Gramsci and Lukacs
Gramsci and Lukacs are frequently represented as the founders of 'Western Marxism'. This geographically defined concept is too vague to convey the convergence and similarity of their thought. More interesting, even if hostile, is Althusser's characterisation: both are responsible for a historical humanist interpretation of Marxism. Supporters and adversaries alike of the two Marxists agree on the deep affinity of their theoretical and political orientation. The attempt to go beyond the positivist version of Marxism-the dominant interpretation as much in the Second as in the Third International (especially after 1924)—is one of the principal traits common to their dialectical and revolutionary, humanist and historicist philosophy.
The affinity between Gramsci and Lukacs is in no way due to some 'influence' of one over the other. It is unlikely that Gramsci ever read History and Class Consciousness (HCC). The only passage in Prison Notebooks (PN) where Lukacs is mentioned is formulated in conditional terms:
Professor Lukacs's (sic, M.L.) position on the philosophy of praxis must be studied.
Lukacs seems to state that one can only talk about dialectics in terms of the history of men and not in terms of nature. He may be wrong and he may be right. If his statement presupposes a dualism between nature and man, he is wrong because he falls into a conception of nature peculiar to religion and Greco-Christian philosophy; and also to idealism which in reality only succeeds in unifying and relating man and nature in words.
But if human history must conceive of itself also as the history of nature (also through history of science), how can the dialectic be separated from nature? Perhaps in reaction to the baroque theories of Bukharin's Popular Manual Lukacs fell into the opposite error, into a sort of idealism. 1
Judging by the content of this passage, it is likely that Gramsci's source was one of the 'orthodox' critics of Lukacs, who saw only 'heresy' in HCC on the dialectic of nature. Lukacs was practically unknown in Italy during the 1920s and 1930s. His only translated work was the article Rosa Luxemburg Marxist' , published in Rassegna communista in 1921. Ordine Nuovo published a few lines by Lukacs on workers councils, on 12 June 1920: "The workers' councils, as organisations of the whole class, its un-
64 International Marxist Review conscious as well as conscious part, by their very existence set into motion the overtaking of bourgeois society'?
As Robert Paris remarks, this is a loosely reworked version of a phrase in the conclusion of the essay on class consciousness in HCC. Paris raises the hypothesis that Gramsci could have been indirectly influenced by Lukacs's ideas through the mediation of the 1926 articles by his Hungarian disciple, Laszlo Rudas, directed against the Italian Communist Party (PCI) economist, Antonio Graziadei.3 This supposition does not seem credible to me. Not only was Rudas not Lukacs's disciple in 1926 (had he ever been?) but, on the contrary, since his political rupture with Lukacs around 1923, he became his most vociferous (vulgar) 'materialist' critic. A similarity of conceptions This absence of direct or indirect rapport makes the similarity of their conceptions even more significant. If Gramsci knew almost nothing of Lukacs, Lukacs did not 'discover' the Italian Marxist until well after the Second World War, with the publication of Prison Notebooks. He mentioned Gramsci in the 1960s, recognising his closeness to the world view expressed in HCC:
This book (HCC M.L.) must be considered a product of the 1920s, as a theoretical echo of the series of events unleashed by the 1917 revolution and the activity of Lenin and, by the same token, the writings of Gramsci and Korsch which have the same character despite sometimes essential differences. 4
In an interview in New Left Review, Lukacs stressed that Korsch, Gramsci and he had fought during the 1930s against the mechanistic heritage of the Second International. He even adds, in passing, that Gramsci was 'the best among us'5. Gramsci's path towards Marxism resembles Lukacs's in significant respects, to the extent that it went through anti-positivist Hegelianism (Croce and Labriola) and romantoethical voluntarism (Sorel and Bergson).
