One explicit way in which Antonio Gramsci (1891-1937) stated that he believed that no revolution would be forthcoming in Europe was when he said that power is not something which you can “seize” in a revolution. In other words, Gramsci never talked about the “seizure of State power”. Despite that, in a certain sense he did indeed believe in seizing state power; though not, of course, through violent revolution. Instead he talked of “becoming State”. That is, the Marxist vanguard - on behalf on the working class (of course) - would become the state. Alternatively they would “take over the institutions” of the state (the police, the law, political parties, the civil service, councils, etc.) and even the institutions which are not ordinarily deemed to be directly part of the state (e.g., the churches, charities, regional/national newspapers, the universities, schools, etc.). (Rudi Dutschke called this the “Long March through the Institutions”. )
Leftists like Gramsci believed, and still do, that without an hegemony, the working class - or Muslims today - would remain 'particularistic' or individualistic. And that is useless for those Leftists who want radical change, if not revolution. After all capitalists, according to Leftists, form a 'hegemonic class'. Therefore the working class - or Muslims today - must form a hegemonic class too.
However, traditional Marxists believed that such a hegemonic consciousness (or class consciousness) would come naturally to the working class as capitalism inevitably lead to the increasing polarisation of society. The more polarised, or poor, the working class became, the more class-conscious they would become. But, of course, that didn't happen. There was no necessarily increased polarisation. Thus the working class didn't become more class-conscious, hegemonic or revolutionary.
This is where the Gramscians, again, stepped in.
If economic alienation and polarisation didn't automatically make the working class more class-conscious (or if Marx's prophesy of “pauperisation” didn't occur), then Gramsci and other middle-class Marxists would make the workers class-conscious. As I said, according to Marx's “natural laws of capitalism”, the failures of capitalism would inevitably raise the consciousness off the working class and turn them into revolutionaries. That didn't happen.
In other words, middle-class Marxists had to provide the “hegemonic articulation” of what was best for the working class. Capitalism itself, or its increased polarisation, didn't do that.
Now how best to create a new working-class - or Muslim today - consciousness? Simple: take over the institutions in which ideas/ideologies - rather than “material conditions” - are primary. Or, alternatively, only by “becoming the State” - not by violently seizing the state (as in a revolution) - could the consciousness of the working class - or Muslims today - be changed in the ways middle-class Leftists wanted it to change.
Thus Leftists have conquered many institutions of the UK and America and therefore created, just as Gramsci wanted, a Leftist 'hegemony' (even if they have indeed “lost the economic war”). They have taken over large parts of the following: the legal system, the universities, councils, the charities, the BBC, the press, various churches, the police and so on.
Take the important example of the 'rights' industry. These members of the Leftist Establishment (or hegemony) fight only for the 'rights' of the Islamists, terrorists and Leftists who they see as being against the ‘capitalist state’. Fighting for the rights of these people will further 'radicalise' the situation in the America and UK.
So this is not, then, about justice or the innocence of Muslim defendants (who often have a mountain of evidence against them). It's primarily about cultural Marxism from the top; as well as the continuing Leftist Long March through those remaining institutions which are not, as yet, completely under their control.
Notes on American Thinker Comments:
1) Antonio Gramsci's claim to fame, as it were, was to be the first Marxist to fully enunciate this view that middle-class Leftists should “take over the institutions”, rather than place all their bets on a (violent) revolution which would also led by middle-class Leftists.
Of course I don't believe for one moment that all those who've taken over the institutions, and who propagate Marxist/Leftists views and causes from them, have read Gramsci or even that they've read Marx (first hand). What often happens is that philosophers' and theorists' ideas are regurgitated in the universities and then put into more palatable or understandable forms. And from there they are filtered down to the regional newspapers, councils, charities, law firms, etc.
That's even the case with an esoteric philosopher like Jacques Derrida. Hardly anyone understands a word of his pretentious prose. Yet, without a shadow of a doubt, his views on various things have indeed filtered down to - if not the street, then to many offices, institutions, law firms, etc. on the street – not only the universities.
It's also like the Leftist theory that “only whites can be racist”. Now there is indeed some Marxist theories behind this Leftist catechism. Yet 90% of the Leftists who believe and enunciate it wouldn't be able to defend or even state those theories. As is often the case, most Leftists believe that only whites can be racist as a matter of (Leftist) faith. Don't expect the majority of them to argue their case. And besides which, they don't give anyone a “platform” to contradict them anyway. So that effectively means that most Leftists don't even need to know the theories behind what they believe. All they need do is believe.
2) A commentator said that most workers either don't understand or don't agree with the stuff Gramsci and the Gramscians put out. I think that's the intention of these middle-class Gramscians and it was even the intention of Gramsci himself.
The Left controls the whole "hegemony" show. Middle-class Leftists control all the Gramscian malarkey (what the Leftist hegemony offers). And that's primarily because they gain political (as well as financial) power from their control of “discourse”. Workers don't and they never did.
So, as I said, this is essentially about power. Middle-class Leftists always resented - and were jealous of - the total power they said that the "capitalist class" had. They wanted all that power for themselves. And today, to a large extent, they've got that power.
Nonetheless, the revolution must also remain "permanent"; otherwise the "counter-revolutionaries" may fight back and gain back some ground (as Trotsky himself said). Thus the Left (or at least Trotskyists/progressives and communists) will never be satisfied until they have as much power and control as, say, Lenin, Stalin, Chairman Mao, Pol Pot, etc.
And that's why Leftism automatically leads to the Gulag/totalitarianism. That is, unless it is counteracted.