He was an Italian Marxist and a contemporary of Mussolini. Antonio Gramsci, the founder of the Communist Party of Italy, was regarded as one of the most dangerous intellectuals of his time. Due to his influence, he was imprisoned, where he ultimately died at a young age due to poor health. Gramsci’s writings, composed during his imprisonment, were later published as the Prison Notebooks and Letters from Prison.
Table of Contents
Purpose of Gramsci as a thinker
Gramsci sought to understand why Marxist predictions had failed to materialize, particularly why the revolution predicted by Marx did not occur. In his quest for answers, he critically examined Marx’s explanation of history and explored alternative theories. He was particularly influenced by Italian scholar Benedetto Croce, who emphasized the role of cultural factors in shaping history. This led Gramsci to believe that Marx may have overlooked the importance of cultural elements.
Known as the “theoretician of superstructure,” Gramsci argued that Marx had taken the concept of superstructure for granted, whereas Gramsci believed that superstructures are as integral as economic structures themselves. While Marx’s explanation of history was often criticized as crude economic determinism, Gramsci’s contributions helped refine Marxism, making it more nuanced and less reliant on purely economic explanations.
Comparison of Marx’s & Gramsci’s explanation of history
Marx’s model of society is based on the concept of the base and superstructure. In this model, the economic structure forms the foundation of society, while the superstructure—comprising institutions like the state, church, media, and educational systems—rests upon it. According to Marx, the superstructure is not an independent structure but rather a reflection of the base. This implies that if the economic structure changes, the superstructure will automatically change as well. Therefore, Marx believed that only one revolution, specifically in the economic structure or mode of production, is necessary to transform society.
Gramsci, however, argued that fighting at the level of the economic structure alone is insufficient. He believed that change must occur at both the basic structure and the superstructure. Gramsci emphasized that altering the superstructure is far more challenging; while the basic structure can change rapidly, transforming the superstructure may take centuries.
Gramsci’s concept of civil society
Like all Marxists, Gramsci also views the economic structure as the fundamental basis of society, meaning the economic structure is the ultimate determinant. However, unlike Marx, Gramsci argues that the superstructure is also a distinct structure. He divides the superstructure into two layers: civil society and the state. Together, these layers form what Gramsci calls the “Integral State.”
According to Gramsci, the purpose of the state is to serve as an instrument of the capitalist class, aiding in the perpetuation of capitalist rule. The state embodies coercive power, which is used against those who seek to challenge the dominance of capitalism.
Role of Civil society
Civil society also plays a crucial role in perpetuating the domination of capitalism. Positioned closer to the base, it acts as the first layer of protection and serves as a cushion or shock absorber for the system. While the state relies on coercion, civil society operates through the power of attraction, promoting the bourgeois way of life and values. Gramsci referred to this “power of attraction” as hegemony. Through hegemony, civil society creates and maintains the ideological dominance of the capitalist class, making their values appear natural and desirable to the broader population.
Hegemony
The literal meaning of hegemony is leadership. While leaders can use force and compel others to act according to their will, they primarily rely on the power of attraction or the ability to generate consent. For example, the British state represented coercive force, while Gandhi embodied the force of attraction.
Hegemony, in Gramsci’s sense, is the ability of the ruling class to make their values and ideas seem like the natural, spontaneous expression of the subaltern classes. In democratic societies, the dominant class maintains power by generating sufficient consent among the governed. They achieve this by sometimes appearing sensitive to the concerns of the people.
For hegemony to be effective, the ruling class must adopt some of the values of those they govern. However, hegemony cannot be taken for granted; it must be continuously produced and maintained. It represents a form of power that is actively lived by the oppressed as common sense, defining the boundaries of what is considered reasonable or normal.
Hegemony is a form of soft power. While hard power targets the body and is concrete, soft power influences the mind and is invisible. If hard power relies on coercion, soft power depends on consent. Capitalism endures because it successfully generates consent in its favor, making certain ideas hegemonic, accepted as common sense, and becoming ingrained in everyday life. Civil society plays a crucial role in manufacturing this consent, with intellectuals being key players in the process.
Thus, hegemony establishes the leadership of the dominant class through a continuous process of transaction, negotiation, and compromise.
Intellectuals
Gramsci offered a unique interpretation of intellectuals, challenging traditional views. In most societies, intellectuals are held in high esteem, regarded as those who possess the ability to reveal truth. Typically, individuals with recognized accomplishments in fields like art, science, literature, and other disciplines are considered intellectuals. It is also commonly believed that intellectuals are neutral, autonomous individuals solely engaged in the pursuit of truth. However, according to Gramsci, “every person is an intellectual, but not everyone performs the role of an intellectual.”