The point of departure of his political evolution is a sort of Sardinian socialism' made up of southern regionalism, peasant revolt and struggle against the rich' . Influenced by Gaetano Salvemini, Gramsci tended to set Sardinia and the Mezzogiorno against industrial Italy as a whole®, within an ideological framework that is not without certain analogies to the anticapitalist romanticism of Central Europe. On the other hand, Gramsci's 'ethical communism' of 1917-1919 has a surprising resemblance to that of Lukacs's essays of the same period. It is enough to mention the April 1917 article where he sees revealed in the February Russian Revolution 'a new moral order' and the realisation of Man 'whom Immanuel Kant, the theoretician of absolute ethical conduct, had called for—the sort of man who says: the immensity of the heavens above me, the imperative of my conscience within me"
In 1918 Lukacs wrote that the proletariat is the heir of 'the ethical
idealism of Kant and Fichte which suppresses all terrestrial attachments and must—metaphysically—tear the old world off its hinges'8. The same idea is found in the famous provocative and 'heretical' essay The Revolution against Capital (1917) which salutes the October revolution fervently and develops a radically voluntarist interpretation of the politics of the
They live Marxist thought-that thought which is eternal, which represents the continuation of German and Italian idealism (...) This thought sees as the dominant factor in history, not raw economic facts, but man, men in societies (...) men coming to understand economic facts, judging them and adapting them to their will until this becomes the
Lukacs 1919 brochure Tactics and Ethics strikes the same chord. He hails the Bolsheviks as authentic revolutionary Marxists, who dare to proclaim 'with the words of Fichte, one of the greatest classical German
The reference to "idealist' thought—notably Bergson and Croce-is
Gramsci's way in 1917-18 of setting himself against the positivist scientism and economico-determinist orthodoxy of Claudio Treves and Filippo
Turati, official representatives of the Marxism of the Second International at the head of Italian socialism. An attempt that finds its precise equivalent in the sui generis revolutionary ideology of Lukacs in the same period, made up of a combination of a Hegel-Ady-Dostoievsky-Sorel radically opposed to Kautskyism. Gramsci's 'Bergsonism', an ambiguous term employed particularly by his positivist adversaries' superseded (aufgehoben) during the course of his ideological evolution, just as Lukacs went beyond his 'Fichtism' after the Hungarian revolution
In this first attempt to formulate a non-positivist revolutionary Marxism,
Gramsci as well as Lukacs made much use of Sorel, that paradigmatic representative of romantic anti-capitalist socialism. In a letter written in
1968, Lukacs describes retrospectively his political evolution during
I tried to read the contemporary social-democratic theoreticians, but Kautsky made such a loathsome impression upon me (...) It was precisely Sorel who exercised the strongest influence on my spiritual evolution. Positive, in that he reinforced my rejection of any revisionist and opportunist interpretation of Marxist theory; negative, in that a conception of the party mythologising pure and direct class struggle became dominant in my
The references to the philosopher of French revolutionary syndicalism are numerous in Gramsci's early writings. The October 11, 1919 article in Ordine Nuovo is particularly significant even if it is 'far from accepting everything' in Sorel's work. Gramsci warmly salutes 'this unbiased friend of the proletariat' who 'has not locked himself into any formula and, having preserved what was vital and new in his doctrine, that is, this highly proclaimed necessity that the proletarian movement express itself through its own forms and give life to its own institutions, he can today follow
(...) with a spirit full of understanding, the effort of realisation under-
Bolsheviks:
of the workers' councils.
1917-18:
theoretical views. 12 driving force of the economy and moulds objective reality.9 philosophers: "So much the worse for the facts." "10
Gramsci and Lukacs 65
, was gradually
66 International Marxist Review taken by the Russian workers and peasants ..?13 What the two young revolutionaries owe to Sorel is, before any precise political orientation, a certain spiritual climate formed from anti-liberal romanticism and moral idealism. Revolutionary realism Gramsci, like Lukacs, lived through the experience of participation in a real revolutionary movement in 1919-20, the workers' councils in Turin. If the reference to Rosa Luxemburg and to her conception of the mass movement is common to both, the writings of Gramsci during this period, in the weekly Ordine Nuovo, are much more concrete and 'political than Lukacs's own essays. He moves quicker than Lukacs from 'ethical Bolshevism' towards a more realistic conception of the revolutionary struggle of the proletariat.
