Hiroshima and Nagasaki

Course on Anti-Imperialism, War and Peace, Part 8c

Hiroshima and Nagasaki

Finally, to underline the ruthlessness of the Imperialist enemy, “the US decision to drop atomic bombs on Hiroshima and Nagasaki ... was meant to kick-start the Cold War [against the Soviet Union, Washington's war-time ally] rather than end the Second World War”.

This statement is taken from Norm Dixon’s article “Hiroshima and Nagasaki: Worst terror attacks in history” published in Green Left Weekly, August 3, 2005 (download linked below).

The two worst-ever terrorist attacks, by far, were perpetrated by the USA, for the most cynical and mendacious reasons.

Images of what resulted in Hiroshima and Nagasaki are abundantly available on the Internet but they ones that show people, whether alive or dead, are too terrible to use here.

To this day the USA does not face up to what it has done by these too vile acts.

This course is on Anti-Imperialism, War and Peace. We cannot leave this thing out. We have to note that the USA power that did these unspeakable things is still active in the world, and still, as it was then, is active in the cause of its own dominance over the rest of us. The list of its crimes continues to grow longer every day.

Please download and read this text:

Hiroshima, Nagasaki, Worst Ever Terror Attacks, Dixon (813 words)

Further reading:

Neo-Colonialism, Last of Imperialism, 1965, Nkrumah (10643 words)

First They Came For The Communists, Niemoeller (1873 words)

Beyond Vietnam, Time to Break Silence, 1967, King (6687 words)

First They Came for the Communists

Course on Anti-Imperialism, War and Peace, Part 8b

Pastor Martin Niemöller, 1892-1984

First They Came for the Communists

First they came for the Communists, but I was not a Communist, so I said nothing.

Then they came for the Social Democrats, but I was not a Social Democrat, so I did nothing.

Then came the trade unionists, but I was not a trade unionist.

And then they came for the Jews, but I was not a Jew, so I did little.

Then when they came for me, there was no one left to stand up for me.

Pastor Niemöller

The third linked document opens up the double question of who backs the communists, and if the communists are not backed, then what happens to the others? Attention has to be paid to the question of self-defence for the political movement.

Pastor Niemöller’s story is extraordinary, because it is unexpected. This Pastor, who survived Dachau, does not seem so extraordinary at first.

For revolutionaries it is very moving to record the solidarity of people such as Pastor Niemöller. The revolutionaries must trust the people. They have no choice.

Please download and read this text:

First They Came For The Communists, Niemoeller (1873 words)

Further reading:

Neo-Colonialism, Last of Imperialism, 1965, Nkrumah (10643 words)

Hiroshima, Nagasaki, Worst Ever Terror Attacks, Dixon (813 words)

Beyond Vietnam, Time to Break Silence, 1967, King (6687 words) 

Neo-Colonialism, Last Stage of Imperialism

Course on Anti-Imperialism, War and Peace, Part 8a

Kwame Nkrumah, 1909-1972

Neo-Colonialism, Last Stage of Imperialism

The second linked document is included here because of Osagyefo Kwame Nkrumah’s correct and insistent concern with the continuing threat to Africa (now materialising again militarily as “Africom”) posed by Imperialism in its last stage of neo-colonialism.

Nkrumah believed that Africa must unite, for the sole reason that if it did not unite, then it would not have sufficient strength to resist the Imperialists - and so it has turned out.

Nkrumah defined neo-colonialism as follows:

“The essence of neo-colonialism is that the State which is subject to it is, in theory, independent and has all the outward trappings of international sovereignty. In reality its economic system and thus its political policy is directed from outside.”

He goes on to add:

“Neo-colonialism is also the worst form of imperialism. For those who practise it, it means power without responsibility and for those who suffer from it, it means exploitation without redress. In the days of old-fashioned colonialism, the imperial power had at least to explain and justify at home the actions it was taking abroad.”

And in his Conclusion Nkrumah says:

“In the earlier chapters of this book I have set out the argument for African unity and have explained how this unity would destroy neo-colonialism in Africa. In later chapters I have explained how strong is the world position of those who profit from neo-colonialism. Nevertheless, African unity is something which is within the grasp of the African people. The foreign firms who exploit our resources long ago saw the strength to be gained from acting on a Pan-African scale. By means of interlocking directorships, cross-shareholdings and other devices, groups of apparently different companies have formed, in fact, one enormous capitalist monopoly. The only effective way to challenge this economic empire and to recover possession of our heritage, is for us also to act on a Pan¬-African basis, through a Union Government.”

