e-ISSN 1984-7246
The theoretical-methodological
contributions of Lenin and Gramsci to contemporary education[i]
Giovanni
Semeraro
Fluminense Federal
University
Niterói, RJ – Brasil
lattes.cnpq.br/6956417347930716
The
theoretical-methodological contributions of Lenin and Gramsci to contemporary
education
Abstract
The main goal of this work is
to analyze Lenin and Gramsci's formulations for education. The text is divided
into four sections. Throughout the article, we present the links and affinities
between Lenin and Gramsci, highlighting their continuities and differences.
Furthermore, we address the theoretical-practical principle of hegemony from
the perspective of Lenin and Gramsci regarding politics and knowledge
production. Finally, we reflect on the current thinking of education in the
context of the crisis of capitalism, considering the actions of reactionary and
conservative forces that aim to sustain the imperialist system.
Keywords:
Gramsci; Lenin; education.
As contribuições teórico-metodológicas
de Lênin e Gramsci para a educação contemporânea
Resumo
O
objetivo do presente artigo é analisar as formulações de Lênin e Gramsci para a
educação. O texto está dividido em quatro seções. Ao longo da exposição,
apresentamos os elos e as afinidades entre Lênin e Gramsci, mas também
ressaltamos as continuidades e diferenças entre eles. Além disso, abordamos o
princípio teórico-prático da hegemonia na perspectiva de Lênin e Gramsci no
plano da política e da produção do conhecimento. Por fim, refletimos sobre a
atualidade dos pensadores para a educação no contexto de crise do capitalismo,
considerando a atuação das forças reacionárias e conservadoras que visam
sustentar o sistema imperialista.
Palavras-chave: Gramsci; Lênin;
educação.
1 Links and affinities
between Lenin and Gramsci
Contemporaries
operating in distinct contexts, Vladimir Ilyich Ulyanov (Lenin) and Antonio
Gramsci, two prominent revolutionaries of the early 20th century, share
profound affinities in theoretical, political, and educational spheres.
Lenin is not
merely a brilliant political strategist who organized the masses, laid the
groundwork, and led the Bolsheviks in the October Revolution of 1917 that shook
the world. He is also a broad-visioned theorist who deepened and materialized
Marx's worldview through "concrete analyses of concrete reality,"
exposed the imperialist maneuvers of World War I (1914-1918), and skillfully led the response to the
civil war of 1918-1920 and the boycott by Western countries alarmed by the
events in the USSR. Furthermore, Lenin proved to be a visionary and bold leader during the process of
"socialist transition”. By laying the groundwork for industrialization and
modernization in a vast country held back by czarist rule, he implemented an unprecedented
education program for a largely rural and illiterate population. He also
dismantled the old state apparatus and organized the Soviet state with
comprehensive economic, political, and cultural planning, spreading electricity
and launching the "three revolutions" (industrial, agrarian, and
cultural), summarized in the slogan: "electrify industry and elevate
culture" (Lenin, 1981a, p. 78).
For Lenin, the inseparable link between
industrialization and general culture, production and education, technical-scientific
development and political engagement of the population were fundamental
conditions for consolidating the revolution and paving the way for the
construction of a new civilization. In line with Hegel, who had rescued the
profound meaning of work as the creative achievement of the human being and the
shaper of the social fabric, and in tune with Marx's critique that revealed the
contradictions of work in the brutalizing and alienated system set up by the
bourgeoisie (Semeraro, 2013), Lenin launched “general and polytechnic
education”, free and compulsory up to the age of 16 (Lenin, 1981a, p. 58), to
offer everyone access to the sciences and to the heritage of knowledge
historically accumulated by humanity.
Inspired primarily by Marx's inseparable link
between production and education for the working class (Marx; Engels, 2004, p.
68-69), he implements the "unified labor school" aimed at developing
individual aptitudes, qualifying workers to master advanced theories and
techniques in various spheres of modern production, and combining the world of
work with the construction of a society led by the “proletariat” (Lênin, 1981a,
p. 81).
In his address at the First All-Russia
Congress on Education on August 28, 1918, Lenin explicitly rejected the notion
of purely vocational instruction reserved by the ruling class for the working
masses, designed to produce efficient and subservient labor while excluding
comprehensive general and technical-scientific education integrated with
societal life and political formation.