Unlike Lukacs, Gramsci did not go through a 'leftist' stage in 1919-20. While the Hungarian Marxist defended abstract anti-parliamentary concepts in the pages of Kommunismus, Gramsci refused both the 'abstentionist' theses of Bordiga and the reformist parliamentarism of the leadership of the Italian Socialist party (then the section of the Third International). Lenin hailed his strategic orientation in Theses on the fundamental tasks of the Second Congress of the Communist International (1920), saying 'they fully correspond to all the basic principles of the Third International'. 14
It is true that at the Second Congress of the PCI in 1922 Gramsci lined up with Bordiga's 'sectarian' theses, opposed to the Comintern's orientation for the united workers' front (June-July 1921). But, as he wrote in 1926, this was a tactical concession to Bordiga, made to maintain party unity and to prevent a new internal crisis. 15
In the final analysis, all of Gramsci's political conceptions, from 1919 to his arrest in 1926, developed on the terrain of 'revolutionary realism' in which the first four congresses of the Communist International formed the global political framework. Gramsci's political work during this period could thus be considered the 'political equivalent' of HCC founded, like Lukacs's book, on simultaneous superseding of 'sectarianism' (Bordiga) and of 'opportunism' (Serrati) in the Communist movement. If Gramsci did not produce any philosophical or theoretical text comparable to Lukacs's HCC during these years, it is very probably because the political activity in the leadership of the PCI absorbed his intellectual energy.
Among the texts most characteristic of Gramscian revolutionary realism are The Southern Question and Lyons Theses both in 1926. Gramsci's main theme is the necessity of workers and peasants unity within the framework of a revolutionary anti-capitalist strategy (completely analogous to Lukacs's analysis in his 1924 pamphlet Lenin).
Gramsci and Lukacs 67
The proletariat can become the leading and ruling class to the extent to which it succeeds in creating a system of class alliances which enables it to mobilize the majority of the working population against capitalism and the bourgeois state; this means in Italy, in the actual relations existing in Italy, to the extent to which it succeeds in obtaining the support of the large peasant masses. 16
Nevertheless after 1926, with his article on Moses Hess, Lukacs begins to distance himself from this common perspective in favour of 'realism'the Hegelian "reconciliation with reality' —at the expense of the utopianvoluntarist dimension. During the 1930s he even went along with the Soviet diamat (up to a certain point), submitting his 1923 book to a severe self-criticism and denouncing 'the idealist front' as identical to 'the front of the fascist counter-revolution'. "
From the political point of view a comparison between the Lyons Theses (1926) edited by Gramsci (in collaboration with Togliatti) and Lukacs's Blum Theses (1929) shows how, starting from the same concern—-breaking the isolation of the Communist Party, searching for allies for the proletariat—the two thinkers arrived at relatively distinct political conclusions. Lukacs's theses proclaimed that the Hungarian Communist Party 'is the only party that fights seriously for the democracy of the proletariat and the peasantry' and proposed as a slogan 'the democratic dictatorship of the proletariat and the peasantry', conceived as a regime where the bourgeoisie 'while maintaining economic exploitation abandons at least part of its power to the broad mass of workers. '18
In the Lyons Theses Gramsci proposes a seemingly similar slogan, the 'workers' and peasants' government', but he takes care to specify that it is 'an agitational slogan' which does not 'correspond to a real phase of historical development; it is impossible 'for the problem of the state to be resolved in the interests of the working class in any other form than the dictatorship of the proletariat. 19 Prison Notebooks In 1926 Gramsci was arrested by the fascist police. His major political and theoretical work does not date from 1923, like Lukacs's and Korsch's, but was written in prison between 1929 and 1935. Despite the difference of the period, the analogy between Prison Notebooks and the 1922-25 writings of Lukacs is undeniable.
