Why Dissidents Fail

Twitter is only the latest battlefield: Gramsci saw this coming

A mural by artist Jorit of Antonio Gramsci in Florence

Dissidents are winning elections, but they are losing the culture war. Elon Musk’s purchase of Twitter gave hope to the platform’s dissident users that they will finally be able to express themselves freely, without fear of being censored into the virtual abyss. But Mr. Musk recently noted that advertising companies have pulled out of Twitter since his takeover, incurring millions in losses. These developments shed light on an uncomfortable reality: free speech is becoming increasingly elusive. A few powerful figures defying the regime’s consensus are necessary, but not sufficient to change the course our society has taken.

Antonio Gramsci, the former head of the Italian Communist Party, perhaps the most influential political theorist for the Left, offered lessons that dissidents of all stripes can learn from. In his book Prison Notebooks, written while imprisoned by Benito Mussolini’s fascist regime, he coined the term “cultural hegemony”, by which he meant how, “In the new order, socialism will triumph by first capturing the culture via infiltration of schools, universities, churches and the media by transforming the consciousness of society.”

Gramsci was perhaps the most prominent founder of neo-Marxism, a movement that was born to explain the failure of 20th century communism. Karl Marx’s original theory on history was named dialectical materialism; it was composed by a base, defined as the mode of production (in modern society, that was capitalism) which dictated the super-structure, defined as the cultural institutions that make up the dominant ideology. Marx’s dialectical materialism follows Friedrich Hegel’s “dialectics”, whereby a thesis is confronted by an opposing antithesis, resulting in a synthesis which unifies the two opposed concepts. In contrast to Hegel, Marx believed the material world had precedence over the ideal world, hence the additional term “materialism”.  However, Gramsci attempted to break away from Marx’s material determinism. On his understanding, Marx was wrong—the false consciousness of the proletariat would be awakened, not by overthrowing the means of production, but the other way around; by taking over the cultural institutions which shape the dominant ideology. No violent revolution was necessary: control of the superstructure of these cultural institutions was enough for this to trickle down to the economic base. It was a continuation, and simultaneously an inversion of Marx’s theory of history.

What lessons can neo-Marxists like Gramsci teach dissidents today about the importance of cultural institutions in defining the dominant ideology? I will use dissidents as an umbrella term to identify today’s intellectuals who loosely disagree with the dominant neoconservative, neoliberal and progressive ideology: they include Christian traditionalists, classical liberals, new-right wingers, and old-school leftists. I will amalgamate these various emerging ideologies into a single term, despite their significant differences, because they share a common element in their beliefs: they seek to find an alternative to the prevailing orthodoxy. They also share a failure: being able to replace it.

It is important to note how modern right-wingers have perhaps inadvertently understood the value of Gramsci’s theory. Conservatives tend to despise neo-Marxism, the most notable figure vociferously opposed to its thesis is clinical psychologist Jordan Peterson. But some conservatives have adopted its premise. Andrew Breitbart famously said “politics is downstream from culture”, which is a succinct way of defining Gramsci’s notion that culture dictates politics, not the other way round. Trump’s social media platform—“Truth Social”—is remarkably post-modern in its name, as it implies that truth is a mere social construct (although neo-Marxism and post-modernism are differing ideologies, they have significant overlaps). But right-wingers, in contrast to the neo-Marxists of the day, have failed to capture the cultural institutions that are necessary to win the culture war.

To be clear, the ideas of contemporary dissidents are manifestly successful at the voting booth. The democratic victories of Brexit in the U.K., Donald Trump in the U.S. and Giorgia Meloni in Italy, to name a few, testify to the fact that the establishment, which has largely dominated Western societies since the end of the Cold War, is no longer immune to electoral challenge. Yet it is remarkable how this electoral dissatisfaction fails to translate into the cultural architecture, where the Overton window continues to shift in an opposite direction: increasing wars abroad, economic policies that are leading to a recession, combined with a belligerent progressive agenda that dismantles and redefines the very language with which we have come to define our existence. In 2016, before Trump won the election, notions like the West being embroiled in a potential new world war, inflationary policies or puberty blockers being made readily available to children, would be considered absurd to the point of ridicule; today they are widely accepted as the new normal. If you voice anything other than unequivocal support, you might be censored from social media, that is, if you’re lucky; if you’re a public figure, you might suffer ostracism and catastrophic financial harm that is apt to make your life living hell. Curiously, the ideas that are losing the democratic vote, are the ones that increasingly define and constrain our lives outside the halls of power.

Dissidents therefore fail to hold power where it truly lies, in the cultural institutions that shape our society’s consciousness. It is important to note that these rebellious thinkers are successful in online spaces, notably in creating vibrant intellectual communities through social media networks, YouTube channels, podcasts, and online outlets and magazines. These means allow them to sway public opinion: it is through these channels that many have been awakened to the “lies” perpetuated by the mainstream media and establishment politicians. These dissenting thinkers dominate an online political space, which has created a prosperous culture of its own. But therein lies the problem: it is predominantly a political culture, and one that remains excluded from the cultural, institutional web of our society.

Art, music, poetry, literature, fiction, theatre, faith. These means provide meta-narratives outside of politics to instil purpose and transcendence, they enable us to live in, and contribute to, a society that embraces every aspect of our humanity. It is why I have joined a Renaissance arts academy: to take part and contribute to society in a way that brings meaning and significance to my political and journalistic endeavours. I want to see a Renaissance arts revival, but how can I will that movement into existence without being a part of its creation? After all, what is politics without culture?

This phenomenon can be defined as a vicious cycle; dissidents are so often fixated with their online political commentary, that they fail to see or appreciate the meaning of life outside this political vortex. The online space in which dissidents are forcibly relegated only reinforces their inability to take part in cultural life: by working predominantly online, in an echo chamber, it is increasingly unlikely for them to shape the living, breathing spaces of their communities outside of their political silos. These dissenters often look down upon participants in these communities as “normies” (a pejorative term for people living normal lives), who haven’t been “redpilled” (a term used to define those who live their lives unaware of how bleak the state of society is). An entire lexicon was created to create a sense of solidarity, knowledge and power among this political fringe. But “normies” hold the keys to the changes dissidents so desperately want to see in society, and engaging them without obnoxiousness, hostility or the use of obscure neologisms is essential: we need new artists, poets, architects, musicians, teachers, professors, engineers, investors, all steeped into this new cultural reality. They are crucial to shaping the perceptions of virtue, value and beauty in a changing society and, without them, dissidents are destined to create parallel, subordinate cultural spheres without the means to influence the mainstream culture they decry.

Dissidents today so often seek to become political commentators lamenting their plight in an online space. While these lamentations are legitimate and have borne their fruits in terms of democratic victories, they only fortify their marginalisation from the cultural power structures necessary to effect meaningful change. If dissidents want to win the culture war over people’s consciousness, they need to start, as Gramsci argued, influencing, replacing or creating schools, universities, media, places of worship, entertainment. If they continue to act as outsiders, that is the fate that will await them. But if they start participating in life actively, away from their online political prism, perhaps Elon Musk won’t have to worry about the backlash from his purchase of Twitter. The advertisement companies now punishing him would be composed of people who would reward his efforts to limit the censorship on free expression. Gramsci said, “The challenge of the modern world is to live without illusions and without becoming disillusioned.” If dissidents want to succeed, the illusion that participation in an increasingly insular online political culture will effect meaningful change in society is one they can’t afford.