Please download and read this text:

Neo-Colonialism, Last Stage of Imperialism, 1965, Nkrumah (10643 words)

Further reading:

First They Came For The Communists, Niemoeller (1873 words)

Hiroshima, Nagasaki, Worst Ever Terror Attacks, Dixon (813 words)

Beyond Vietnam, Time to Break Silence, 1967, King (6687 words)

Anti-Imperialism

Course on Anti-Imperialism, War and Peace, Part 8

Martin Luther King, 1929 – 1968

Anti-Imperialism

Exactly how the anti-Imperialist struggle will resolve itself in South Africa, Southern Africa, and Africa in general, is something unpredictable at the tactical level. The question of the armed defence of revolutionary change cannot be ruled out, and we have examined this question.

This part of the present series, referenced to the “Beyond Vietnam” speech (linked below) of the late Rev Martin Luther King Junior, is to point to the subjective political factor in the anti-Imperialist struggle.

Nowadays it has become commonplace to refer to “international solidarity” as if it is both a narrow idea, and a universal one. But this concept that we have received, and then stripped of its particularity, generalising it, does actually have a tremendous and specific history whose meaning is not fully conveyed by a formula-phrase called “international solidarity”.

The anti-Imperialist struggle and the democratic struggle can and should be one. It is not a matter of charity of the rich to the poor. It is also not solely a matter of good-hearted and exceptional individuals (but there have indeed been such individuals, and there will be again).

What Martin Luther King describes, and justifies, is: “why I believe that the path from Dexter Avenue Baptist Church - the church in Montgomery, Alabama, where I began my pastorate - leads clearly to this sanctuary tonight.”

In other words, MLK at the meeting of the “Clergy and Laymen Concerned about Vietnam” in 1967, was preaching the intrinsic, organic unity of the struggle of the common people everywhere. It is not an artificial altruism but it is a unity of purpose, in concerted action against the single enemy: monopoly capitalist Imperialism.

And further than the literal message, there is also the extraordinary power and style of MLK’s oration. We forget this factor of art too easily. Lenin spoke of “insurrection as an art”. It is an art that goes beyond the military, and encompasses all of our activities. Therefore when reading such a piece as MLK’s “Beyond Vietnam” speech, one should regard it as a source of learning of the art of advocacy, which is part of the art of leadership, essential to the art of insurrection.

Picture: Rev. Martin Luther King, Junior, at the White House, Washington DC, USA

Please download and read this text:

Beyond Vietnam, Time to Break Silence, 1967, King (6687 words)

Further reading:

Neo-Colonialism, Last of Imperialism, 1965, Nkrumah (10643 words)

First They Came For The Communists, Niemoeller (1873 words)

Hiroshima, Nagasaki, Worst Ever Terror Attacks, Dixon (813 words)

  

Strategy and Tactics

Course on Anti-Imperialism, War and Peace, Part 7a

Strategy and Tactics

The ANC’s famous 1969 Strategy and Tactics document adopted in the Morogoro, Tanzania Conference involving O R Tambo, Joe Slovo, Chris Hani and others, is downloadable from the link given below.

Time is short now and as you may have noticed, these posts have speeded up in frequency. This is so as to complete this course on Anti-imperialism, War and Peace and be able to prepare for a new course, on “Basics”, starting in January, 2011.

Therefore the classic Strategy and Tactics document can speak for itself. It is straightforward enough.

Do post any queries or comments you may have, to the list. If you do so, then other comrades will no doubt assist with their inputs. This is how political education is supposed to take place – in dialogue.

To see this series as it has been published for this list, please click here.

There will be some more posts to complete the series, next week.

Picture: Morogoro, Tanzania

Please download and read this text:

Strategy and Tactics, Morogoro, 1969, ANC (5882 words)

Further reading:

1,000 Days of Popular Unity Rule in Chile, 1977, Teitelboim (5157 words)

The Armed People

Course on Anti-Imperialism, War and Peace, Part 7

Dedan Kimathi, 1920-1957

The Armed People

The practical alternative to the State that appeared in Paris in the beginning of 1871 was more than simply the right of recall, and the whole people collectively in power and in perpetual session. It was also the reappearance of the Armed People in a new kind of societal framework. So-called Primitive Communism is an Armed People. Here, in the Paris Commune, was an Armed People in advanced productive circumstances.

