The idea of revolution lies at the very heart of Marxist political thought. For Karl Marx and Friedrich Engels, revolution was the historical process by which the working class (proletariat) would overthrow the capitalist class (bourgeoisie), capture the state, and eventually establish a classless and stateless communist society. This classical Marxist view was grounded in historical materialism, economic determinism, class struggle, and often envisioned as a violent seizure of power. However, in the twentieth century, Antonio Gramsci, the Italian Marxist theorist, reformulated the concept of revolution in light of the failures of proletarian uprisings in Western Europe. Writing from prison under Mussolini’s fascist regime, Gramsci developed the idea of hegemony, civil society, war of position, and war of manoeuvre, stressing that revolution in advanced capitalist societies would require a prolonged struggle in the realm of culture and ideology rather than a direct economic or political confrontation. Thus, while classical Marxism highlighted economic contradictions and sudden overthrow, Gramsci emphasized ideological transformation and consent-building.

Classical Marxist Theory of Revolution

Classical Marxist theory begins with historical materialism, the view that the development of society is determined by changes in the mode of production. Marx and Engels argued that history advances through contradictions between the productive forces and the relations of production. When these contradictions sharpen, they give rise to class struggles, which eventually culminate in revolutionary change. As Marx and Engels famously declared in The Communist Manifesto, “The history of all hitherto existing society is the history of class struggles.”

In this framework, the economic base is seen as the foundation of all social life, determining the superstructure of politics, law, culture, and ideology. Revolution therefore is primarily an economic transformation, in which the working class seizes control of the means of production. The bourgeoisie, having displaced the feudal aristocracy in the past, would in turn be displaced by the proletariat, ushering in socialism. The revolution, for Marx, arises when workers acquire class consciousness, transforming from a class-in-itself (defined by its economic position) to a class-for-itself (aware of its historical mission).

Classical Marxists believed that the state functions as an instrument of class domination. The state exists not as a neutral arbiter but as the “executive committee of the bourgeoisie.” Hence, for genuine social transformation, the working class must capture the state through revolution. The transitional phase would be the dictatorship of the proletariat, in which the old bourgeois order is dismantled, before the eventual emergence of a stateless and classless communist society.

This vision of revolution often emphasized violence and sudden overthrow. Marx and Engels pointed to the Paris Commune of 1871 as a model of working-class rule. Later, Lenin adapted Marxism to Russian conditions by stressing the role of a vanguard party, capable of leading revolution in a semi-feudal, backward country. Thus, classical Marxism treated revolution as an inevitable, structural, and largely economically determined event, achieved through the direct seizure of political power.

Gramsci’s Concept of Revolution

Antonio Gramsci, observing the failures of proletarian revolutions in Western Europe after World War I, asked a crucial question: why did the Russian Revolution of 1917 succeed, while similar revolts failed in advanced capitalist societies like Germany and Italy? His answer was that in the West, the bourgeoisie maintained power not only through coercion but also through consent. This insight led him to develop his distinctive theory of revolution.

At the heart of Gramsci’s theory lies the concept of cultural hegemony. For him, the ruling class dominates not just through control of the state and economy, but also by shaping the values, beliefs, and common sense of society. He famously wrote: “The supremacy of a social group manifests itself in two ways, as domination and as intellectual and moral leadership.” This means that the bourgeoisie rules not only by controlling the political society—the state, army, and police—but also by influencing the civil society—schools, churches, media, and voluntary associations. By winning the consent of the masses through civil society, the ruling class secures its dominance without always relying on repression.

Therefore, for Gramsci, revolution cannot be confined to the violent seizure of the state, as classical Marxism suggested. Instead, it requires a long struggle in civil society, where the working class builds an alternative counter-hegemony to challenge bourgeois dominance. He distinguished between a “war of manoeuvre” and a “war of position.” The war of manoeuvre refers to a frontal assault on the state, which worked in Russia where civil society was weak. By contrast, in Western Europe with its strong civil societies, a direct assault would fail. Hence revolution there required a war of position, a gradual battle for ideological influence, cultural leadership, and moral legitimacy.

