Gramsci and Trotsky in the Shadow of Stalinism: The ... - Indymedia

74 Gramsci and Trotsky in the Shadow of StalinismGramsci’s critique of the poverty of official Soviet theory was thereforeconnected to a critique of the disastrous policies of the third period. This connectionbetween theoretical failings and practical recklessness also appearedin another note, though in a less pointed fashion. In it, Gramsci attackedBukharin’s theory for its penchant for seeking easy polemical victories againstsecondary and minor bourgeois ideologists instead of taking on “the greatchampions of the opposing tendency.” Gramsci then alluded to the fact thatbehind this intellectual weakness lurked the inability to distinguish betweenideological and politico-military struggles. Only in the latter would assaultsagainst weak points be justified and effective. Bukharin’s “confusion” wassymptomatic of the same orientation that, when unable to sustain and preservethe delicate balance of hegemony, began to smash things into place. 127In sum, out of some of Gramsci’s notes, particularly those that criticizeBukharin’s theoretical work, emerges something that approaches a critique ofthe “doctrinal” aspect of Stalinism. This critique, however, is not only limitedto a very specific doctrinal aspect of Stalinism, but also remains a slippery,fragile construct. It will be sufficient to mention two examples of itsfragility. First, Gramsci seems to describe the “economic-corporatist” weaknessof Soviet theory as growing pains—an inevitable, but perhaps temporarystage. 128 It is possible, in other words, that on this score Gramsci does notdetect, let alone criticize, Stalinism as a momentous break in revolutionaryand communist continuity. Benvenuti and Pons are aware of this problemand seek to resolve it on the basis of a later note in which Gramsci’s judgmentseems to veer away from the idea of an “inevitable,” that is to say understandableand temporary, theoretical debasement of official Soviet Marxismtoward a less forgiving and optimistic assessment. Gramsci’s note laments thedisastrous neglect of the “superstructural” development in the Soviet Union,which is thus allowed to proceed in a “casual and sporadic” way. 129 Accordingto Benvenuti and Pons, this note signals the onset of Gramsci’s deeperskepticism about the eventual overcoming of the economic-corporatist phasein the Soviet Union, coupled with his stronger emphasis on the “hegemonicdeficit” afflicting the Soviet Union under Stalinism. 130 Though Benvenutiand Pons’s argument on this specific question is certainly plausible, it involvesan interpretive leap, since this note stops short of an explicit and unambiguousdisavowal of the way in which Gramsci had previously introduced the“necessity” of an economic-corporatist phase. 131A second reason to question the firm and reliable presence of a doctrinalcritique of Stalinism in the Notebooks has to do with timing and therole of Bukharin. Benvenuti and Pons argue that Gramsci’s polemic againstBukharin’s “saggio popolare” should be read as a critique of “postleninist