The security forces - army and police - that had existed before the Paris Commune had been paid to support the bourgeois State and to guarantee the State’s survival by suppressing, whenever necessary, the working class. These forces were disbanded and not replaced. With hardly any exceptions, all “separations of powers” were abolished in the Paris Commune, leaving only one power: The Armed People.

In Chile, in the time of the Popular Unity government that fell on 11 September 1973, instead of an Armed People, a virtue was made of disarmament, and a “Peaceful Path” was worshipped as the new political Golden Calf.

Volodia Teitelboim in the first document linked below, gives a brief description, as one of those who was involved, of the Popular Unity government and its disastrous end at the hands of the fascists who used the national army to overthrow it. It was a shocking reminder of the purpose of the “special bodies of armed men”.

Teitelboim calls for “A Reappraisal of the Issue of the Army,” meaning a return to the view of the Paris Commune, which is mentioned in the first line. This document of Teitelboim’s is sufficient as the basis for a very good and necessary discussion.

The second linked document is the ANC’s original Strategy and Tactics document of 1969. This document unashamedly embraces armed struggle, and not any starry “Peaceful Path”.

Like the Chilean Popular Unity government, ours is a multiclass government underpinned by a class alliance for common goals. It is a unity-in-action, otherwise called a popular front.

Why have we in South Africa survived after 16 years, while the Chileans did not survive after only 1,000 days?

The answer could be that we are not pacifists. Or, the answer could be that our crisis has not arrived yet. Or, that we have passed at least one crisis (e.g. in mid-2008, resolved by the recall of President Mbeki and the resignation of various ministers including Terror Lekota and Mluleki George), which may not yet be the last.

South Africans were in this case in advance of the historic crisis that manifested in Chile. Four years prior to the Pinochet coup in Chile overthrew the Popular Unity government led by Salvador Allende, the Morogoro Conference of the ANC had laid down the necessity for the armed defence of the revolution. we look at this in the next instalment.

Picture: There are very few photographs of freedom fighters in formation or in action to be found on the Internet, whether of MK or any of any other liberation army; but there are many photographs of freedom fighters in captivity. Full justice has not yet been done. The picture is of a statue of Dedan Kimathi under the blue sky of Kenya. AMANDLA!

Please download and read this text:

1,000 Days of Popular Unity Rule in Chile, 1977, Teitelboim (5157 words)

Further reading:

Strategy and Tactics, Morogoro, 1969, ANC (5882 words)

How to Master Secret Work

Course on Anti-Imperialism, War and Peace, Part 6b

  

How to Master Secret Work

The third linked item is the 1980 clandestine SACP publication “How to Master Secret Work”. It makes a point that we need here, which is that there is no virtue in being illegal.

The communists do not volunteer for that position. The nature of secret work is really that it is a systematic struggle against banning and persecution. As much as it is secret, yet its purpose is the re-expansion of communication and the re-legalisation of the Party. Its purpose is the renaissance of the organisation politically.

In the case of the SACP, within less than ten years of the publication of this document, the Party was unbanned and declared fully legal again, as it has been ever since, and up to today.

The SACP had been banned and was underground (clandestine) from 1950 to 1990, a total of forty years. All that time the Party struggled to reverse the situation of banning and illegality. It announced its existence with the publication of the African Communist from 1959. “How to Master Secret Work” was published in Umsebenzi.

The great majority of secret work is directed at communicating and in that way, deliberately reversing the banning of the Party, which is primarily an excommunication from society.

There is no imaginable situation where the political vanguard will deliberately choose to be clandestine and make a virtue of its excommunication from the masses. There is no virtue in secrecy.

Unfortunately we have none of the lively  illustrations from this historic document.

Please download and read this text:

How to Master Secret Work, 1980, SACP (13929 words)

Further reading:

Political and Military in Revolutionary War, 1967, Le Duan (864 words)

On the Time for Armed Struggle, 1974, Pomeroy (6800 words)

Political and Military in Revolutionary War

Course on Anti-Imperialism, War and Peace, Part 6a

Ho Chi Minh and Le Duan

Political and Military in Revolutionary War

Le Duan’s “Political and Military in Revolutionary War” is a short, powerful piece of writing that manages to include a great deal of wisdom in a few words.