Another important contribution of Gramsci was his theory of organic intellectuals. Unlike traditional intellectuals who aligned with ruling elites, organic intellectuals emerge from within the working class and articulate its worldview. Their role is to spread counter-hegemonic ideas and build class consciousness. Gramsci also introduced the notion of passive revolution, where ruling classes introduce reforms and concessions to absorb working-class demands and prevent radical upheaval. Thus, for Gramsci, revolution is not a single dramatic event but a long-term cultural, intellectual, and political process.

Comparative Analysis

When we compare Gramsci’s concept of revolution with classical Marxist theory, important similarities and differences emerge. Both Marx and Gramsci agree that revolution is ultimately about overthrowing capitalist dominance and creating a socialist society. Both also recognize the centrality of class struggle in historical change. However, their understanding of how revolution occurs and what it requires diverges significantly.

Classical Marxism emphasizes economic structures as the primary drivers of revolution. The contradiction between productive forces and relations of production produces class struggle, which culminates in revolution. Gramsci, while not denying the importance of economic factors, highlighted the relative autonomy of ideology and culture. For him, the ruling class maintained its power not just through control of material resources, but also by shaping consciousness in civil society.

On the question of the state, Marx saw it purely as an instrument of class domination, to be seized and dismantled. Gramsci, by contrast, conceived of the state more broadly, including both political society (coercive apparatus) and civil society (consent-producing institutions). Revolution, therefore, had to tackle both coercion and consent.

Regarding the method of revolution, Marx and Engels advocated a relatively sudden and violent overthrow, as exemplified in the Paris Commune and later Lenin’s Bolshevik Revolution. Gramsci, however, argued that in advanced capitalist societies a prolonged war of position was necessary before a war of manoeuvre could succeed. In his words, revolution was not just a political event but an intellectual and moral reform.

Another major difference lies in the role of intellectuals and ideology. Marx often dismissed ideology as “false consciousness” that misled the working class. Gramsci, however, saw ideology as a powerful terrain of struggle, where organic intellectuals could help the proletariat develop a counter-hegemonic worldview.

Thus, while classical Marxism was economically reductionist and politically insurrectionary, Gramsci’s theory was culturally sensitive and strategically gradualist. His reformulation made Marxism more adaptable to the conditions of modern capitalist democracies.

Several scholars have highlighted the significance of Gramsci’s rethinking. Perry Anderson noted that Gramsci shifted Marxism’s focus from the economic base to the superstructure, enriching Marxist theory. Louis Althusser also emphasized the role of ideology and argued, similar to Gramsci, that ideological state apparatuses help sustain capitalism. Eric Hobsbawm praised Gramsci as the “Marx of the twentieth century” because he adapted Marxism to conditions of advanced capitalism. However, critics argue that Gramsci’s emphasis on civil society and consent risks diluting the revolutionary essence of Marxism, reducing it to gradual reformism.

Relevance in Contemporary Times

Gramsci’s ideas remain highly relevant today. In modern democracies, power is often maintained through media, education, culture, and consumerism rather than brute coercion. Social movements—feminist, anti-racist, environmental, and digital activism—often operate as wars of position, seeking to transform values and norms within civil society. In Latin America, leftist governments like those in Venezuela and Bolivia combined electoral politics with cultural mobilization, reflecting Gramscian strategies. Even global corporations exercise a form of cultural hegemony, shaping lifestyles and desires through advertising and entertainment. Counter-hegemonic struggles, such as those led by alternative media or grassroots movements, illustrate the continued relevance of Gramsci’s concept of revolution.