The school system was
transformed into a tool for bourgeois class domination, permeated by elitist
ideology, with the aim of producing subservient workers and skilled laborers to
serve capitalist interests. The war revealed that modern technological marvels
serve as instruments for the mass extermination of workers and the
extraordinary enrichment of capitalists who profit from conflict [...] we
openly declare that a school detached from life and politics is nothing but
falsehood and hypocrisy (Lenin, 1981a, p. 61).
In Lenin's view, therefore, linking education
to the real challenges of the productive system and social life, as well as
political formation and action, become fundamental in the learning process.
This is because the struggle "against the old society founded on
exploitation" is essential for unveiling the contradictions of capitalist
society and serves as a means to unleash the full potential of the population,
thus preparing the proletariat to "fulfill its role as educator, organizer,
and leader, without which the disintegration of capitalism is impossible"
(Lenin, 1981a, p. 104).
On the other hand, Lenin also criticized the
"Proletkult" (Proletarian Cultural and Educational Organization)
program, initiated by Bogdanov and continued by Lunacharsky, which aimed to
fuel popular political activism through a simplified, propagandistic
"proletarian culture" that disparaged modern culture and the
accumulated experience of traditional education. Indeed, in his Address to the
First All-Russia Congress on Adult Education in 1919, Lenin cautioned against
the misconception that one could become a communist through mere slogans and
superficiality. He emphasized the necessity of developing a robust scientific
and cultural foundation, critically assimilating the wealth of human knowledge
from which communism itself had emerged (Lenin, 1968).
There is no doubt
that Lenin and the October Revolution profoundly shaped Gramsci's political
thought and activities. Among
the numerous texts demonstrating this connection, the article "Lenin,
Revolutionary Leader," written on March 1, 1924, on the occasion of his
death, openly expresses Gramsci's admiration for the "comrade and
revolutionary leader: initiator of a new process of development in
history" (Gramsci, 2004b, p. 237). However, Gramsci, averse to fanaticism
and idolatry, emphasizes that Lenin's exceptional personality must be
understood within the broader context of Russian and global historical
developments. Lenin's leadership and the party's role are thus highlighted as
“integral components of the working class, embodying its most vital interests
and aspirations” (Gramsci, 2004b, p. 236). Without resorting to imposition or
deception, Lenin's political activity is indeed extraordinary due to its "expansive"
nature, characterized by a continuous bottom-up movement and a constant
exchange throughout all social capillaries, fostering an ongoing circulation of
individuals (Gramsci, 2004b, p. 240).
The connections between Gramsci and Lenin are
numerous and unmistakable. It suffices to note that Gramsci's involvement in
Turin's "Factory Councils" and the "Red Biennium" (1919-20)
was clearly inspired by the Soviet
experience and the Russian Revolution. In several articles penned between 1919
and 1920, Gramsci emphasizes collective participation and mutual education,
highlighting Marx's concept of "self-government of producers" from The Civil War in France (1982, p. 37).
Rather than focusing on the "dictatorship of the proletariat,"
Gramsci stresses that the revolutionary process should lead to the creation of
a new state simultaneously “grounded in production”, political organization,
and the cultural development of the masses[1]
Thus, in various educational activities and
the "school of labor" (Gramsci, 2004a, pp. 324-325) that he promoted
among Turin's workers, Gramsci focused primarily on the political-economic
transformations and educational reforms instituted in the USSR, while also
incorporating aspects derived from B. Croce, G. Lombardo Radice (Gramsci,
2004a), and the Clarté magazine (by
Romain Rolland and Henri Barbusse). During his time in Moscow from June 1922 to
November 1923, he closely observed the experience and debate surrounding the
"unified labor school" introduced by Lenin and Krupskaya (Lenin,
1977, p. 167).
Furthermore, Gramsci is also familiar with M.
M.'s perspective. Pistrack, drawing on historical-dialectical materialism,
advocated against abstract teaching in favor of an integrated approach
combining science, labor, social life, and politics. Summarized in the book Fundamentals of the School of Labor
(Pistrack, 2000), this educator's extensive experience portrays the school not
only as a place to assimilate scientific knowledge and modern work techniques
but also as an environment where students learn to self-organize, collectively
analyze societal issues, and prepare to transform and lead society.