Gramsci argued that every person is an intellectual because everyone engages in some form of work, which requires both manual and intellectual labor. However, not all work is recognized as intellectual labor; only work that holds unique importance within the system of production is considered as such.
The primary role of intellectuals, according to Gramsci, is to maintain the system by generating values and lifestyles that help perpetuate it. He classified intellectuals into two types:
1. Organic Intellectuals
When a new dominant class emerges, it brings into existence a class of intellectuals who play a key role in maintaining the system. For example, with the rise of capitalism, the capitalist class created a class of organic intellectuals, including engineers, managers, doctors, bankers, supervisors, technicians, and civil servants. These individuals are called “organic” because they are organically linked to the dominant class. Their role is to create a culture of capitalism and maintain the hegemony of the dominant class, acting as deputies of that class.
Gramsci suggested that the working class should adopt a similar strategy, learning from how capitalists have maintained their dominance—not only through physical force or economic power but by manufacturing consent, making capitalism seem like common sense and establishing it as the mass culture. Capitalists have not achieved this alone; they have formed coalitions with engineers, supervisors, technicians, and civil servants, providing leadership and convincing these groups that their interests are best served by working together.
Gramsci advised workers not to struggle alone but to build coalitions with like-minded groups. He called for the formation of a coalition of subaltern classes—those who are oppressed and marginalized. In the context of India, this could include Dalits, tribals, minorities, women, and transgender individuals, among others.
2. Traditional Intellectuals
Traditional intellectuals are those who were recognized as intellectuals before the emergence of a new dominant class. For example, in the West, Church fathers were traditional intellectuals who worked in conjunction with the aristocracy, generating consent for the previous dominant class. Since traditional intellectuals are not organically connected to the new dominant class, they may appear autonomous. However, their prestige or social position might decline with the rise of the new dominant class. Despite this, the capitalist class often forms coalitions even with traditional intellectuals. Gramsci suggested that the working class should also seek to establish alliances with this group.
Gramsci emphasized the need for the working class to develop its own organic intellectuals, as no revolution can occur without intellectual leadership. Traditionally, workers have produced intellectuals like technicians and supervisors, who, despite belonging to the working class, have been co-opted by capitalists. Gramsci argued that these intellectuals should now work for their own class, providing leadership to the working class. Supervisors and technicians, in particular, could serve as organic intellectuals for the working class, helping to advance its cause.
Gramsci on revolution
Gramsci proposed a two-stage revolutionary strategy consisting of the “war of position” and the “war of maneuver.”
1. War of Position
The war of position is a prolonged struggle against civil society, aimed at establishing counter-hegemony. In this stage, the oppressed classes challenge the prevailing cultural and ideological dominance of the ruling class. Hegemony, in this context, represents the control that the dominant class holds over society, such as Brahminism or patriarchy. Counter-hegemony, on the other hand, represents the efforts of the oppressed to establish alternative values and norms, such as Dalitism and feminism.
Since civil society is deeply entrenched with the ruling class’s values, the war of position is a protracted battle. It involves a sustained effort to change the cultural and ideological landscape, gradually weakening the ruling class’s hold on power by winning over the minds and hearts of the people.
2. War of Maneuver
Once the war of position is won and counter-hegemony is established, the next phase is the war of maneuver. This stage involves direct, strategic action to capture the state. Unlike the gradual approach of the war of position, the war of maneuver is characterized by a sudden, decisive attack, often leading to a swift change in power.
An example of Gramscian strategy in action is the Indian national movement under Gandhi. According to historian Bipin Chandra, Gandhi’s leadership embodies the war of position and war of maneuver. Gandhi’s mass movement against British colonial rule was a protracted struggle at two levels: challenging the hegemony of British rule (war of position) and engaging in direct action when the time was ripe (war of maneuver).
Gandhi recognized that the British did not rule India solely through force; they also convinced Indians that British rule was a “blessing in disguise.” Therefore, Gandhi’s first challenge was to dismantle this myth of the British “civilizing mission” and “benevolent despotism.” He offered a counter-hegemony by critiquing modern civilization, calling it “Satanic” and asserting that it was not true civilization.
By exposing the injustices of British rule, such as the salt tax and the violent suppression of non-violent protestors, Gandhi undermined the image of the British as benevolent rulers. Once Gandhi believed that the counter-hegemony was sufficiently established and the Indian people recognized British rule as evil rather than a blessing, he called for the war of maneuver. The Quit India Movement marked this phase, where Gandhi even sanctioned the use of violence with the famous slogan, “Do or die.”