ESPS0014: Anarchism, Marxism and Beyond;

Candidate Number: CFLJ2;

Due Date: 23rd of April 2019;
Word-count excluding Bibliography: 4740 words.

Antonio Gramsci and the Theory of Hegemony: Upgrading Marx

I. Introduction
In 1846, Karl Mark had stated that “the class which is the ruling material force of society
is at the same time its ruling intellectual force”1. The idea of a cultural, even intellectual,
dimension of power was already present in Marx’s words, but was inevitably
unappreciated, at the same time. This because of the paradigmatic role played by the
material substructure (Grundlage 2 ), namely the structure of economic relations, which
would inexorably mirror itself in the political, juridical, cultural orders of society
(Überbau3, or the superstructure). Not only the Marxian theory is strictly focused on the
economic infrastructure of society, but also tends to lack an attentive assessment of what
lies beyond the economic boundaries of society, thence penalises anything that can’t be
materially and empirically verified, according to the Marxist materialistic conception of
history.
While The German Ideology was being published, the co-funder of the Italian Communist
Party (PCd’I), Antonio Gramsci, wrote on the concept of hegemony while being held in
prison by the fascist regime: starting from a traditional dichotomy between force and
consent, Gramsci argued that in order to build a steady structure of power the dominant
class would need to rely not on domination or coercion, which are expressions of external
social control, but mainly on intellectual and moral leadership, therefore on an internal form
of social control, based on the consent of the ruled. A more exquisitely cultural side of
social power was being lightened up and a more prominent role was being given to the
superstructure. Although Gramsci’s theory unsurprisingly recognised the centrality of the
economic structure, it made a step forward by attributing to the superstructure its own
autonomous role and by realising the fundamentally positive role ideologies -mere
distortive mystifications of the material reality in Marx- played in and for the societal order.

II. Biography
Ales (Sardinia), 22nd of January 1891: Antonio Gramsci was born, fourth of seven children,
from Francesco Gramsci and Giuseppina Marcias4. Francesco, his father, had Albanian
origins and was an employee when Antonio was born. Giuseppina, his mother, was the
daughter of a Sardinian collector agent and had only studied until the third year of primary
school.5
Since his tender age, Antonio had always been a poorly child: in 1893, at the age of two, a
rare form of bone tuberculosis would have irreversibly damaged his spine, affecting him

1
Engels F. (1998) The German Ideology : Including Theses on Feuerbach and Introduction to The Critique of
Political Economy. Great Books in Philosophy. Amherst, N.Y.: Prometheus Books, at 67.
2
Segatori R. (2018) Sociologia dei fenomeni politici. Editori Laterza, at 111.
3
Ibid.
4
Davidson, A. (1977). Antonio Gramsci: towards an intellectual biography. Merlin Press, London, at 6.
5
D’Orsi, A. (2017). Gramsci. Una nuova biografia. Feltrinelli Editore, Milano, at 14.

