Gramsci time and again says there is a need to understand the national context and to base tactics on that deep understanding rather than on more general principles. He attacked fellow Marxists who took a mechanistic approach; those who operated on a belief in economic determinism. It was at this time that he began to develop his important contributions to Marxism regarding the dialiectical relationship between structure and superstructure; i.e. the interplay between the objective development of capitalism and the layers of culture and politics that overlay that base.
The remainder of the book consists of extracts from the prison notebooks. These were necessarily less tactical than the earlier works, and were written in a way to get past the censors - referring to Marxism as "the philosophy of praxis", for example. In these works he continues the analysis of structure and superstructure, and draws a distinction between the "state" and "civil society". For Gramsci, the state, if I understood correctly, consists of the coercive elements of what we normally call the state. Civil society consists of some parts of government (public education, for example, or government pension systems) along with non-state civil organizations and mass political parties (n.b. please don't believe anything I say here - this is from memory of a poor reading of his work). This distinction is useful if for no other reason than it allows us to avoid certain absurdities when talking about the state as operating solely or mostly on behalf of the ruling or dominant class. That case can be made much more easily when talking about the state in Gramsci's sense, and allows us to see that elements of public education, for example, are not explicitly or solely controlled by ruling class interests.
The main theme throughout Gramsci's work is the insistence that local and national conditions must drive practice; and that Marx's approach to dialectics does not pre-ordain any particular unraveling of history. The end of capitalism does not come about merely because the conditions have become ripe for worker control of the means of production. He understood early on that the interplay of superstructure with structure has a big impact on the ability of workers to gain class consciousness. Popular culture, mass media, and religion all play a role in retarding the uptake of revolutionary ideas.
At the end of the revolutionary period, around 1921-1924, Gramsci began to develop a theory of revolution using war as a guiding metaphor. This was unfortunate, because the war that was most on his mind was the one that had just ended: a war that was unique in its strategy and tactics. Gramsci discussed the nature of "war of maneuver" and "war of position" (trench warfare, basically), and concluded that "war of position" had become the only possible way of conducting warfare because of the specific technologies that had been developed. And he used that conclusion to draw conclusions about the proper strategies to be adopted by revolutionary parties. This was unfortunate, since the events of 1939 would show that "war of maneuver" defeats "war of position" every time, if done right. If Gramsci's analogy was correct, then his conclusions about revolutionary strategy should be rejected out of hand.
My overall impression is that Gramsci was excellent at fundamentals, but made many errors, perhaps as a result of the terribly dynamic situation in Italy from 1917 to 1924. I can't say that I learned a great deal by reading him, but it was probably worthwhile taking the time, just for the pleasure of seeing a genuine revolutionary navigate rough seas.
The book spans the period from just before the Russian revolution to near the time of Gramsci's death in 1937, including the ten years that he was imprisoned by the Fascist regime. The first third of the book contains excerpts from his articles in Avanti!, L'Ordine Nuovo, and Il Grido del Popolo. The period from 1917 to 1920 was one of great revolutionary possibility because of the terrible suffering caused by the world war. The industrial north of Italy saw tremendous growth in working class membership in socialist / revolutionary parties. Gramsci advocated for something beyond trade unionism, calling for workers' councils to take over management of the large industrial enterprises. This idea fell apart when the weak Gioditti government managed to break the largest strike in Turin. Throughout that period, and after, Gramsci time and again says there is a need to understand the national context and to base tactics on that deep understanding rather than on more general principles. He attacked fellow Marxists who took a mechanistic approach; those who operated on a belief in economic determinism. It was at this time that he began to develop his important contributions to Marxism regarding the dialiectical relationship between structure and superstructure; i.e. the interplay between the objective development of capitalism and the layers of culture and politics that overlay that base.
The remainder of the book consists of extracts from the prison notebooks. These were necessarily less tactical than the earlier works, and were written in a way to get past the censors - referring to Marxism as "the philosophy of praxis", for example. In these works he continues the analysis of structure and superstructure, and draws a distinction between the "state" and "civil society". For Gramsci, the state, if I understood correctly, consists of the coercive elements of what we normally call the state. Civil society consists of some parts of government (public education, for example, or government pension systems) along with non-state civil organizations and mass political parties (n.b. please don't believe anything I say here - this is from memory of a poor reading of his work). This distinction is useful if for no other reason than it allows us to avoid certain absurdities when talking about the state as operating solely or mostly on behalf of the ruling or dominant class. That case can be made much more easily when talking about the state in Gramsci's sense, and allows us to see that elements of public education, for example, are not explicitly or solely controlled by ruling class interests.
The main theme throughout Gramsci's work is the insistence that local and national conditions must drive practice; and that Marx's approach to dialectics does not pre-ordain any particular unraveling of history. The end of capitalism does not come about merely because the conditions have become ripe for worker control of the means of production. He understood early on that the interplay of superstructure with structure has a big impact on the ability of workers to gain class consciousness. Popular culture, mass media, and religion all play a role in retarding the uptake of revolutionary ideas.
At the end of the revolutionary period, around 1921-1924, Gramsci began to develop a theory of revolution using war as a guiding metaphor. This was unfortunate, because the war that was most on his mind was the one that had just ended: a war that was unique in its strategy and tactics. Gramsci discussed the nature of "war of maneuver" and "war of position" (trench warfare, basically), and concluded that "war of position" had become the only possible way of conducting warfare because of the specific technologies that had been developed. And he used that conclusion to draw conclusions about the proper strategies to be adopted by revolutionary parties. This was unfortunate, since the events of 1939 would show that "war of maneuver" defeats "war of position" every time, if done right. If Gramsci's analogy was correct, then his conclusions about revolutionary strategy should be rejected out of hand.
My overall impression is that Gramsci was excellent at fundamentals, but made many errors, perhaps as a result of the terribly dynamic situation in Italy from 1917 to 1924. I can't say that I learned a great deal by reading him, but it was probably worthwhile taking the time, just for the pleasure of seeing a genuine revolutionary navigate rough seas.
Read
April 24, 2021got a copy of this for the prison writings and will continue with that instead. a lot of these early writings are highly specific to the situation in Turin in the early 1920s and especially the strike of the worker's councils. interesting to read though. chapter 1 has a bunch of pretty neat almost motivational pieces on marxism and is worth reading just for those
Displaying 1 - 30 of 44 reviews