Classical Marxism vs Gramsci

In conclusion, while both classical Marxism and Gramsci’s theory aim at the overthrow of capitalism and the establishment of socialism, their conceptions of revolution differ fundamentally. Marx and Engels saw revolution as an economic inevitability arising from contradictions within capitalism, to be resolved through the violent seizure of state power. Gramsci, on the other hand, recognized that in advanced capitalist societies, the bourgeoisie’s strength lay in its ability to command consent through cultural hegemony. Revolution therefore required a long war of position in civil society, the building of counter-hegemony, and the role of organic intellectuals in creating an alternative worldview.

Thus, Marx explains the structural necessity of revolution, while Gramsci explains the strategic process by which it can actually occur. Together, their insights provide a more comprehensive understanding of revolutionary change. As Gramsci wrote in his Prison Notebooks, “The crisis consists precisely in the fact that the old is dying and the new cannot be born; in this interregnum, a great variety of morbid symptoms appear.” His words capture the enduring challenge of revolution—not just to break old structures, but also to create new values, institutions, and cultures that can sustain a truly democratic and egalitarian order.

Antonio Gramsci (1891–1937) is the Italian Marxist thinker who introduced the concept of ‘organic intellectuals’ to explain the role of ideas and leadership in shaping society and sustaining class power. For Gramsci, intellectuals are not just traditional academics or thinkers; they are social agents who articulate the worldview of a class and help it achieve hegemony. While Karl Marx emphasized the economic basis of class domination, Gramsci highlighted the cultural and ideological dimensions of power, noting that domination is maintained not only through force but through consent. The notion of organic intellectuals, therefore, is central to understanding how social classes organise, educate, and lead societies, and how change can occur through the development of alternative leadership within civil society.

Gramsci distinguished between ‘traditional intellectuals’ and ‘organic intellectuals’. Traditional intellectuals, such as scholars, priests, and bureaucrats, perceive themselves as independent of class interests, but in reality, they support existing social structures. In contrast, organic intellectuals emerge from within a social class and articulate its interests, helping to form a historic bloc by linking economic, political, and cultural forces. Gramsci argued, “All men are intellectuals, but not all men have the function of intellectuals in society,” emphasizing that leadership is not about innate superiority but about active engagement with society.

Organic intellectuals perform multiple roles: they educate, organise, and mobilise people; shape ideology; and develop strategies for both social consolidation and transformation. For instance, in the context of the working class, trade union leaders, socialist writers, and political organisers function as organic intellectuals by articulating the aspirations of the proletariat and providing cultural and moral guidance. By doing so, they enable the class to achieve hegemony, ensuring its interests are accepted broadly across society, not just imposed through coercion.

Scholars such as Robert Cox have extended Gramsci’s ideas to international relations, arguing that global elites use intellectuals and culture to maintain global hegemony. Contemporary sociologists also point out that media professionals, activists, and educators often act as organic intellectuals in shaping public opinion, spreading values, and constructing ideologies.

However, the concept has faced criticism. Some argue that Gramsci overemphasises culture and ideology, underplaying the role of material conditions and structural constraints. Others suggest that identifying who qualifies as an organic intellectual can be ambiguous in modern, complex societies. Despite this, the concept remains influential because it recognises the active role of ideas and leadership in political mobilisation.

The relevance of organic intellectuals today is visible in movements such as environmental activism, feminism, and social justice campaigns, where leaders, educators, and activists articulate collective interests, create alternative discourses, and mobilise consent for social change. In democratic politics, elected leaders and opinion-makers often act as organic intellectuals by shaping public discourse and legitimising social arrangements.

In conclusion, Gramsci’s notion of organic intellectuals highlights the inseparable link between ideas, leadership, and social transformation. Unlike traditional intellectuals, organic intellectuals emerge from social classes and actively contribute to creating hegemony by shaping ideology, culture, and consent. This concept extends Marxism beyond economic determinism, emphasising that power is as much cultural and ideological as it is economic. Despite criticisms regarding its abstractness, the idea of organic intellectuals remains crucial for understanding social change, political leadership, and the role of education, media, and culture in maintaining or challenging dominant social structures.