The 13-Point Plan to Destroy Americanism

A response to A. Gramsci’s Selections from the Prison Notebooks

“It may be said that spontaneity is therefore characteristic of the history of the subaltern classes’, and indeed of their most marginal and peripheral elements; these have not achieved any consciousness of the class ‘for itself’, and consequently it never occurs to them that their history might have some possible importance, that there might be some value in leaving documentary evidence of it. Hence in such movements there exist multiple elements of ‘conscious leadership’, but no one of them is predominant or transcends the level of a given social stratum’s ‘popular science’–its ‘common sense’ or traditional conception of the world.”^[1]

The temptation in applying this key element of Gramsci’s political thought to said group, is naturally to do what other theoreticians would do and that is, to assume that “‘the history of the subaltern classes’” can be appropriated to mean “the history of the (youth) subcultural classes.” And although this seems logical, because Gramsci’s conception of “spontaneity” and “anarchy”, the political manifestations of ‘pure’ culture, seem closely related to youth subcultural practices, in light of recent theoretical realizations, a significant rift has developed between the key term, subaltern, and interpretation. The project, therefore, demands an exploration of other possible appropriations.

With the project of Americanism nearly fully developed, the primacy of superstructure established, there is little free space left in discourse for such heroes of the underclass, or any class for that matter, and, it may be said, from the outset, that the tendency on the part of latter day Marxist thinkers to enlist in the aid of the youth is merely a feeble attempt to reinforce the party line, to expand the base beyond economics and win theoretical support of the so-called fringe groups. If indeed the definition of the base must be exploded, and superstructural elements must be introduced, as Williams would suggest, then totality must be in place, despite the author’s reservations about the simplicity of it as a model^[1:1]. This development, coupled with the conclusions already reached in this study, leave the theoretician little choice. The war of cultural signification, which is only conducted on the level of the superstructure, and has no proletariat exterior in which any heroism, youth or otherwise, can be discerned, is truly the last theoretical construct available. It is here that the last remaining remnant of what Gramsci would call “politics” resides.

Yet, still struggling for a model, one can observe that these youths conform to some of the principles of anarchy and are, like their subaltern counterparts, subject to an instability of condition, which vacillates between various instances of “'‘conscious leadership’” and “‘pure’ spontaneity” and therefore, capable, as the Saddlecreek has proven, of momentarily achieving “consciousness of class” and subsequently “leaving documentary evidence”^[1:2]. Unable to be called ‘true’ subalterns, because of their respective class status, this group is still spontaneous, its leaders still adhere to their own “popular science’”^[1:3]. Thus, there are some legitimate grounds for appropriating the term, which should be done tentatively. And it is here, with this compromise made, that Gramsci’s thought will allow for reinterpretation, an infusion of un-Marxist, superstructural elements.

The “‘popular science’” of this particular group, it could be argued, given its specific socio-economic background and its own place in history, is that of the petite- bourgeoisie. Despite its apparent simulation of, and false ideological ties to the subalterns, the ‘true’ working classes, notions which have been fed by the romanticism of Hebdige and the like, the Saddlecreek is not truly a fully vested member of this underclass, which begs the question: what is their structural position? And what’s even more, how can these groups be addressed it they fail to fit the model of the subalterns, or conform to their prescribed positions, but still subscribe to the methodology of spontaneity? Can the history of the subaltern be expanded, like the base, to include both groups? If superstructural developments deny access, then how can location be discerned?

With intention removed and discourse left “empty of any content that could be called Marxist,” their position seems indecipherable^[1:4]. However, one could posit a theory which displaces the death of Marxist intention, and suggests a point of conflict between the subalterns and said subculture which, while still relying a bit on the theory of dominant group coercion, humbly attempts to explain these relations in terms of pseudo-political warfare. But this is merely a paper tiger, to be used and discarded. At this argument’s pinnacle, is the contention that there is a fluid definition of subaltern which bears the scars of conflict and whose semi-permeable tissues allow for absorption and inversion of the dominant petite-bourgeoisie classes, thus bringing the Marxist method into question. However, to make such an argument, one is required to take a few theoretical steps first, and pay homage to Gramsci’s model.

At this point, it might be best to assume that the Saddlecreek practices were outside the activities of the subordinate classes, simply a means of developing a policy of transformism, and that this group was acting as the cultural wing of the party of the dominant classes to supplant the ‘true’ subalterns and install themselves in a position of hegemony. Such business must have been conducted, of course, through a war of position, which ultimately resulted in an “occupation of territory”, by, these, the children of the organics. Thus, “the defeated army”, the underclass, is coerced, its position occupied by the dominant classes. Implicit in coercion, of course, was the adoption of the anarchist group’s own culture, which, in this case, is of the lineage of petite-bourgeoisie, which is closely allied to the ideology of the avant-garde. So, the outcome of this war of position is an infusion of dominant class aesthetics into lower- class culture. Of course, this realized model does in fact have actual tangible parallels in the Saddlecreek situation. Through their war of position, the Saddlecreek actors managed to undermine their own hardcore, punk, pop, rock predecessors and secure their own hegemonic position regionally, at the expense of these defeated armies of working class subcultural signification.

