From Gramsci to the Greens
It seems that the work of Italian Marxist Antonio Gramsci is more pertinent now than ever, as we prepare for the most devastating assault on the welfare state, education system and living standards in history. For a hundred years radicals, from trotskists and communists to democratic and independent socialists, looked to the Labour Party to incubate, sustain and often lead the resistance against the forebearers of this current attack. The death of the Labour Party and its reincarnation as New Labour was more then just the destruction of a centre left political party, it was the end of the traditional organising technique of the left. Since the demise of the Labour Party, left wing ideas have floundered and been ripped to shreds by the relentless ideological onslaught of right wing politicians (including those in New Labour), corporate elites and the media. Alternatives have been ignored or at best sidelined. Despite the near complete collapse of global capitalism the left has been completely ineffectual at articulating an alternative political programme. To counter this we first need to understand how our ideas are sidelined.
Gramsci, argued that the revolution is no longer an armed war but is rather an ideological battle of ideas aimed at cultural domination. A group comes to dominance by ideologically conquering or assimilating the opinion formers connected to other groups. The dominant groups’ opinion formers are then able to command leadership of civil society and give rise to ‘common sense’ values which subordinate groups adopt. ‘Common sense’ is not, however, a simplistic injection of the ideas of the ruling class into other groups, it is: “fragmentary, disjointed and episodic.” It is this episodic nature that enables it to act as day-to-day knowledge. Gramsci argues that hegemonic ideas do not simply flow from the ascendancy of a certain social group to power with a fully formed philosophy but rather from the process of construction and ascendancy of a historical bloc of social forces. Stuart Hall further developed these concepts and applied them to the media in contemporary society. Essentially, news needs to rely on credible sources which are invariably elites: politicians, state or corporate bureaucrats etc. This elite can then define an issue. Secondary voices brought in to provide balance are left to make “Yes but” statements within the framework already created by primary definers. As the media’s role is to communicate with their audience in a language and framework that they understand by using the elite as ‘primary definers’, the media essentially transform the elite’s views so that the general public can easily digest them; in this way a ‘consensus view of society’ is shaped, this is not a real consensus but merely the views of the elite recycled for mass consumption. In this way a cultural hegemony develops from independent, ‘unbiased’, professional media.
To be successful the left must first counter the Right’s dominate ‘common sense values’ and ‘consensus views’ whether they be that: public spending has to be cut, the rich already pay too much tax, the public sector is inefficient or that students are scroungers not a social good. This can only be achieved by two intermeshed processes; first we need our own primary definers who can turn ‘issue definition’ into a sight of ideological struggle. It is clear that it is useful to have a mainstream left wing party as a platform for lunching this struggle (think of 11 million people in 1974 voting for an irreversible shift of wealth and power to workers). Labour can no longer provide this platform, meaning that the Green Party, with 15,000 members, is the only realistic option – at least for the time being. Moreover, the Green Party has another advantage, for to actually win this struggle of ideas a broad historical bloc needs to forged which can construct a hegemonic culture of equality, justice and solidarity. No matter how ideologically pure, a single anarchist spray painting an ‘A’ on a building, never has and never will constitute a historic bloc. The Green Party is perfectly suited as the builder of a historical bloc as it is not tainted by the failures and aberrations of Labourism and Communism, whilst environmentalism has the ability to unite vast swathes of the population as does a value based commitment to social justice and anti-militarism. The decentralised structures of the party make it less open to the bureaucratisation which plagued the Labour Party and ultimately resulted in its complete destruction.
If we are serious about social change it is time to make use of all the tools at our disposal, including the platform which the Green Party provides, to build a historical bloc with which to unleash a cultural revolution.
I’m going to write a blog to answer some of the points that guy raises but in brief I think it is a massive reduction of the complex ways people interact with each other and structures to claim that all political parties are inherently corrupt and dominating. I don’t really see how a decentralised party structure is much different from the structure within an anarcho-syndicalist union federations or social movements. I also think it is dangerous to just wish a way hierarchies when they will inevitably form. Informal hierarchies have existed in all social movements I’ve been involved in and probably the worst is climate camp because people try and just wish them a way. What is necessary is to acknowledge hierarchies and then act limit the negative effects by making people accountable and empowering under empowered constituencies.
I also think that essentialist thinking is in general quite a dangerous way of thinking about any issue and has been shown over and over to be overly simplistic. To claim that all green parties as essentially the same and the actions of one can attributed to all, ignores the complexities of life.
Amen to that! Give peas a chance
ah, gramsci. silly, silly, gramsci.
i actually dont think that, but he does seem to be overused, often compleatly uncritically.
Gramsci did a lot to understand the failure of revolution. His concept of hegemony opens at lot of doors to understanding how capitalism perpetuates itself. There are many books and articles on this so i wont expand.Gramsci did a lot to understand the failure of revolution. His concept of hegemony opens at lot of doors to understanding how capitalism perpetuates itself. There are many books and articles on this so I won’t expand.
However the problem i have with Gramsci is his solution which is essentially to replicate the systems of domination (fighting hegemony with counter-hegemony) in order to use it to create revolution. I don’t want to replace Lord Browne indoctrinating me with Caroline Lucas.