1
 for the rest of his life (even in his adulthood his height would have only reached five feet)6.
Despite the numerous health issues, Gramsci could start going to school at the age of seven
-after the imprisonment of his father- and managed to finish his primary education in 19037.
Because of the misery of his family, he had been working since the early age of eleven,
earning “nove lire al mese”8, which was enough to buy a kilo of bread per day: one could
easily argue that Gramsci’s revolutionary temperament derives from the retrograde agrarian
context of the Sardinian farmers’ world which had been condemned to the most
unconceivable misery by the growing power of capitalism.
Despite the financial difficulties, Antonio managed to continue his studies and, while
attending high school in Cagliari, started to frequent the newly-born Sardinian socialist
environments and, once enrolled at the University of Turin in 1911, joined the Italian
Socialist Party; later on, while his political activism grew exponentially, he began to write
for the Socialist newspapers L’Avanti and Il Grido del Popolo9.
The Turinese industry was, during the first decades of the XX century, one of the growing
industrial centres of Italy and Gramsci, who witnessed and participated in first person in
the struggles of the Italian working classes to gain prominence and rights in the factories,
was deeply influenced in his political and socialist thought by this environment.
In 1919 was , along with Palmiro Togliatti, amongst the funders of the socialist journal
Ordine Nuovo, which advocated the adhesion of the Italian Socialist Party to the Comintern
and in 1921, during the XVII Congress of the PSI was part of the splinter group that gave
birth to the Italian Communist Party (PCI).10
29th of October 1922: after the Fascist March on Rome, Benito Mussolini was handed power
to by King Victor Emmanuel III. This marked the beginning of the Italian Fascist Era and
the inexorable gradual suppression of the Italian Communist Party, in light of the Duce’s
project of a one-party regime: in 1926 Antonio Gramsci, by that time leader of the
Communist Party, was arrested and, after spending few weeks in confinement, was
sentenced to 20 years of prison11. While in jail, Gramsci gave birth to the famous Prison
Notebooks, which, written between 1929 and 1936, enshrine the extraordinary and
revolutionary Theory of Hegemony.
Antonio Gramsci died on the 27th of April, 1937 and was buried in the Protestant Cemetery
of Rome.

III. Marx and the materialistic conception of history

The cornerstone starting point of the Marxian theory relies on the analysis of men’s
historically determined material conditions of life, against the idealistic approaches in
vogue during the XIX century in Germany and nurtured by the followers of Hegelianism.
Analysing the factual, material development of human history and starting from its earliest
premise, namely the sole “existence of living human individuals”12 and their primordial
bond and interaction with Nature, would ensure - for Marx- the development of an
empirically objective theory, which wouldn’t run the risk to slip into an evanescent
ideological discourse based on philosophical speculations.
6
Ibid 1, at 16.
7
Nocera, M. (2012). Biografia di Antonio Gramsci. Centro Gramsci di Educazione, at 207.
8
Letter from Antonio Gramsci to Tatiana, 3rd October 1932.
9
Ibid 4, at 209.
10
Ibid, at 213 and 221.
11
Ibid, at 225-226.
12
Ibid. 1, at 37.

2
 The Marxian approach thus begins from men’s own material activities: given some specific
determining natural and historical conditions, human beings abandon their bestial nature
when they start working, hence when they start to “produce their means of subsistence”13.
Subsequently, human nature depends on the material conditions of production and
production is the sole determining variable to human societal relations. In fact, it is from
humans’ capacity to produce, thus reinvent and mould what Nature offers to them raw, that
human relations and therefore society begins to sprout. This suggests that, for Marx, man
is unconceivable if not as part of a social group: subsistence requires production and
production requires cooperation, or “the intercourse [Verkehr] of individuals with one
another”14.
A pivotal corollary of Marx’s materialistic conception of history is that human beings
produce, through their material work, not only objects or ‘things’ but also ideas: the mind
is not autonomous from the material conditions of life, but is -on the contrary- inexorably
attached to them and is actually constantly deeply influenced in its processing. Any vision
of the world, any culture is unavoidably the product of the material context in which it is
developed. The tragedy relies in the fact that often times men have been fooled by the
perception that their minds and thoughts are autonomous and independent from any
material influence: “Hitherto, mean have always formed wrong ideas about themselves,
about what they are [...]. The products of their brains have got out of their hands. They, the
creators, have bowed down before their creations.” 15 This has happened, argues Marx,
because philosophy -and his critique is addressed, in particular, to the Young-Hegelian
movement- has proclaimed its truthfulness and independence, unaware of its intrinsic and
physiological attachment to the material premises of humans’ life. Because of this
congenital erroneousness, German philosophy is argued by Marx to be an ideology, namely
a mere (mis-)interpretation and (mis-)representation of reality, a “camera obscura”16 that
turns reality upside down.
Marx’s “theoretical [...] and practical materialism”17 could then be seen as an attempt to
straighten reality back up, “against all variants of historical idealism”18. Coherently with
his materialistic approach, Marx argued that the original determining base of any society
was represented by its producing process, its “mode of production” – the structure or
substructure- which directly determined and mirrored itself into every “cultural and
ideological activities” 19 which constituted the superstructure. In fact, as Marx himself
argues, “the mode of production of material life conditions the social, political and
intellectual life-process in general”20: through this statement, the philosopher had posed at
the fulcrum of his idea of society the material means of production, hence economy, which
would directly determine every other moral, ethic, religious, juridical, political sphere of

