Cultural Hegemony

Antonio Gramsci created this theory which I feel is true in the U.S.

Do you agree with this theory? If not, please point out the problems with this.

Gramsci argued that the failure of the workers to make an anti-capitalist revolution was due to the successful capture of the workers' ideology, self-understanding, and organizations by the hegemonic (ruling) culture. In other words, the perspective of the ruling class had been absorbed by the masses of workers. In advanced capitalist societies hegemonic cultural innovations such as compulsory schooling, mass media, and popular culture had indoctrinated workers to a false consciousness. Instead of working towards a revolution that would truly serve their collective needs, workers in "advanced" societies were listening to the rhetoric of nationalist leaders, seeking consumer opportunities and middle-class status, embracing an individualistethos of success through competition, and/or accepting the guidance of bourgeois religious leaders.

Gramsci therefore argued for a strategic distinction between a "war of position" and a "war of manoeuvre". The war of position is a culture war in which anti-capitalist elements seek to gain a dominant voice in mass media, mass organizations, and educational institutions to heighten class consciousness, teach revolutionary analysis and theory, and inspire revolutionary organization. Following the success of the war of position, communist leaders would be empowered to begin the war of manoeuvre, the actual insurrection against capitalism, with mass support.

John Reed, in his article Bolshevism in America explains exaclty with Gramsci's Cultural Hegemony:

The American working class is politically and economically the most uneducated working class in the world. It believes what it reads in the capitalist press. It believes that the wage-system is ordained by God. It believer that Charles Schwab is a great man, because he can make money. It believes that Samuel Gompers and the American Federation of Labor will protect it as much as it can be protected. It believes that under our system of Government the Millenium is possible. When the Democrats are in power, it believes the promises of the Republicans, and vice versa. It believes that Labor laws mean what they say. It is prejudiced against Socialism.

http://www.marxists.org/archive/reed/1918/bolsh.htm

What Reed says is revisionism based on lack of confidence in the working class. The American workers have done progressive things. But the struggles fall short because of objective conditions. An economic crisis of greater magnitude than the depression and a general attitude of anti-racism were not present in Reeds day. His analysis is based on making revolution under very difficult conditions. The US bosses have always relied on expansion and consumerism for a safety valve. Both of those are in decline as the US fades as a world super power.

I did some studying of this, and I certainly agree with that idea of "cultural hegemony". It is evident in the labour aristocracy---the workers who have been bought off with the products of cheaper third-world labour.
It makes a lot of sense when one considers the three-world model.
I admire Gramsci for standing up as he did to fascism in Italy, even when it meant being thrown in prison pretty much until his death.

I know this is a bit late, but what DiaMat said has some truth, although I would agree with John Reed in this case. Yes, American workers have been progressive to some extent the past, but in many cases, they have been very misguided.