This problematic is hinged around a certain number of narrowly linked theoretical and political axes. There is no need to dwell on the most well-known aspects found in both HCC and PN: importance of the Hegel-Marx rapport (what Althusser called, imprecisely, "a radical return to Hegel'); the dialectic of subject-object and the importance of the 'subjective factor' (class consciousness, ideological hegemony); the rejection of metaphysical materialism and of the economism of certain 'orthodox' Marxist currents, etc. I want to draw attention to three particularly important questions where the anti-positivist 'convergence' between Gramsci and Lukacs
1. Radical historicism implying the application of historical materialism to itself and the definition of its historical limits. Lukacs wrote in HCC that the truths of Marxism are determined truths within a social order of production: this does not exclude the appearance of societies which
'following the essence of their social structure, need other categories, other ensembles of truth. '20. The same reasoning is found in Gramsci:
understanding the historicity of Marxism means recognising that it can—or rather must—be overtaken by historical development, with the passage from the rule of necessity to the rule of liberty, from a class society to a classless society. Obviously one cannot say what the content of this new form of post-Marxist thought will be without falling into utopianism. 21
It is the resolutely historicist approach of Gramsci and Lukacs, their confirmation of the necessary historicity of all social phenomena, that separates them decisively from all the variations of scientifico-naturalist materialism, from all semi-positivist doctrines of the natural law (Nature
2. The comprehension of Marxism as a radically new and specific world view, situated from the point of view of the working class: 'Graziadei
(...) considers Marx as a unity of a series of great men of science. Fundamental error: none of the others has ever produced an original and integral conception of the world.'22 This coherent world view
(Weltanschauung) cannot be split up into a positive science on the one hand and an ethic on the other hand; it goes beyond, in a dialectical synthesis, and traditional opposition between 'facts' and 'values' praxis, as an indissoluble unity between theory and practice, Marxism can break what Lukacs called 'the dilemma of impotence': the duality between the fatalism of pure laws and the ethics of pure intentions. From which comes the Lukacsian criticism of Austro-Marxism (Hilferding) which preaches an impossible separation between the 'pure' science of Marxism
3. The proletarian revolution as the keystone of all theoretical reflection, as unifying element (implicit or explicit) of the entirety of philosophical, historical, cultural or political questions broached: 'The theoretical elevation of Notebooks must never make us forget that the watermark of the most subtle pages of philosophy and praxis is revolu-
This remark also applies to HCC. The link between dialectical method and revolutionary strategy is found at the very heart of Gramsci's approach, as with Lukacs. In a significant passage in PN, Gramsci stresses the decisive relationship between theoretical method and political orientation:
within the framework of a Marxist critique of Croce, he shows that the work of the Italian philosopher 'essentially represents a reaction towards
That this is not without interest is demonstrated by the fact that, of the same time as
68 International Marxist Review manifests itself:
gesetzlichkeit) of social life.
and what 'should be' and socialism. 24 tionary action. '25
, consciousness and action. 23 As a philosophy of economism and fatalistic mechanism'. He adds:
, what 'is'
Croce, the greatest modern theoretician of the philosophy of praxis (Lenin, M.L.), on the terrain of political struggle and organisation, using a political terminology in opposition to various 'economistic' forms, revalorized the front of cultural struggle and constructed the doctrine of hegemony as a complement to the theory of State-force and as the present form of the doctrine of the 'permanent revolution' of 1848.26
The theoretical similarities between Gramsci and Lukacs are particularly striking if one compares their respective analyses of the principal philosophical work of Bukharin, Theory of Historical Materialism. Popular Manual of Sociology (1922). Both severely criticize his 'materialism' bourgeois and contemplative for Lukacs, metaphysical and vulgar for
Gramsci. Lukacs also rejects what he calls the scientism of Bukharin, his
"ill-considered, uncritical, ahistoric, and non-dialectical' utilisation of the scientifico-natural method for understanding of society—which constitutes one of the most essential characteristics of positivism. Gramsci states that the author of the Popular Manual is 'totally a prisoner of natural sciences, as if they were the only sciences... according to the conception of positivism'; which results in his comprehension of history not as dialectical but as 'flat and vulgar evolutionism'. For Gramsci as for Lukacs, it is following this semi-positivist method that one can understand a series of erroneous theses in the Popular Manual, which they both show up: the substitution of 'technical instruments' for the concept of productive forces;
The philological question as to whether Gramsci did nor did not read
Lukacs's critical review of Bukharin-which appeared in 1925 in the German magazine Archiv fur die Geschichte des Sozialismus und der Arbeiterbewegung, which may have had some readers in Italy-seems to me to be secondary. The essential aspect is the profound convergence of the polemic of both Marxists against one who appeared at the time as the principal theoretician of the Comintern. This coincidence is only a 'concentrated' aspect of a more general phenomenon: from the point of view of
Marxist method, Gramsci's Notebooks as a whole are fundamentally on the same positions as Lukacs's writings of 1922-25. Moreover, while
Lukacs's works correspond to a period of revolutionary rise, and appear as a manifestation of an entire theoretical current (Korsch in Germany,
Revai and Fogorasi in Hungary, Mariategui in Peru, etc.) this is not really
Paradoxically, it is perhaps Gramsci's isolation in prison from 1926 to
1935 which contributed to making his PN an oasis of authentic Marxism in a period of political and intellectual regression within the workers' movement. His thinking retained the high theoretical and revolutionary level reached in 1919-26, without experiencing any crisis similar to
Lukacs's after 1926. Gramsci's imprisonment spared him the dilemma that broke Lukacs's revolutionary resilience: to capitulate to Stalinism or to be banished from the Communist movement, like Korsch. The bars of the fascist jail were brutal, but purely external, limitations that were not an obstacle to Gramsci's thinking. Lukacs however was a prisoner of the 'exact sciences'
, etc. 27 the case for PN.
