At 14:01 10/02/00 -0500, Louis Proyect wrote:
>There is no real difference between Marx and Lenin on the theory of the
>state. Lenin's "State and Revolution" was based on both the example of the
>Paris Commune--the prototype for a workers state--and various writings by
>Marx and Engels.
>
>Lenin, "State and Revolution":
etc.
I discussed more fully on marxism-thaxis Gramsci's view of the state, which
I had raised here at the beginning of the year but did not pursue on this
list. The discussion on the executive of the bourgeoisie however makes it
relevant to return to the subject.
I was surprised that on 2nd January Louis appeared to dismiss Gramsci's
argument on the grounds that it was written in prison:
>>
Gramsci wrote his Prison Notebooks in a prison of all places. That's how it
got its name. The *Prison* Notebooks. Unlike American prisons, where Mumia
or Leonard Peltier can take advantage of democratic rights, Gramsci had to
use circumlocutions and euphemisms. An unambiguous call for the overthrow
of Mussolini would have led to torture or death.
<<<
I do not know if the guidelines of Louis's marxism list have changed but
they used to say:
>Despite the name of the
>>mailing list, we must resist the temptation to turn the powerful method
>>of Marx into some sort of revealed truth. Fortunately, we have examples
>>of creative Marxism to draw upon: Antonio Gramsci's Prison Notebooks,
>>Jose Carlos Mariátegui's journal "Amauta" and the essays of C.L.R.
>>James. The wide range of interests of these Marxist thinkers, and their
>>fresh approach to social reality, must inspire us.
Is Louis's position that we should be inspired by Gramsci's prison
notebooks over a wide range of matters *with the exception of* Gramsci's
remarks about the state, which were distortions of his true position?
Of course the notebooks do not call explicitly for the revolutionary
overthrow of Mussolini and one would not expect them to. Yet Gramsci refers
to *coercion*, so the code is surely clear.
What is wrong with the concept of *hegemony protected with the armour of
coercion* in this passage? -
>page 263 of "Selections from the Prison Notebooks" 1971, Lawrence and
Wishart:
>
>"the general notion of the State includes elements which need to be
referred back to the notion of civil society (in the sense that one might
say that State = political society + civil society, in other words hegemony
protected with the armour of coercion). In a doctrine of a State which
conceives the latter as tendentially capable of withering away and of being
subsumed into regulated society, the argument is a fundamental one. It is
possible to imagine the coercive element of the State withering away by
degrees, as ever-more conspicuous elements of regulated society (or ethical
State or civil society) make their appearance." 1932
Chris Burford
London
