Hello all,
Everyone seems to be very quiet at the moment leaving Chris and Hugh
to fight it out among themselves (and my posts received no replies
either). Perhaps this list has moved from theory into practice and so
their are only the inactive ones left ! (N.B. That was a joke)
Well Chris and Hugh, I found your discussion on Gramski very
interesting but I do not really know enough about him to comment much
(as I said when Chris raised it in relation to Ali). But I am afraid
I am still not sure quite what he argued or whether I agree with his
fundamental position or not? Although I disagree with all Hugh's
Trotskist attacks nevertheless I do find myself feeling highly
skeptical about Gramski.
Over the new year I also looked at some of his pre-prison
writings (because the CUP book is the only one I have and not because
of any of the peculiar comments you made about him writing in prison
?!?!?) and found them far from convincing. Part of the problem may be
in the comment that Chris made about his theory applying to the state
in advanced capitalist countries and his theory appears to be
confined to (or tailored to, or appeals to) the Communist Parties in
those countries. Are their many Gramscites in the oppressed nations?
Also I still haven't the faintest idea what hegemony is. Or whether
it IS (in a material sense) at all. But I can see how all this might
fit very well with Chris interest in Marxism and psychology and part
of that great effort to combine Marx with Freud. Which, even if it
were possible, I'm sure I would not find it very palatable. I would
rather stick with an idea of the state based on its physical
manifestations with a view of consciousness still based on the
Marxist definition based on the effect of the material world. But
perhaps I still misunderstand Gramski and he would agree too.
I remain suspicious but not unconvincable.
John
--- from list [EMAIL PROTECTED] ---
