West Bengal Political Science Review | Vol. XXVIII, 2026 | ISSN: 2230-8296

---

This is a common knowledge that Lenin underscored that the capitalist state is the weapon of the bourgeois class, an organ of class domination founded on coercion; the governed common people although exploited in the capitalist system still obey the bourgeois state because they are repressed by the police, army, bureaucracy, administration, judiciary, prison, etc which constitute the violent instruments of the state. 

Gramsci’s Hegemony:

Gramsci as a Marxist of course basically subscribed to Lenin’s formulation, yet Gramsci further added that the modern bourgeois state is a combination of two: first. Political Society based on force, and second, Civil Society grounded on consent. Gramsci observed, “State = political society + civil society, in other words hegemony protected by the armour of coercion” (Gramsci, 1992, 263). The Political Society is composed of the police, army, bureaucracy, administration, judiciary, prison and other coercive instruments of the state; conversely, the Civil Society consists of private, voluntary, apparently neutral, and independent institutions which engender common sense reproducing consent resulting from Cultural-Ideological-Moral Hegemony of the ruling bourgeoisie which reins the thought process of the governed people that lends legitimacy to rule. Gramsci perceived: “The ‘normal’ exercise of hegemony on the now classical terrain of the parliamentary regime is characterised by the combination of force and consent, which balance each other reciprocally, without force predominating excessively over consent. Indeed, the attempt is always made to ensure that force will appear to be based on the consent of the majority, expressed by the so-called organs of public opinion—newspapers and associations—which, therefore, in certain situations, are artificially multiplied. Between consent and force stands corruption/fraud (which is characteristic of certain situations when it is hard to exercise the hegemonic function, and when the use of force is too risky)” (Gramsci, 1992, 80).

In order to clarify his thought, Gramsci elaborated at length: “What we can do, for the moment, is to fix two major superstructural “levels”: the one that can be called “civil society”, that is the ensemble of organisms commonly called “private”, and that of “political society” or “the State”. These two levels correspond on the one hand to the function of “hegemony” which the dominant group exercises throughout society and on the other hand to that of “direct domination” or command exercised through the State and “juridical” government. The functions in question are precisely organisational and connective. The intellectuals are the dominant group’s “deputies” exercising the subaltern functions of social hegemony and political government” (Gramsci, 1992, 12). With a view to dispel the confusion as to whether the consent is engineered or spontaneous, Gramsci further added: “These comprise: The “spontaneous” consent given by the great masses of the population to the general direction imposed on social life by the dominant fundamental group; this consent is “historically” caused by the prestige (and consequent confidence) which the dominant group enjoys because of its position and function in the world of production. The apparatus of state coercive power which “legally” enforces discipline on those groups who do not “consent” either actively or passively. This apparatus is, however, constituted for the whole of society in anticipation of moments of crisis of command and direction when spontaneous consent has failed” (Ibid.).

For Gramsci, the radical revolutionaries who seek to bring about a fundamental transformation of society must seriously peruse and perceive the nature of class dynamics of civil society. Valeriano Ramos, Jr., noted that the idea of hegemony first appeared in Gramsci’s “Notes on the Southern Question” (1926), described as a system of class alliance in which a “hegemonic class” worked out political leadership over “subaltern classes” by “winning them over.” The idea referred to the Italian proletariat in terms of this “winning over”: the proletariat must get rid of its class corporatism with the purpose of incorporating other classes, particularly the peasants, in a system of alliances inside which it could honestly be the leader in the society. In fact, the Turin communists addressed the problem of the hegemony of the proletariat.  It referred to the issue of the social basis of the proletarian dictatorship and the workers’ State. The proletariat can become the leading and the dominant class insofar as it can create a system of alliances for rallying the majority of the toiling people against capitalism and the bourgeois State. In the Italian context, this implied attainment of the consent of the peasant masses. In the Prison Notebooks Gramsci gave a clearer characterization of the idea that it is more than a simple class alliance and political leadership by incorporating intellectual and moral leadership. Thus, Hegemony assumes that the “hegemonic class” counts in the interests of the classes and groups over whom it has hegemony. Some balance between the hegemonic class and the subaltern classes is needed whereby the hegemonic class has to concede to some costs to its corporate interests. Gramsci asserted, “Undoubtedly the fact of hegemony presupposes that account be taken of the interests and the tendencies of the groups over which hegemony is to be exercised, and that a certain compromise equilibrium should be formed— in other words, that the leading group should make sacrifices of an economic-corporate kind” (Gramsci, 1992, 161). 