 Le Duan says, confirming Pomeroy:

“… the close combination of political and military struggle constitutes the basic form of revolutionary violence in South Vietnam”

It is hard to introduce such an article as this except to say that it is an example of communist simplicity, brevity and clarity that can hardly be beaten. It is not too short. It is ideal for study circles. If necessary, such an article as this can be read out loud, and serve as its own introduction. It is a good example to anyone who may study, of how to reproduce your theory in plain terms that workers and peasants can understand, without losing any of its quality.

Le Duan even manages to mention the National Democratic Revolution in a educational manner, thus:

“Like the national-democratic revolution all over the country in the past, the present South Vietnamese revolution has the workers and peasants as its main force and the worker-peasant alliance led by the working class as the cornerstone of the national united front.”

A small archive of Le Duan’s writing can be found on MIA.

Please download and read this text:

Political and Military in Revolutionary War, 1967, Le Duan (864 words)

Further reading:

How to Master Secret Work, 1980, SACP (13929 words)

On the Time for Armed Struggle, 1974, Pomeroy (6800 words)

Military and Political

Course on Anti-Imperialism, War and Peace, Part 6

William and Cecilia Pomeroy in Red Square, Moscow

Military and Political

Presuming that we have by now established that we are not pacifists but are revolutionaries, who intend, by any means necessary, to assist the working class to expropriate the expropriator bourgeois class, which by itself is a violent act; then why can we not move with speed, and without any restraint, towards an armed overthrow of the oppressors?

The late William “Bill” Pomeroy started his essay “On the Time for Armed Struggle” (linked below) from exactly this point of departure, as follows:

“Because of the decisive results that can follow from an armed smashing of the main instruments of power held by a ruling class or a foreign oppressor, some of those who acquire a revolutionary outlook are eager to move to the stage of armed struggle; and their concept of it as the highest form of revolutionary struggle causes them to cast discredit upon other forms as 'less advanced', as amounting to collaboration with or capitulation to the class enemy.”

But:

“Too often the aura of glory associated with taking up arms has obscured hard prosaic truths and realities in the interplay of forces in a period of sharp struggle.”

And later on, Pomeroy adds:

“The experiences of the revolutionary movement in the Philippines offer an interesting example of the complex, varied and fluctuating processes that may occur in a liberation struggle.”

Pomeroy writes that “analysis and understanding of the revolutionary experiences of others is indispensable”. He proceeds to offer his own rich and extraordinary experience as a military combatant and revolutionary. His main lesson is that the military must never think that it can cease to be subordinate to the political. Such thinking is bound to bring disaster, as it did in the Philippines.

Not only is the military subordinate to the political in the hierarchical sense that the military takes its orders from the political leadership and reports back to it. It is more than that. The revolutionary movement goes away from military, and towards political, essentially peaceful means. Far from armed struggle being the “highest form”, it is a form of struggle that we do not adopt unless it is forced upon us and we pursue it, if we have to, with the main aim of returning to political means.

This is not only a revolutionary political principle. It is also, in terms of the best military theory, that of Clausewitz, a military principle that force of arms can only serve to return the parties to the negotiating table. That is all it can do.

The picture shows William and Celia Pomeroy laying a wreath at the Lenin Mausoleum in Red Square, Moscow. William Pomeroy passed away on 12 January 2009 and Celia Pomeroy passed away on 22 August 2009.

Please download and read this text:

On the Time for Armed Struggle, 1974, Pomeroy (6800 words)

Further reading:

Political and Military in Revolutionary War, 1967, Le Duan (864 words)

How to Master Secret Work, 1980, SACP (13929 words)

Violence

Course on Anti-Imperialism, War and Peace, Part 5

Christopher Caudwell, 1907 – 1937

Violence

The Communist Manifesto of 1848 ends: “The Communists disdain to conceal their views and aims. They openly declare that their ends can be attained only by the forcible overthrow of all existing social conditions. Let the ruling classes tremble at a communist revolution. The proletarians have nothing to lose but their chains. They have a world to win. WORKERS OF ALL COUNTRIES, UNITE!”

Earlier on, it says: “the violent overthrow of the bourgeoisie lays the foundation for the sway of the proletariat.”

When it comes to the expropriation of the expropriators, the working class will not ask permission.

The proletarian revolution will be an act of force, with no appeal, and in that sense it is bound to be a violent revolution, which does not mean that bloodshed is necessary. Blood need not be shed. But the revolution will make its own laws. Otherwise, it would not be a revolution.

