 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
a) Response of Europe to the French Revolution: (S: 131-2). ie, Gramsci (SPN, 114-115, 118-120) argues that, while France went through a ruptural revolution, other European countries did not do so, but went through a passive revolution in which the old feudal aristocracy was not destroyed, but compromises were made between the rising industrial class and the aristocracy (which became a caste). There was no popular participation in this transition.
Gramsci: (SPN, 115): refers to "the birth of modern Eruopean states by successive small waves of reform rather than by revolutionary explosions like the original French one. The 'successive waves' were made up of a combination of social struggles, interventions from above of the enlightened monarchy type, and national wars -- with the latter phenomena predominating."
Gramsci (SPN: 115): "restoration becomes the first policy whereby social struggles find sufficiently elastic frameworks to allow the bourgeoisie to gain power without dramatic upheavals, without the French machinery of terror. The old feudal classes are demoted from their dominant position to a 'governing' one, but are not eliminated, nor is there any attempt to liquidate them as an organic whole; instead of a class they become a 'caste' with specific cultural and psychological characteristics, but no longer with predominant economic functions. Can this 'model' for the creation of the modern states be repeated in other conditions?" (emphasis added)
Gramsci (SPN, 119) criticises Croce for his ethical-political history of Italy which gives only the passive element without discussing the struggles; then Gramsci asks whether the Crocean construction "does not have a contemporary and immediate reference. Whether it does not aim to create an ideological movement corresponding to that of the period with which Croce is dealing, i.e. the period of restoration- revolution, in which the demands which in France found a Jacobin-Napoleonic expression were satisfied by small doses, legally, in a reformist manner -- in such a way that it was possible to preserved the political and economic position of the old feudal classes, to avoid agrarian reform, and, especially, to avoid the popular masses going through a period of political experience such as occurred in France in the years of Jacobinism, in 1831, and in 1848. But, in present conditions, is it not precisely the fascist movement which in fact corresponds to the movement of moderate and conservative liberalism in the last century?"
Sassoon: "...the old feudal classes maintained a political role, gradually being transformed from an economically and politically dominant class into a governing group serving the dominance of another class, the bourgeoisie." (S: 132).
b) Italian Risorgimento: (S: 132-3): Passive revolution "is represented by the success of Cavour and the moderates over the Partito d'Azione (Action Party), the name Gramsci uses to indicate the groupings around Caribaldi, Mazzini and other 'radicals'. The new Italian state is somewhat of a 'bastard' according to Gramsci because it is founded with an extremely restricted hegemonic base, the product of the compromise between agrarian and industrial interests. [SPN, 90). Rather than the hegemony of a whole class over the rest of society, the moderates based in Piedmont represented the hegemony of only a part of a class over the rest of that class (SPN, 104-6). A weak political unity is both a result and a cause of a weak economic transformation of society (SPN, 116)." (S: 132-3).
c) Fate of Russian Revolution: (S: 127-8; 129). Sassoon (146): "We thus arrive at the possibility of a socialist state maintaining itself through a passive revolution and thus remaining the expression of an economic-corporative change. Here the development of an extended hegemony is stunted, and the working class is unable to represent the universal interests of the whole of society. Gdramsci in fact offers a powerful analytic tool with which to examine the first concrete example of the establishment of a workers' state. To the extent that a separation is preserved between the realm of politics and the mass of the population and a traditional mode of existence of the intellectuals as an elite is reproduced, the historical tak of the proletariat -- of extending democratic control over the political and economic spheres -- has still be be accomplished." (S: 146).
d) Reorganization of Capitalism in 1920s and 1930s (S: 129). Sassoon: "In the 1930s the reorganization of capitalism took a variety of political forms from the New Deal to fascism in which state intervention in the economy and society increased dramatically and some elements of planning was attempted to overcome the effects of anarchy in market relations." (S: 134).
e) Americanism and Fordism: coming out of the crisis of the 1930s, fordism is an attempt to deal with the tendency for the rate of profit to fall (G: 209, 222-8). Americanism and fordism as passive revolution is posed by Gramsci on pp. 279-280 in SPN.
i) capital's counter-attack after 1930s: Buci=Glucksman: (223): "...the processes of passive revolution are reinterpreted as a counter-attack of capital. Its point of departure is the capitalist organization of wortk and the new relations between the economic and the political, the masses and the state, that come into being in the post=1930s era. And it is precisely that which is its concern."
ii) counter-tendencies of capital at the base: Buci-Glucksman (226): "...the passive revolution arises, as does hegemony, in the factory itself. It is here that the originality of Gramsci's analysis of taylorism and fordism lies: he discovers the countertendencies of capitalism in the forms themselves of the organization of labour; he re-explores the politcal dimension that is a central feature of the Factory Council strategy in the light of new developments in capitalism; in short, he studies the relations between productive forces and political forms.
