Por Greg Godels

1 de mayo de 2025

Han pasado cuarenta y ocho años desde que Eric Hobsbawm presentó un trabajo, Gramsci y la teoría política, en la Conferencia de Gramsci celebrada el 5 y 6 de marzo de 1977 (reimpreso como artículo en Marxism Today , julio de 1977).

Hobsbawm, con aire reflexivo, repasa los cuarenta años transcurridos desde la muerte de Antonio Gramsci en 1937, tras más de una década en una prisión fascista. Durante los primeros diez años (1937-1947), Gramsci fue prácticamente desconocido fuera de Italia, donde el líder del Partido Comunista, Palmiro Togliatti, intentó integrar el pensamiento de Gramsci en la labor del PCI.

Durante la década siguiente (1947-1957), la influencia de Gramsci en Italia se expandió incluso más allá de los círculos comunistas, estableciéndolo como una importante figura cultural nacional.

Es con la tercera década (1957-1967) que Gramsci se volvió familiar para muchas personas fuera de Italia, con un interés especialmente fuerte en el mundo angloparlante como lo señaló Hobsbawm. La reciente y fuerte crítica de Stalin en el movimiento comunista mundial y la fuerza e independencia de la posguerra del PCI influenciado por Gramsci jugaron un papel en expandir la influencia de Gramsci. Aunque no mencionado por Hobsbawm, la primera publicación estadounidense limitada (1957) de las obras de Gramsci fue una breve traducción/comentario (64 páginas) de Carl Marzani, Man and Society , publicada por la indomable editorial desafiante de la Guerra Fría Cameron Associates. La admiración de Marzani y su visión de Gramsci como modelo y contraste con las prácticas soviéticas es fácilmente evidente.

Con la cuarta década (1967-1977), Hobsbawm sostiene que

Gramsci se ha convertido en parte de nuestro universo intelectual. Su estatura como pensador marxista original —en mi opinión, el pensador más original de su tipo producido en Occidente desde 1917— es bastante reconocida… Términos típicamente Gramscianos como «hegemonía» aparecen en debates marxistas, e incluso no marxistas, sobre política e historia con tanta naturalidad, y a veces con tanta ligereza, como los términos freudianos de entreguerras.

En 1977, el pensamiento de Hobsbawm estaba convergiendo con la escuela emergente del eurocomunismo, lo que tal vez ayudó a explicar su estimación de la importancia de Gramsci.

¿Se sorprendería Hobsbawm, si viviera hoy, de que, casi medio siglo después de su discurso en Londres, los admiradores más influyentes de Antonio Gramsci fueran pensadores de la derecha trumpista? ¿Le impactaría leer un artículo en The Wall Street Journal titulado "Conozca al comunista favorito de MAGA"?

El WSJ informa:

Christopher Rufo is perhaps the most potent conservative activist in the U.S… For the past year, Rufo has been working on a book called “How the Regime Rules,” which he describes as a “manifesto for the New Right.” At its core is a surprising inspiration: the Italian Communist thinker Antonio Gramsci, a longtime boogeyman of American conservatives. “Gramsci, in a sense, provides the diagram of how politics works and the relationship between all of the various component parts: intellectuals, institutions, laws, culture, folklore,” said Rufo, a senior fellow at the Manhattan Institute.

Author Kevin T. Dugan notes that many international right-populist leaders pay homage to Gramsci, including Georgia Meloni, Marine Le Pen, and Jair Bolsonaro, while Argentina’s president, Javier Milei, told Tucker Carlson that “he had to wage a culture war every single day” against opponents who “have no problem with getting inside the state and employing Gramsci’s techniques; seducing the artists, seducing the culture, seducing the media or meddling in educational content.”

Other right-wing intellectuals have adopted Gramsci, according to the WSJ:

Gramsci’s name appears in the writing of paleoconservative thinkers Paul Gottfried, Thomas Fleming and Sam Francis, who influenced Pat Buchanan’s Republican presidential bids in the 1990s. One of Gramsci’s biggest proponents in the pre-Trump era was Andrew Breitbart, the founder of Breitbart News, who quoted his axiom that “politics is downstream of culture.”

More recently, far-right writers like Curtis Yarvin, who’s influenced Vice President JD Vance, have talked about how to capture power through a culture war.

