Antonio Gramsci Jr: about my grandfather

32 posts / 0 new
Last post
ikosmos ikosmos's picture
Antonio Gramsci Jr: about my grandfather

Recent, tiresome efforts to turn Gramsci into a victim (or enemy) of Communism have earned a reply from the famous Communist's grandson ...

Quote:
My relationship to my grandfather goes beyond my interest in his life and his ideas. As his grandson and in a way his disciple, I feel a duty to defend his memory and also the cause for which he lost his life, from manipulation and all kinds of speculation. Recently, new attempts to place Gramsci in opposition to the communist movement or even make him a victim of communism have intensified. Many Italian writers from Massimo Caprara to Giancarlo Rehner are very partial to this view. [8] So it is said, for example, that Gramsci was abandoned by the Soviet party as well as by his Russian family. According to Lehner, it was the Italian interior ministry that paid for his very expensive medical treatment between 1934 and the time of his death. Now, having recently found Tatiana’s letters to his family, we know for certain that this was not the case. In fact Giulia regularly sent large sums of money to Tatiana for the care of her husband, money certainly granted to them by the Soviet authorities.

I won’t go through all the rubbish that has accumulated over the years, starting from the fantasies of Caprara, Togliatti’s former secretary, who insinuated that Giulia Schucht had been sent by the Soviet secret services to seduce Gramsci; that her sister Tatiana had been hired by the same secret services to spy on him; that the Schucht family left Gramsci’s children in ignorance of their father’s ideas . . . This rubbish piles up all the way to the reverend Luigi de Magistri’s claims of a deathbed conversion, and the testimony of an old lady who had also been cared for in the Quisisana clinic to the effect that my grandfather had committed suicide by jumping out of a window—or been murdered.

Would that these were the last myths about my grandfather and our family. But they are not. The mythology on Gramsci (and not only him) continues to proliferate, in conditions of general cultural degradation. That degradation, reinforced by the mass media’s manipulation of consciousness, is characteristic of what Herman Hesse in his novel The Glass Bead Game called ‘the Age of the Feuilleton’, an absurd time when creativity and true research are replaced by reciprocal citations. I believe it is our duty—as activists, as scholars, as intellectuals and also as simple citizens—to fight these malignant tendencies, if we want to survive with dignity in ‘this great and terrible world’."

Antonio Gramsci Jr: Lies about My Grandfather

lagatta4

I read that article quickly, and while it certainly puts the lie to the crap former militants who went over to the right have said about Gramsci - there is a whole literature devoted to that, including his supposedly baleful influence on Italian cultural and political life, it is also very critical both of the current crew in power in Russia and of Stalin and his henchmen.

The second matter concerns the attempts to free Gramsci from jail. Here too, despite the efforts of the finest scholars (notably Angelo Antonio Rossi and Giuseppe Vasca in Gramsci tra Mussolini e Stalin, 2007), the truth remains uncertain. Neither did I myself find anything significant reading through our family archive. The most likely hypothesis is that despite giving the prisoner significant material support, the Soviet authorities did nothing serious to free him from his Fascist prison. They replicated the fervid activity in which Tatiana Schucht, probably purposely misled, was also engaged, pursuing endless paperwork to no avail. Here again we have a less than satisfactory explanation. It may be that a better one awaits focused research in the Stalin archive, which remains inaccessible to this day.

It is in no way surprising that Lenin met with Gramsci and discussed the Italian situation and politics in general with him at length - that is what happens when you have Communist leaders from other parts of the world in Moscow for the Comintern meetings and for other reasons (including exile from their own countries).

I don't recall anything about the anointment of Gramsci as leader of the PCdI as opposed to Bordiga in Fiori's book or any of the others I'd read (but that was over 20 years ago) but they obviously had very different strategic approaches to party-building and the development of a revolutionary movement in general.

lagatta4

There is also this article from the Fondazione Istituto Gramsci, though I don't think I can print it from the free-of-charge access and it is a lot to read online

 Le campagne per la liberazione, il partito, l'Internazionale (1932-1933)
Ken Burch

Gramsci was a Communist...but I think we can safely say he wasn't a Stalinist.

I hope no one here WANTS him to be, because there is no valid reason for anyone on the left to defend Stalin these days.

ikosmos ikosmos's picture

Thanks for that missive, Ken.

After all, wasn't it US President Harry Trueman who said, cheerleading for mutual slaughter on the "Eastern Front"  "If we see that Germany is winning we ought to help Russia and if Russia is winning we ought to help Germany, and that way let them kill as many as possible ..."

... because, after all, Stalin is just as bad as Hitler ...

[rolleyes]

sherpa-finn

Not sure why you need to be so mean to the little Missouri haberdasher. To be clear, Senator Truman made that remark when Germany invaded the USSR in June 1941, and the US was still neutral. (Context matters.) 

And it is generally acknowledged that Truman actually got along well with Stalin. After they met for the first time at the Potsdam Conference in July, 1945 Truman said. "I liked him a lot," adding that, of course, "Uncle Joe" (as he called Stalin behind his back) "didn't mean what he said" and consistently broke his word.  