It is through Gramsci's intense journey as a
political activist, intellectual, and educator that we find the origins of
various concepts related to the new "method of knowledge" and the
formation of proletarian political consciousness. These ideas emerge in his
pre-prison writings and are particularly developed in the notes of the Prison Notebooks, providing a
fundamental basis for understanding the genesis of the "unitary
school" concept, which is elaborated and condensed primarily in Notebook
12. As we sought to demonstrate in our analysis of this notebook (Semeraro,
2021), Gramsci expands upon the concept of the "unified labor school"
developed in the USSR, drawing on his study of other pedagogical currents. He
offers a perceptive critique of modern proposals stemming from the "new
school" and "active school" movements, including the positions
contained within the "Dalton Plan" educational system (Gramsci,
1996). According to Gramsci, these "progressive" schools, rooted in
liberal ideology and centered on student autonomy, fail to address the crucial
task of educating the working and subordinate classes for leadership roles in
society, both collectively and as individuals (Gramsci, 1975, p. 1183-1185, own
emphasis).
However, Gramsci's work shares several key
elements with Lenin's thought: the role of the party, the function of
intellectuals, mass mobilization, worker-peasant alliances, the formation of a
"united front," the construction of a democratic-popular state,
Jacobinism, and the international dimension of communism. It is therefore
unsurprising that several analysts consider that “the emergence and development
of Leninism on the world stage was the decisive factor in Gramsci's entire
evolution as a thinker and as a politician of action” (Togliatti, 1973, p. 423)[2].
2 Continuity and differences between Gramsci and Lenin
However, despite
sharing Marxist foundations and aligned political goals, Lenin and Gramsci
exhibit distinct characteristics. Portrayed by Gramsci as “"the greatest statesman of contemporary
Europe" (2004a, p. 240) and "the foremost modern theorist of the
philosophy of praxis in the realm of political struggle and organization,"
(Gramsci, 1975, p. 1235), Lenin developed his
ideas and refined his political positions through an intense process of mass
mobilization and "war of movement" that culminated in the 1917
Revolution and the establishment of the Soviet state. These aspects lead Gramsci to perceive a close connection between Lenin
and Machiavelli, both pragmatic politicians who, despite operating in different
eras and contexts, sought to link national leadership and the masses with the
structure of the state (Gramsci, 1975, p. 1578).
Conversely,
Gramsci, situated within a distinct socio-political context, emerges as the
intellectual and political activist advocating for long-term revolutionary
change in the complex societies of advanced “Western” capitalism. The article
thus examines the structural and superstructural dimensions that underpin the
power of the ruling class, which remains poised to suppress threats to its
status and deploy various forms of "passive revolution." In response
to the overwhelming form of "passive revolution" implemented by
fascism in Italy, Gramsci outlines strategies for hegemonic contestation to be
waged in all spheres by the working classes and popular forces through an
intensive process of consciousness-raising, cultural struggle, and political
organization.
Thus, distancing himself from the idyllic
vision of the “great day” of the revolution, not least because the revolution
in the USSR was moving towards a process that required “a prolonged and
tenacious struggle on the terrain of capitalism” (Lenin, 1981b, p. 58), Gramsci
put greater emphasis on the “war of position”, always with a view to breaking
with capitalism and overcoming bourgeois society. In this regard, unlike the
"East," where "civil society was primordial and
gelatinous," Gramsci considers that in the "West" there existed
a "robust chain of fortresses and casemates" within society (1975, p.
866). In this context, in where “the massive structure of modern democracies
both as state organizations and as a set of associations in civil life”
(Gramsci, 1975, p. 1566-1567) is very solid, the “war of position (or
harassment)” becomes more decisive than the “manoeuvred war (and frontal
attack)”.
