In “The Wretched of the Earth”, philosopher Franz Fanon brings forth the idea of the “native intellectual” (1363). The native intellectual is someone who has emerged out of a nation that has been decimated by imperialism, where its true culture is at risk of being completely wiped out by the culture of the colonizer (usually a Eurocentric/Western culture). The native intellectual serves a very important social role in the struggle against colonial oppression. There are also strong attempts to embrace a culture that may no longer exist in a postcolonial world. Having a strong intellect or culture allows oppressed individuals to declare their right to exist in a world that suppresses their identities. Initially, the native intellectual may have catered his work to appeal to the eyes of the colonizer. This most likely resulted from an awareness that they can be lost within Western culture. By turning his attention to his own people, the intellectual can correctly capture the struggles that they face on a daily basis. A new facet of their culture can emerge from their struggle and fight for their identities. The native intellectual creates forms of expression that can cater to the masses, and give the people something that they can recognize as their own.

The work of the native intellectual can create a sort of “national consciousness” among the people of a colonized nation, which can be defined as a shared sense of national identity. A strong sense of national identity allows the emergence of nationalism within a region, which is the creation of a national identity separate from its oppressors. Having a shared national identity, as well as developed nationalism, allows oppressed people to assert their right to exist and fight for their place in the world against imperial domination.

A main issue that can arise is the valuing of a native culture within the framework of a dominant imperial force. For example, this can be seen in the presence of stereotypes in media, which always display an oppressed person in relation to their oppressor rather than as their own person. They are constantly reminded of their “otherness” rather than the achievements and beauty within their native culture. Through the process of decolonization, these people can see themselves in a new light, away from the perils of imperialism. The native intellectual works diligently to undo this framework and spread a strong sense of national identity within his culture.

Intersectionality exist between the relationships of labor and product, distribution and social class, and elite intellectuals versus mundane intellectual. While reviewing Marx and Engels’ Capital, we dove into what Marx intended to highlight by establishing the difference between use value and exchange value. “A commodity is therefore a mysterious thing, simply because in it the social character of men’s labour appears to them as an objective character stamped upon the product of that labour; because the relation of the producers to the sum total of their own labour is presented to them as a social relation, existing not between themselves, but between the products of their labour. This is the reason why the products of labour become commodities, social things whose qualities are at the same time perceptible and imperceptible by the senses” (668). Here it is clear that the labor workers perform becomes a commodity and is perceived/ recognized as nothing more than the result. The quote emphasizes that the relationship between producers and their labor is exhibited as a social relation between the products, rather than the individuals themselves. A quote from The German Ideology supports this notion by relaying, “Thus in this double respect the worker becomes a slave of his object, first, in that he receives an object of labour, i.e., in that he receives work; and secondly, in that he receives means of subsistence. Therefore, it enables him to exist, first, as a worker; and, second, as a physical subject. The extremity of this bondage is that it is only as a worker that he continues to maintain himself as a physical subject, and that it is only as a physical subject that he is a worker.” (658) This vantage point draws attention to the duality of the nature of commodities, indicating that they are both tangible and imperceptible. The value of the object diminishes in retrospect to the effort put into producing product and capitalist systems erases the exchange of hands that delivered the product to you from the harvesters, manufacturers, packers, delivery guys, etc. The power does not lie within the laborers who manufacture and prepare these goods. Instead, the influence on society stems from what Gramsci refers to as the “elite intellectuals”. Gramsci states that people at a high level of social elaboration must be of a “certain technical capacity”, meaning that individuals within a society that has reached a high level of complexity and sophistication must possess a specific level of technical skills and capabilities. In order to navigate and contribute effectively to a socially elaborate environment, these elite intellectuals are expected to have the power, knowledge, and influence to act as a monopoly and control the direction of society’s future. Gramsci argues that traditional intellectuals are a separate entity in society that stand strong throughout the changes of history. The elite’s intellect permits them to maintain eloquence and control the distribution of goods and by extension the laborers. 

The formation of intellectuals by Antonio Gramsci says that “every social group coming into existence on the original terrain of an essential function in the world of economic production.”(930). This must mean that people are in social groups with certain economic backgrounds. Many economic powers are of businesses and a lot. Gramsci also mentions that the intellectuals in the feudal world and in the preceding classical world is a question to be examined separately. This means that intellectuals are being transformed into something more concerning infrastructure and businesses. In relation to the classical world which is full of art, literature, and classics. The global production relies on infrastructure and a lot of economic businesses. He also makes a point between non intellectuals and intellectuals. The argument of this distinction is that people who are more intellectual are more socially aware of what’s around them. They are mostly in social dynamics and have a lot of skills they learn from being an intellect. Compared to someone who is not an intellectual. This means that the advancement of certain subjects is needed to become an intellectual. The advancement of technology and other subjects increases the equilibrium of intellectuals and the purpose of this in society. It leads to an independent and dominant group. This is the leading terms of society. Intellectuals are becoming more in demand than other people. Society often sees this as beneficial.