13
Ibid.
14
Ibid.
15
Ibid, at 29.
16
Ibid, at 42.
17
Màrkus G. (1983), Concepts of ideology in Marx, in “Canadian Journal of Political and Social Theory/Revue
canadienne de theorie politique et sociale”, Vol. 7, Nos. 1-2, (River/Printemps), at 86.
18
Ibid.
19
Durham, M. and Kellner, D. (2006), Media and Cultural Studies: Key works, Second Edition. Blackwell
Publishing Ltd, at 115.
20
Marx K. (1976) Preface and Introduction to A Contribution To The Critique Of Political Economy. Foreign
Languages Press. Peking, at 3.

3
 society. The superstructure was a mere reflection of the substructure, of the economic
relations of men and was therefore devoid of any autonomy or intrinsic independent value.
Therefore in Marx the relation between structure and superstructure is evidently univocal,
it goes one way only, which is from the first to the second, from the material conditions of
production to any kind of intellectual and cultural activities, which do not really have much
influence on the base of society. It naturally follows that, in Marx, the economy or the
structure of the mode of production also determines the social stratification: for the
capitalistic mode of production, thence the capitalistic society, Marx fundamentally
identified two main antagonistic classes, namely the bourgeoisie and the proletariat.
Fulcrum of the first, were the capitalist, the owners of the means of production, therefore
the rulers: given the quintessential role played by the material means of production, it is
needless to say that whoever owns them fundamentally finds him or herself owning power.
A corollary implied by the Marxian materialistic conception of history is that “the class
which is the ruling material force of society is at the same time its ruling intellectual
force”21: because the economic structure mirrors itself in the socio-cultural and institutional
aspects of society, it follows that the economically dominant class is in control of the
cultural spheres of society just as much as it is of the means of production. Thence “the
ruling class controls the means of mental production” 22 , through which it spreads its
Weltanschauung, its vision of the world, together with the values and beliefs it implies, so
to perpetrate and legitimize its ruling power by dressing it with a persuading cultural, even
spiritual taste.
Marx had undoubtedly recognised the presence of a form of social power that went beyond
the mere material predominance of one class over the other, but for him this cultural form
of control was devoid of any intrinsic value and independence from its material premises,
given the fact that it could only be exercised in virtue of the possession of the means of
production, which alone confers power to the ruling class over the rest of society: then the
ideology of the ruling class would be a mere tool that could allow the perpetration and
conservation of the power originally acquired though economic predominance. Any
cultural dimension of power was relegated by Marx to the superstructure, and in fact the
only way the proletariat could fight capitalism was through a material revolution. Because
of his materialistic approach, Marx had mostly focussed his attention on a strictly economic
level, which led him to underestimate the importance of a more cultural dimension of
power, that would have been discovered and valorised years later by the Italian Marxist
Antonio Gramsci, who broadened Marxist archetypes beyond the purely exquisite
economic, material elements of societal power.

IV. Gramsci: a theory of Hegemony based on consent

The Italian political theorist Antonio Gramsci laid down, in his Quaderni del Carcere
written while in the fascist jails between 1929 and 1936, his theory of hegemony, which in
extremely simple words could be summed up to this: that the individual is not ruled by
force or coercion alone, but also by ideas. Although Marx had already stated that “the ruling
ideas of each age have ever been the ideas of its ruling class”23, he never gave a positive
relevance to the power of ideas and belief-systems, confined to the realm of the

21
Ibid. 1.
22
Ibid. at 67.
23
Marx, K. And Engels, F. (1959) The Communist Manifesto, Basic Writings on Politics and Philosophy, ed.
Lewis Feuer, New York, at. 26.

