Re: Gramsci again on the state

[Chris Burford <cburford@xxxxxxxxxx>]

At 20:28 10/02/00 -0500, Louis wrote:
>Chris:
>>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.
>
>Well, okay. I am coming over to marxism-thaxis to discuss that with you.
>Look for me. I am about 6 feet tall, very muscular, and have blond hair
>down to my shoulders.

Well is that humour macho, camp, or merely whoopee cushion variety?

Promises, promises... and some ambiguity about whether he really wishes to
confront the miasmas of opportunism.


The debate on marxism-thaxis had the advantage of a particularly blunt
protagonist, who asserted that Gramsci was a revisionist.

He asserted specifically:

>As for writing in prison, nobody forced him to write, so if he couldn't write
>principled Marxist stuff, why did he write at all?


Louis's position is more puzzling than his blond shoulder length hair. He
can hardly regard Gramsci as a revisionist since he particularly praises
him in the introduction to his Marxism list. Indeed he  explicitly refers
to the prison notebooks.

However Gramsci's  particular formula on the state, (of all things), must
be dismissed because it was written in prison. And although it must be
dismissed it is not revisionist. Does it not at least conciliate with
revisionism? Or what is the problem?

Or could it be that the charge of revisionism is unsustainable, and that
Gramsci's formula is a perfectly reasonable marxist formula on a mjor issue
for the development of democratic and socialist campaigning?

That I would assert, whether Louis wishes to sub to marxism-thaxis, or not.

Chris Burford

London