Gramsci: Joker for everything

The proper iconography of Occident, of the western capitalist economic systems, receives with facility the most mythical personalities of the revolutionary movements, for, transforming them essentially, to turn them into logos, into a species of symbols, covered with certain aureole romantic and dispossessed, into the same process, of revolutionary potency on having taken characteristics from them of being a human being, turning them into a heroes' species. Paradigm is Ernesto Guevara, Che turned into icon by the multinationals of the poster and the T-shirt. In this sense there is refreshing the movie of Soderbergh, which offers us in the role of Benicio of the Bull, a human personage, with his miseries and contradictions.
Without being exactly parallel the process with Antonio Gramsci can have

happened slightly similar and mythologized his many years in the jails of the fascism, jails in which he ended up by dying, it has turned into authentic joker, so that equal it can serve like father of what happened in calling eurocommunism, as to endorse the initiated process, in Brazil for Luiz Inacio Lula it gives Miscellany, which would be a characteristics process gramscianas, to the detriment of the bolivarianismo of Hugo Chávez, who would be a process of Leninist characteristics. All this giving surely Antonio Gramsci will formulate, in some moment, theses dialectically opposite to those of V. I. Ulianov Lenin.
It seems to me that to speak about Gramsci, to invoke Gramsci, it is necessary to meet him a little, it is not enough to recite a pair of ideas, a pair of common places. His Quaderni of the carcere, his fundamental theoretical contribution, are, in the fund, reflections written to give later place to a more compact, homogeneous, structured work, task that he could not carry out to it to prevent the death in 1937. It was later Felice Platone Gamba who structured them in six volumes, not excessively easy to read, at least for me.

In Spain, possibly there has been ours recently deceased companion José Maria Laso Prieto, better who has studied the Gramsci influence in the evolution of the PCI, right now I have in front of me the nº 5 of the magazine Arguments of October, 1977, with the Spanish eurocommunism in full effervescence, which contains an article of the companion Laso who is entitled The precursors of the Eurocommunism, in reference to Antonio Gramsci and also, and, to my judgment, with more I base Palmiro Togliatti, and the fact is that the Italian eurocommunism has a theoretical Corpus Christi, with which it will be possible to agree, or not, that not of background it has the Spanish eurocommunism, beyond the formulations that in 1964 did Fernando Claudín, that there ended up by being a member of the Spanish socialist party and Jorge Semprún (a) Federico Sánchez, who was the minister of Felipe González, for that they were expelled from the Executive board, first and from the Party later, by the direction headed for, ironies of the history, Santiago Carrillo. It would not be convenient to leave aside the analyses of Gustavo Bueno before the Asturian philosopher began to lose oil of pitiful form, him the tweezer was going away and there was turning into a freaky habitual fellow guest of the most extreme and covered with dandruff right, there are analyses that depart from the deep Laso studies to try to apply the basic coordinates of the Hegelian thought to the Gramsci thought, however much this is distant from being very much an idealistic philosopher. As philosopher is clearly materialistic, he gives there the coincidences that that Gustavo Bueno, emphasizes father of the philosophical materialism, as it is demonstrated by the devastating criticism that does of the most negative facets of the idealistic philosophy of Benedetto Croce gathering the formulations of Antonio Labriola, the first Italian Marxist in strict sense.
I am not going to enter, for known, or at least very said, do not know if with very much criterion or little, in what it is possible that his characterization of the superstructure is more typical of the thought gramsciano, something certainly, but novel, the concept is clear like basic thesis of the historical materialism, yes little developed up to this moment in the Marxism, and the definition of the organic intellectual, this intellectual who has to necessary desclasarse to put his knowledge to the service of the working class.
If I would like, although it is briefly and it talks each other of a thesis gramsciana that also arranges to meet with certain frequency, I refer to the need to know thoroughly the society, to be involved thoroughly in her to attack the task of transforming it, to as the Italian communist tackles the task of the education, the pedagogic work. After I world war it founds two newspapers Ordine Nuovo and Unità with an explicit function: to educate to the new working class created by the industry and the war, the prevailing topic in Ordine Nuovo was the relation between the scientific organization of the work (taylorismo and fordismo) and the scientific organization of the education and the formation. The raw and realistic language that it uses to describe the process of the education of the masses to adapt them to the transformations of the economy does that it seems partial to authoritarian pedagogics, and it it was. It was identified, at least superficially, with the Marxist education in the USSR, and his educational theory was near to the Leninist theory of the dictatorship of the proletariat as well as to the postulates of Makarenko to re-educate the errant young people, and he even wrote articles being opposed at the beginning of the education derivatives of the Genevan tradition of Rousseau and Pestalozzi. This serves to me to affirm that Gramsci was always very close to the Leninist interpretation of the Marxism, and like example, even more illuminating we have his report to III Congress of the Communist Party of Italy. In the analysis of the Hungarian experience, experience in which it went over of a form somewhat forced to a reunification of communists and social democrats, and alluding to the position opposite to the split of Livorno (birth in 1921 of the PCI), he writes:
It is well-known, in effect that the partner Lenin tried to be opposed vigorously to the merger between communists and Hungarian social democrats, although the above mentioned declared themselves partial to the dictatorship of the proletariat. Is it possible to say for it that the companion Lenin out, in general, the opposite to the mergers? Certainly, no. The problem was, seen by the companion Lenin and by the International one like a process across which the communist element, that is to say the most advanced and conscious part of the proletariat, it puts itself, be in the organization of the party of the working class, be in the function of direction of the big masses, at the head of everything what has formed and exists in the class of honest and active.
It is not bad to quote to Gramsci the bad thing is to do it without rigor, of form opportunist. Those who base on Gramsci to claim the dissolution of the CPS in the IU bosom, have read little or badly, enclosed those that they claim that it stops being, although without dissolving, an active political subject, to turn into an ideas laboratory species for IU they do an unlawful interpretation of the thought gramsciano. It is not possible to quote Gramsci and to dissolve the PSUC, and there was the one who did it. It is not possible, resting on Gramsci, to destroy the PCI, and it was done.