Regardless of how selectively MAGA appropriates Gramsci-thought, however differently right-populists interpret Gramsci from his original intent, the mere fact that Gramsci is taken far more seriously by the right than by all but the Marxist left is cause for deep reflection.

The right sees politics as a contest– even a war– over how people interpret the world. They borrow this notion from how Gramsci writes about ideology. They intend to conduct that war with fervor.

Conversely, the center-left and even some “Marxists” embrace a market-model that imagines a forum of idea-sellers, who fairly exchange and value ideas. In this fantasy, everyone has an equal voice. They imagine that institutions like universities and media forms are neutral social and political instruments that objectively pursue, project, and protect the unvarnished truth.

Like Gramsci, the populist-right recognizes that the ideological superstructure– what the right broadly and cynically calls “culture” — is always captured by social forces. For Gramsci, following Marx, “It is not the consciousness of men that determines their existence, but their social existence that determines their consciousness” (Gramsci roughly quotes this from memory often, throughout The Prison Notebooks). Unlike the populist-right, Gramsci sees the forces shaping ideas as those constructed and maintained by the ruling capitalists.

When “Reaganism” arrived on the scene decades ago, astute left observers noted that “class war had broken out, with only one side fighting,” a commentary on the ineffectual labor movement.

Today, with the Trump-right attacking the universities, public media, school books, publishers, law firms, and other aspects of the superstructure, it can be said that “cultural” war has broken out, with only one side fighting, a commentary on the ineffectual center-left.

Quite obvious, the populist-right has– crudely appropriating Gramsci– launched a cultural war on hollow, complacent institutions blind to their own vulnerability.

Lessons for the Left

As Hobsbawm points out, by 1977 Gramsci-thought was becoming as popular and used “as loosely, as Freudian terms did between the wars.” Subsequently, Gramsci quote-mongering became fashionable and academic hipness was often assured by grounding discourse in the more enigmatic writings of Gramsci. “Hegemony” became one of the most used and misused words in the academic lexicon. Since most of Gramsci’s prison writings were necessarily cast in coded language, his thought lent itself to broad interpretation and misinterpretation.

Too often “hegemony” was understood as a writer’s personal interpretation of ruling-class dominance: something richer and more extensive than the simple statement in the Manifesto that “The executive of the modern state is but a committee for managing the common affairs of the whole bourgeoisie.” Gramsci is explicit in exposing “the hegemony of a social group [‘beyond the dictatorship of coercive apparatus’] over the entire national society exercised through the so-called private organizations such as the church, the trade unions, the schools, etc.” — not exactly an earth-shaking conclusion for Leninists in his time, but well worth endorsing.

As Hobsbawm points out: “What is new in Gramsci is the observation that even bourgeois hegemony is not automatic but achieved through conscious political action and organization.” That is the lesson that the MAGA right draws, even if Gramsci’s left acolytes miss it.

In addition, hegemony is not merely an analytic tool for understanding capitalist-class rule, but, in Hobsbawm’s words, it is a “struggle to turn the working class into a potential ruling class” that “must be waged before the transition to power, as well as during and after it.” Liberals and social democrats who pay homage to Gramsci’s grasp of the mechanisms of class power, show no interest in Gramsci’s primary interest in establishing competitive, alternative mechanisms: media, entertainment, schools, activities, recreation, governance, and social life. He saw a need for preserving and protecting what was good and useful in existing working-class ethos and culture, while constructing what was even better for the future. Togliatti and the PCI sought to establish that hegemony in Italy’s Red Belt with different degrees of success. Italian Communist–influenced cinema, from Giuseppe De Santis’ 1949 Bitter Rice to Bernardo Bertolucci’s 1976 Novecento, represent that attempt made available to international audiences.

Nothing like this conscious collective attempt to nourish and promote working-class cultural life has been attempted on any scale in the US since the demise of the pre-neutered Congress of Industrial Organizations. Even the days of an independent radio station (WCFL, in Chicago) are past.

As Hobsbawm explains, “The basic problem of hegemony, considered strategically, is not how revolutionaries come to power, though that question is very important. It is how they come to be accepted, not only as the politically existing or unavoidable rulers, but as guide and rulers.” Two examples from Hobsbawm are telling: “The Polish communists in 1945 were probably not accepted as a hegemonic force, though they were ready to be one… The German social-democrats in 1918 would probably have been accepted as a hegemonic force, but they did not act as one.”

