A translation of parts of sections 45 and 46 of Gramsci’s fourth prison notebook.
All philosophy that has existed so far was born of and is an expression of the intimate contradictions of society. However, no one philosophical system by itself can be taken to be the conscious expression of these contradictions — this expression can only be given by the collection of philosophical systems taken together. Every philosopher cannot help but be convinced that they are expressing the unity of the human spirit, the unity of history and nature. Without this conviction men would not operate, would not create new history; philosophies could not become “ideologies,” could not in practice assume the compact fanatical solidity of the “popular beliefs” which in turn act as “material forces.”
Hegel has a unique place in the history of philosophical thought because through his system, although somehow presented in the form of a “philosophical novel,” one is able to understand what reality is. We find in one system and in one philosopher that consciousness of contradictions that was previously given only by the set of systems — by the set of philosophers struggling with each other and contradicting each other.
In a certain sense, therefore, historical materialism is a reform and development of Hegelianism. It is philosophy freed from all one-sided and fanatical ideological elements, with full consciousness of contradictions, so that the philosopher themselves — individually understood or understood as a whole social group — not only understands the contradictions, but posits themselves as an element of the contradiction, and elevates this element to a political principle and principle of action. All static and “unitary” concepts, such as “man in general” and “human nature,” are mocked and destroyed, becoming expressions immanent in every man.
But historical materialism is also an expression of historical contradictions. Indeed it is the perfect, fulfilled expression of such contradictions — it is therefore an expression of necessity, not of a freedom which does not and cannot yet exist. If from the realm of necessity we will move to the realm of freedom — that is, to a period when “thought” and ideas will no longer be born on the ground of contradictions — contradictions will disappear, and so it is implicitly shown that historical materialism will also disappear. The present philosopher can state this and go no further. In fact, they cannot escape from the current terrain of contradictions. They cannot affirm, beyond generalities, a world without contradictions, without immediately creating a utopia.
This does not mean that utopia does not have philosophical value, for it has political value, and all politics is implicitly a philosophy. Religion is the most “mammoth” utopia, that is, the most “mammoth” metaphysics that has appeared in history; it is the grandest attempt to reconcile historical contradictions in mythological form. Although, it affirms that all men share the same “nature” — that there is a “man in general” created in God’s image and therefore brother to all men, equal to other men and free among other men, and that such he can conceive of himself by mirroring himself in God — it also affirms that all this is not of this world, but of another (utopia). Nevertheless, the ideas of equality, freedom, and fraternity ferment among men — men who are not equal, nor brothers to other men, nor free among themselves. And so in every general uprising of the multitudes, in one way or another, under whatever forms and with whatever ideologies, the claims are posed.
Here we can consider an observation from Lenin. In his April 1917 program there is a paragraph in which “the single school” is mentioned. [1] And precisely in the short explanatory note (of the Geneva edition of 1918) it is stated that the chemist and pedagogist Lavoisier, who was guillotined under the Terror, had advocated the concept of the single school, in association with the popular sentiments of his time, which saw in the democratic movement of 1789 a reality in development and not an ideology, and drew concrete egalitarian consequences from it. In Lavoisier we were dealing with an utopian aspiration. Lenin, however, treats it as the demonstrative, theoretical element of the political principle of contradiction.
If philosophy, politics, and economics are constituent elements of the same worldview, there must necessarily be, from a theoretical point of view, convertibility from one to the other. Each constituent part must be translatable — one element is implied in the other, and all together form a homogeneous circle. (See note on Giovanni Vailati and scientific language.)
From this proposition follow, for the historian of culture and ideas, some very important tenets of inquiry and criticism.
A great personality will often express their most fruitful thought not in the venue that would apparently be the most “logical” from the external classificatory point of view, but elsewhere that would seem extraneous. (It seems to me that Croce has several times sparsely made this critical observation.) A politician writes about philosophy: it may be that his “true” philosophy is instead to be found in his writings on politics. [2] [3]
In every personality there is a dominant and predominant activity: it is in this that we need to search for their thought, implicit most of the time and sometimes contradicting that expressed ex professo. [4] There’s of course a risk that this criterion of historical judgment invites amateurishness, and so great caution must be exercised in its application. But this does not detract from the fact that the criterion is true and fruitful.
What often happens is that the occasional “philosopher” hardly knows how to abstract from the dominant currents of their time the interpretations that have become dogmatic of a certain worldview, etc. And yet as a political scientist he feels free from these idols of the time, he immediately confronts the same worldview and penetrates into it, and develops it more originally in action.
In this regard, the thought expressed by Rosa Luxemburg, about the impossibility of addressing certain questions of historical materialism because they have not yet become relevant to the course of general history or been a given social grouping, is still valid.
[1] I have not been able to track down this reference. On the side of Lavoisier, the reference is likely to the “single theory” — the idea that one single unifying theory should be able to explain all experimental results. On the side of Lenin, it’s probably a reference to Marxism against the theoretical eclectisism of rivals supporting the provisional government, or to the fact that everyone should go through the proletariat’s school of hard work, but I haven’t been able to precise it. — R. D.
[2] See also Losurdo on Marx: “What Marx observes about entrepreneurs also applies to statesmen: both are too busy with material production — that is, with the performance of their political functions — to indulge in abstractions in the way that is proper to members of the ideological classes.” — R. D.
[3] See also Freiberg on Mao: “If Mao is right, his best understanding of dialectics ought to be found in that sphere of expression closest to his own practice, which was clearly more that of a commander of armies than as a professional philosopher.” [web] — R. D.
[4] Consider here Losurdo’s efforts to find a unifying thread in Hegel and Nietzsche’s thought, rejecting the widespread idea of impenetrable eclecticism. — R. D.