Furthermore, besides ethico-political leadership hegemony occasions economic leadership. The hegemonic class has to be a fundamental class positioned at either of the two poles in the relations of production. Hegemony confers a class the leadership role in the economic, ethico-political, and intellectual domains, yet surrendering some of its interests. “Gramsci’s concept of power is based simply on the two moments of power relations–Dominio (or coercion) and Direzione (or consensus). These two moments are essential elements, indeed the constitutive elements of a state of balance, a state of equilibrium between social forces identified as the leaders and the led. This state of balance consists of a coalition of classes constituting an organic totality within which the use of force is risky unless there emerges an organic crisis which threatens the hegemonic position and the ruling position of the leading class in the hegemonic system” (Valeriano Ramos, Jr., 1982). Here, consensus outweighs coercion. Gramsci emphasised that consensus is to be secured in the civil society where it reposes. Conversely, force resides in the political society. So, hegemonic rule, is a balance between political society and civil society. The state represents the hegemony of one group over society through private organizations (church, trade unions, schools, etc.) in equilibrium with the coercive organizations (the state, the bureaucracy, the military, the police, and the courts). Articulation of ideological elements into a world-view assists as the fusing principle for a collective will and this world view brings together classes into a hegemonic bloc. This hegemony or predominance by consent is bonded by a common world-view or ideology prevailing in civil society and this hegemony calls for the leadership from a fundamental class. Gramsci enunciated the differences between the situations in pre-revolutionary Russia where the class struggle was a ‘war of manoeuvre’ and that in Western Europe where the class struggle would be a ‘war of position’. 

I find a kind of conclusive explanation of Hegemony in the following long excerpt: “In my opinion, the most reasonable and concrete thing that can be said about the ethical State, the cultural State, is this: every State is ethical in as much as one of its most important functions is to raise the great mass of the population to a particular cultural and moral level, a level (or type) which corresponds to the needs of the productive forces for development, and hence to the interests of the ruling classes. The school as a positive educative function, and the courts as a repressive and negative educative function, are the most important State activities in this sense: but, in reality, a multitude of other so-called private initiatives and activities tend to the same end—initiatives and activities which form the apparatus of the political and cultural hegemony of the ruling classes” (Gramsci, 1992, 258).

Dominant Elements of Hegemony in Indian Society:

In India, the civil society might be much smaller and far less influential as compared to that in the West, yet the Cultural-Ideological-Moral Hegemony which is constantly produced and reproduced in the Indian civil society certainly impacts the values and views of the common people of the greater society. We, therefore, need to probe into the dominant elements of Hegemony in our thoughts, values, culture and ideology in India, which thus legitimize the elite rule through often essentializing the stereotypes of development, modernity, workers, peasants, Adivasis, women, LGBTQIA+, Dalit, Shudra, Muslim etc and on the basis of that exploration we would further investigate into the Marxist idea of Injustice and consider the necessity of a more inclusive Marxism.

What are these prevailing elements of Hegemony in Indian society? As we categorise them, they are: 

1. Morals that Justify Devastation of Nature: Thoughts legitimize Development and mastery over Nature through huge productivity using advancement in science and technology ensuring economic growth and heavy industrialization, although resulting in environmental degradation, Green House Gas emission, air pollution, climate change, Anthropocene, ecological imbalance, dams, mines, deforestation, damage of bio-diversity and plants, violation of animal rights, in complete oblivion of sustainable development in the wake of a semi-colonial imitation of the industrial West. 

2. Rationalization of Neo-liberal Values in Defence of Class Exploitation: Neo-liberal ideas of global corporate capital fashioning selfish rat-race among individuals for becoming wealthier, marked by commodity fetishism, consumerism, alienation and reification often endorse the role of the state in maximizing market economy. Bourgeois values approve of economic exploitation of the workers and peasants in opposition to class struggle (invoking moral ratification of three farmers’ acts withdrawn in the face of relentless struggle, yet promises belied, four labour codes), exploitation of migrant labourers as well as those in other informal and unorganised sectors (delivery boys and girls, contractual workers, sex-workers, child labourers, gig workers, call centres, IT sectors).