In his brief passage “Hegemony” from Marxism and Literature, Raymond Williams delves into the layers of what constitutes hegemony. At the time, hegemony was compared with the concept of ideology which is simply a system of ideas and beliefs that upholds the foundation of a particular social group. On the other hand, hegemony takes this further where there is a direct exercise of power that forces people into a position of consent which is an active process. The utilization of ideology comes into play as societal norms and political regulation are established through the leader asserting dominance. By doing this, leaders or those in power are able to achieve a natural sense of culture and governance. Of course, these are only natural in appearance because they are synthetic and tailor made to suit the interests of the rulers enforcing them. This is one of the main ideas Williams tackles in the passage. He discusses how effective of a technique this is because it “corresponds much more closely to the normal  process of social organization and control in developed societies than the more familiar projections from the idea of a ruling class” (Williams 110). Historically this is something that can be observed from the likes of colonization. While colonization was much more physically forceful in nature, hegemony through this means can be seen as mentally forceful. Their major point of connection is an overarching power dynamic to gain control over a group of people. That being said, there can be an argument made for how both have a long lasting effect on people fundamentally. Through colonization cultural diffusion is bound to occur even if not by choice. Those who are impacted will continue to adhere to and perform what it is they observe from the unfamiliar cultures because oftentimes they have no choice. Perhaps the most obvious and consistent example throughout history is the enforcement of religious beliefs. Hegemony can have a similar impact on people though not through means that are as gruesome as colonization. It functions similarly to introducing a new religion into someone’s life, their perspective and mindset will shift. People will unknowingly become used to and comfortable with their living conditions. This is something that socialists such as Williams were concerned with. The normalization of the needs and desires of a small subset of people rather than the needs and desires of the overall population along with the cultural differences they share is problematic. Such a process suppresses and masks subordinate classes of people who are individuals with their own insight and opinions to provide. It will also create a cycle that maintains those of higher social status in their position and those of lower status to stay there forever. This will lead to massive inequality between various people. In our modern capitalistic society, we can see threads of this permeating through the country and affecting thousands with the ongoing homeless crisis and systemic oppression of minorities for example. As our society advances we slowly move towards an unmasking of the power dynamics being applied. However, one quickly realizes that while we may be becoming more astute and perceptive to the ways in which we are being oppressed, there are yet to be many significant changes in improving our situation which to me just puts us in an even scarier position.

In the article called The Capital explained many different metaphors used in this story. On page 670 states ”  Later on , we try to decipher the hieroglyphic, to get behind the secret of our own social products; for to stamp an object of utility as a value, is just as much a social product as language.” This  explains that what’s the secret is behind the value of an object and the secret being own social products. This also explains the social product as a languages by the values of the objects. Another quote stated on page 670 is” The recent scientific discovery, that the products of labor, so far as they are values, are but material expressions of the human labor spent in they are values, are but material expressions of the human labor spent in their productions, marks indeed, an epoch in the history of development of the human race, but by no means dissipate the mist through which the products themselves.”  This explains how the value of products and how in human labor make the productions. The value of goods shows a reflection of the human effort in making the objects. This also explains the value of produces bring tied to labor work and how much effort and time and production made in the products.

Robinson Crusoe tells us different things about commodity and market based forms of production and exchange.  On page 672 states ” Necessity itself compels him to apportion his time accurately between his different kids of work. Whether one kind occupies a greater space in his general activity than another, depends on the difficulties greater or less as the case may be, to be overcome in attaining the useful effect aimed at”. This quote explains while doing different types of tasks and activity it takes time and effort to complete. This also states that while doing different activates the more time you take the more difficult the task is. While taking more longer on the activity you become more successful. The more challenging and more effort you put into your activity the more successful and easier it is for you to complete.

Another quote stated on page 672 is ” Personal dependence here characterizes the social relations of production just as much as it does the other spheres of life organized on the basis of that production”. This quote explains that your personal experiences also effect your social relation around you. This also explains how you see different phases of life and how organized your life is. Another example Marx tries to prove is on page 672″ Here the particular and natural form of labor and not as in a society based on production of commodities, its general abstract form is the immediate social form of labor.” Marx tries to prove how there are different types of labor and how the productions is different between both labor forms. He also tries to prove the abstract form of the social form of labor between natural and society labor.