The bourgeoisie is a violent class. It acquired its position by bloody violence and it maintains its position by constant application of physical violence and bloodshed.

In spite of all protestations to the contrary, the bourgeoisie is not afraid of physical confrontation. It is well prepared for violence. What the bourgeoisie fears is the other violence, that of unilateral expropriation of the means of production, distribution and exchange. The bourgeoisie fears the violence that takes, not blood, but property.

In the previous parts of this series, we have read Clausewitz, Marx and Lenin on the political/military nature of violence. In this part we will take an outstanding essay of Christopher Caudwell's (download linked below) so as to establish the moral and/or philosophical basis of Pacifism and Violence, if any such can be found.

Christopher Caudwell (1907 – 1937) wrote some extraordinary communist literature that was only published after he was killed while fighting the fascists in the Spanish Civil War.

Much of it was published under the famous title: “Studies in a Dying Culture”. Three of the essays can be found in the Caudwell section of the Marxists Internet Archive, including his essay "On Liberty", which contains the statement: “I am a communist because I believe in freedom!” Another, more recent Caudwell collection was published under the title “The Concept of Freedom”.

Another source of Caudwell material (including the image above) is Helena Sheehan’s web site, where Helena has made a Caudwell centenary page that is very moving, and will tell you many reasons why Christopher Caudwell is remembered with such passion and love even now, so long after his death.

In “Pacifism and Violence” Caudwell asks almost at once: “Are we Marxists then simply using labels indiscriminately when we class as characteristically bourgeois, both militancy and pacifism, meekness and violence? No, we are not doing so, if we can show that we call bourgeois not all war and not all pacifism but only certain types of violence, and only certain types of non-violence; and if, further, we can show how the one fundamental bourgeois position generates both these apparently opposed viewpoints.”

What do you say when you are confronted with a pacifist follower of M K Gandhi, or a Quaker? Today's downloadable text can assist you. This text will help bring the essence of the question into the dialogue.

This text will show you why it is that communists are not pacifists, although we struggle for peace, and why the bourgeoisie can never be peaceful, even when they call themselves pacifists.

• The painting of Christopher Caudwell reproduced above is by Caoimhghin O Croidheain

Please download and read this text:

Pacifism and Violence, 1938, Christopher Caudwell (7989 words)

Hegemony and the NDR

Course on Anti-Imperialism, War and Peace, Part 4b

 Gramsci

Hegemony and the NDR

Hegemony is mentioned in the first discussion document prepared by the SACP for the Special National Congress to be held in December, 2009, and particularly the following section, taken from the last page of the document.

“… it is important that as communists we are clear that working class HEGEMONY doesn’t mean working class exclusivity (still less party chauvinism). Working class hegemony means the ability of the working class to provide a consistent strategic leadership (politically, economically, socially, organisationally, morally – even culturally) to the widest range of social forces – in particular, to the wider working class itself, to the broader mass of urban and rural poor, to a wide range of middle strata, and in South African conditions, to many sectors of non-monopoly capital. Where it is not possible to win over individuals on the narrow basis of class interest, it can still be possible to win influence on the basis of intellectual and moral integrity (compare, for instance, our consistent ability, particularly as the Party, to mobilise over many decades a small minority of whites during the struggle against white minority rule).”

The discussion document never mentions Gramsci, yet clearly the above passage is the product of the same general debate, and could, if misunderstood, tend to perpetuate the same false dichotomy about “hegemony” that has in the past tried to falsify Gramsci’s legacy and attempted to recruit Gramsci posthumously to the liquidationist or “Eurocommunist” cause.

The passage also conflates the National Democratic Revolution (which is a class alliance for the democratisation of the nation) with the revolution for working-class hegemony, which is likely to require a different set of alliances, ranged against a different set of opponents.

The document manages to do this by using, of all things, the example of the small fraction of the former white oppressor minority who had gone over to the revolutionary side. Not that this group of individuals is without honour or significance, but surely we cannot hang our whole revolutionary theory upon this relatively tiny number of people?

This passage is an Achilles heel for the entire document.