In fact, the vehicles of the American type of 'passive revolution' are the reorganization of the wage-earner (the politics of high wages), the development of differential practices within the working class, and the creation of a new, fragmented proletariat, which is parcellised and interchangeable." (G: 226).
iii) Crisis: Fall in Rate of Profit: Buci-Glucksman (227): "In effect, the development of taylorism/fordism, and more generally of americanism, represents the capitalist response to the law of the falling rate of profit discovered by Marx. Or better, perhaps, this law 'must be studies on the basis of taylorism and fordism'." (Gramsci internal quote).
f) Fascism: Gramsci: " '...there is a passive revolution involved in the fact that -- through the legislative intervention of the State, and by means of the corporative organization -- relatively far=reaching modifications are being introduced into the country's economic structure in order to accentuate the 'plan of production' element; in other words, that socialisation and co-operation in the sphere of production are being increased, without however touching...individual and group appropriation of profit.' " (Gramsci, SPN: 119-120, citation in Sassoon: 134-5). (also G: 223).
"the leadership and the organizational autonomy of the working class is eliminated." (Sassoon, 136).
Relation to Fascism and Bonapartism (vs Ceasarism).
g) Parallel between fascism in 1920s-30s as response to Russian revolution and continental Europe in 1800s as response to French revolution.
Gramsci (SPN, 118) asks in 1935: "Does the conception of the 'passive revolution' have a 'present' significance? Are we in a period of 'restoration-revolution' to be permanently consolidated, to be organized ideologically, to be exalted lyrically? Does Italy have the same relation vis-a-vis the USSR that Germany (and Europe) of Kant and Hegel has vis-a-vis the France of Robespierre and Napoleon?"
Again, on p. 119, Gramsci asks "But, in present conditions, is it not precisely the fascist movement which in fact corresponds to the movement of moderate and conservative liberalism in the last century?" -- in reference to Europe's reaction to the French revolution.
Again, on p. 120, Gramsci states: "In Europe from 1789 to 1870 there was a (political) war of movement in the French Revolution and a long war of position from 1815 to 1870. In the present epoch, the war of movement took place politically from March 1917 to March 1921; this was followed by a war of position whose representative -- both practical (for Italy) and ideological (for Europe) -- is fascism." [1935]"
Gramsci, referring to the incomplete dialectic between Cavour and Mazzini (between war of position as passive revolution, and war of maneouvre), says: "And since similar situations almost always arise in every historical development, one should see if it is not possible to draw from this some general principle of political science and art. One may apply to the concept of passive revolution (documenting it from the Italian Risorgimento) the interpretative criterion of molecular changes which in fact progressively modify the pre-existing composition of forces, and hence become the matrix of new changes. Thus, in the Italian Risorgimento, it has been seen how the composition of the moderate forces was progressively modified by the passing over to Cavourism (after 1848) of ever new elements of the Action Party, so that on the one hand neo-Guelphism was liquidated, and on the other the Mazzinian movement was impoverished... . This element is therefore the initial phase of the phenomenon which is later called 'transformism', and whose importance as a form of historical development has not as yet, it seems, been adequately emphasised." (Gramsci, SPN, 109). (emphasis added).
Note: the more things change, the more they stay the same; the more things stay the same, the more they change; the contradiction between the thesis and antithesis produces the synthesis.
Criterion of Interpretation: Gramsci refers to 'passive revolution', "not as a programme,...,but as a criterion of interpretation, in the absence of other active elements to a dominant extent." (SPN, 114).
Historico-political vs 'intellectualistic' Approach: Gramsci warns that the application of the method of passive revolution must be done in "historico-political terms" rather than "intellectualistic terms" (SPN, 113).