3. Ethical Sanctions for the Suppression of Community Rights: Beliefs overpowering pluralism, heterogeneity, tolerance, difference and federalism produce (we may lament for the way the Indian Left indiscriminately repudiated identity politics) discriminatory attitudes and practices against communities such as those based on: a) Gender, b) Adivasi, Scheduled Tribes etc. c) Caste, Scheduled Castes and Other Backward Classes, race, ethnicity, and, d) Minorities: religious, linguistic, etc. 

a) Gender: Deeply entrenched patriarchal outlook unscrupulously recommend for gender discrimination against women and LGBTQIA+ which pervades society as a result of which feminism and women’s movements are trivialized and ridiculed, while non-male persons are treated as sex objects, inferior, dependent, and incomplete human being.

b) Adivasi: Humiliation of Adivasi (roughly ST) life and culture in the plains, forests and hills has been an inescapable marker of elitist mentality since the former are viewed as sub-human barbarians, ultimately validating the Development projects through forced eviction of the indigenous people and plunder of ‘Jal, jangal, jamin’ by corporate capital.

c) Caste: Age-old beliefs in a sort of semi-feudal Brahmanical casteism morally authorise dehumanisation of lowered castes: Dalits (roughly SC) and Shudras (roughly OBC) which lead to brutal discrimination, untouchability, restrictions on food, life style and marriage. This is accompanied by ethnic bias and racism against many people of north-east having Mongoloid features and many people of south India having darker skin as well as dusky women all over the country.

d) Minorities: Prejudices against respect for the Minority Rights expected of a democracy generally prevail: (i) Religious Minority such as Muslims and Christians are being subjected to atrocities while secular values often compromised, appeasement of religious leaders of the Minorities as well as the Majorit, hate politics, communal polarisation and majoritarianism become rampant. However, Religious Minority  rights is a problem of the whole Indian sub-continent, including Bangladesh, Pakistan, Sri Lanka; (ii) Linguistic Minority Rights have been vulnerable since long; obviously, the presence of  thousands of provincial, regional, local, and marginalised languages and dialects impede the authoritarian  policy of imposition of Hindi, a fact which frequently features in the politics of south India; (iii) Others.

4. Arguments invoking Righteousness for Abrogation of Individual Rights: Dominant arguments undermining the liberty, dignity and rights of the Individual prescribe constraints to be clamped upon freedom of expression, criticism, debate, criticism of government and the efforts to suppress the process of deepening democracy.

Contemporary Indian situation is certainly different from the conditions prevailing in Italy in Gramsci’s time. But the notion of Cultural-Ideological-Moral Hegemony is significantly helpful in comprehending the whole system of class exploitation and other kinds of oppression which the various segments of the people of India constantly countenance. There is no doubt that existing Cultural-Ideological-Moral Hegemony is just as legitimising and reinforcing deprivation as in Gramsci’s Italy. Following Gramsci, we may therefore conclude that there is the urgent need for constructing a progressive, socialistic and emancipatory Counter-Hegemony associated with protest and resistance. Marxism in India has largely been guided by dogmatism, and time and again by historical and economic determinism, and its central attention has been drawn to class interests and class exploitation, designating politics as class struggle resulting from economy especially the mode of production, and state as an organ of class domination, discounting countless forms of non-class social and cultural oppression. The Indian Marxists did not seek to analyse and theorise the other kinds of oppression and subjugation, which are neither the same as economic exploitation, nor necessarily class-based (e.g., those based on issues like nature and environment, gender and sex, caste, race and ethnicity, Adivasi and tribals, religious and linguistic minorities, individual rights and democracy, etc). While Marxism resolves that all varieties of discrimination must be eradicated, it also affirms that they are at the end of the day produced by economic and class exploitation. It refutes the fundamental fact that they may also have autonomous existence undetermined by economy or class. Consequently, it concludes that through class struggle all systems of Oppression can eventually be done away with. Orthodox Marxism, therefore, appreciably spearheaded its heroic efforts to uproot class exploitation, but a pertinent question arises: What will happen to the other kinds of brutal oppression against various segments of the people? Can the Marxists, who claim to be the staunchest warriors on the side of the people, overlook these oppressions (genocide of Muslims, lynching of Dalit, mass rape, destruction of forests, eviction of tribals, suppression of critical voices, etc. which are derived from caste structure or the system of patriarchy etc.) and refuse to take up responsibility and commitment? In this essay I would seek to find out a theoretical solution to this dilemma by taking resort to Marx’s concern for moral justice underpinning his call for class struggle.

