Parties are not passive expressions of classes but act back upon them

Evidence

The principal reason why the parties are like this is to be sought in the deliquescence of the economic classes, in the gelatinous economic and social structure of the country—but this explanation is somewhat fatalistic. In fact, if it is true that parties are only the nomenclature for classes, it is also true that parties are not simply a mechanical and passive expression of those classes, but react energetically upon them in order to develop, solidify and uni-versalise them. — Antonio Gramsci, Selections from the Prison Notebooks, 871

Categorization

• DEFINE: This is a core Gramscian move: the party-class relationship is dialectical, not mechanical — precisely the kind of scaffolding concept the Islamophobia toolkit needs for understanding organized movements.
• XREF: Connects to the Gramscian concept of hegemony and the party as ‘modern Prince’ that later theorists deploy to explain how political actors constitute group identity rather than merely reflect it. — connects to: Political parties remain the most effective instrument for producing leaders; Party spirit, not individualism, is the foundation of State spirit — Antonio Gramsci, Selections from the Prison Notebooks, 659; A party can function as a general ideology superintending scattered rival groups (+6 more)
• corroborated: 2 independent passages support this claim — Antonio Gramsci, Selections from the Prison Notebooks, 871

Broader Connections

• Political representation actively constitutes the class it claims to express #expands (0.88)
• A party can function as a general ideology superintending scattered rival groups #expands (0.85)
• Lenin substituted the party for the rise of class consciousness #exemplifies (0.82)
• Classes-in-themselves become forces-for-themselves through conscious organization. #qualifies (0.75)