Sounds far enough. 

KenS

ikosmos wrote:

Thanks for that missive, Ken.

After all, wasn't it US President Harry Trueman who said, cheerleading for mutual slaughter on the "Eastern Front"  "If we see that Germany is winning we ought to help Russia and if Russia is winning we ought to help Germany, and that way let them kill as many as possible ..."

... because, after all, Stalin is just as bad as Hitler ...

[rolleyes]

I would actually call that flat out misleading. Using the term "Eastern Front" makes people think Truman was referring to what the war became, but was not yet there. Even in the UK, already at war, there was at the time no Eastern Front- it was Germany (unexpectadly) attacking the Soviet Union.

 

KenS

The context was not the same as with the legions of fascist sympathisers in the UK and on the Continent.

On this side of the pond, until the US was attacked, it was "let them have their wars" (over there), and a pox on both their houses.

Ken Burch

I wasn't saying Stalin was the same as Hitler.  Just that neither Russia NOR anywhere else in the world needs "man on horseback" types like that anymore(or shirtless-men-on-horseback like "Bombmaster Vladi P".)

It's possible to recognize the heroism of the Soviet PEOPLE and the Red Army in the Great Patriotic War without being an apologist for "Uncle Joe"(the man who, among other things, killed more Communists than anyone else in history) himself.  Or without looking the other way about the Pact.

 
And it's equally possible to recognize the heroic role the Soviet people played in that conflict without supporing Vladimir Putin-a man whose program has nothing in common with the values of socialism or communism and who is wasting his country's resources in a pointless effort to rekindle the Cold War.  I agree that the US treated post-Soviet Russia horribly, but none of that justifies what Putin's militarism, homophobia, and extreme right wing Great Russian Nationalism.

The original Bolshevik values as defended by the Krondstadt rebels and the Left Opposition, yes.  Stalin and Putin, no.

ikosmos ikosmos's picture

As opposed to "taking a position" in some pseudo-leftist way - something that I find more and more odious - here is some Gramsci reading material.

Because freedom.

Gramsci Reader

lagatta4

Stop insulting people.

I've probably read most published works by Gramsci (in the original), but I certainly wouldn't claim to remember everything, any more than I remember all of the classical Marxist works.

You are certainly taking positions and insulting those who take other ones. I wouldn't call being a Putinist even pseudo-Marxist, it is as post-Marxist as those Italian careerist "trasformisti" you mention upthread.

Ken Burch

ikosmos, do you actually believe the socialist project in any way benefits from what Putin does?  Or that we should see the "realsozialmus" or what Brezhnev called "actually existing socialism" as a model for future socialist societies?

Yes, Putin is fighting the US...but so was Hitler.

How far are you willing to go in "enemy of my enemy is my friend" politics?

 

Ken Burch

I'll go to that link you posted...but it's pretty unlikely that I'll see anything there that would make a "revolutionary" case for cheering on Putin.  After all, by the logic of most of YOUR posts, Gramsci should have been supporting a "strategic" alliance between the left and Mussolini. 

(BTW, I've got no personal issue with Gramsci Jr's position regarding the USSR.  His family was forced to live in exile there because staying in Italy would have cost them their lives.  It's natural that they'd have seen the Soviet state as their protectors.)

lagatta4

Of course it was normal. But the situation of many Communist exiles in the Stalin-era USSR was very uncomfortable indeed.

One thing I am wondering about is "Antonio Gramsci Jr", applied to the grandson. Does "Junior" mean something different in Russian? Not just a son with the same age: père et fils, padre e figlio? Something like X historical figure the Older vs the Younger, applying to younger relatives who might have been a grandson or a nephew? (mentioning men as while girls obviously bore their mother's, grandmother's, aunt's or great-aunts first names as often, it was usually used in a patriarchal sense).

KenS

ikosmos wrote:

As opposed to "taking a position" in some pseudo-leftist way - something that I find more and more odious -

I find that puzzling. And I mean literally, as in "what could he mean by that?" ie, what would be the plain language translation ?

But I'm probably better off being merely puzzled.

KenS

When I read Gramsci, it was so viscerally striking what he managed to do in his prison conditions.

I only later read about his life in and around the Party. It certainly beat being in prison, but even then it was remarkable how his thinking transecended his immediate circumstances.

Ironic to see him revered by those for whom the most important think about him was being a steadfast Communist.

ikosmos ikosmos's picture

KenS wrote:
Ironic to see him revered by those for whom the most important think about him was being a steadfast Communist.

Right. As opposed to those who find it necessary to urinate on his political choices every chance they get. And still pretend they share his political ideas.

 

lagatta4

May I ask the interest of the scatological language?

On top of that, you are implying that posters here dissed his choices when that was not necessarily the case at all.

 

Ken Burch

ikosmos wrote:

KenS wrote:
Ironic to see him revered by those for whom the most important think about him was being a steadfast Communist.

