Difference Between Gramsci And Marxism Essay

In this paper I seek to illustrate the points of commonality and separation between the politico- philosophical views of Karl Marx and Antonio Gramsci. I analyze their ontology, epistemology, metaphysics, and social and economic theory. I conclude that Gramsci represents a moderate divergence from Marx’s views on the basis that they disagree on realism, positivism, and civil society; I also acknowledge their similar positions on the indeterminate nature of historical progression, the centrality of the law of value for motivating change, and the use of qualitative data on matters of social inquiry.

“Everyone is a bit of a Marxist, without being aware of it” (Gramsci, 2000a). One may not think that they believe in the tenets of historical materialism, or that they spend their lives engaging in revolutionary praxis, or that they need to carry a little red book and flash a hammer and sickle to their fellow comrades on Tuesday theory nights in order to be a card-carrying, capitalism hating, “big C” Communist. And such a belief is justified. Most people have not read Karl Marx. Many are unfamiliar even with his name. And yet, everyone—in some way!—is a Marxist.

The Marxist paradigm is so obvious that many once-controversial views are now taken for granted. The idea that unfettered capitalism produces an unequal distribution of resources over time is one that mainstream economists such as Thomas Piketty are enthusiastic to assert (Mason, 2014). The fact that material conditions influence the behavior of humans in its most unsophisticated interpretation is what many would consider to be a truism.

Like Marx, everyone has a bit of Antonio Gramsci in them as well. The idea that political movements must consolidate power amongst a significant portion of individuals in the form of ideology in order to survive is one that any serious theoretician will acknowledge.

Both individuals are towering figures in the fields of social philosophy and science. The former is known for his political influence as manifested in Marxist-Leninist movements across the world, influencing twentieth-century politics to a degree that history would be unrecognizable without his beliefs (Wolff & Leopold, 2021). The latter is known more strongly in academic circles, presenting an eminence in the fields of cultural and post-colonial studies, critical theory, and international relations—with some moderate influence on so-called

“Eurocommunist” political movements (Anderson, 1976; Patnaik, 2013).

Such a close-knit association of influence, at first glance, makes perfect sense. Gramsci himself was an avowed Marxist (or Neo-Marxist, depending on whom is asked) and framed his works as existing in the space of dialectical theory.

An enigma arises, however, when one considers the simultaneous influence of the two figures. If Gramsci is simply another Marxist, how can it be that he is also so influential? Is it merely the case that Gramsci is using the principles established by Marx and solving problems in the same framework? Is it so that Gramsci represents a simple extension of Marx’s writings? Or is there something more to his thought that justifies such a strong resonance in academia? And did they find differences in their conclusions if such is the case?

This question may intuitively seem superfluous and obtuse. Who cares about the potential intellectual squabbles of one Italian criminal who spent half of his life in a fascist prison and a stateless German-born slob who rarely bathed, cleaned his room, or held a job—all while relying on the money of a bourgeois factory-owner, whose class he swore to criticize relentlessly (Jones, 2010, p. 24 )? Surely, this is the typical beer-battered-and-fried dispute where dead, white, male philosopher 1 holds “obscure-view-of-no-consequence” X and dead, white, male philosopher 2 holds “obscure-view-of-equally-no-consequence” Y. Tasty, surely, but of no nutritional value. And certainly no contribution to any epistemic fitness.

The reality is that establishing differences in their respective philosophies can shake misconceptions of both. This could have the potential to correct so-called “eternal” models of social interaction based on their theories. Misinterpretations of Gramsci that further misinterpret Marx could be the foundation for longstanding flaws in all of the fields of inquiry previously cited. If Neo-Gramscian international relations perceives the “theater of history” in civil society

—a concept based on Gramsci’s definition that supposedly draws from Marx—what are

we to believe if Gramsci actually draws it from Hegel? What if established traditions in social studies are, in fact, fallaciously conflating their most eminent influences?