Of course, although this subaltern army “is disarmed and dispersed”, by principles of hegemony, some of its cultural, superstructural baggages are also eventually internalized by the anarchist wing, thus, allowing the Saddlecreekers to achieve consent^[1:5]. However, with residual subaltern revolt against bourgeoisie aesthetics still apparent, there are factions within the dominant class subculture who choose to continue the war, as they fear, just as Gramsci predicts, “a great insurrectional movement” that undoubtedly intends to:

“annihilate their present strategic superiority (which consists, in a certain sense, in their ability to maneuver through control of the internal lines of communication, and to concentrate their forces at the ‘sporadically’ most dangerous spot) by mass suffocation–i.e. by compelling them to spread out their forces over a theatre of war which had simultaneously become generalized.”^[1:6] Thus, the only choice left to this faction is to wage underground, commando warfare, as “it would suit them to provoke a premature outbreak…in order to identify” their enemy “and decapitate the general movement.”^[1:7] On the cultural level, this provocation is conducted through “control of the internal lines of communication” in the larger community, and, on an economic level, through the use of some of the tactics of war of position, such as the boycott. In this way, because hegemony is basically secured and yet the war continues, this faction could be said to be guilty of attempting a passive revolution, as their work is being done beneath the surface, excluding the participation of the masses, and with the intention of achieving only dominance.

It should be noted however, that other elements of Gramsci’s thought can help to further illuminate this situation. Because spontaneity is, according to the author, given to fluctuations in leadership, by this principle, another faction becomes more apparent to the theoretician. Undoubtedly conscious, at least momentarily, this second faction could be the result of wholly unconscious developments resulting from the outbreak of passive revolution. Here is the point at which again, the case for the fluidity of the definition of subaltern is renewed, as the politics of war in civil society give way to developments outside of the model of class relations which are purely cultural. Through transformism, some of the actors once given to passive revolution tactics, ultimately become a part of the subaltern subcultural movement, at least on the superstructural level.

Transformism and the theory of “anti-thetical” incorporation may not be sufficient enough to legitimate such claims however. To maintain the integrity of the argument, one must refer to Gramsci’s conception of the passive revolution. In reference to such developments, Gramsci validates these claims, saying “no social formation disappears as long as the productive forces which have developed within it still find room for further forward movement”, which suggests, that, if this instance applies, then the second Saddlecreek front is therefore the fertile ground in which the remnants of the defeated forces have planted their cultural seeds^[1:8]. Williams further legitimates this phenomenon with his introduction of the concept of residual culture in his essay “Base and Superstructure in Marxist Cultural Theory”^[2]. The question then ultimately becomes: what or whose subcultural relics have been left in the wake of the dominant (sub)cultural class conquest? Residual cultural elements, by virtue of their position, Williams explains, can be characterized by their inability to be expressed in dominant culture as well as their as tendency to be politically, culturally less troublesome for incorporation^[2:1]. What’s even more, Williams’ theories on emergent, oppositional and alternative cultures can even further limit this selection process.^[2:2]

In examining the options for inversion left by the defeated (purveyors of punk, pop, hardcore, and rock), it becomes clear that only one subcultural type would be fit for incorporation, as the others represent cultural forms too oppositional (punk, hardcore’s implicit working class rhetoric, pop’s denial of bourgeoisie aesthetics). The only option left is that which plays on the subtleties of the emergent/residual division, the remaining rock culture, which, at this point in its history, had become simply part of Williams’ alternative camp^[2:3]. This camp is peopled by a group locally dubbed “hessian”, an undoubtedly ‘true’ subaltern development, (an American counterpart to Hebdige’s rockers), which had, for the most part, let its dying subculture drift away from oppositional modes and into those of the alternative. It is for this reason that this group’s cultural legacy, which had been washed of its subaltern intentions, its political signification, and its awareness of “class ‘for itself’”, was so easily incorporated by this second tier of the Saddlecreek. Ironically, this group, whose numbers are most certainly at an all time low, the bulk of its membership having dissolved and relocated to new solutions long ago (less stagnant modes, it might be noted), is still the most frequently parodied subculture among the anarchist youth of the 'Creek. Apparently, few have noted the obvious inversion.

And yet, this development represents the best example of the universal loss of class identity and the subsequent difficulty in applying Gramsci’s “‘history of the subaltern classes’” in hopes of achieving real theoretical solutions. Through absorption of the “hessian” element, the Saddlecreek, having managed to adopt the cultural elements of a completely working class subculture without meeting its socio-economic requirements, succeeded in immersing itself in ‘pure’ culture by denying its political ties to the dominant class, thus inverting its supposed social class through superstructural modes. Clearly, this is an instance in which a change in superstructural location has taken place which disobeys/disregards Gramscian, Marxist laws of class consciousness, by transending their prescribed parameters. More than a negation, this inversion only further validates the reality of totality, and goes beyond it to grant ultimate supremacy to the world of the superstructure, only to arrive at a point at which subaltern, as a concept, is rendered a instable and made vulnerable to internal subvertion. At the very least, the Saddlecreek subset in question opens up new possibilities for interpretation of the narrow definition of subaltern, and, at the most, eliminates the exterior in Marxist cultural criticism.