Right. As opposed to those who find it necessary to urinate on his political choices every chance they get. And still pretend they share his political ideas.

 

I don't think many people on the Left are "urinating" on Gramsci's political choices...it's just that they don't accept that HIS political choices are necessarily yours.

Gramsci was anti-authoritarian and deeply concerned about the direction Stalin was taking.  It's an open question of what Gramsci's view of the Soviet Union would have been like had he been healthy enough to travel to a better climate and regained his health.

lagatta4

Find a grave: Antonio Gramsci http://www.findagrave.com/cgi-bin/fg.cgi?page=gr&GRid=10982726

Pasolini: Le ceneri di Gramsci: http://web.tiscali.it/minores/Ceneri_di_Gramsci.pdf

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mESo13hfgMI Voce di Pasolini: le ceneri di Gramsci

KenS

ikosmos wrote:

KenS wrote:
Ironic to see him revered by those for whom the most important think about him was being a steadfast Communist.

Right. As opposed to those who find it necessary to urinate on his political choices every chance they get. And still pretend they share his political ideas.

Its too bad that you, only you, need your personal clarification. Because the words on the page are clear.

I dont think even slightly less of Gramsci because he was a steadfast Communist. He was an all around admirable person, including that.

But Gramsci was a really special thinker. And it is sad how apparent it is that the only thing that gets you cranked is that he was a steadfast Communist.

swallow swallow's picture

What strikes me about Gramsci is how relevant his political thought remains today. I haven't read it all, of course, but the stuff on "common sense" seems so important, for instance. In a post-truth world of trivia and politics as entertainment and rising racism and all the rest, Gramsci's thought is so valuable. It was a prety good analysis of the rise of Mike Harris in Ontario, even though Gramsci never new Mike Harris or saw his Ontario. 

Maybe Gramsci's ideas about the hegemony of the dominant classes being fed by the construction of "common sense" apply in America, Russia, and Canada alike today, though in different ways. 

lagatta4

Gramsci is also very influential in Latin America - remember his pioneering work on underdevelopment as part of capitalist development, first in relation to his native Sardinia. http://igsbrasil.org/ http://www.internationalgramscisociety.org/ By the way, the general link (and the Brazilian one for any Lusophones) is definitely worth a look, with a very clear short résumé of Gramsci's life, work and key ideas.

lagatta4

A Channel Four (Scotland) 1987 documentary on Gramsci's life and ideas, dramatised in part: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=51DhvS9abyI

To some here, the glorification of Stalinist butchery has something to do with Marxism.

ikosmos ikosmos's picture

KenS wrote:
I dont think even slightly less of Gramsci because he was a steadfast Communist. He was an all around admirable person, including that.

But Gramsci was a really special thinker. And it is sad how apparent it is that the only thing that gets you cranked is that he was a steadfast Communist.

Nice recovery. However, before you decide to erase your contribution above, I'd just like to remind you that Gramsci's grandson noted

"Recently, new attempts to place Gramsci in opposition to the communist movement or even make him a victim of communism have intensified."

... which is an important reason to start this thread. Naturally, since you can't leave well enough alone,  you decided to lecture us all on Stalin. Which just shows what axes you are grinding every chance you get.

Which proves my point. That you are unapologetically urinating on Gramsci's political choices... perhaps to appropriate Gramsci for one political tradition and build a "Chinese Wall" facing others. Grinding axes. 



KenS

you are Weird iksmos.

I didnt even discuss, let alone lecture, about Stalin 45 years ago, when talking about him was a little more topical.

(and you are weird for much more than making that one up)

swallow swallow's picture

Please stop it with the implied violence, ikosmos. We're supposed to be on a pro-feminist board. 

lagatta4

I have no idea whether he was attacking me, or Ken. In either case it is machistic and deeply wrong to threaten violence against other posters. If you are in some kind of psychological crisis, please seek help. Otherwise, stop being a macho bully.

 

ikosmos ikosmos's picture

What a waste of time. If you want to contribute something about Gramsci, do it. If your comments are simply an excuse for sectarianism, then sorry if I give you a well-deserved "verbal clubbing".

You want to claim Gramsci as YOUR property? You're gonna get "beat up".

 * No small animals were hurt in the use of the above metaphors.

ikosmos ikosmos's picture

Swallow, if you're feeling threatened by a metaphor, you need to go somewhere else. This is simply passive aggression on your part.

Are you trying to get me banned? That's kinda slimy isn't it? Or cowardly?

Who's bullying who here?

What a bunch of monsters you guys are.

lagatta4

That is incredibly offensive. Swallow has to "man up"?

I'm not trying to get you banned. These responses insinuate that you want to get yourself banned.

I only wish you would stop insulting other posters on babble. Adding scare quotes afterwards does not diminish the initial aggression.

Actually, I was very happy to have the opportunity to discuss Gramsci.

swallow swallow's picture

No, I am not trying to get you banned, ikosmos, I am trying to urge you to behave decently towards fellow babblers, being a believer in non-violence and all.

Personally, I'm more interested in talking about passive revolution than passive aggression.