Gramsci noted that "Lenin had understood
the need for a shift from the war of maneuver, successfully applied in the East
in 1917, to a war of position" (Gramsci, 1975, p. 866), emphasizing that
"this question of political theory is the most important one raised in the
post-war period, the most difficult to resolve, and potentially the most successful
if achieved." Indeed, the war of position, “concentrated, difficult, in
which exceptional qualities of patience and inventiveness are required and
which demands an unheard-of concentration of hegemony [...] once won, is
definitively decisive” (Gramsci, 1975, p. 802). Based on this, Gramsci
conceptualizes the State as "the entire complex of practical and
theoretical activities through which the ruling class not only justifies and
maintains its dominance, but also manages to win the active consent of those
over whom it rules" (Gramsci, 1975, p. 1765). Transcending the common
misconception of the state as a detached, repressive apparatus, Gramsci
reconceptualizes it as an "organic and more comprehensive entity"
(Gramsci, 1975, p. 763), dialectically intertwining political society and civil
society (Gramsci, 1975, p. 866).
Similarly, Gramsci expands his understanding
of the party, without diminishing its essential role in organizing subaltern
classes, by presenting it as a "collective intellectual" (1975, p.
1523). This concept envisions the party as an open space for developing
knowledge and responsibility among all its members, fostering a continuous
dialectic between leadership and spontaneity, thought and action, thereby
overcoming tendencies towards vanguardism and power centralization.
These concise yet notable references amply
demonstrate that Gramsci's engagement with Lenin's ideas, while building upon
and expanding Marx's thought, was not a mere mechanical transposition but
rather a dialectical and creative process. In fact, Lenin himself had indicated
the necessity of guiding political action based on the demands arising from
concrete situations and historical particularities in which political struggles
occur (Lenin, 1981c, p. 107).
Thus, from his pre-imprisonment writings
through his prison notes, Gramsci emphasizes the need for Marxism's
translatability across centuries, nations, and cultures. This process involves
not only adapting language and concepts but also theoretical reformulation and
the creation of new political modalities, grounded in a meticulous
understanding of national and international characteristics (Gramsci, 1975, p.
866). Furthermore, Gramsci expanded beyond the traditional focus on
working-class and peasant struggles, becoming one of the Marxist thinkers most
attuned to broader historical, cultural, and literary dimensions. His
exploration of the complex world of the "subaltern" (Gramsci, 1975)
broadened the concept of class and the scope of social and political struggles,
a trajectory evident in his pre-prison writings (Gramsci, 2004a, pp. 58-59).
Thus, alongside the conquest of the state
apparatus and production system, Gramsci emphasizes the critical importance of
"superstructural" elements, asserting that any "economic"
reform must be intertwined with an "intellectual and moral reform"
(Gramsci, 1975, p. 1561). This aligns with the philosophy of praxis, which
eschews the separation of theory from practice, superstructure from structure,
humans from nature, subject from object, and individual from society (Gramsci,
1975, p. 1457). Gramsci challenges the supposedly "natural" division
between rulers and ruled, leaders and followers, and educators and students,
deconstructing the deeply ingrained notion of intellectuals as an exclusive
"aristocracy of knowledge." On the contrary, it presents a new
conception of culture and the intellectual, reconfigured by the processual
organicity between the intellectual and the people, knowledge and feeling,
science and popular creations (Gramsci, 1975, p. 1505).
Building on these premises, Gramsci expands
the concepts of culture and intellectual to such an extent that he declares
"everyone is an intellectual," each with their own specificity
(Gramsci, 1975, p. 1516). This bold assertion aligns with his other striking
declarations that "everyone is a philosopher" (Gramsci, 1975, p.
1375) and "everyone is a 'political person' and a 'legislator'"
(Gramsci, 1975, p. 1668). Given that cultural creations are the collective work
of society, it is necessary to transform "philosophy into a cultural
movement" (Gramsci, 1975, p. 1380) so that it can "generate an ethic,
a way of life" (Gramsci, 1975, p. 2185-2186) that expands the potential of
all members of society. This
introduces a theoretical-political perspective that challenges caste systems,
monopolies, and elitism, creating an epistemological break from the dominant
conceptions of the time. It opposes not only B. Croce's neo-idealist positions
and G. Gentile's fascist reform but also the Church's paternalism and liberal
currents, including "new school," "active school," and
pragmatism approaches (Semeraro, 2021).
