Revisiting Antonio Gramsci in an age of crisis and rising authoritarianism

By Harsh Thakor* 

Italian revolutionary thinker Antonio Gramsci carved a permanent niche among the great leaders of the twentieth century, devoting his entire life to the emancipation of the working class. He was not only a theorist but also a committed practitioner of revolutionary struggle. Gramsci worked tirelessly in Italy to organise workers, foster revolutionary consciousness, and lay the foundations of a socialist society. This year marks the centenary of his 1926 letter to the Central Committee of the USSR, in which he politically supported the majority of the Soviet Party, followed soon after by his arrest.

Despite the hardships of prison, illness, and isolation, Gramsci produced his celebrated Prison Notebooks, outlining new paths for revolutionary struggle. He died in 1937 as a consequence of these sufferings, yet his ideas continue to inspire movements across the world. Deeply influenced by the 1917 Russian Revolution and its leader Vladimir Lenin, Gramsci’s work acquired particular significance during his imprisonment under Mussolini’s fascist regime, where he continued to analyse the dynamics of power and social change. The Prison Notebooks remain a seminal work in communist theory, offering a wide-ranging exploration of class struggle, education, and revolutionary strategy.

Gramsci argued that the ruling class maintains power not only through coercion but also by shaping and dominating culture and ideology. He stressed the need to challenge this cultural hegemony by cultivating “organic intellectuals” who could articulate the interests of the working class. Through media, education, and religious narratives, the consciousness of the working class is moulded in ways that obscure its real adversary. Once workers recognise that their problems are rooted in the capitalist system, they can begin to question, organise, and struggle against it. For Gramsci, the “battle of ideas” must be won before any successful revolution can occur.

He observed that in advanced capitalist societies, civil society was far more developed than in Tsarist Russia. Consequently, the path to socialism would be longer and more complex, requiring a “war of position” rather than the “war of movement” adopted by the Bolsheviks. This meant a prolonged ideological and cultural struggle to dismantle entrenched systems of domination.

Gramsci’s own journey from a Sardinian peasant background to leadership in the Italian Communist Party (PCI) illustrates the transformative power of critical consciousness. Witnessing the failures of the Second International, he recognised that the Bolshevik Revolution was a beacon rather than a rigid blueprint. In the factory councils of Turin, he saw the embryonic form of workers’ power, which later informed his broader theoretical framework.

The formation of the PCI arose from the crisis of the socialist movement and the emergence of fascism as a new political force. Gramsci interpreted fascism as a mass counter-revolutionary movement that mobilised the petty bourgeoisie and sections of the dispossessed through nationalism, violence, and ideological manipulation. His arrest in November 1926, in violation of parliamentary immunity, underscored the threat his ideas posed to the fascist state.

It was within prison that Gramsci developed his most enduring contributions. Writing under constant surveillance and severe illness, he encoded his ideas to evade censorship while deepening Marxist theory. His concept of hegemony marked a significant evolution in leftist thought, demonstrating how ruling classes universalise their own interests by embedding them in common sense. He revealed how deeply capitalism had entrenched itself within civil society.

Gramsci’s formulation of the “war of position” emphasised a long-term struggle within cultural and ideological institutions. This involved building a counter-hegemonic bloc capable of challenging ruling-class dominance. Central to this process was the role of the organic intellectual—an individual emerging from the working class who could give coherence and direction to popular struggles.

Gramsci’s legacy continues to shape debates on power, culture, and social transformation. His insights remain strikingly relevant in the contemporary world, where right-wing movements have often demonstrated a sharper grasp of hegemonic politics than sections of the left. The crises of neoliberalism—highlighted by the 2008 financial collapse, the climate emergency, and the failures exposed during the COVID-19 pandemic—reflect the breakdown of established authority. Gramsci’s notion of a period in which “the old is dying and the new cannot be born” resonates strongly today.

The task before progressive forces is not to wait passively for systemic collapse but to actively construct an alternative historic bloc rooted in solidarity, care, and ecological sustainability. This requires filling the ideological vacuum before reactionary forces consolidate power.

Considerable debate persists around Gramsci’s position on Trotsky, Lenin, and Stalin. Some interpretations portray him as aligned with Bolshevik orthodoxy and critical of Trotsky’s theories, particularly the concept of permanent revolution. In various notes, Gramsci examined questions of revolutionary strategy, industrialisation, and the relationship between internationalism and national policy, often expressing positions interpreted as supportive of Bolshevik leadership. At the same time, other readings suggest a more nuanced and independent stance, especially in light of tensions within the Soviet leadership and the complexities of the 1920s.

Gramsci’s relationship to Stalinism remains contested. While some argue that he broadly supported the prevailing line of the Soviet leadership, others point to evidence—such as his 1926 correspondence—indicating concern over bureaucratic tendencies. Similarly, Maoist interpretations recognise his contributions to understanding ideology and culture but critique the limitations of his Eurocentric framework. Both Gramsci and Mao rejected deterministic Marxism and emphasised human agency, consciousness, and praxis. They shared an understanding of culture as a terrain of struggle, though they differed in strategic emphasis, particularly regarding armed struggle and conditions in colonial or semi-colonial societies.

The continuing dialogue between Gramscian and Maoist perspectives raises broader questions about how theory informs anti-fascist practice across diverse contexts. Both traditions underscore the importance of analysing concrete conditions and prioritising transformative processes over predetermined outcomes. In an era marked by the resurgence of authoritarian and far-right tendencies, Gramsci’s work offers vital tools for understanding and contesting power in its most subtle and pervasive forms.

---

*Freelance journalist