 |
 |
 |
|
 |
 |
|
 |
 |
| HOME
|
'Some of the most fruitful developments in socialist thought have been stimulated by problems facing Marxists in Western Europe, but they all demonstrate, intentionally or otherwise, the untenability of Marx's prognoses'. Discuss with reference to one or more theorists.
The problems of Marxism are diverse, but all centre around the failure of Marxist theory to be realised in practice. The most significant example of this is the persistent survival of the capitalist mode of production. Marx predicted its downfall because he saw the mixture of the capitalist mode of production and democratic politics as a contradiction. The use of universal suffrage gives political power to the dominated class, and removes guarantees of dominance from the ruling class. This unstable situation, when hit with economic crises, will be eradicated, and be replace by socialism. The inevitable proletarian revolution, predicted by Karl Marx, has failed to materialise, and capitalist democracy is now the norm for social organisation in the majority of nations today.
Marxist theory can not beg patience. History has provided ample opportunity for Marx's predictions to be fulfilled, but this has not happened. The nineteen-thirties saw worldwide economic catastrophe, and yet there was no Marxist revolution in any of the developed nations. In the United States, arguably the most technologically advanced and therefore most likely candidate for a Proletarian revolution, there was not even a hint a revolutionary tendency. By asking the question 'how can capitalism persist?' (1) Antonio Gramsci has provided the most promising way of reviving Marxist theory. In order to explain the perseverance of the capitalist mode of production, Antonio Gramsci puts forward his concept of 'hegemony'. The aim of this essay is to examine how well this concept explains this perseverance in Marxian terms. In order to preserve Marxism as a tenable political theory, Gramsci must be found to not only solve the problem of Marx's failed predictions, but also not to betray the essential aspects of Marxist philosophy.
'Hegemony' has been heralded as the most promising answer to the problems of Marxism. He argues that dominance in economic relations of production is a necessary, but not sufficient, condition for social dominance. The economically dominant class also requires 'hegemony' to rule. Hegemony is the ideological dominance of society, the position in which an ideology favourable to the dominant class is agreed upon by the society as a whole. The subordinate classes are persuaded to hold views and values which are consistent with the continued economic and social dominance of the ruling class. Through this concept, it is possible to show how capitalism and democracy have survived in Marxian terms. This is the great success of Gramsci's work.
The most important aspect of the notion of hegemony is that of consent. In order to gain hegemony, the economically dominant class must forge alliances through compromise with other classes and social forces, so that it may gain 'political and ideological leadership'. This stems from the work of Lenin, in stressing the need for the workers to form an alliance with the peasantry in order to overthrow the Tsarist regime. Gramsci expands on this by using hegemony to not only suggest strategies for the proletarian revolution, but also to explain the maintenance of capitalist society.
Hegemony creates a far more complex relation between the two fundamentally opposed classes. The alliances a hegemonic class will form, and the compromises it makes with other classes ensure that it gains the 'active consent' of society. Gramsci uses the term 'active consent' to show that the individual person or group is not passive in the creation and maintenance of hegemony. The alliances require a 'national-popular' aspect of the hegemony of the dominant class. Only by appealing to the widest common denominator can a class gain the consent of an entire nation. This takes into account the popular and democratic views of the people, and therefore reflects any other issues significant to that particular society, such as race, gender, the environment, etc.
Hegemony provides a new and more complex version of the relation between Civil Society and the State. Hegemony is created and maintained within Civil Society. A dominant class forms an 'historical bloc', which combines hegemony in Civil Society and dominance in the economy. Classical Marxism says that the state is a reflection of the economic reality of society, and uses the base-superstructure distinction to illustrate the causal links between the two. Gramsci's thesis challenges this analogy, as the concept of hegemony allows for the ruling class to be partly determined within the realm of politics. It is also possible, under Gramsci's thesis, for an economically dominant group to fail to achieve hegemony. This is a highly unlikely situation, but it is not an impossible one. The most likely outcome for a non-hegemonic economically-dominant group for it to lose economic dominance. Gramsci shows the significance of the economic dominance of the hegemonic group in this quote, 'for though hegemony is ethical-political, it must also be economic, must necessarily be based on the decisive function exercised by the leading group in the decisive nucleus of economic activity'. Thus, Gramsci says true to the Marxist theory of the primacy of the economic base, while giving politics a more significant role in social determination.
This concept of hegemony gives a new set of tactics for the leaders of the proletariat. In order to gain hegemony, the proletariat must engage in a 'war of position'. This is where class alliances are forged and broken, so that the workers may find an suitable alliance united by a common ideology favourable to the proletariat. Also, there must be moral and ideological reform, in order to change (or remove) the class bias of the existing hegemony. Ideology is key, as it is the 'cement' which binds together an historical bloc, by giving a common ground to its members. A 'war of position', as the title suggests, is a very gradual process. It is also very difficult and hazardous, as, in order to forge new ideological alliances, the leaders of the proletariat must act within the already existing alliances of the bourgeoisie. It is interesting to note that Gramsci proposes a completely different strategy for the bourgeoisie, called 'passive revolution'. This is a movement from above, where the state plays the most significant role in the revolution. The people are largely 'passive', and play only a marginal role. Gramsci's example of this is the Risorgimento, the unification of Italy. Although the masses did play a part in some aspects of the revolt, the most significant actor was the Piedmontese monarchy and army.