Gramsci: "the theory of the passive revolution is a necessary critical corollary to the Introduction to the Critique of Political Economy". (SPN, 114).
Marx did not deal in this passage with political blocks to transition, even though productive forces might have developed to their fullest; the answer is provided by passive revolution which becomes a corollary to Marx's passage for understanding blocks and delays in the transition to socialism at the superstructural level. (see G: 207=8) (S: 135-6).
What Marx Said in the Preface to the Critique of Political Economy: " 'No social order ever perishes before all the productive forces for which there is room in it have developed; and new, higher relations of production never appear before the material conditions of their existence have matured in the womb of the old society itself. Therefore mankind always sets itself only such tasks as it can solve...' " (quoted in fn. 98 by editors in SPN).
What Gramsci Recalled and Commented on: "The concept of 'passive revolution' must be rigorously derived from the two fundamental principles of political science: 1. that no social formation disappears as long as the productive forces which have developed within it still find room for further forward movement; 2. that a society does not set itself tasks for whose solution the necessary conditions have not already been incubated, etc. It goes without saying that these principles must first be developed critically in all their implications, and purged of every residue of mechanicism and fatalism. They must therefore be referred back to the description of the three fundamental moments into which a 'situation' or an equilibrium of forces can be distinguished, with the greatest possible stress on the second moment (equilibrium of political forces), and especially on the third moment (politico-military equilibrium)." (SPN, 106-7). Note: on pp. 175-85 Gramsci distinguishes 3 relations of forces: 1: material forces of production; 2: relations of political forces; 3: relation of military forces, or politico=miliary. (pp. 180-3).
Buci-Glucksman: (222) "...the theory of passive revolution as a critical supplement to the marxian problematic of transition is not limited to 'passive transitions': it has to do also with the modes of passive restructuring of capitalism itself."
Inversion of Marxist Posing of Transition: Buci=Glucksman suggests that rather than the productive forces being liberated, in passive revolution of the Piedmont type the state had to intervene to create the conditions for the development of productive forces and productive relations (the Italian industrial bourgeoisie was underdeveloped); this was also the case in the Soviet Union after World War I.
Buci-Glucksman: "in contrast to the principles set out by Marx in the Preface: [Gramsci] 'the problem was not so much to liberate the economic forces that had already developed...as to create the general conditions that would allow these forces to arise' [Gramsci]. (G: 220).
Buci-Glucksman: (229): "A process of transition from one mode of production to another remains passive and confined to the level of the state when it is based on an absence of hegemony at the economic level; this is a typical inversion of Marx's principle since the state serves as the instrument for the development of the productive forces."
1) Superstructural: Normal terrain of passive revolution.
Gramsci wants to concentrate on the superstructure: "Still in connection with the concept of 'passive revolution' or 'revolution/restoration' in the Italian Risorgimento, it should be noted that it is necessary to pose with great precision the problem which in certain historiographical tendencies is called that of the relations between teh objective conditions and the subjective conditions of an historical event. It seems obvious that the so-called subjective conditions can never be missing when the objective conditions exist, in as much as the distinction involved is simply one of a didactic character. Consequently it is on the size and concentration of subjective forces that discussion can bear, and hence on the dialectical relation between conflicting subjective forces." (SPN, 113).
2) Structural: Fordism.
1) is more typical than 2).
Note: All passive revolutions involve both levels in an incomplete way; thus, historical bloc and passive revolutions are opposites (G: 222)
Period of Crisis: Gramsci says that 'passive revolution' can be used as "an interpretation...of every epoch characterised by complex historical upheavals" (SPN, 114).
Sassoon: "Faced with the dilemma of the resiliency of capitalism's various political forms -- a resiliency which exists despite the fundamental contradiction at a stage in history between the forces of production and the relations of production -- Gramsci produces a concept at the political level to take account of this disjuncture between the superstructure and the structure." (S: 135).
Sassoon: "...Gramsci maintained that reforms which were limited to the corporate demands of different groups and which did not go beyond the concept of politics as the privileged territory of a few could simply be absorbed as capitalism reconstituted itself through crises. The usefulness of the concept of the passive revolution as an interpretative device thus consists in measuring the adequacy of a political strategy and helping to explain the durability of bourgeois rule despite economic and political crises." (S: 143).