the claim to produce, in history 'scientific forecasts'
Gramsci and Lukacs 69
', similar to those of
subtle and insidious chains of self-censorship and 'reconciliation with
Studying Gramsci's writings from prison, one cannot help but recognize that, as Jean-Marie Vincent observed, 'the revolutionary perspective does not disappear from his horizon. Despite the trials of captivity, he refuses to adapt to the progressive Stalinization of his party by abandoning the practical and theoretical acquisitions of the Ordine Nuovo group (of the battle of the workers' councils at the anti-fascist struggle), 28
This does not meant to say that Gramsci's texts of 1929-1935 were all on the same line as the writings of his youth (the articles in Ordine Nuovo).
The impact of Stalinism made itself felt despite everything, for example in a more 'authoritarian' conception of the Communist Party. In his 1920 article, Gramsci insisted that the Communist Party should not be a gathering of 'little Machiavellis' ('Piccoli Machiavelli '), nor 'a party which uses the masses to attempt a heroic imitation of the French Jacobins', but the party of the masses who want to liberate themselves by their own means, in an autonomous fashion, the instrument of the 'process of deep-seated liberation by which the worker, from the executor, becomes the initator, from a mass, becomes head and leader, from arm, becomes brain and will. '29 By contrast, in PN, the party must exercise the role of a 'modern prince', legitimate heir of the tradition of Machiavelli and the Jacobins.
As such, it 'takes the place, in the conscience, of the divinity or of the categorical imperative'; it's base is made up of 'common, average men, whose participation is provided by discipline and faith, not by a creative
The bureaucracy is the most dangerously habitual and conservative force; if it ends up by constituting a solid body, standing by itself and feeling independent from the masses, the party ends by becoming anachronistic, and in moments of acute crisis, becomes
Criticisms as penetrating against the bureaucracy also appear in against the leadership of the Hungarian Communist Party called 'Noch einmal illusionspolitik' ('The Politics of Illusion— Yet Again'). These criticisms disappeared during the Stalin era (except for a few scattered remarks written in coded language, in a literary context), and only re-
It is also in his later works of 1956 that Lukacs begins to refer to
Gramsci. In his last major work, The Ontology of Social Being, he compares Gramsci's writings with HCC. In both cases, there were analagous attempts, inspired by the revolutionary wave following October 1917, to put forward Marxist thoughts that were 'new, fresh, not deformed by bourgeoisified traditions of social democracy'-attempts reduced to silence by the 'schematizing and homogenizing' pressure of Stalinism. 33
But one does not have the impression that Gramsci's thought played a cen-
70 International Marxist Review reality' and organizational spirit'. 30
Nevertheless, Gramsci bureaucratic phenomenon in the political parties:
emptied of all its social content, like an empty shell. 31
Lukacs's writings .
appeared after the Twentieth Congress of the CPSU.
tral role in his ontological reflection.
shows his critical lucidity in analyzing the
.. of 1922—notably the remarkable polemical text
The comparison outlined here does not aim to deny the existence of differences, even opposite views, between the prison writings of Gramsci and the works of the young Lukacs (1922-25). But beyond differences of style and content (philosophical as well as political), of the contrasts between two very distinct historical periods, and despite the (probably) absence of any relationship or direct influence, one cannot deny the profound affinity of their approach and the 'objective convergence' which makes History and Class Consciousness and Prison Notebooks the two philosophical highpoints of the revolutionary dialectic of the twentieth century and the necessary point of departure of any attempt at a Marxism free from positivist shackles.
### Notes
1. A. Gramsci, Il materialismo storico e la filosofia di Benedetto Croce, Torino,
Einaudi, 1955, p. 145). (Translation IMR). 2. Quoted by Robert Paris in 'Gramsci e la crisi teorica del 1923', Nuovo Rivista
Storica, Anno LIII, Fas. I-II, 1969, p. 167-168. (Tr. IMR). 3. R. Paris, op. cit., p. 168. (Tr. IMR) 4. G. Lukacs, 'Mon Chemin vers Marx', 1969, Nouvelles Etudes hongroises, vol. 8, 1974, p. 85. (Tr. IMR). 5. 'Lukacs on his life and work', New Left Review no. 68, July 1971, p. 51. 6. See Guiseppe Fiori, Antonio Gramsci: Life of a Revolutionary, (London: New
Left Books, 1970), pages 57-81.