Marxist-Leninists in many, but not all, capitalist countries are cut off today from working-class life– they are led by intellectuals, but not organic intellectuals, paraphrasing Gramsci– with no vital connection to working-class life.

Apart from the Communist Parties, leftists have willfully or from ignorance failed to acknowledge that Gramsci wrote as a Leninist, accepting the critical importance of a vanguard party (The Prince), though he had ideas about party organization that reflected conditions peculiar to Italy in his time (e.g., the Turin movement). Without a party, no sense can be made of an “organic” connection to the working class.

John Womack reminds us that Gramsci’s “original” thoughts are often elaborations on ongoing debates in the Marxist movement. For example, the military-sounding contrast between wars of position and wars of maneuver predate Gramsci’s argument, with the Kautsky-Luxemburg dispute over the strategy of attrition versus the strategy of overthrow. These debates were carried forward into the early Comintern and played an important role in shaping Communist strategy.

It is commonplace on the left to view Gramsci’s idea of a “war of position” as a passive interregnum between the “wars of maneuver” where the working class and its allies can directly challenge the capitalist class from a position of relative strength. Too often this idea of positional warfare has been interpreted to be a period of defensive treading water. In the US, Gramsci’s war of position has often been used as a justification for supporting the Democratic Party in its turf war with the other bourgeois party or as grounds for taking a back seat to other organizations in an unnegotiated united front.

Hobsbawm addresses this misreading of Gramsci:

[T]he failure of revolution in the West might produce a much more dangerous long-term weakening of the forces of progress by means of what he called “passive revolution.” On the one hand, the ruling class might grant certain demands to forestall and ward off revolution, on the other, the revolutionary movement might find itself in practice (though not necessarily in theory) accepting its impotence and might be eroded and politically integrated into the system… In short, the “war of position” had to be systematically thought out as a fighting strategy rather than something to do for revolutionaries when there is no prospect of building barricades. (my emphasis)

Today’s left often neglects the essential questions of place and time in evaluating Gramsci’s thinking. Hobsbawm is careful to point out that Gramsci was writing about specifically Italian conditions and lessons for the Italian left: “Italy in Gramsci’s day had a number of historical peculiarities which encouraged original departures in Marxist thinking.” Hobsbawm discusses six “peculiarities” in great detail.

In addition, it is necessary to note when Gramsci was writing, as well as when Hobsbawm was commenting on Gramsci.

Writing from prison with Italian fascism securing its hold over Italy, Gramsci was understandably motivated to take a critical eye toward the tactics and strategy of the PCI, as much forward looking as retrospectively. Hence, his revisiting the Southern question. It would be ill-advised to generalize his conclusions to every revolutionary project under different conditions.

Además, Hobsbawm escribe en un momento (1977) en que la cuota electoral del PCI estaba creciendo (34%, un 7% más en 1976), cuando el PCI se comprometió con un compromiso histórico inspirado en Gramsci y el eurocomunismo estaba en auge. Al mismo tiempo, la revolución portuguesa —cumplida con grandes expectativas por la izquierda socialista— parecía estar frustrando esas expectativas y encaminándose hacia la conciliación con la comunidad europea mayoritaria. Hobsbawm, al igual que otros partidarios de la vía eurocomunista, recurrió a Gramsci en busca de una explicación: «…vemos que en países donde se ha producido un derrocamiento revolucionario de los antiguos gobernantes, como Portugal, en ausencia de una fuerza hegemónica incluso las revoluciones pueden fracasar». La historia no fue benévola con el eurocomunismo ni con el proyecto del PCI.

Quizás la frase más citada de Gramsci es: “La crisis consiste precisamente en el hecho de que lo viejo muere y lo nuevo no puede nacer; en este interregno aparece una gran variedad de síntomas mórbidos”.

El gran director expatriado Joseph Losey, incluido en la lista negra, utilizó la cita de Gramsci con gran éxito como preámbulo de su versión cinematográfica del Don Giovanni de Mozart . Otros la han utilizado para presentar las numerosas crisis que han afligido al sistema capitalista.

Se podría argumentar que hoy nos encontramos en un interregno de ese tipo, en el que el sistema capitalista lucha por seguir gobernando a la “vieja manera”.

Por lo tanto, quizás podamos aprender mucho de Gramsci. Pero debemos recordar que siguió siendo leninista. Si viviera hoy, estaría buscando el partido capaz de dar origen a lo nuevo.