Understanding the Nuances of ‘Exploitation’, ‘Suffering’ and ‘Injustice’:

Marx censured capitalism for systemic exploitation and alienation, generating Suffering which is not inescapable because of fate; it is the symptom of historical systems, conspicuously capitalism. Marx’s denunciation of suffering was radical pointing to exterminate the social structures that make such suffering systemic. As exploitation is embedded in the mode of production while law, politics, election, government, judiciary, legislature, culture, ideology, education, media and religion legitimise it, suffering is not restricted simply to poor wages or adverse working conditions; it is on the contrary a structural disorder and absence of class consciousness maintains suffering. Marx also explicated that religion performs a complex moral role in suffering. By projecting suffering as heavenly designed, religion can morally validate inequality and avert our attention from the socio-economic material settings which are actually instrumental to suffering. 

I would argue that resistance is invoked not only by Suffering but also through Ethical judgement. Therefore, a more inclusive moral notion of a blending of both economic exploitation and non-economic oppression is necessary, with an extensive ethico-political delineation, which can be more effective in bringing together myriad suffering sections of people. I would suggest that an ethico-political term might be more suitable than neo-liberal hegemony. No doubt economic exploitation of global corporate capitalism and semi-feudalism pervades our society and prevalent is neo-liberal hegemony, a concept made prominent by Laclau and Mouffe who were inspired by Gramsci’s concept of Hegemony. Laclau and Mouffe elucidated the radical democratic agenda of constructing an alternative counter-hegemony unified through ‘chain of equivalence’ against neo-liberal hegemony. But my contention is that opposition to neo-liberal hegemony might not be sufficient to mobilise all segments of people under a unified agenda, because different sections of people might be subjected to different perceptions of emancipation, in terms of class, caste, gender, race, tribal identity etc. For instance, some believe in an emancipatory role of neo-liberal hegemony posited against patriarchy or caste. So a more generic concept of Injustice, which has a broader ethico-political-socio-economic connotation rather than being only economic, might be more legitimate and effective to mobilise the various sections of the people. It must be noted that discrimination against gender, caste, Adivasis, minorities, etc. have existed for thousands of years; in addition, various forms of Injustice buttress one another. They are conditioned by the economy, without being necessarily determined by it and in turn, they themselves condition the economy. Thus, this notion of Injustice can be an instance of an entry point to a non-reductionist, non-essentialist (Richard Wolff) and overdetermined (Louis Althusser) understanding of irreducible dialectics. It embraces all such sources of suffering which are conceptually discernible, but intersecting and overlapping in tangible social life: a) Class-based economic exploitation, b) All forms of social, political and cultural oppression. 