Wishart 1977), p. 30. 8. Lukacs, 'Le Bolchévisme comme problème moral', 1918, translated into French as an appendix to M. Lowy, Pour une sociologie des intéllectuels révolutionnaires: l'évolution politique de Gyorgy Lukacs 1909-1929, (Paris: Presses universitaires de France, 1976), p. 310. (Tr. IMR). 9. Gramsci, "The Revolution Against Capital, in Q. Hoare, op. cit. Vol II, p. 34.
In other 1918 writings Gramsci stressed: 'Critical communism has nothing in common with philosophical positivism, the metaphysics and mysticism of evolution and nature (...) Marxism is founded on philosophical idealism (...) For natural law, the fatal movement of things of pseudo-scientists, is substituted tenacious will of men.' Quoted by E. Garin, "La formazione di Gramsci e
Croce', in Prassi rivoluzionaria e storicismo in Gramsci, Roma, Quaderni
Critica Marxista, 1967, p. 127. (Tr. IMR).
1919-1929—The Questions of Parliamentarians and Other Essays, (London:
11. Robert Paris, 'Introduction à Gramsci', in Gramsci, Ecrits politiques, 1,
1914-1920, (Paris: Gallimard, 1974), p. 29-30. Gramsci mocks the use of the term by his reformist and positivist adversaries in the Italian Socialist Party:
'Do you not know what to answer your contradictor? Say to him that he is a voluntarist or a pragmatist or—while making the sign of the cross—a Bergsonian'. From Gramsci, Socialismo e Fascismo, Ordine Nuovo 1921-1922,
12. Lukacs, 'Letter au directeur de la bibliothèque Erwin-Szabo de Budapest', published in Eva Fekete and Eva Karadi, Georg Lukacs, Sein Leben in Bildern,
Selsizeugnissen und Dokumente, (Budapest: Corvina Kiado, 1981), p. 72. (Tr.
IMR). On Lukacs's relation to Sorel during the course of his life, see M. Lowy,
'Sorel et George Lukacs, Sous l'étoile du romantisme', in Georg Sorel, Paris,
13. Gramsci, Ecrits I, p. 277. Enzo Santarelli, Nicola Badaloni and Paolo Spriano have already provided sufficient evidence of Sorel's influence over Gramsci.
For a recent balance sheet on the question, see Michel Charzat, 'A la source du "marxisme' de Gramsci", Georg Sorel, Cahier de l'Herme, 1986.
16. Gramsci, 'The Southern Question', in Gramsci, The Modern Prince and Other
17. Lukacs, 'Die Bedeutung von Materialismus und Empirio-kritizismus fu die
Bolshevisierung der Kommunistischen Parteien-Selgst-kritik zu Geschichte und Klassenbewusstsein', 1934, in Geschichte und Klassenbewusstsein heute,
18. Lukacs, 'Blum Theses', 1929, extracts in Political Writings 1919-1929, pp.
19. Gramsci, 'The Italian Situation and the Tasks of the PCI' ('Lyons Theses'),
20. As Robert Paris correctly states, the reading of Prison Notebooks shows how
'the essence of the great philosophical discussion of 1923 is found in Gramsci',
21. Lukacs, Histoire et Conscience de classe, p. 263. Also see M. Lowy, 'Le marxisme historiciste de Lukacs', preface to G. Lukacs, Littérature, Philosophie,
Marxisme, (Paris: Presses universitaires de France, 1978). The work of
Gramsci's which is mentioned is found in Il materialismo storico, pp. 84,
72 International Marxist Review
10. Lukacs, "Tactics and Ethics',
New Left Books, 1972), p. 27.
Torino, Einaudi, 1972, p. 13. (Tr. IMR).
Cahiers de l'Herme, 1986.
14. Quoted by Fiori, op. cit., p. 134.
15. Ibid., p. 153.
Amsterdam, 1971, p. 261.
227-253.
in Q. Hoare, op. cit., Vol II, p. 375.
98-101.
in Georg Lukacs, Political Writings
Writings, (New York: International Publishers, 1957), p.30.
