Betrayals by reformist union leaders did not deliver communists a union majority
Evidence
This is presumably a reference to the failure of communists in Italy between 1921 and 1926 to win more than a minority position within the trade-union movement, despite the betrayals of the CGL’s reformist leaders. — Antonio Gramsci, Selections from the Prison Notebooks, 2299
Categorization
- XREF: Grassroots hostility to a leadership that has ‘betrayed’ the base can fail to convert into organizational control — a recurring problem in Gramsci’s theory of hegemony. — connects to: Reformist union leadership can constitute a de facto second party against revolution. — Antonio Gramsci, Selections from the Prison Notebooks, 2280; Enabling reforms intended to weaken unions inadvertently empowered insurgent left leadership — Anton Jäger, Hyperpolitics: Extreme Politicization…, 200; Large union membership produced caution and conservatism rather than revolutionary zeal (+3 more)
- QUESTION: Why did rank-and-file anger at reformist leaders not translate into communist union majorities? The answer likely lies in Gramsci’s later distinction between economic-corporate and hegemonic consciousness.
- yield-rescued: below the book’s yield-target cutoff, included anyway for connecting to: Reformist union leadership can constitute a de facto second party against revolution. — Antonio Gramsci, Selections from the Prison Notebooks, 2280; Enabling reforms intended to weaken unions inadvertently empowered insurgent left leadership — Anton Jäger, Hyperpolitics: Extreme Politicization…, 200; Large union membership produced caution and conservatism rather than revolutionary zeal (+3 more)
Broader Connections
- Reformists seeking to prevent revolution inadvertently provoked further worker radicalism
#complicates(0.76) — Clara E. Mattei, The Capital Order, 334 - Rank-and-file reform movements could not overcome orthodox regional party machines
#complicates(0.72) — Anna M. Grzymala-Busse, Redeeming The Communist Past, 458