Editing Antonio Gramsci (section)

===Critique of materialism===
By virtue of his belief that human history and collective praxis determine whether any philosophical question is meaningful or not, Gramsci's views run contrary to the metaphysical materialism and copy theory of perception advanced by [[Friedrich Engels]],<ref>Friedrich Engels: [http://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1877/anti-duhring/index.htm ''Anti-Duehring''] {{Webarchive|url=https://web.archive.org/web/20050911162121/http://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1877/anti-duhring/index.htm |date=11 September 2005 }}</ref><ref>Friedrich Engels: [http://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1883/don/index.htm ''Dialectics of Nature''] {{Webarchive|url=https://web.archive.org/web/20100325174639/http://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1883/don/index.htm |date=25 March 2010 }}</ref> and Lenin,<ref>Lenin: [http://www.marxists.org/archive/lenin/works/1908/mec/index.htm ''Materialism and Empirio-Criticism''] {{Webarchive|url=https://web.archive.org/web/20201203171158/https://www.marxists.org/archive/lenin/works/1908/mec/index.htm |date=3 December 2020 }}.</ref> although he does not explicitly state this. For Gramsci, Marxism does not deal with a reality that exists in and for itself, independent of humanity.{{sfn|Gramsci|1971|pp=440–448}} The concept of an [[Objectivity (philosophy)|objective]] universe outside of human history and human praxis was analogous to belief in God.{{sfn|Gramsci|1971|p=445}} Gramsci defined objectivity in terms of a universal [[intersubjectivity]] to be established in a future communist society.{{sfn|Gramsci|1971|p=445}} Natural history was thus only meaningful in relation to human history. In his view philosophical materialism resulted from a lack of critical thought,{{sfn|Gramsci|1971|pp=444–445}} and could not be said to oppose religious dogma and superstition.{{sfn|Gramsci|1971|p=420}} Despite this, Gramsci resigned himself to the existence of this arguably cruder form of Marxism. Marxism was a philosophy for the proletariat, a subaltern class, and thus could often only be expressed in the form of popular superstition and common sense.{{sfn|Gramsci|1971|pp=419–425}} Nonetheless, it was necessary to effectively challenge the ideologies of the educated classes and to do so Marxists must present their philosophy in a more sophisticated guise and attempt to genuinely understand their opponents' views.