Buci=Glucksman: "It is as if the relations of capitalist production were possessed of a certain capacity for internal adaption to the developments of the forces of production, a certain plasticity, which allows them to 'restructure' in periods of crisis." (G: 209).
Reform or Reorganization of Capitalist Society: (S: 127) "constant reorganization of state power and its relationship to society" (S: 129).
Reformist Politics (S: 130). Sassoon: "The acceptance of certain demands from below, while at the same time encouraging the working class to restrict its struggle to the economic-corporative terrain, is part of this attempt to prevent the hegemony of the dominant class from being challenged while changes in the world of production are accomodated within the current social formation." (S: 133).
Sassoon: "reformism is a version of passive revolution" (140).
She emphasizes that there is a fine line between piecemeal reforms (or reforms separated into different moments) and the integration of many reforms into a strategy for qualitative change in a progressive direction.
Reproduces Capitalism (S: 127).
1) Individual. Molecular transformism: In Italy, describes a process whereby, between 1860 and 1900, "...individual political figures formed by the democratic opposition parties are incorporated individually into the conservative-moderate 'political class' (characterized by its aversion to any intervention of the popular masses in state life, to any organic reform which would substitute a 'hegemony' for the crude, dictatorial `dominance') " (Gramsci, SPN, 58f).
2) Collective. A period in Italy from 1900 onwards describing a "...transformism of entire groups of leftists who pass over to the moderate camp..." (Gramsci, SPN, 58f).
Gramsci (SPN, 112): "...although teh course of events in the Risorgimento revealed the enormous importance of the 'demagogic' mass movement, with its leaders thrown up by chance, improvised, etc., it was nevertheless in actual fact taken over by the traditional organic forces -- in other words, by the parties of long standing, with rationally-formed leaders, etc. And identical results occurred in all similar political events." (112).
In reference to the superior subjectivity of the Moderates over the Action Party, Gramsci says: "In Victor Emmanuel's crude, sergeant-major's expression, 'we've got the Action Party in our pocket' ..." (SPN, 113-4). (emphasis added).
Summary: Gramsci describes the formation of the Italian ruling class and state after 1848 as a process of passive revolution, "...the gradual but continuous absorption, achieved by methods which varied in their effectiveness, of the active elements produced by allied groups - and even of those which came from antagonistic groups and seemed irreconcilably hostile. In this sense political leadership became merely an aspect of the function of domination - in as much as the absorption of the enemies' elites means their decapitation, and annihilation often for a very long time." (Gramsci, SPN, 59).
Sassoon's Summary: = Individual and Collective Transformism: "The 'passive' aspect consists in preventing the development of a revolutionary adversary by 'decapitating' its revolutionary potential. In Italy the form of this is 'transformism' whereby the leadership of opposing parties, first individuals of the radical bourgeoisie, and after 1900, whole groups, such as sectors of the working class movement, are transformed into politically harmless elements -- not threatening the fundamental social relations -- by absorption into more traditional political organizations" (S: 133); [SPN, 587; 97; 109].
Absorption: Sassoon: "an expansion of the relatively weak hegemony of the dominant class to include new popular elements." (S: 135).
Absorption by the Thesis of the Antithesis in the Dialectic: In discussing the incomplete dialectic between Cavour and Mazzini, Gramsci says that "the theoreticians of 'passive revolution or revolution/restoration'...expressed in practice the necessity for the 'thesis' to achieve its full development, up to the point where it would even succeed in incorporating a part of the antithesis itself -- in order, that is, not to allow itself to be 'transcended' in the dialectical opposition. The thesis alone in fact develops to the full its potential for struggle, up to the point where it absorbs even teh so-called representatives of the antithesis: it is precisely in this that the passive revolution or revolution/restoration consists." (SPN, 109-110).
