In order to avoid voluntarism of any kind, Gramsci traced the root of the coherent consciousness to the class struggle. Yet it can be argued that he could not totally avoid the danger of voluntarism. So JV Femia comments that what Gramsci ‘calls rational theory cannot be fabricated out of the results of observation.

To some extent, it must be invented.’ In support of his own assessment of the Gramscian position he quotes a passage from Gramsci’s own writings: “The ***Modern Prince*** must contain a part dedicated to Jacobinism…an example of the concrete formation and operation of a collective will, which in at least some of its aspects was an original, ex novo creation.”

Although the element of voluntarism can be traced to Gramsci’s writings it cannot be denied that by basing ideology on practice and making it responsive to the demands of the changing circumstances, Gramsci made attempts to overcome the problem of voluntarism. He maintained that “Mass adhesion or non-adhesion to an ideology is the real critical test of the rationality and historicity of modes of thinking.”

It is true that in the development of the revolutionary consciousness of the working class, both Marx and Marxists sought to bring about a unity of theory and practice through the evolution of the dialectical relationship between the party and the class; but the dialectical method was evolved by Marx and most other Marxists in such a manner that the problem of voluntarism could not be overcome. Although the element of voluntarism can be traced to Gramsci’s dialectical scheme among the Marxists he was the only political thinker who by basing ideology on practice made efforts at overcoming the problem of voluntarism.

So if we compare the position of Gramsci with that of Marx and other Marxists we observe that while in developing the dialectical relationship between the party and the class as originating in revolutionary consciousness of the working class, Marx and most other Marxists lacked clarity. Gramsci succeeded in providing a clearer formulation of the dialectical scheme.

While Marx and the Marxists are eager to rely on a dialectical framework in order to develop the revolutionary consciousness of the working class, they realised that it was an insurmountable task to evolve such a framework. Marx and Engels sought to provide the role of leadership to the party in relation to the spontaneously rising working class.

But is there any guarantee that the party, while intending to play to the leadership role, would not impose its own idea of revolutionary consciousness on the working class? In order to avoid the possibility of the leadership role of the party transforming itself into an autocratic role, Marx and other Marxists were eager to base the party on the spontaneous movement of the working class.

Gramsci, for example, entrusted the party with the task of giving rise to a social bloc and thereby to pave the way for the exercise of hegemony by the working class. He argued that in the political phase ‘previously germinated ideologies become “party”, come into confrontation and conflict, until only one of them, or at least a single combination of them, tends to prevail, to gain the upper hand, to propagate itself throughout society and thus creating the hegemony of a fundamental social group over a series of subordinate groups.’

Clearly, Marx’s attempt at evolving a dialectical framework in order to explain the origin of the revolutionary consciousness of the working class found its fruition in the Gramscian concept of hegemony.

There is no denying that despite the efforts of Marx and the traditional Marxists at developing a dialectical framework for the revolutionary consciousness of the working class, they could not avoid the possibility of the emergence of voluntarism at the expense of spontaneity.

To address this situation, the Marxist Student Movement in France tried in 1968 to develop an alternative Marxist model the objective of which was to rely on spontaneity of the working masses. The leaders of this Movement expressed the view that the Bolsheviks during the period from February to October 1917 dragged the popular movement from behind. Lenin imposed the party on the working class. In their view, socialism can be built up if the workers themselves can determine their own fate.

But the leaders of the Marxist Student Movement were eager to rely solely on the spontaneous movement of the working class minimizing the importance of the party. So they were nowhere near the central issue ~ how to provide a clear shape to the dialectical relationship between the class and the party as originating in the revolutionary consciousness of the working class.

Few Marxists have gone beyond theoretical analysis to study the class consciousness of real workers. In part, this is due to the belief, widespread among Marxists, that such consciousness is a necessary byproduct of the capitalist economic crisis, or the belief, equally widespread, that class consciousness can only be observed in political actions. In both cases studying class consciousness now is impossible or irrelevant.

There have been numerous Marxist studies of the working class, particularly by historians and sociologists, that describe important aspects of their class consciousness. EP Thompson, Eric Hobsbawm, David Montgomery, Herbert Gutman, Harry Braverman, Andre Gorz, Serge Mallet, Erich Fromm, Michael Mann, John Lagget are some of the pre-eminent personalities.

But few among these authors have made consciousness their main focus. And fewer still have made independent studies of the consciousness of today’s workers. Their evidence comes from non-Marxist research, working class actions, government statistics, literary texts, personal experiences, anecdotes, and unique events and testimonies.

Until the findings of the historians and the sociologists are reformulated in terms of Marx’s theory of class consciousness and integrated in turn within Marx’s broader analysis of society, their full potential for helping us either understand or change capitalism cannot be realized. A better focused, more systematic, and more effectively theorized Marxist study of class-consciousness of today’s workers remains to be done.

(Concluded)

The writer is a Retired Head of the Department, Political Science, Asutosh College, Kolkata.