4
 superstructure, which did not enjoy any kind of autonomy from the determining economic
structure of society, but only worked as a subsidiary means through which the ruling class
could maintain its power. Years after Marx’s theory had been divulged, Gramsci
rediscovered and valorised a more exquisitely consensual side of power, which is naturally
not only exercised through external and material constraints, but also promoted through
persuasive values, belief, ideas, often times ideologies, which are therefore not seen by
Gramsci as mere mystifications of reality aimed at preventing the ruled working classes to
acquire a genuine class-consciousness anymore, but more as powerful means for the
subaltern classes to gain hegemony.
Gramsci’s “filosofia della prassi” (Philosophy of Praxis, as he names it) starts from a
traditional dichotomy, namely that between force and consent. Such a distinction had
already been proposed by another Italian political theorist, Niccolò Machiavelli, who
argued that a virtuous monarch had to rule both through “violenzia”24 (violence, coercion),
but also “con il favore del populo”25 (with the favour, consent of the people). Machiavelli
had identified the fundamentally congenital character of political power in the fact that, in
order for the rulers to maintain the longevity of their power, a proportionate balance of the
doses of force and consent was necessary. Gramsci had learnt the Machiavellian lesson: “ci
deve essere una ‘egemonia politica’ [...] e non bisogna contare solo sul potere e sulla forza
materiale che esso da’ per esercitare la direzione o la egemonia politica” 26. The original
assumption is in fact that the primacy of the dominant social group can be established in
two ways -not necessarily two strictly distinct ways, but more two sides of the same coin-
namely through “domination” and “intellectual and moral leadership” 27 . The first
represents an external form of social control, based on a reward-punishment system,
whereas the second consists of an internal form of social control, which is based on the
internalization of the dominant group’s values, beliefs and norms. Clearly an established
set of norms cannot be instilled in the masses only through their imposition, but it must be
promoted culturally, so that the masses will conform to it not because they feel obliged by
their rulers, but because of their internal consent.
Logically, a regime that is solely based on coercion or domination will resemble a
dictatorship, whereas the form of political rule based on consent is called by Gramsci
hegemony, namely “political leadership based on the consent of the led, a consent which is
secured by the diffusion and popularization of the world view of the ruling class”28. This
consensual aspect of political control must be already present before the social group can
ascend to a ruling position and it is pivotal that it is maintained throughout its ruling. In
fact if the masses are not ideologically cohesive to the ruling class, the latter’s leadership
won’t enjoy much longevity: this is the case of Italy during the Risorgimento, when, as
Gramsci argues29, the Moderates, who were leading the Mazzinian Party of Action, were

24
Machiavelli, N. (1961), Il Principe, a cura di Luigi Firpo, Einaudi Editore, at. 34.
25
Ibid.
26
Gramsci, A. (1977), Quaderni del Carcere, Volume I, Quaderni 1-5, Einaudi Editore, at. 41. “there can and
must be a ‘political hegemony’ even before the attainment of governmental power, and one should not count
solely on the power and material force which such a position gives in order to exercise political leadership or
hegemony”, from Hoare and Smith (1999).
27
Hoare, Q. And Smith, G. (1999) Selections from the Prison Notebooks of Antonio Gramsci. ElecBook, London,
at. 193.
28
Bates, T. (1975), Gramsci and the Theory of Hegemony, Journal of the History of Ideas, Vol. 36 No. 2, pp.
351-366, University of Pennsylvania Press, at. 352.
29
Gramsci, A. (1966), Il Risorgimento, Einaudi Editore, at. 106-107.