Gramsci: passive revolution "remains a dialectical one -- in other words, presupposes, indeed postulates as necessary, a vigorous antithesis which can present intransigently all the potentialities for development." (SPN, 114).
transformism; or, revolution-restoration) (or revolution without a revolution-Cuoco (Gramsci, SPN, 59) )
Buci-Glucksman (216): in Gramsci's remarks about the Risorgimento, passive revolution in a contradictory way "embraces both (bourgeois) 'revolutionary' elements and elements of 'restoration' (compromises with the former dominant strata, absence of a mass popular revolution). The contradiction in the formula revolution=restoration (a formula borrowed from Quinet) is a reflection of the role itself of the masses in the transition, of their relations with the existing forms of power -- of the form and of the contents of politics. To the extent that revolutionary innovation and progress take place 'in the absence of popular initiative' or active hegemonic intervention on the part of the masses as a whole, and even in opposition to certain forms of sporadic revolt, the historical process is passive and conservative in character. Nevertheless, it remains a case of revolution (however diluted) and as such it therefore occurs in response to 'certain popular demands', including, as Gramsci makes clear in the second draft of the same note, the 'demands of the base'."
Why is this dialectic between revolution and restoration subsumed under a dominant conservatism rather than in a revolutionary transformation: because domination outweighs consent: ie, "the aspect of domination (coercion) predominates over that of leadership (hegemony as organized consent.)" (G: 217).
Buci=Glucksman answers in terms of the class forces involved: "the proportions in which the element of state domination and that of hegemonic consent are respectively combined depends on the relations between the ruling class and the state in transition, and therefore on the mass (or non-mass) character of the process. In revolutionary movement 'from above' it is domination that is given a certain priority, while the existence of a national movement 'of the base' gives more weight to hegemony." (G: 217).
Gramsci (SPN, 108): "The 'restorations' need to be judged 'dynamically', ... . One problem is the following: in the struggle Cavour=Mazzini, in which Cavour is the exponent of the passive revolution/war of position and Mazzini of popular initiative/war of manoeuvre, are not both of them indispensable to precisely the same extent? Yet it has to be taken into account that, whereas Cavour was aware of his role (at least up to a certain point) in as much as he understood the role of Mazzini, the latter does not seem to have been aware either of his own or of Cavour's. If, on the contrary, Mazzini had possessed such awareness -- in other words, if he had been a realistic politician and not a visionary apostle (i.e. if he had not been Mazzini) -- then the equilibrium which resulted from the convergence of the two men's activities would have been different, would have been more favourable to Mazzinianism. In other words, the Italian State would have been constituted on a less retrograde and more modern basis."
Gramsci (SPN, 109): "...while Cavour was aware of his role in as much as he was critically aware of that of Mazzini, the latter, as a consequence of his scanty or non-existent awareness of Cavour's role, had in fact little awareness of his own either. Hence his vacillations...and his ill-timed initiatives -- which therefore became factors only benefiting the policies of Piedmont. This is an exemplification of the theroretical problem, posed in the Poverty of Philosophy, of how the dialectic must be understood. Neither Proudhon nor Mazzini understood the necessity for each member of a dialectical opposition to seek to be itself totally and throw into the struggle all the political and moral 'resources' it possesses, since only in that way can it achieve a genuine dialectical 'transcendence' of its opponent."
Gramsci later says on p. 110 that Mazzini misunderstood the stituation by emphasis a war of manoevre without having gone through the necessary preliminary stage of developing a hegemonic leadership among the oppositional forces.
Gramsci, after referring to the victory of career officers over the reservists in world war one: "In any case, the absence among the radical-popular forces of any awareness of the role of the other side prevented them from being fully aware of their own role either; hence from weighing in the final balance of forces in proporrtion to their effective power of intervention; and hence from determining a more advanced result, on more progressive and modern lines." (SPN, 113).
Moderates Had Superior Subjectivity over Action Party: Gramsci asks: "Out of the Action Party and the MOderates, which represented the real 'subjective forces' of the Risorgimento? Without a shadow of doubt it was the Moderates, precisely because they were also aware of th role of the Action Party: thanks to this awareness, their 'subjectivity' was of a superior and more decisive quality." (SPN, 113).
There is a dialectic in the awareness of each other's opponents and their own weaknesses; dominant classes are able to carry out passive revolution because they understand the weaknesses of their opponents more than the opponents understand the weaknesses of the dominant classes. (Sassoon, 138).