From these premises emerges Gramsci's
ambitious and captivating project in Notebook 12, which establishes a profound
and inseparable link between "organic intellectual," "unitary
school," and "integral education." These concepts are interwoven
with the world of work, politics, philosophy, history, and popular culture,
aiming to transform every citizen into a "'leader' (specialist +
politician)" (Gramsci, 1975, p. 1551). This transformation involves the
simultaneous development of scientific-professional and socio-political skills,
essential components for individuals to express their abilities in the
productive sphere while collectively learning the art of self-governance,
ultimately leading society towards the creation of a new civilization.
3 The
theoretical-practical principle of hegemony in politics and the construction of
knowledge
According to Gramsci, the ambitious goals of
this revolution can only be achieved through the establishment of hegemony
forged in the political struggles of the working classes and marginalized
groups. As is well known, among the various connections with Lenin, Gramsci
(1975)[3] adopts and expands the
concept of hegemony, which originates from the philosophy of praxis rooted in
Marx's thought, encompassing "in embryonic form the ethical-political
aspect of politics or the theory of hegemony and consensus, as well as the
aspects of force and economics" (Gramsci, 1975, p. 1315). In paragraph 12
of this same notebook, when rescuing the "gnosiological" potential of
ideology and hegemony, Gramsci observes that
The proposition presented
in the introduction to the Critique of
Political Economy, which posits that individuals become aware of structural
conflicts through ideological frameworks, should be interpreted as having
epistemological significance rather than merely psychological or moral
implications. It follows that the theoretical-practical principle of hegemony also
possesses an epistemological dimension, and thus it is in this field that one
must seek Ilyich's maximum theoretical contribution to the philosophy of
praxis. Ilitch effectively advanced philosophy as a discipline through his
contributions to political doctrine and practice. The establishment of
hegemonic structures not only forges new ideological terrain but also catalyzes
a transformation in consciousness and epistemological approaches, constituting
both an epistemological and philosophical phenomenon (Gramsci, 1975, pp.
1249-1250).
Gramsci thus demonstrates that ideologies not
only possess concrete consistency, as they trigger historical and political
effects, but also that the process of knowledge acquisition and the development
of one's worldview are closely linked to political action aimed at achieving
hegemony. This is evident in his assertion that "critical
self-understanding occurs through a struggle of political 'hegemonies' and
opposing directions, first in the field of ethics, then in politics, ultimately
leading to a higher elaboration of one's conception of reality" (Gramsci,
1975, p. 1385).
Thus, as with the construction of personality
itself, it is through the struggle for hegemony that a social group, party, or
nation, grounded in material conditions, comes to understand itself, articulate
its position, and develop its own societal vision. This process enables them to
gain active consensus from a significant portion of the population, not merely
through domination and force, but primarily through intellectual and moral
leadership (Gramsci, 1975, p. 1519). From this perspective, hegemony is not
merely about "command" and directives issued from above or
externally, but rather is rooted in mass consciousness, knowledge, and political
participation. It relies on the "power of attraction" (Gramsci, 1975,
p. 2012) that emerges when the hegemonic system socializes economic, political,
and cultural processes, fostering the expansion of society as a whole.
Consequently, Gramsci posits a fundamental link between democratic processes
and hegemonic structures: "In the hegemonic system, democracy exists
between the ruling group and the governed groups, insofar as economic
development and its corresponding legislation facilitate the gradual integration
of the governed groups into the ruling group" (Gramsci, 1975, p. 1056).
There is no doubt, therefore, that Lenin and
Gramsci's most significant theoretical and methodological contribution lies in
their development of a set of theoretical tools and political activities rooted
in the "most modern philosophy of praxis," whose "essential
feature consists precisely in the historical-political concept of
'hegemony'" (Gramsci, 1966, p. 570). In line with Lenin, who, despite not
having the opportunity to fully develop this concept (Gramsci, 1975, p. 866),
"had conferred renewed value to the cultural front of struggle and
constructed the doctrine of hegemony as a complement to the theory of the
State-as-force" (Gramsci, 1975, p. 1235), Gramsci demonstrates not only the
necessity of valuing the superstructure and the revolutionary potential of
various political subjects (Gramsci, 1975, p. 1603), but also that the
attainment of hegemony is the primary strategy for acquiring knowledge,
organizing politically, and learning to democratically govern society.
