How Does Gramsci Criticize Strategists And Thinkers Who Rely Mainly On A “War Of Maneuver”?

How Does Gramsci Criticize Strategists And Thinkers Who Rely Mainly On A “War Of Maneuver”?

Gramsci states that success in the war of maneuver is the ability of the society to be independent of the state. In this case, any society that is free from institutional rule and media influence can successfully incorporate this concept of the war of maneuver. According to Gramsci, such a society can safely maneuver through society injustices imposed on them by the relevant authorities. For instance, Russia had the Bolshevik Revolution that saw the maximalists seize power and establish their authority through dictatorship, eventually creating the socialist framework. From this example, Gramsci criticized the ideologies presented by Karl Marx that all events follow a pre-determined course. To this end, leaders of the Bolshevik revolution who relied on the war of maneuver were successful than those who followed the strategies of Karl Max.

Gramsci states that following the concept of war requires observing the critical features of the “war of maneuver,” which include limited appeal, frontal attack, and speed. Such concepts were elaborated more on the proletarian revolution where regimes were owning private property, capitalism was rampant, and the organization of the society was a parliamentary-democratic state. The consequences of these movements include equal rights for workers, thus shaping human society. Additionally, the societies collaborated to create working institutions that benefited all people from the major and minor groups. Those opposed to the war maneuver identified more with the war of position and passive revolution. According to Gramsci, there was a balance between civil society and political society leading to equality. Additionally, those who enjoyed this form of leadership had beneficial economic relations. All in all, those who relied on the “war of maneuver” were led to hegemony: a leadership structure where there was only one dominant state, social group, or country.