Sassoon: "A political lesson can be derived for the revolutionary party. Its analysis must be centred on the specific configuration of class forces confronting it in order to be able to know the nature of the alternative historic bloc which it must build." (S: 139). Sassoon stresses that the working class must understand the complex configuration existing within a national formation at any given time in order to combat passive revolution. (139-140).
Buci=Glucksman: "For to a certain extent every passive revolution develops a 'conservatism or moderate reformism' which breaks up the free political dialectic of class contradiction and neutralises and channels popular initiative in its, extremely partial, attempt to satisfy some of the latter's demand 'by small doses, legally, in a reformist manner.' " (G: 208) (SPN, 119)
Exploits Weaknesses of Opponents: (S: 130).
Sassoon: "the dominant class maintains its power by promoting its adversary's weakness". (S: 130). Sassoon quotes from Gramsci's essay on Ceasarism to the effect that " 'it is necessary for the dominant social form to preserve this weakness' [i.e., 'the relative weakness of the rival progressive force']" (S: 130; Gramsci, SPN, 222).
The dominant class has room to expand and manoevre to the extent that its opponents are weak. (Sassoon, 136).
In Italian Risorgimento: the adversaries were weak because they did not understand what it took to create an alternative hegemony based on rural reform. ie, "the deficiencies of Mazzini and the Partito d'Azione" (Sassoon, 138); Gramsci: "...the absence among the racial=popular forces of any awareness of the role of the other side prevented them from being fully aware of their own role either." (SPN, 113, cited in Sassoon, 138).
Pre-emption of Alternative Hegemony of Working Class: Sassoon: "The bourgeoisie may be able to undertake the strategy of the passive revolution, using the channels of the war of position, the various ideological apparatusees, the trenches of civil society, to whatever extent possible to pre-empt the creation of an hegemony by the working class. The passive revolution has different forms. It 'decapitates' the working class movement through reformism so that these leaders remain on a non-hegemonic terrain defending the corporate interests of the working class, but not challenging the logic of capitalist social relations." (S: 136).
Maintains Working Class in Weak Position: (S: 127)
Applied to Dominant vs Subordinate Classes:
Passive Revolution as War of Position: is passive revolution the war of position by dominant groups?
Gramsci (SPN, 108): "Can the concept of 'passive revolution', in the sense attributed by Vincenzo Cuoco to the first period of the Italian Risorgimento, be related to the concept of 'war of position' in contrast to wasr of manoeuvre? In other words, did these concepts have a meaning after the French Revolution, ... . ... In other words, does there exist an absolute identity between wasr of position and passive revolution? Or at least does there exist, or can there be conceived, an entire historical period in which the two concepts must be considered identical -- until the point at which the wasr of position once again becomes a war of manoeuvre?" (108).
Two Wars of Position: "the war of the dominant class in its various forms of passive revolution is opposed to the asymmetrical war of the subaltern classes in their struggle for hegemony and a political leadership over society." (Buci-Glucksman, 210-11).
The war of position by the subordiate classes is an anti-passive revolution, one of Eurocommunism, one of building alliances in a complete hegemony, rather than the partial hegemony, or bastardized hegemony, involved in the passive revolution by the dominant class (G: 211).
Strategy for Survival by Bourgeoisie (S: 128). Passive revolution "provides a further explanation of the margin for political survival which the bourgeoisie enjoys despite political and economic crises." (S: 131).
Sassoon: "...it is a strategy which allows the bourgeoisie to reorganize its dominance politically and economically, an aspect of the extension of the state as 'force plus consent' " (S: 134).
Inapplicable to Proletariat: Sassoon: "Reformism or any other version of the passive revolution cannot be a suitable strategy for the proletariat." (S: 140). (also, 140-1). Passive revolution is based on a weak hegemony; the proletariat, before taking power, must have a strong hegemony. In addition, passive revolution integrates old forms of exploitation into new forms of exploitation; the proletariat, in taking state power, abolishes all forms of exploitation. (S: 141). Politics of working class must be "anti=passive revolution." (S: 145).
Hegemony. Is passive revolution an exercise in hegemony?
Note: is transformism and passive revolution one form of hegemony?
passive revolution is "an attempt to promote change which is not based on a positive hegemony" (S: 131).