In opposition to voluntarism and
"sporadic and disorganized subversivism" (Gramsci, 1975, p. 957),
Gramsci firmly believes in the necessity of grounding analysis in material
conditions, objective reality, and the role of the party (Gramsci, 1975),
aspects particularly emphasized by Lenin (1979) in Materialism and Empirio-criticism. But in addition to the
material base, the “relations of force” and the “hegemonic apparatus”, Gramsci
also emphasizes the components of subjectivity, creativity and the construction
of one's own conception of the world by the working classes and the
subalternized. Thus, the attainment of hegemony is situated within the
dialectical process between objectivity and subjectivity, structure and superstructure,
and understood as the "supremacy" of a social group that successfully
combines force and consensus, "domination and direction" (Gramsci,
1975, p. 2010).
According to Gramsci, productive forces alone
do not inherently possess progressive capabilities; rather, they must be
accompanied by the development of "collective will," organized
political initiative, and the subjective dimensions of the working class and
popular masses. In doing so, it challenges both positivism and idealism, as well
as any theory that ascribes to metaphysical entities or abstract essences the
power to shape the course of history. On the contrary, Gramsci states that
absolute immanentism (Frosini, 2010, p. 137-146), politically organized human
action, “revolutionary historicism”, constitute the basis of knowledge and the
engine of history. This demonstrates that reality is not solely composed of
material things, mere facts, individuals, and the imponderable, but also
encompasses a realm of possibilities that emerge when fearless and politically
organized individuals decide to unite their wills, take initiative, and strive
for alternative societal visions.
Therefore, Gramsci transforms the classic
philosophical question “What is man?”, into: "What can man become, that is,
can man master his own destiny, can he 'make' himself, can he create his own
life?" (Gramsci, 1975, p. 1344). With this "reversal
of the traditional position of the philosophical problem" (Gramsci, 1975,
p. 119), in line with Marx who "thoroughly renews the way of understanding
philosophy" (Gramsci, 1975, pp. 433-35) and "initiates a new phase in
the history and global development of thought" (Gramsci, 1975, p. 1425),
it is no longer possible to construct knowledge or elaborate a worldview that holds
any meaning without considering concrete reality, social relations of
production, class divisions, and the struggles initiated by active subjects in
the social fabric aimed at creating higher levels of civilization.
4 The relevance of Lenin and Gramsci for education
At the dawn of the 20th century,
Lenin and Gramsci confronted a severe capitalist crisis, with Russia still
mired in semi-feudal conditions, the collapse of the old European order, and
the “disintegration of colonial systems and their spheres of influence”
(Gramsci, 1987, p. 103). Amid tumultuous historical challenges, they boldly
engaged in theoretical discourse and political action, mobilizing the masses to
spark revolution. Their efforts aimed to contextualize national struggles
within the broader framework of establishing “a new global order that would
unify the world's collective consciousness” (Gramsci, 1987, pp. 156-161).
At the dawn of the 21st century,
we face an unprecedented crisis of capitalism, exacerbated by neoliberal
policies and economic financialization, amid a global landscape where national
issues are increasingly intertwined with international dynamics and the looming
threat of planetary collapse. Just as fascism and Nazism emerged as purported
solutions to the crises of the last century, today we witness the rise of
reactionary and far-right forces. These movements seek to bolster an
imperialist system characterized by unprecedented concentrations of economic
and military power, escalating violence, political degradation, labor exploitation,
mass migration, indigenous genocide, and environmental devastation—factors that
contribute to recurring epidemics and diseases, including mental health issues.
In contexts similar to ours, Lenin and
Gramsci's political and theoretical-methodological contributions to education
remain highly relevant. They emphasize that knowledge construction and the
formation of one's worldview must be intrinsically linked to concrete analysis
of reality, engagement with crucial contemporary issues, and the democratically-led
national and international struggles of the working classes and popular
organizations. These efforts aim to establish "a new State" and
create "new and higher forms of civilization" (Gramsci, 1975, p.
1566).