The way we fight battle and the philosophical grounds on which we work on are fundamentally connected to our greater politics and what we will achieve. we cannot have liberatory politics and fascist strategy, this will only create fascism.
This is not to call the green party fascist (at least not in the traditional sense) but this is and interesting point on which critique the green party.
The green party claim they are different to the other parties and often a radically different view of how society should be. However the way in which it seeks to achieve these aims are is by using the systems which have caused the problem.
The most obvious example of this is the use of representative democracy and attempt to gain power. In Germany the green party opposed the wars in the middle east with a hard line ‘troops home’ position, when they joined a coalition government it was a green party minister who was personally responsible for the sending of more troops to Afghanistan. In Ireland the green party was at the forefront to the ‘shell to sea’ campaign in Rossport (against what some see as the greatest human rights violation in Western Europe). When the green party got into a coalition government, guess what? yep, did a big fucking liberal democrat u-turn and supported the project. So what makes the green party different from the lib dems?
Further the green party replicate power structures in the internal structure of the party, leadership, the very existence of the party with its party line and policy, and the boiling down of politics to party identity.
Gramsci and the green party share the same flaw. They seek to change power by replicating it. Such strategies will only distract from genuine revolution.
(sorry, i meant to do more of a critique of gramsci than a rant at the green party but i am tired, have not read gramsci in a while and feel a critique – even a ranty one – of the green party is more useful today.)
However the problem i have with gramsci is his solution which is essencially to replicte the systems of domination (figting hegemony with counter-hegemony) in order to use it to create revolution. I dont want to replace lord browne indoctrinating me with caroline lucas.
the way we fight battle and the philosohical grounds on which we work on are fundimentally conected to our greater politics and what we will achive. we can not have liberatory politics and fascist statagy, this will only create fascism.
this is not to call the green party facist (at least not in the traditional sence) but this is and intresting point on which crtique the green party.
The green party claim they are diffrent to the other parties and often claims it has a radically diffrent view of how society should be. However the way in which it seeks to achive these aims are is by using the systems whci have caused the problem.
The most obvious example of this is the use of repersentative democracy and attempt to gain power. In Germany the green party opposed the wars in the middle east with a hard line ‘troops home’ position, when they join a coalition goverment it was a green party minister who was personally responceable for the sending of more troops to afganistan. In Ireland the green party was at the forefront to the ‘shell to sea’ campaign in rossport (which some see as the greatest human rights violation in western europe). When the green party got into a coalition goverment, guess what? yep, did a big fucking liberal democrat u-turn and supported the project. So what makes the green party diffrent from the lib dems?
Further the green party replicate power structures in the internal structure of the party, leadership, the very existance of the party with its party line and policy.
Gramsci and the green party share the same flaw. they seek to change power by replicating it. such statagies will only distract from genuine revolution.
(sorry, i meant to do more of a critique of gramsci than a rant at the green party but i am tired, have not read gramsci in a while and feel a critique – even a ranty one – of the green party is more useful today.)
There is a legitimate concern that needs to be addressed over how we maintain our principles when in power, however, I don’t think it’s fair to attack us over the German or Irish Greens; we (Bright Green) awarded Joschka Fischer a previous Dick of the Year award specifically for supporting military intervention and we’ve been very critical of the Irish Greens. I actually think we (the Party) are making progress with creating internal structures that will help prevent that betrayal. You seem to suggest that political parties are themselves inherently part of the problem, I disagree and think whatever sort of power structure we eventually want, it would be foolish not to make use of all avenues we have to advance our ideas.
Solid Gramscian analysis of the future of the British left; an enjoyable read. The Green Party does indeed have advantages over Labour in the respects idenitified, though I would stress that we should remain open-minded about the possibility of Labour’s position changing for the better in years to come (on the bureaucracy point for instance there are signs that the way the Labour party chooses its leaders may be reformed: http://www.newstatesman.com/blogs/the-staggers/2010/09/party-members-system-labour). In my view lefties should see what the future has in store and vote on a strategic basis, depending on the seat in question. As this period of cuts reminds us, keeping out the Tories should remain a high priority.
Indeed a good article – and a statement of where the movement is at the moment – (Join the Greens here btw – http://join.greenparty.org.uk/membership/index.html or for free if you are under 30 until 8 Jan here – http://www.greenparty.org.uk/joinforfree.html )
But the Greens cannot challenge this hegemony alone. Ultimately the Greens will need to be a an important part of a much bigger social movement for that to take place
Good article.
Unfortunately, Labour as much as the tories and the media have been culpable for Britain’s shift to the right.
I’ve recently joined the Greens because I see them as a party of the left that will stick to their principles. Not only that, but in my constituency of Cambridge they got more than 4000 votes, a pretty impressive turnout and could do even better next time. I trust them to stick to their principles since they are a marginal party of idealists, not career politicians. They are not a huge force yet, but have made a good start in Brighton. Maybe in the near future they could become a more powerful political bloc.
My only gripe with the article is the cultural revolution reference. As a student of history, I really think that is something we could do without. Maoist terms are really used too loosely nowadays.