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