Gramsci also gives the intellectual class a role to play in the revolution. This is another gain for Marxist theory as a whole, as the prescriptive determinist viewpoint of classical Marxists did not leave much room for party leaders or politically active intellectuals. The intellectuals which are of concern to Gramsci are 'organic'. This means they are part of the class they represent, actually bound up as part of 'a national-popular mass'. The role they play is of party leadership, and pressing for the 'ideological and moral reform' required for the 'war of position'.
The level of concentration of power in the state determines the need for a 'war of position'. This can be illustrated by a comparison used by Gramsci himself. In the Russian Revolution there was a 'war of movement', an historical event, whereby power was seized from the ruling class. As power had been concentrated in the hands of the Tsarist regime, this tactic was most suitable. A 'war of movement' would not be suitable in a modern Westernised nation, where power has been diluted by the relations of Civil Society. A 'war of position' is required, as a war of movement would not give the proletariat hegemony, just power over the state. In order to survive, the regime would have to resort to force, as it would not be able to rely on rule by consent.
As a strong example of the hegemony of the ruling class, Gramsci analyses what he calls 'Fordism/Taylorism' in the United States. This is the state of society which Gramsci saw in America at the time, which was purely geared towards increasing production. Production is increased and improved by removing all intellectual demands away from the workers by giving them small individual tasks, and by giving each worker an individual financial reward. Gramsci says 'hegemony is born in the factory'. He shows the extent of hegemony by pointing to the Protestant work ethic as furthering production and the aims of industry.
Gramsci rescues Marxism from accusations of 'passivist instrumentalism, simplistic catastrophism, and economistic reductionism' (2). These accusations are that the state is simply an instrument of the dominant class, that classes become increasingly polarised and opposed until revolution inevitably occurs, and that all aspects of the political and ideological superstructure are reducible to the economic base. All three are harmful to Marxist theory, as they portray a very deterministic view of politics and society. The notion of hegemony gives the social and political a more significant role in Marxism, as well as further illustrating the complex relation between the economic structure and society. Gramsci's work has been heralded as a 'Copernican Revolution' of Marxist theory by some, as his theory of hegemony gives a new vision for Marxist theorist. For others he simply expands on some aspects of already existing theory. It must be remembered that for Marx one of the attributes of the ruling class was 'ownership of the means of propagation and reproduction of ideas'. This goes some way towards an idea of 'ideological dominance' - Gramsci's concept of 'hegemony' simply clarifies and expands upon Marx's own position. This is not to belittle Gramsci's importance. The ability to for Marxism to create a consensual society is a great boost to Marxist theory. It is now possible to distance Marxism from the oppressive regimes which were created in its name.
Hoffman interprets the aims of Gramsci's analysis to marry Marxism to the idea of consensual politics. He argues that consent is required to help Marxist doctrine in practise avoid the oppressive example set by the Communist regimes of the Soviet Bloc. He also attempts to show that Gramsci fails in that attempt. He shows that Gramsci's idea of 'active consent' is still based on force and coercion. Hoffman uses a broad definition of coercion. He sees the state as the area in which the dominant class 'justifies its dominance'. Hegemonic ideology is 'imposed on social life, which means the people are coerced into following this ideology. Hoffman therefore argues that hegemonic 'leadership' is not separable from coercion and force. This means that there still remains no room for consent under a Marxist view of society.
Hoffman ignores the idea put forward by Kolakowski and others that hegemony is reliant on an alliance between the economically dominant class and subordinate classes. Hegemony can only be sustained with such an alliance, and an alliance can only be created and sustained if there is a compromise between classes. This compromise is what creates the 'active consent' - all sides agree to the deal, because they see it as in their best interests.
When looked at in the grand scheme of Marxist theory, Gramsci marks a departure from the trend of Marxist theory at the start of this century. Yet the roots of his doctrine are planted firmly in Marxist soil. Questions are still raised as to whether or not Gramsci's work provides a solid place for consent in Marxist theory, but these can be answered when looking at hegemony as an alliance of classes. Marx paved the way for this sort of analysis, but describe the combination of the capitalist mode of production and a parliamentary democracy as unstable and transitory. Gramsci uses Marxist premises, and investigates the realm of the political and social superstructure. He finds that it can be possible for capitalism to survive with democracy, through consensual politics. This investigation was in response to the problems of Marxist determinism, and also helps to bring Marxism on to much firmer ground. Marxism, through the work of this Italian visionary, has been given a further lease of life.
- Z. Przworski, Capitalism and Social Democracy.
- J. Hoffman, The Gramscian Challenge.