1) Condition: Threat or Crisis in Hegemony: Sassoon: "The passive revolution is in fact a technique which the bourgeoisie attempts to adopt when its hegemony is weakened in any way." (S: 133).
a) Period of Imperialism and Monopoly Capital: Sassoon: (134): Bourgeoisie no longer represents all of society; "there is a potential for the first time in history of masses becoming the protagonists of a social transformation. Therefore, the foundation of bourgeois rule changes, and reforms which provide a concrete basis for the consent of the majority must be part of an attempt by the bourgeoisie to prevent its adversary, the working class, from developing an alternative hegemony." (see also Gramsci, Q: 1636-8).
b) Period After World War I: Sassoon: "when the old apparatus of hegemony (such as the traditional parties) [Gramsci, Q: 1638-9] are themselves thrown into a crisis."
2) Content:
Domination outweighs Hegemony as Consent: In writing of the "function of Piedmont in the Italian Risorgimento", Gramsci writes about the ruling class: "...their tendency to unite was extremely problematic; also, more importantly, they -- each in its own sphere -- were not 'leading'. The 'leader' presupposes the 'led', and who was 'led' by these [ruling class] nuclei? These nuclei did not wish to 'lead' anybody, i.e. they did not wish to concord their interests and aspirations with the interests and aspirations of other groups. They wished to 'dominate' and not to 'lead'. Furthermore, they wanted their interests to dominate rather than their persons; in other words, they wanted a new force, independent of every compromise and condition, to become the arbiter of the Nation: this force was Piedmont and hence the function of the monarchy. Thus Piedmont had a function which can, from certain aspects, be compared to that of a party, i.e. of the leading personnel of a social group (and in fact people always spoke of the 'Piedmont party'): with the additional feature that it was in fact a State, with an army, a diplomatic service, etc. This fact is of the greatest importance for the concept of 'passive revolution' -- the fact , that is, tdhat what was involved as not a social group which 'led' other groups, but a State which, even though it had limitations as a power, 'led' the group which should have been 'leading' and was able to put at the latter's disposal an army and a politico-diplomatic strength." (Gramsci, SPN, 104-5).
Domination outweighing Leadership in Decapitating the Enemies' Leadership: In referring to passive revolution in Italy after 1848, Gramsci says, in talking about the absorption of the enemies' elites: "In this sense political leadership became merely an aspect of the function of domination - in as much as the absorption of the enemies' elites means their decapitation, and annihilation often for a very long time." (Gramsci, SPN, 59). (see also G: 208).
Loss of Hegemony, or Restricted Hegemony: in a "partisan-state (or even a party-state), hegemony is restricted not only in its mass basis, but also within the class itself: 'the hegemony will be exercised by a part of the social group over the entire group, and not by the latter over other forces in order to give power to the movement' [SPN, 106]. This loss of hegemony, which is typical of passive and statist transitions, inevitably leads to the introduction of bureaucratic=elitist mechanisms of social reproduction, to forms of 'bureaucratic centralism' [SPN, 189] " (G: 220).
Protagonist for Change = State, Not Masses ; State Intervention in Economy; Element of State Planning; State Dominance: (S: 128; 134-5) (SPN, 119-120).
State Domination Replaces, Yet Represents, the Leading Group's Hegemony in Passive Revolutions: Gramsci: "The important thing is to analyse more profoundly the significance of a 'Piedmont'-type function in passive revolutions -- i.e. the fact that a State replaces the local social groups in leading a struggle of renewal. It is one of the cases in which these groups have the function of 'domination' without that of 'leadership': dictatorship without hegemony. The hegemony will be exericesed by a part of the social group over the entire group, and not by the latter over other forces..." (SPN, 105-6).
State Economic Intervention: Gramsci: (SPN, 119-120 "The ideological hypothesis could be presented in the following terms: that there is a passive revolution involved in the fact that -- through legislative intervention by the State and by means of the corporative organization -- relatively far=reaching modifications are being introduced into the country's economic structure in order to accentuate the 'plan of production' element; in other words, that socialisation and co-operation in the sphere of production are being increased, without however touching (or at least not going beyond the regulation and control of) individual and group appropriation of profit. In the concrete framework of Italian social relations, this could be the only solution whereby to develop the productive forces of industry under the direction of the traditional ruling classes, in competition with the more advanced industrial formations of countries which monopolise raw materials and have accumulated massive capital sums. " (see also Buci-Glucksman, 224). [Gramsci was thinking of Fascism in this passage].