5
 seeking domination more than leadership, thence weren’t able to actively engage the
masses in a true, deep, active revolution that started from the bottom, but rather imposed
from the top a passive revolution (“rivoluzione passiva”). The Party of Action lacked the
“Jacobin” traits necessary to energetically involve the masses and was not able to achieve
hegemony. What leadership thence required, for Gramsci, is what was for Weber at the
basis of the “charismatic authority”, namely “devotion to the leader and the conviction that
his pronouncements embody the spirit and ideals of the movement [which] are the source
of the group's willing obedience to his commands”30.
What for Marx was a mere reflection of the economic structure of society became for
Gramsci the fulcrum to understanding authority: for Marx the ideological superstructure
was purely derivative from the economic and material substructure of society , whereas for
Gramsci the superstructure enjoyed a fundamental degree of autonomy and had to work in
cooperation with the material substructure in order for the ruling class to build a steady
structure of power. Gramsci rediscovered the fundamental importance of the
superstructure, which he conceived as being composed of two elements: the “political
society” and the “civil society”, the first coinciding with the “coercive machinery of the
State [...] for the purpose of assimilating the popular masses to the type of production and
economy” 31 , the second composed by the “educational, religious and associational
institutions”32, through which the ruling class spreads its ideology, its values and thence
obtains consent, which is the key to acquire hegemony. Political society works through
(mostly legal and institutional) coercion carried out by public institutions, usually on the
basis of a pre-set juridical order to which the group is expected to comply; civil society,
on the other hand, is based on consent and works through what in sociology is defined as
agents of socializations: socialization, as Giddings defines it, can be conceived as “the
development of a social nature or character -a social state of mind- in the individuals who
associate”33 and it essentially consists in the internalization of the models of thought and
social norms that are assumed as the cornerstone values of a group. For Gramsci, the task
to spread and instil in the masses the dominant models of thought was carried out by a
specific class, namely that of the intellectuals, although Gramsci himself warned that there
is no such thing as an independent class of intellectuals34, whereas they must be conceived
more as a broad social mass that exerts organisational functions latu sensu (“funzioni
organizzative in senso lato”35) in the field of production, culture, politics. The intellectuals
operate as agents of socialization, promoting the Weltanschauung of the ruling class
through private institutions such as schools, churches, cultural associations etc.
Gramsci’s attentive building of the superstructure, which was clearly lacking in Marx who
simply conceived civil society as a copy of the economic structure, is preparatory to the
full understanding of how the ruling class exerts its power over society. In particular, the
ruling class establishes its authority on both levels of the superstructure: on the level of the
civil society, the intellectuals play the fundamental role of disseminating in the masses the

30
Blau, P. M. (1963), Critical Remarks on Weber’s Theory of Authority, The American Political Science
Review, Vol. LVII No. 2, at 308.
31
Femia, J. V. (1987), Gramsci’s Political Thought: Hegemony, Consciousness and the Revolutionary process,
Oxford Scholarship Online, at. 4.
32
Ibid.
33
Giddings, F. H. (1897), The Theory of Socialization. A Syllabus of Sociological Principles, The Macmillan
Company, London, at. 2.
34
Ibid. 26, at 42.
35
Ibid. at 37.

