What Is the Dispute Between Gramsci and Althusser: Who Gets Marx Right, Research Paper Example

Marxism is arguably one of the most dynamic, challenging and controversial grand theories to emerge in the history of philosophical and political thought. It can be described as a grand theory because of its all encompassing nature. There are very few aspects of social life that Marxism does not supply an explanation for. It is also controversial because it directly challenges the established economic, political and even religious norms of firstly western societies, and more recently most of the planet. It was construed as a sufficient threat as to be a key target of Nazi Germany in the Second World War, as well as the reason for the post War bipolar conflict between the Soviet Union on the one hand and the western capitalist democracies. It has also proved to be sufficiently flexible as to spawn a number of revisions. This essay will be examining the theories of Louis Althusser and Antonio Gramsci so as to ascertain their purpose as well as which of the two displayed a better understanding of Marx.

Louis Althusser

Marxism as an ideology has been peremptorally denigrated and discarded due to its failure in the Soviet Union. Althusser however believed that this failure had less to do with Marxism as an ideology, and more to do with its debasement under Stalin. Consequently at the core of Althusser’s work was an attempt to return to the purity of Marx’s original ideology. Parker and Simms sum up this position by quoting Althusser, “No form of political intervention was possible within the [French Communist] Party other than a purely theoretical one; it was even necessary to take the existing accepted theory and direct it against the Party’s own use of it. And since the accepted theory no longer had anything to do with Marx, being based on very dangerous absurdities derived from the soviet or rather Stalinist, interpretation of dialectical materialism, the only possible course of action was to go back to Marx, to a body of political thought which was fundamentally unchallenged because it was sacred, and show that Stalinist dialectical materialism, with all its theoretical, philosophical and political consequences, was a total aberration.”[1]

One of Marx’s key aims was the revolutionary overthrow of the capitalist state. In accomplishing this in Russia, Stalin made the mistake of concentrating on economics as the main factor in society. This tendency is termed ‘economism’. It can be described as “a political belief that the sole concern of the working classes should be with improving their living conditions and not with political reforms.”[2] In over-emphasizing the improvement of the living standard of his citizens, Stalin ignored other equally important areas such as culture and nationality. Althusser also made an original contribution to understanding why the proletariat accept the system of exploitation and alienation imposed on them by the bourgeoisie. The term he used for understanding this sociological phenomenon was ‘interpellation.’ Woodward defines interpellation as, “A process whereby people recognize themselves in a particular identity and think, ‘that’s me’.”[3] Althusser believed that it was through interpellation that individuals become subjects within the capitalist system, taking on the role imposed on them by the oppressive bourgeoisie apparatus. In this manner Althusser believed that the proletariat were complicit in their own subjugation by recognizing and thereby accepting their status as a subject within the system.

Interpellation was achieved by what Althusser termed the Ideological State Apparatus. This term referred to all the social institutions in society such as the media, education, the family, religious organizations etc. These all play a part in socializing the individual into automatically accepting the existing system as the norm, to the extent that no one ever thinks of changing it. The ISA is backed up by the Repressive State Apparatus consisting of the police, the courts, the army, the government etc. Their function is to protect the interests of the ruling class, by force and coercion if necessary. Such is the power of the RSA that should there ever be a choice to be made between democracy and capitalism, the RSA will always jettison democracy so as to protect capitalism.

Antonio Gramsci

Gramsci is credited with contributing to the evolution of Marxist thought. He took a deterministic stance about the structural capitalist mode of production which he saw as the ultimate determining force in society. Therefore like Marx he believed that a person’s place in society was ultimately determined not by their nationality, ethnicity or gender, but rather by their class position within the capitalist mode of production. However his most important contribution came with his emphasis on ideological hegemony. This refers to the manipulation of public opinion by the ruling class as a means to retaining political power. Grasmsci does not posit the violent overthrow of capitalism. Instead he theorizes on a long war of attrition in which Marxist intellectuals take the forefront in the development of a national popular will that would challenge and undermine the dominant ideology of the bourgeoisie. Gramsci believed that this popular national will would “bring about a liberating dictatorship of the proletariat and effect a transformation of society as total as the emergence of Christianity.”[4]

In terms of comparing the two theorists, there is a passing similarity between the two in the area of socialization. In the case of Althusser the Ideological State Apparatus plays a key role in socializing individuals into accepting capitalism as the most rational and effective means of running an economy. This was accomplished by the full range of social institutions such as the family, education system, media, criminal justice system etc. Gramsci makes use of a similar process that he terms the dominant ideology. The sheer pervasiveness of capitalism’s ideological hegemony means that it is constantly at work to retain a national consensus on the desirability of capitalism. All the forces of the superstructure are therefore marshalled to create and retain an ideological hold over public opinion. Like Althuseer, Gramsci also rejected economism. He believed that ideology should be and was independent of economic determinism.

However the two theorists differ in a more important manner. Althusser’s work was primarily aimed at restoring the original precepts of Marx to their rightful place. He saw this as necessary in the wake of its misuse and debasement at the hands of Stalin. Gramsci on the other hand was more interested in moving the narrative of Marxism forward. He did not believe that the original concept of the vanguard party leading the proletariat in the violent overthrow of the capitalist state was feasible in Western Europe. For a start the dominant ideology of capitalism was too deeply entrenched in the psyche of the western working class. Instead it would have to be attritionally subverted by Marxist intellectuals leading an ideologically purified movement of the national public will. The two also differed on their perception of the state as well. Unlike Gramsci, Althusser viewed the state as no mere tool of or medium by the classes, who, despite these great structural battles, nonetheless remain the protagonists, playing the role of the main characters. For Althusser, the state, as the structural arrangement determined by the power struggle, gains a life of its own.  Also while Gramsci viewed the state’s potency in its ability to retain its control through the imposition of a dominant ideology, Althusser, in his Repressive State Apparatus Theory, viewed the capitalist state as an instrument of violent oppression and coercion.

These two theorists both make valuable contributions to the overall theory of Marxism. Of the two it is the opinion of this writer that Althusser was the closer to Marx’s original thinking. This conclusion is based on Althusser’s overt attempt to re-capture, after a long period of Stalinist debasement, the heart and soul of Marxism. Gramsci was innovative in pushing the evolution of Marxist thought along new avenues of discovery. However he did not attempt, as Althusser did, a return to and reinforcement of the basic tenets of Marxism. However in their own ways, they have both made immense and long lasting contributions to the study of sociologic theory.

Bibliography

Ashe, Fidelma et al Contemporary Social and Political Theory Buckingham, Open University Press 1999

Cuff, E.C. Sharrock, W.W and Francis, D.W. Perspectives in Sociology London, Routledge 1995

Hadden, R.W. Sociological Theory London, Broadview Press 1997

Parker, Noel. and Simms, Stuart. Modern Guide to Social and Political Theorists Hemel Hempstead, Simon and Schuster 2007

Woodward, Kath. Questioning Identity: Gender, Class, Nation London, the Open University Press 2000

[1] Parker, N. and Simms, S. (1007) Modern guide to Social and Political Theorists Hemel Hempstead, Simon and Schuster, p. 6

[2] Hadden, R.W. (1997) Sociological Theory London, Broadview Press, p. 59

[3] Woodward, K. (2000) Questioning Identity: Gender, Class, Nation London, the Open University Press p. 19

[4] Parker, N. and Simms, S. (1007) Modern guide to Social and Political Theorists Hemel Hempstead, Simon and Schuster, p. 127