From the two great revolutionaries
- an inseparable pair representing the dialectical unity of theory and
practice, force and consensus, war of movement and position, direction and
spontaneity - we also learn that historical baggage, accumulated knowledge, and
past experiences, while necessary, are insufficient to address the challenges
of the present day. Lenin and Gramsci argue that Marxism is not a dogma, an
untouchable sacred text monopolized by a few enlightened individuals, nor a
sterile and repetitive scholasticism, but rather a dynamic and challenging
historical-dialectical process of continuous collective creation (Gramsci,
2004a).
Increasingly essential today, the
revolution to be recreated must confront both "Imperialism, the Highest
Stage of Capitalism" (Lenin, 2012) and all forms of hollow nationalism
that, failing to foster a genuine "national-popular" sentiment,
treats the masses as mere cattle (Gramsci, 1975, p. 799). Thus, the
polarization in Brazil between reactionary forces promoting a populist
nationalism and grassroots organizations combating new forms of colonialism
reflects, in a sense, the broader global struggle, given the dialectical
interplay between general and specific phenomena. In fact, in one of the
“harshest rejoinders in history”, which would surprise Hegel himself (1999),
rather than between a backward “East” and an advanced “West”, today the
opposition has been established between the impetus of emerging countries and a
restricted group of “Western” nations that continue to attribute to themselves
the prerogative of imposing dictates on the world and exercising domination
without hegemony, fomenting an increasingly sophisticated war industry,
unscrupulous hybrid wars and threats of all kinds.
Contrary to the prevailing system, bound by
its own arrogance, a complex and unpredictable process is emerging. This
process unites various groups of nations (BRICS, CELAC, EAEU, African Union)
around the so-called "Global South," most of which share a history of
colonialism, dictatorships, and boycotts imposed by Western powers.
Highlighting the "shared destiny" of global populations, emerging
actors mobilize to establish a new world order founded on polycentrism and
multilateralism, aimed at fostering socioeconomic integration while respecting
diversity and promoting peaceful, cooperative, and solidary relations.
Increasingly densifying and unifying with an
accelerated and irreversible process of “unity of multiple determinations”,
contrary to those who think that the “revolution” is not on the horizon
(Bobbio, 1989), in today's world we have the gigantic task of sparking a series
of revolutions at the molecular, national and international level, to lay the
foundations for an effectively democratized and integrated humanity in caring
for the planet. In the ongoing global geopolitical realignment and the
construction of a "national-international-popular" hegemony, Lenin
and Gramsci's contributions become increasingly crucial. They offer strategies
to combat imperialism, neo-colonialism, "passive revolutions," and
neo-fascism, while also addressing the challenges posed by new forms of
"cultural industry" and scientific monopolies. These strategies are
particularly relevant in countering the sophisticated dominance of big tech
companies, which leverage rapid scientific advancements, artificial
intelligence, and technology to influence collective unconscious, consumer
behavior, political elections, and government decisions.
Now more than ever, this context demands a
comprehensive knowledge base, bold national and international grassroots
strategies, sophisticated political engagement, and the cultivation of a new
cultural paradigm. These elements are crucial to prevent potential global power
shifts from merely preserving existing structures of domination. We must avoid
simply transitioning from Western to Eastern hegemony, from unbridled
capitalism to a more regulated form, or from neoliberalism to economic
developmentalism without elevating the intellectual and cultural standing of
the masses and their political agency (Gramsci, 1975, p. 1385).
Gramsci warns against the peril of
constructing socialism without hegemony, which risks devolving into autocracy
and "state-worship." He emphasizes that every hegemonic relationship
is inherently pedagogical, necessitating permeation across all societal
spheres. This pedagogical dynamic extends beyond educational institutions and
interpersonal interactions, manifesting "not only within a nation, among
its diverse constituent forces, but also throughout the international and
global arena, encompassing national and continental civilizations"
(Gramsci, 1975, p. 1331). Therefore, to ascertain whether the current
developments in Brazil, Latin America, and globally represent the dawn of a new
era or another passive revolution allowing capitalism to regroup and emerge
stronger, the theoretical and methodological contributions of Lenin and Gramsci
remain essential. These insights are crucial for an education system that, in
the present context, can dedicate itself to fostering political consciousness and
a collective "national-international popular" will aimed at creating
a new civilization. This task cannot be deferred to future generations or a
distant, ever-elusive future, but must become the driving force behind our bold
and creative political choices and struggles.