In “Petty-Bourgeois and Proletarian Socialism” (1905), Lenin wrote:

“Can a class-conscious worker forget the democratic struggle for the sake of the socialist struggle, or forget the latter for the sake of the former? No, a class-conscious worker calls himself a Social-Democrat for the reason that he understands the relation between the two struggles. He knows that there is no other road to socialism save the road through democracy, through political liberty. He therefore strives to achieve democratism completely and consistently in order to attain the ultimate goal - socialism. Why are the conditions for the democratic struggle not the same as those for the socialist struggle? Because the workers will certainly have different allies in each of those two struggles. The democratic struggle is waged by the workers together with a section of the bourgeoisie, especially the petty bourgeoisie. On the other hand, the socialist struggle is waged by the workers against the whole of the bourgeoisie. The struggle against the bureaucrat and the landlord can and must be waged together with all the peasants, even the well-to-do and the middle peasants. On the other hand, it is only together with the rural proletariat that the struggle against the bourgeoisie, and therefore against the well-to-do peasants too, can be properly waged.”

Are we taking it for granted that the present Alliance will serve us for all future purposes? If Lenin is correct, then we will be making a trap for ourselves if we do that.

Joe Slovo wrote (in the SA Working Class and the NDR, 1988):

“There is, however, both a distinction and a continuity between the national democratic and socialist revolutions; they can neither be completely telescoped nor completely compartmentalised. The vulgar Marxists are unable to understand this. They claim that our immediate emphasis on the objectives of the national democratic revolution implies that we are unnecessarily postponing or even abandoning the socialist revolution, as if the two revolutions have no connection with one another.”

The first 2009 SACP Special National Congress discussion document seems to “telescope” the two revolutions into one and thereby fails to focus on either of them.

Please download and read some of this text:

Building Hegemony on National Democratic Terrain, 2009, SACP (13222 words)

Further reading:

The Antinomies of Antonio Gramsci, 1976, Perry Anderson (36070 words)

Gramsci and Hegemony, 2009, Trent Brown (3949 words)

Hegemony Up To Date

Course on Anti-Imperialism, War and Peace, Part 4a

Antonio Gramsci, 1891-1937

Hegemony Up To Date

We have given first place this week to Perry Anderson but his document is much too long for the normal practice of the Communist University, which is to pass around a text that is short enough for the comrades to read and digest in between one week’s gathering and the next.

In the case of Gramsci and hegemony, we have just such a readable and user-friendly text in the form of Trent Brown’s essay of that name, downloadable via the link given below.

Put briefly, the idea of “hegemony” is not different from the idea of “dictatorship”, as used in the phrases: “dictatorship of the proletariat” and “dictatorship of the bourgeoisie”, for two examples.

It means class domination. We may say that Working Class Hegemony is not necessarily always coercive, and that for the most part it would rely upon consent or acquiescence. But, as Trent Brown points out, the same is true of the bourgeois dictatorship that we have at present. It generally depends upon “manufactured consent”, backed up by the threat of forces, and actual force.

What is true, whether we are using the term “Working Class Hegemony”, or the term “Dictatorship of the Proletariat”, is that the bourgeoisie still exists in such a time, capitalist relations still exist, and they are being managed by the working class. “Dictatorship of the Proletariat” does not mean “Extermination of the Bourgeoisie”.

Trent Brown points out that Gramsci in particular had a well-worked-out theory of how the working class can progress from self-interested economism, otherwise called syndicalism, (or in South Africa, “workerism”) through self-conscious class solidarity, to the formation of revolutionary alliances with other classes.

Comrades who may be interested in Gramsci’s legacy, beyond the concept of “hegemony”, may like to read the article “From Organic to Committed Intellectuals or Critical Pedagogy, Commitment, and Praxis” (click to access the web page). For a representative example of Gramsci’s writing, please click here: “Some Aspects of the Southern Question”.

The recent SWAYOCO Congress has referred to “building a convincing democratic alternative organ”. Gramsci was preoccupied with similar questions, and was working within a political economy that was not altogether different from Swaziland, especially where the Southern part of Italy was concerned.

Trent Brown puts it like this:

“Gramsci reckoned that in the historical context that he was working in, the passage of a social group from self-interested reformism to national hegemony could occur most effectively via the political party.”

And so, on. Read, comrades! Leaders must be readers! Read, and discuss!

Please download and read some of this text:

Gramsci and Hegemony, 2009, Trent Brown (3949 words)

Further reading:

Building Hegemony on National Democratic Terrain, 2009, SACP (13222 words)

The Antinomies of Antonio Gramsci, 1976, Perry Anderson (36070 words)