I will further contend that beyond the whole lot, two driving forces have serious bearings on human resistance: i. Suffering, and ii. Injustice. The point underpins that humans are animals, but normally, they also have a sense of moral judgement which stimulates in them an awareness of Injustice to which they are just as sensitive as to Suffering. Thus, Marx, Engels, Lenin, and many others who came from a more secure economic status still condemned capitalism as unfair. Or, how did Marxism morally justify its mission of extinction of class exploitation? Such a programme would have no charm nor rightfulness if class exploitation is not condemned as morally wrong. During Swadeshi Movement of 1903-08, Non-cooperation Movement of the early 1920s, Satyagraha of early 1930s, Quit India movement of 1942, the Indian freedom fighters, such as M. K. Gandhi, Subhaschandra Bose, Kshudiram, Binoy, Badal, Dinesh, Aruna Asaf Ali, Pritilata Waddedar, Masterda Surya Sen, Abdul Gaffar Khan,  Bhagat Singh, Madan Lal Dhingra, Asfakullah, Bina Das, Kalpana Datta, Muhammad Ali, Jatin Das, Matongini Hazra, the Azad Hind Fouz warriors (Shah Nawaz Khan, Laxmi Sehgal, Habibur Rahman, Abid Hasan et al) and others were inspired by moral ideals and embraced intense sufferings perpetrated by the British government. They believed that whatever they were going to do were meant for a just cause. In case of several religious occasions also, we find that devotees voluntarily welcome suffering because they believe that they are serving a spiritual duty, e.g., Hindus on the occasion of Kumbha Mela or Charak or any pilgrimage and the Muslims on the occasion of Muharram or Haj. Sufferings are, therefore, generally of two types: 1. Morally legitimate and 2. Morally illegitimate. Morally illegitimate Suffering is perceived as Injustice which invokes Resistance in the sufferer. Orthodox Marxism presumed that class exploitation of the workers by the bourgeoisie causes suffering for the labouring classes which leads to class struggle. However, I would argue that Suffering is caused not only by class exploitation, but also by other forms of Injustice. Thus, 

Resistance ← is caused by (Suffering + Immorality)

Suffering + Immorality = Injustice = class exploitation + non-class oppression.              

Since Injustice includes class exploitation, we had better insert the concept of ‘Injustice’ as a more inclusive concept in Marxist analysis. Certainly, the exploited working class and peasants are ‘phenomenologically’ (in the sense once Dipesh Chakrabarty used it) opposed to their ‘lived experience’ of Suffering immediately and directly triggered by Class Exploitation. Obviously, like other animals, human beings try to get rid of suffering, and resist suffering in every possible way but they are very cautious about the risks of bouncing back of repression and subsequent suffering. There is no doubt that Suffering directly goes against the interest of the people, therefore, at the first instance, people try to spontaneously react against suffering while they are guided by the simple utilitarian logic as was elaborated by Jeremy Bentham. Orthodox Marxism gave emphasis on this spontaneous response against suffering which induces the proletariat to go ahead with class struggle. If the resistance further invites more intense suffering then this fact is likely to desist them from struggle. But it is not so simple because there is a factor of moral dimension as well. Orthodox Marxism in India was so much overwhelmed by the dimension of Suffering caused by class exploitation that it almost ignored the dimension of Injustice.

Marx on Morality:

Now the question is: Was Marx at all concerned with the question of morality or Injustice? Some eminent philosophers mentioned the opposition between the young, ethically-minded, “humanist” Early Marx and the mature, “scientific”, Late Marx (Althusser, 1969). Let us look further at Marx’s views on morality and justice.

Marx criticised capitalism, for exploitation and alienation, which produce Suffering and Suffering is bound to the material conditions of life. In Economic and Philosophical Manuscript, Marx identified several dimensions of alienation: (1) alienation from the product. (2) alienation from the production process. (3) alienation from other people, (4) alienation from their own species-being. 

For Marx, the predominant ideas of ‘justice’, ‘rights’, ‘freedom’ and “morality” under capitalism were not timeless, universal truths but rather ideological constructs used by the bourgeoisie to legitimize their power by inverting the true nature of social relations. In The German Ideology, Marx and Engels famously claimed that the ruling ideas of any epoch are the ideas of the ruling class. The moral principles of capitalism such as the sanctity of private property and the value of hard labour are ideological illusions that mask its exploitative realities. This shift from surface appearances to the underlying essence requires a thorough understanding of society to reveal injustice. Marx saw morality and justice as products of specific historical and economic conditions. By examining the Economic & Philosophic Manuscripts, The German Ideology, and the Critique of the Gotha Programme we see how Marx pronounced that the moral rules to regulate behaviour will fade out when individuals would naturally act to foster cooperation and communal well-being, actions which would conform to their unalienated human nature in communism, ensuring unalienated human flourishing. While in the initial phase of socialism, the principle of distribution is “from each according to his ability, to each according to his work”, in the higher phase of communism the principle will be qualitatively raised to “from each according to his ability, to each according to his needs.” This morality would be based on the free development of each individual as the condition for the free development of all. Marx’s critique of morality is thus intertwined with his theory of alienation since the morality of capitalism emphasizes individual’s private self-interest, competition, and property rights which is a symptom of alienation. 