('Gramsci e la cisi terica del 1923', p. 177). (Tr. IMR).
22. Gramsci, Il materialismo storico, p. 83. Faced with Althusser's position: 'To understand Marx, we must treat him like a scientist among others. (...) Marx appears as a founder of science comparable to Galileo and Lavoisier'. (Lire
23. See R. Paris, 'Gramsci e la crisi teorica del 1923', p. 170: 'In reality. Gramsci finds-say after Vico and Croce-precisely the problem of HCC: to try to resolve the dilemma that bourgeois thought poses between judgements of fact and value judgements, between the 'indicative premises' and the 'imperative' conclusions (Poincaré), in the final analysis, to establish Marxism as knowledge
26. Gramsci, Il materialismo storico, p. 203. The reference to Lenin, whom it was impossible to name because of prison censorship- is transparent. (Tr. IMR).
27. See Lukacs, 'N. Bukharin, Historical Materialism', in Lukacs, Political Writings
28. Jean-Marie Vincent, Fétichisme et Société, (Paris: Anthropos, 1973), p. 294.
29. Gramsci, Ordine Nuovo, 1919-1920, Torino, Einaudi, 1954, pp. 139, 140,
Gramsci, "The Modern Prince', from The Modern Prince and Other Writings,
32. Lukacs, 'The Politics of Illusion- Yet Again', in Political Writings, p. 121:
"There can be no doubt that such artificial and illegitimate cultivation of authority serves only to make the party bureaucracy even more hollow and soulless; it turns it into an office, with bosses and subalterns, not a communist organization which is centralized by based on comradely cooperation.'
33. Lukacs, Zu Ontologie des Geselschaftlichen Seins. Die ontologische Grund-
1 of the present." (Tr.
25. E. Garin, op. cit., p. 122.
1919-1929, pp. 134-142.
(Tr. IMR).
157. (Tr. IMR).
30.
31. Ibid., p. 175.
le Capital, Paris, Maspero, 1965, II, p. 119.) (Tr. IMR).
IMR).
24. Lukacs, Histoire et Conscience de Class, pp. 61, 41.
(London: Lawrence & Wishart, 1957), pp. 140, 150.
prinzipien von Marx, Neuwied, Luchterhand, 1972, p. 30.
Gramsci and Lukacs 73
N°7/8 (double) Plan, Market and Democracy: the
Experience of the So-called Socialist Countries, by
A balance sheet of the three basic economic models tried in the last three decades in post-capitalist societies from North Korea to Cuba: the bureaucratically centralized planning of the USSR under Brezhnev; the use of the market by the plan attempted in combination with self-management in
Yugoslavia, from 1950 to 1965, and, without self-management, in Hungary under Kadar; and "market socialism" implemented in Yugoslavia from 1965
1o 1971. The notebook concludes with a critical update of the Soviet 1920s debate between Bukharin and Preobrazhensky and an answer to Alec Nove
Nº1 The Place of Marxism in History, Ernest Mandel. 40 pages, £2,
N°2 The Chinese Revolution. I : The Second Chinese Revoluand the Shaping of the Maoist Outlook, Pierre Rousset.
N°3 The Chinese Revolution. II : The Maoist Project Tested in the Struggle for Power, Pierre Rousset. 48 pages, £2.50, $4, 25 FF.
N°4 Revolutionary Strategy Today, Daniel Bensaid. 40 pages, £2,
N°5 Class Struggle and Technological Innovation in Japan since 1945, Muto Ichiyo. 48 pages, £2.50, $4, 25 FF.
Nº6 Populism in Latin America, A. Gilly, H. Hirata, C. Vilas, Argentine PRT, edited by M. Löwy. 40 pages, f2, $3.50, 20 FF.
Subscribe to NSR (9 issues) : £18, $31, 180 FF (indicate with which issue you wish to begin your sub). Checks to P. Rousset. Postal giros to CCP Paris
11 541 97T. Send to NSR, 2 rue Richard-Lenoir, 93108, Montreuil, France.
Subscribe to the
Published by the International
Institute for Research and Education
Just published :
and Ota Sik.
Still available:
$3.50, 20FF.
tion
32 pages, £2, $3.50, 20 FF.
$3.50, 20 FF.
----- pull-quotes on this page -----
Notebooks for Study and Research Catherine Samary, 64 pages, £3, $5, 40 PF
ROMAN