{'fraction_non_alphanumeric': 0.020021074815595362, 'fraction_numerical': 0.004214963119072708, 'mean_word_length': 5.418918918918919, 'pattern_counts': {'":': 0, '<': 0, '<?xml version=': 0, '>': 0, 'https://': 0, 'lorem ipsum': 0, 'www.': 0, 'xml': 0}, 'pii_count': 0, 'substrings_counts': 0, 'word_list_counts': {'cursed_substrings.json': 0, 'profanity_word_list.json': 0, 'sexual_word_list.json': 0, 'zh_pornsignals.json': 0}}
Gramsci as an Historian of the 1930s

To define Gramsci as an historian is problematic for every Marxist student, and especially for Gramsci, who saw himself in conscious opposition to academic trivia. His orthodox role within Western Marxism constantly accompanies Gramsci the philosopher. This allowed him to avoid those dangerous relapses into Kantianism and those mixtures with intuitionist theories in the anti-Stalinist cultural struggle of many “radical” communists intellectually close to him. Thus, it would be a mistake to “cut out” of the Notebooks a specifically historiographic part in contradistinction to other Gramscian philosophical, literary or economic interests. It would be wrong to collect into a separate “history” volume all of the material in Past and Present, half of The Risorgimento, and a third of Historical Materialism and the Philosophy of Benedetto Croce, following the criteria established by Togliatti and Platone.