Gramsci's grimoire

Why did the Bolsheviks succeed in Russia but fail in Italy- the more industrialized parts of which, arguably, had superior revolutionary fervor? The answer is simple. The Red Army defeated the White Army. In Italy, Property could buy itself protection and, in any case, an intact Army obtained.  The uselessness of the Liberals, transformed into a quivering blancmange by Gilotti's Transforismo, and the equally plastic, but more promising, promises made by the, self-spoilingly Futurist, Fascist - and, a little later, the self-sodomisingly Fraternal, Communists- ensured that Democracy would soon die in Italy as it would in Portugal whose Liberals were more anti-Clerical, factionalist, and fundamentally shite than the Italian variety. 

Once Mussolini prevailed, Gramsci's days were numbered.  Unlike Togliatti- a born logothete for whom the Marxian Logos had reserved a Gilottian fate- Gramsci, poor fellow, was left to rot in jail while yet rotting on more relentlessly in posthumous Journals which commemorate, in the case of stupidity, the futility even of death. 

Yet Gramsci casts a spell- more especially in India where the rise in his popularity coincided with the retreat and eventual extinction of the Left. Why was this? The answer is that the magic in his grimoire arose from a self-flattering belief that 'intellectuals' come into existence simultaneously with people who actually matter. It was a comforting credo for those who could spell 'hegemony' but hadn't any. Fleeing the poverty created by their own ilk, all they could hope for was tenure as a diversity hire somewhere where the enslavement of those of their skin color had led to a more economically, rather than merely epistemically, productive outcome.  

Gramsci wrote-

Every social group, coming into existence on the original terrain of an essential function in the world of economic production, creates together with itself, organically, one or more strata of intellectuals which give it homogeneity and an awareness of its own function not only in the economic but also in the social and political fields.

This is obviously false. An 'essential function in the world of economic production'- whether it be providing blow jobs or tech support- attracts people of diverse 'social groups'. Even if they live in the same City, they may speak different languages, worship different Gods, and feel the most sublime indifference to each other. 

Intellectuals aren't 'organically produced'. They are hot-house plants. Intelligent and innovative people are seldom intellectuals. They are described as rich or powerful or charismatic. Anecdotes about them will stress some human frailty. 

'Essential economic functions' are both gross substitutes as well as complements. Getting a blowjob is a substitute to going to Church or getting tech support so you can wank at home. But, as Income rises, these activities may be complements. 

What is true of demand is also true of supply. Within each 'social group' some will, at the margin, provide b.j's or tech support etc. 

At one time it may have been thought that 'proper' Industrial Capitalism is only possible under one and exactly one sort of politico-legal regime. But we now know that is completely untrue. Once a 'mimetic target' is available, the thing can be reproduced under the most diverse type of regime. All that matters is 'appropriable control rights' are properly utilized. You can have a minute reduplication of the legal and political forms of the target country. You can have the relevant absolute and comparative advantages. And you can still get a 'Mikado' type farce. A guy may look like a carbon copy of the successful entrepreneur. He may have credentials coming out of his wazoo. But he might be shite at setting up and running an industry. This can be true of an entire 'social class'. They may look the part. They may have credentials. They may even have been successful in some other country. But as a class they can fail utterly and completely. Meanwhile, some other 'social group' which might look stupid and backward, starts beavering away at the margin and, lo!, ten years later you have Industrial Capitalism going great guns. The problem is that this 'Capitalist' class doesn't look Capitalist at all. It may look 'bazaari' but respectable. But it may equally look lumpen-proletarian or Bohemian or anything else. 

Which 'intellectuals' gave the Italians what Gramsci says they had? Pareto? The guy was all over the place. Mosca? He was an anti-democrat who opposed Mussolini. Croce? Who gives a fuck about Croce? The truth is there was a diverse supply of intellectuals all competing for the same eyeballs. This was pure monopolistic competition- lots of product differentiation but a shite product au fond. 

The capitalist entrepreneur creates alongside himself the industrial technician,

No he doesn't. He brings the technician in from outside and then, by training or mimesis, a technical class burgeons. But it may switch to some other occupation. What matters is its transfer earnings- i.e. its elasticity of supply.  

the specialist in political economy,

is useless. Tell him to fuck off.  

the organisers of a new culture,

who aren't actually doing anything very new 

of a new legal system, etc.

Why not a new system of Witchcraft and Wizardry?  

It should be noted that the entrepreneur himself represents a higher level of social elaboration, already characterised by a certain directive [dirigente]and technical (i.e. intellectual) capacity: he must have a certain technical capacity, not only in the limited sphere of his activity and initiative but in other spheres as well, at least in those which are closest to economic production. He must be an organiser of masses of men; he must be an organiser of the “confidence” of investors in his business, of the customers for his product, etc

Or he could be the sort of person who actually did set up new industries- a guy like Giovanni Agnelli. But such industries are difficult to keep in the black. Workers Councils could soon bankrupt them- unless they were of the cosmetic, Yugoslav, sort, in which case sub-nationalism would triumph. 

Poverty is not created by the rich. Sex is the main way through which poverty comes into the world. But it is also the main way wealth and privilege persist from generation to generation. Italy chose not to be poor by drastically cutting the birth rate.