Here I would mention that Vanessa Christina Wills, in her PhD thesis entitled “Marx and Morality” (2011), elaborately discussed Marx’s views on morality, and I have largely borrowed from her analysis. Following her, I traced Marx’s moral thought chronologically, from early works (The Holy Family, The Economic and Philosophic Manuscripts of 1844 and The German Ideology), middle works  (The Communist Manifesto and On the Poverty of Philosophy), and late works (Grundrisse and Capital). In contrast to Althusser, we would argue that in matters of morality and justice, there is a continuity between Marx’s early works and his later ones while his interest in philosophical questions persisted as he engaged with economic themes. Throughout his works, Marx maintained that “man is the highest being for man,” and argued in favour of creating “rich individuals”. 

In the opinion of Marx, communism will realize “a new manifestation of the forces of human nature and a new enrichment of human nature” (“Human Requirements and the Division of Labour,” MECW 3:306). Under capitalism, Marx emphasized, “It is not only that man has no human needs—even his animal needs cease to exist” (MECW 3:308). I would claim that Suffering is largely connected with the basic or natural needs of humans as animals, while Justice is generally concerned with the human needs. Marx condemned capitalism in that it restricts human needs. The work loses its human character and becomes a denial of the human being, rather than a realization of him in the external world. This disruption of teleology occurs not only for the industrial worker; it takes place in all human activity, including intellectual and political activity. The economic laws, rather than human beings, govern production; as humans produce, regularities appear with the appearance of external laws of production; finally a world which humans produced appears to be independent and hostile to humans. Marx proclaimed that class society constitutes the pre-history of man while a human history can begin with humanity’s rational control over its powers and over the natural world. Thus, the material basis for moral theory to theorize the gap between human existence as it is and human existence as it ought to be, will disappear. 

Marx endorsed a moral philosophy based on humans “in their actual, empirically perceptible process of development under definite conditions,” and the requirements that ensure what Marx calls the “all-sided development” of “rich individuality”. In Grundrisse, Marx advocated: “the development of the rich individuality which is as all-sided in its production as in its consumption, and whose labour also therefore appears no longer as labour, but as the full development of activity itself, in which natural necessity in its direct form has disappeared; because a historically created need has taken the place of the natural one” (MECW 15:251). Marx supposed that the proletariat heralds communism since the workers have no stake in capitalism nor any particular interests against the rights of other classes. They suffer from “no particular wrong but wrong generally” (The Holy Family, MECW 3:186). Thus, the moral denunciation of capitalism from the proletarian perspective has a universal validity for humanity. The working class emancipates not only themselves, but also others (The Holy Family, MECW 3).

Marx elaborated in The German Ideology: “as soon as the distribution of labour comes into being, each man has a particular, exclusive sphere of activity, which is forced upon him and from which he cannot escape. He is a hunter, a fisherman, a herdsman, or a critical critic, and must remain so if he does not want to lose his means of livelihood; whereas in communist society, where nobody has one exclusive sphere of activity but each can become accomplished in any branch he wishes, society regulates the general production and thus makes it possible for me to do one thing today and another tomorrow, to hunt in the morning (hunting is censured now – PB), fish in the afternoon, rear cattle in the evening, criticise after dinner, just as I have a mind, without ever becoming hunter, fisherman, shepherd or critic” (MECW 5:47). 

Thus, our research shows that although between 1858 and 1883, Marx’s later writings, the Grundrisse, Capital, Critique of the Gotha Programme and The Civil War in France turned to a critique of political economy, his philosophical convictions were provided with economic and historical foundation, and themes as individuality, development, and alienation became complex. The Althusserian separation of Young Marx’s earlier, “humanist” moralist work, and the Mature Marx’s later, “economic determinist” scientific work is untenable. The relationship of human freedom and rich individuality persisted crucially to his approach to morality. 