Buci=Glucksman notes "the extent to which the passive revolution tends to resolve the problems of transformation and leadership (hegemony) in favour of the state (domination), its administdrative and police apparatuses." (G: 208).
State Enlargement: Specific to Bourgeoisie:
In contrast to earlier dominant classes, the bourgeoisie has the historical tendency for hegemonic expansion through state enlargement:
Gramsci: " 'Previous dominant classes were essentially conservative in the sense that they did not tend to elaborate an organic passage from other classes to their own, to enlarge...' " (G, 217).
Buci-Glucksman: "This kind of enlargement of the state in transition presupposes a certain historical capacity to absorb and assimilate all the levels of society, creating a global and universal formulation". (G: 217-8).
2 Types of State Enlargement:
1) From the Base: this is a democratic one based on hegemonic expansion from the masses; consent rules over domination here. (G: 218).
2) From the Top: Passive Revolution: domination reigns over consent. (G: 219). (see paragraph on top of p. 219).
Maintains Split Between Rulers and Ruled (S: 127).
"preserve control by the few over the many, and maintain a traditional lack of real control by the mass of the population over the political and economic realms." (S: 129).
"forms of politics which simply reproduce the traditional division between leaders and led..." (S: 130). = reformist politics.
Undemocratic: Lack of Democratic Mass Participation: (S: 127, 128).
Excludes mass participation (Gramsci, SPN, 59f: editors' note on Vincenzo Cuoco)
Gramsci, in the context of the European reaction to the French revolution, asks the "function which the intellectuals thought thery fulfilled in this long, submerged process of political and social fragmentation of the restoration. Classical German philosophy was the philosophy of this period, and animated the liberal national movements from 1848 to 1870. Here too is the place to recall the Hegelian parallel (carried over into the philosophy of praxis) between French practice and German specualtion. In reality the parallel can be extended: what is practice for the fundamental class becomes 'rationality' and speculation for its intellectuals (it is on the basis of these historical relations that all modern philosophical idealism is to be explained). " (SPN, 115-6).
Gramsci: "since the State is the concrete form of a productive world and since the intellectuals are the social element from which the governing personnel is drawn, the intellectual who is not firmly anchored to a strong economic group will tend to present the State as an absolute; in this way the function of the intellectuals is itself conceived of as absolute and pre-eminent, and their historical existence and dignity are abstractly reationalised. This motive is fundamental for an historical understanding of modern philosophical idealism, and is connedcted with the mode of formartion of the modern States of continental Europe as 'raction -- national transcendence' of the French Revolution (a motive which is essential for understanding the concepts of 'passive revolution' and 'revolution/restoration', and for grasping the importance of the Hegelian comparison between the principles of Jacobinism and classical German philosophy)." (SPN, 117).
On the next page Gramsci states: "Since the representatives of the traditional current really wish to apply to Italy [during the Risorgimento] intellectual and rational schemas, worked out in Italy it is true, but on the basis of anachronistic experiences rather than immediate national needs, it is they who are the Jacobins in the pejorative sense." (1932) (SPN, 118).
1) Gramsci on Ruling Class and State: " 'The historical unity of the ruling classes is realised in the State, and their histdory is essentially the history of States and of groups of States.' " (SPN, 52; cited in Buci=Glucksman: p. 212).
2) Gramsci on Relation Between Production and the State: " 'The political constitution of the State has a good deal more importance for production than does the alteration of a technology or labour process.' " (Gramsci, cited in Bucki=Glucksman, 213).
3) Necessity to Generalize from Gramsci's Piedmont Passive Revolution in the Risiorgimento. (G: 219-20). Ie, what general characteristics exist in passive revolutions on the basis of a study of the deeper significance of Piedmont?
4) Two other important aspects of passive revolution: 'personnel' and 'revolutionary levy' (SPN, 111-112). Note: hard to understand what he means.
|
|
|
|
|
|
© Copyright. All rights reserved. Carl Cuneo, Dept. of Sociology, McMaster University, Hamilton, Ontario, Canada.