6
 ideological seeds of the dominant class, of promoting to the masses the values and beliefs
of the ruling class, so to ensure their ‘spontaneous’, internal adhesion and consent -thus
allow hegemony-; to the extent that the intellectuals fail to engage to masses to the
ideological system of the ruling class, thus fail to create hegemony, the latter will rely more
on the level of the political society, that is of the “State’s coercive apparatus”36 consisting
in mere domination and coercion through the public institutions (police, courts, law
enforcement..), necessary to make those who do not spontaneously give their consent
conform to the norms that have been imposed. The mere coercive side of social control is
thus pre-set as a means through which the ruling class is able to exert its power during those
periods of crisis in which the masses refuse to consent and it cannot, by any means,
represent the sole pillar to support the authority of the ruling class. This must in primis
convert the intellectuals to its own cause, and ensure that they get the masses culturally,
morally, ideologically ready to conform to its ruling; in secundis, and only in exceptional
moments, it will make use of mere domination to maintain its power when the consent is
lacking.
A fundamental corollary of Gramsci’s theory of hegemony is that ideologies are seen,
unconventionally enough for a Marxist theorist, in a brand new light. For Marx, ideologies
were mere mystifications of reality, tools of domination for the bourgeoisie, who instilled
its own vision of the world to the proletariat to numb up its class consciousness and to hide
the contradictions and injustices of the capitalist mode of production. To such an extent, it
can be argued that Gramsci shared Marx’s vision of the bourgeoisie’s ideology: the
proletariat had internalized bourgeoisie beliefs, and thus gave its consent to the capitalist
socio-political order. What Gramsci saw that Marx had not is the fact the ideological
apparatus could and should have been deployed by the proletariat itself, in order to gain
hegemony, and accomplish its transition to power. If it’s true that “the struggle for
hegemony must be waged before the transition to power, as well as during and after it”37,
then it would be necessary for the proletariat to counteract the bourgeoisie ideology with
its own Weltanschauung, that should have been promoted through the intellectuals. The
ideological and cultural substratum of power becomes the key for a successful achievement
of hegemony by the working classes.
From this fundamental premise, Gramsci developed his conception the “war of
manoeuvre”38 (“guerra di movimento”39) and “war of position”40 (“guerra di posizione”41).
Through an analogy between political struggle and military conflict, Gramsci practically
demonstrated how important it was for the working classes to give up the idea of
conquering power through a merely material revolution that aimed at the direct
appropriation of the means of production through a direct aggression to the bourgeoisie’s
state -as a more materialistic reading of history, typical of Marx, would have suggested.
Because the hegemonic form of authority is the most durable and stable in time, based as
it is on the deep ideological bond between the rulers and the ruled, the working classes had
to give up trying to gain power through vacuous revolutionary attempts and must have

36
Ibid. 28, at 353.
37
Hobsbawn, E. J. (1977), Gramsci and Political Theory, from the Gramsci Conference “Marxism Today”, July
1977, at 210.
38
Ibid. 31, at 23.
39
Ibid. 26, at 122.
40
Ibid. 38.
41
Ibid. 39.

7
 brought the conflict primarily on an ideological field: a battle of ideas, instead of a violent
revolution, cold have led the proletariat to conquering the field of the civil society, through
which it could have imprinted its own values, its own beliefs, its own counter-ideology.
Gramsci thought that a revolution of the spirit, before a material one, necessarily had to
take place for the proletariat before it could gain its hegemony: realizing to have its own
class consciousness, making its interests clear and bold, bringing the intellectuals in their
sphere of influence and spreading its vision of the world through cultural means, that should
have been the strategy of the working classes.

V. Conclusion
Antonio Gramsci has been part of a new generation of Marxists, who felt the need to
reconsider some of the main concepts of Marxism, given the fact that during the first half
of the XX century the revolution hadn’t spread beyond the Russian border and that history
was not going the prophetic way announced by the earlier Marxists.
Upgrading the theory was necessary and the starting point had to be, for Gramsci, shifting
the focus from the mere economic core of society to culture, from the structure to the
superstructure and to develop the latter into something more than a mere reflection of the
first. Without undermining the cornerstone premises of Marxism, but more by
reconsidering and appreciating some neglected aspects, Gramsci built his theory of
hegemony .
Marx had posed a materialistic conception of history at the basis of his theory, the sole
approach that could grant some objectivity. Given such a premise, his discourse was then
blooming and growing from this seed, namely the material, economic structure of society:
it was the mode of production that would determine the social stratification, the structure
of power, the dominant rules and values, even culture. Anything falling outside the material
substructure was conceived as a mere dependent variable determined by the economic
structure. This approach unavoidably led to diminishing the importance and autonomous
relevance that culture enjoys in any society. Although Marx has recognised that ideas did
play an important role for the maintenance of power, he confined the belief-systems into
the broad field of the superstructure and merely conceived ideologies as camerae obscurae,
devoid of any positive value for the working classes, but tools of domination for the
bourgeoisie.
Gramsci had been perhaps more fascinated by the more spiritual side of human nature, the
one that generates culture, and was thence more attentive to analyse the way beliefs and
values can be deployed by the rulers to support their leadership, rather than domination,
their hegemony, rather than dictatorship. For Gramsci, consent weighted more than mere
brutal coercion, and he built his theory starting from the “psychological state that involves
acceptance of the socio-political order”42. The fil rouge of his theory is the concept of
hegemony, a form of leadership which is based on the consent of the masses, who need to
be ideologically cohesive with the rulers, in order for the latter to enjoy a form of power
which is culturally legitimized in the mind of the ruled. From this, the importance of the
role of the intellectuals, who mould the conscience of the masses and provide them with
the dominant models of thought, instilling the beliefs of the ruling class through the
institutions of the civil society, a new concept introduced in the realm of Marxism by
Gramsci, who focused more on the autonomous role played by the superstructure, which