Envisaging A More Inclusive Marxism: 

This moral sensibility of Marx should have boosted Marxism in India towards an ever increasing awareness of Injustice, not to be reduced only to appropriation of surplus value. Hence, to fully appreciate Marx’s concern for Justice, a more inclusive concept such as Injustice is needed. While orthodox Marxism repudiated all Injustices, still it emphasized that all Injustices originate from and are determined by the contradictions in the Mode of Production. However, in the context of the dominant elements of Hegemony in the Indian society as described before, people cannot move towards the moral goal of ‘rich individuals’ unless they struggle against i. devastation of nature, ii. economic class exploitation by neo-liberal global corporate capital, iii. discriminations against communities (gender, caste, adivasi, religious-linguistic-other minorities), and iv. assaults on democracy and individual rights. 

Hence the need for a more Inclusive Marxism in India which will view all forms of Injustice not necessarily derived from and determined by economic class factors; however, it will undeniably accord an overall priority to class struggle against global corporate capitalism and neo-liberal hegemony as the most powerful phenomenon of the modern world. Understandably, there is no question of undermining Marx’s penetrating critique of capitalism. Global corporate capitalism reinforces diverse forms of Injustice in addition to class exploitation. Whether class struggle or gender movement or Dalit resistance or else will play the vital role at a given time will depend on the particular configuration of power at that moment. 

The more inclusive Marxism should be able to integrate all forms of resistance against power, not only on macro-level, but also micro-level. We borrow the concepts of micro-resistance and micro-power from Foucault. It must, however, be remembered that Foucault did not endorse the agenda of an integrated macro-resistance towards an emancipatory goal. In that particular respect, we scrap that particular contention of Foucault and prefer to dream with the conviction of revolutionary Marxism. To use the words of Gramsci, we discard the ‘pessimism of the intellect’ of Foucault and pursue the ‘optimism of the will’ of Gramsci. A more inclusive Marxism will build up a counter-hegemony and resistance against the hegemony of Injustice which legitimises all kinds of discrimination as natural, and against both i. economic exploitation by the big native (comprador or not) and foreign bourgeoisie and big land-owners by virtue of their private ownership over the means of production, and ii. non-economic kinds of oppression based on Adivasi identity, caste, gender, preservation of Nature, rights of minorities (national, religious and linguistic), individual rights and democracy. Thus, it should integrate the class struggle of the workers and peasants with other countless forms of resistance for Justice.  

If we can meaningfully relate our discussion about the dominant elements of Hegemony in Indian society narrated in the first section of this article, we can propose that talking more vigorously about a more Inclusive Marxism will be far more pertinent in contemporary India which will fight against four main kinds of Injustice reinforced and legitimised by the four dominant elements of Hegemony. 

References: 

1. Laclau, Ernesto, Chantal Mouffe. 1985. Hegemony and Socialist Strategy: Towards A Radical Democratic Politics. London: Verso. They are known as Post-Marxist thinkers.

2. Gramsci Antonio, Selections from the Prison Notebooks of Antonio Gramsci (1992) [1971], Quentin Hoare and Geoffrey Nowell Smith, eds.,  New York: International Publishers. 

3. Marx, Karl. 1967. [1845] Critique of Hegel’s ‘Philosophy of Right’. New York: Cambridge University Press.

4. Marx, Karl, Friedrich Engels, 1975. Karl Marx, Frederick Engels: Collected Works. New York: International Publishers (MECW). Also, MECW. 1975-2004. Moscow: Progress Publishers. Relevant volumes (total 50 volumes).

5. Mészáros, István. 1975. Marx’s Theory of Alienation. London: Merlin Press.

6. Wills, Vanessa Christina. 2011, “Marx and Morality”, PhD Thesis, University of Pittsburg.

7. Althusser, Louis. 1969. For Marx. London: Verso.       

8. Valeriano Ramos, Jr., “The Concepts of Ideology, Hegemony, and Organic Intellectuals in Gramsci’s Marxism”, First Published: Theoretical Review No. 27, March-April 1982, Encyclopedia of Anti-Revisionism On-Line, https://www.marxists.org/history/erol/ncm-7/tr-gramsci.htm

9. Basu, Pradip. ed. 2023 a. Gender and Naxalite Movement: An Introspection. Kolkata: Setu Prakashani. 

10. ——-. ed. 2023 b. Caste and Naxalite Politics. Kolkata: Gangchil.