Page 45 - Culture Society and Economy

Robotham-02.qxd 1/31/2005 6:21 PM Page 38

CULTURE, SOCIETY AND ECONOMY

idea that ‘the subjective political dimension is the most critical’ – it
is clear that this entire discussion relates solely to the issue of the strug-
gle for power. Indeed, whatever the differences Kautsky may have had
with Bolshevism, there can be little doubt that the ‘economistic’ Kautsky
assumed that after power was won, central planning would prevail
with the entire economy being treated as ‘a single gigantic industrial
concern’. 32
However, it is worth noting that this critique of ‘economism’ does not
exhaust Gramsci’s views on the importance of the economy. One must
not forget that his theorizing also took place during the period of the first
experiment with market socialism – the New Economic Policy (NEP), ini-
tiated by Lenin in 1921 and championed thereafter by Bukharin, Rykov
and Tomsky. This was before the Stalinist heavy industry drive and
forced collectivization of agriculture starting in 1929.
Bukharin, following Lenin, was an exponent of what today would be
called market socialism, or, if you will, ‘socialism with Chinese charac-
33
teristics’. A gradual and prolonged transition to socialism was implicitly
envisaged by Bukharin, with the Soviet economy having substantial areas
of it held in private hands and subject to market forces. And this situa-
tion of a ‘mixed economy’ actually prevailed in Russia during this period.
Private capital and trading flourished. So-called ‘nepmen’ infuriated
socialist morality with their new-found and often dubious wealth. This is
where the whole notion of ‘articulation of modes of production’ first
arose, originally in the ideas of Lenin. These policies, soon to be dramat-
ically reversed by Stalin, were vehemently opposed by Trotsky and
Zinoviev – the so-called Left Opposition.
This debate raged in Russia and the international communist move-
ment especially between 1924 – the year of Lenin’s death and 1926–27
when the Left Opposition was finally defeated. This was precisely the
years of Gramsci’s most active political life up until he was arrested by
the fascists in 1929. There can be little doubt that he was aware of this
fundamental debate which reverberated throughout the Comintern.
Indeed, he commented directly on these issues. Hall refers to the fact that
Gramsci had critiqued Bukharin’s Theory of Historical Materialism pub-
lished in 1921 for ‘vulgar materialism’ and ‘economism’. One could be
34
forgiven for assuming that Gramsci’s position in this critical debate –
which Hall does not discuss – would have been against that of Bukharin.
However, what is striking is the fact that at this point in his writings
Gramsci comes out decisively in support of the position of Bukharin and
the majority of the Bolsheviks. Far from an accelerated advance to social-
ism in the interests of the proletariat he wrote the following:

38