42
Ibid. 31, at 12.

8
had always been conceived as a mirror of the material structure of society, before him.
Ideologies, mere mystifications of reality in Marx, become a fundamental tool for the
working classes to gain their own hegemony in society, through a revolution that tastes
more like a battle of ideas, a revolution of the spirit, more than a physical frontal fight
against capitalism.
The bond between Marx and Gramsci is indisputable, substantially they believed in the
same communist ideal, but theoretically their perspectives were deeply different in the fact
that for Marx material power, deriving from the material substructure of society, came
before intellectual power, which was a supplement deriving from the first; for Gramsci,
intellectual power over the culture and the consent that comes from it must have been a
premise to the material ruling of the working classes.

Bibliography
 Bates, T. (1975), Gramsci and the Theory of Hegemony, Journal of the History of
Ideas, Vol. 36 No. 2, pp. 351-366, University of Pennsylvania Press.

 Blau, P. M. (1963), Critical Remarks on Weber’s Theory of Authority, The

American Political Science Review, Vol. LVII No. 2, pp. 305-316.

 Davidson, A. (1977), Antonio Gramsci: towards an intellectual biography. Merlin

Press, London.

 D’Orsi, A. (2017), Gramsci. Una nuova biografia. Feltrinelli Editore, Milano.

 Durham, M. and Kellner, D. (2006), Media and Cultural Studies: Key works,
Second Edition. Blackwell Publishing Ltd.

 Engels F. (1998), The German Ideology : Including Theses on Feuerbach and

Introduction to The Critique of Political Economy. Great Books in Philosophy.
Amherst, N.Y.: Prometheus Books.

 Femia, J. V. (1987), Gramsci’s Political Thought: Hegemony, Consciousness and

the Revolutionary process, Oxford Scholarship Online.

 Giddings, F. H. (1897), The Theory of Socialization. A Syllabus of Sociological

Principles, The Macmillan Company, London.

 Gramsci, A. (1966) Il Risorgimento, Einaudi Editore.

 Gramsci, A. (1977), Quaderni del Carcere, Volume I, Quaderni 1-5, Einaudi

Editore.

 Hoare, Q. And Smith, G. (1999), Selections from the Prison Notebooks of Antonio
Gramsci. ElecBook, London.

 Machiavelli, N. (1961), Il Principe, a cura di Luigi Firpo, Einaudi.

9
 Màrkus G. (1983), Concepts of ideology in Marx, in “Canadian Journal of Political
and Social Theory/Revue canadienne de theorie politique et sociale”, Vol. 7, Nos.
1-2, (River/Printemps).

 Marx, K. And Engels, F. (1959), The Communist Manifesto, Basic Writings on

Politics and Philosophy, ed. Lewis Feuer, New York.

 Marx, K. (1976), Preface and Introduction to A Contribution To The Critique Of

Political Economy. Foreign Languages Press, Peking.

 Nocera, M. (2012), Biografia di Antonio Gramsci. Centro Gramsci di Educazione.

Available at: http://www.centrogramsci.it/?p=270.

 Letter from Antonio Gramsci to Tatiana, 3rd October 1932.

 Segatori R. (2018), Sociologia dei fenomeni politici. Editori Laterza.

10
11