Foreseeing one of the greatest challenges of
our generation, Gramsci noted in his final notebook shortly before his death
that "all particular history exists within the framework of world
history" (Gramsci, 1975, p. 2343). Similarly, in one of his last letters
from prison to his son Delio, in line with “The free development of each is the
condition for the free development of all” (Marx; Engels, 1999, p. 37), Gramsci
recommends knowing and respecting “all the men of the world who unite in society
and work and struggle and improve themselves” (1996, p. 808). A transformative
process in which organized workers and popular masses break from capitalism and
its derivatives—including labor exploitation, environmental degradation,
inequalities, injustices, fascism, racism, sexism, imperialism, and all forms
of domination—to achieve hegemony and establish conditions for becoming
"qualified political intellectuals, leaders, and organizers of all
activities and functions inherent to the organic development of a comprehensive
civil and political society" (Gramsci, 1975, p. 1522).
References
BOBBIO, Norbeto. O futuro da democracia: uma defesa das
regras do jogo. Rio de Janeiro: Paz e Terra, 1989.
FROSINI, Fabio. La religione dell’uomo moderno: politica e
verità nei Quaderni del carcere di Antonio Gramsci. Roma: Carocci, 2010.
GRAMSCI, Antonio. Quaderni del carcere. A cura di
V. Gerratana. Torino: Einaudi, 1975. 4. v.
GRAMSCI, Antonio. Lettere dal carcere 1926-1937. A
cura di A.A. Santucci. Palermo:
Sellerio Editore, 1996. 2 v.
GRAMSCI,
Antonio. Escritos políticos. Tradução: Carlos Nelson Coutinho. Rio de
Janeiro: Civilização Brasileira, 2004a. v. 1.
GRAMSCI,
Antonio. Escritos políticos. Tradução: Carlos Nelson Coutinho. Rio de
Janeiro: Civilização Brasileira, 2004b. v. 2.
GRAMSCI, Antonio. L’Ordine nuovo 1919-1920. A cura
di Valentino Gerratana e Antonio
A. Santucci. Torino,
Einaudi, 1987.
HEGEL,
Georg Wilhelm Friedrich. Filosofia da história. Tradução: Maria
Rodrigues; Hans Harden. Brasília: UnB, 1999.
LÊNIN,
Vladimir IIyich. Cultura e revolução cultural. Rio de Janeiro:
Civilização brasileira, 1968.
LÊNIN,
Vladimir IIyich. Sobre a educação. Lisboa: Seara Nova, 1977. 2. v.
LÊNIN,
Vladimir IIyich. A instrução pública. Moscou: Edições Progresso, 1981a.
LÊNIN,
Vladimir IIyich. Esquerdismo, doença infantil do comunismo. São Paulo:
Global, 1981b.
LÊNIN,
Vladimir IIyich. La alianza de la clase obrera y del campesinato.
Moscou: Progresso, 1981c.
LÊNIN, Vladimir IIyich. Imperialismo,
estágio superior do capitalismo: ensaio
popular. São Paulo: Expressão Popular, 2012.
LÊNIN, Vladimir IIyich. Materialismo ed
empiriocriticismo. Moscou: Progresso, 1979.
MARX, Karl. La guerra civile in Francia. Milano:
Feltrinelli, 1982.
MARX, Karl; Engels, Friedrich. Manifesto del partito comunista.
A cura di Domênico Losurdo. Roma-Bari: Laterza, 1999.
MARX,
Karl; Engels, Friedrich. Textos sobre educação e ensino. São Paulo:
Centauro, 2004.
SEMERARO,
Giovanni. Intelectuais, educação e escola: um estudo do Caderno 12 de Antonio Gramsci. São Paulo, Expressão
Popular, 2021.
SEMERARO,
Giovanni. A concepção de ‘trabalho’ na filosofia de Hegel e Marx. Revista Educação e
Filosofia, [Campinas], v. 27, n. 53, p. 87-104, jul. 2013.
TOGLIATTI, Palmiro. Gramsci e il leninismo. In: AAVV., STUDI GRAMSCIANI
(1958). Roma: Ed. Riuniti, 1973. p. 35.