The most important quotes that Marx states on page 672  is ” No matter then, what we may think of the parts played by the different classes of people themselves in this society, the social relations between individuals in the performance in this society, the social relations between individuals in the performance of their labor, appear at all events as their own mutual person relations”  This explains how regardless of people beliefs and whatever social class you are everyone is the same. This also tries to show how in labor or work the different interactions and relationships you have are very significant. They are very significant because everyone is human at the end of the day and have to treat everyone with respect and work with everyone. This also shows the even if you have different social class or different religion or different everything you have to build relationship and work with everyone. This is what i have learned in this passage.

As labor laws and the divisions of power become more humane, the steadfast issue with capitalism is still present. But how could this argument that Marx pursues finally get a say thats heard by the capitalist he rages against? Are there any capitalist, hiring hands, that consider the workers they alienate/objectify? I’m not sure. The worker and the employer are on two separate spheres in Marx’s writing. They hardly overlap outside of ‘animal functions’- like eating or dressing up. I understand the differentiation, as it secretes a subconscious knowing that one’s worth is gauged on another group’s standards. Those standards are literally determining your livelihood through acceptability and need-basis characteristics. 

it seems impossible to differentiate between the nature of reality and hegemony. Raymond Williams says “To say that ‘men’ define and shape their whole lives is true only in abstraction.” Hierarchy is inescapable. Class society abides by a structure that undermines every living creature. The generation of wealth is the generation of worth. Society is carefully damning each person according to status, set to that path accordingly in work. Overseers in power are placated by this system of capitalism. It was necessary and vital for Karl Marx to sound an alarm against this global travesty, yet philosophical understanding was not the intended cap. Colonization and the silencing of natives is part of the history of capitalism. Still present today are the exploits by the wealthy who live their lives under their own gaze, or worse, enforced by hegemonic ‘abstracted ideology” (Williams). 

The construct of man is always going to be forfeit to the ammunition of those in charge. The spectrum of the power house is imbued with corrosive confusion, its not just economic survival but societal forbearance that maintain this system of power. What could possibly stop hindering the masses from their rudimentary survival but an enlightenment, structured around knowing that worth is not weighted by production, job, or status? Yet, with dismantling that hard truth, what would take its place? What else could weigh it? What if you are judged by your basic familiarity and presence alone. Society has grid all its people to the understanding of an intellectualized clause between self-awareness and reality that only perpetuates more thought bound to constructs fit in the reality. There is no room for a reality that is questionable or illusive. Just structure and alienation of self. Williams’ quote beautifully summarizes how hegemony of this economic system encapsulates all those who live under it to “such a depth that the pressures and limits [of hegemony]..seem to most of us the pressures and limits of simple experience and common sense.” The two are interlocked, complicating realistic discernment. The nature of intellectualization, seen as synonymous with human qualities, will inevitably be used to hoist each culture’s hegemonic philosophy. As noted by Gramsci, intellectualization flourishes fluidly, readapting its defining perimeters to include high and low levels of behavior. Conclusively, society is always finding its civilians in hierarchical degrees, reducing many to the unproductive or lazy. 

Hegemony is defined as “political rule or domination, especially in relations between states”. Marxism elaborates on this definition and extends it to social class relations (more specifically, a ruling class). Marxist Antonio Gramsci delves deeper into the relationship between domination, hegemony, and “the ideology”. He claims that society lives off of “an ideology” that is more or less applied to both the subordinated and dominant classes; however, hegemony rejects this “ideology”, as it is one in itself. “The concept of hegemony often, in practice, resembles these definitions, but it is distinct in its refusal to equate consciousness with the articulate formal system which can be and ordinarily is abstracted as ‘ideology’ (109).” This “ideology” that Gramsci mentions is essentially just the idea that the consciousnesses of the subordinated and dominant classes directly fall under the formal societal system that has been constructed. Or rather, the societal system has been applied to the consciousnesses. This is explained briefly, “More generally, this sense of ‘an ideology’ is applied in abstract ways to the actual consciousness of both dominant and subordinated classes. A dominant class ‘has’ this ideology in relatively pure and simple forms. A subordinate class has, in one version, nothing but this ideology as its consciousness (since the production of all ideas is, by axiomatic definition, in the hands of those who control the primary means of production) […] (109).” Essentially, the dominant class “has” this ideology or state of mind. It has enveloped their consciousness; the subordinate class has nothing but this ideology because the production of ideas is in the hands of those who control it, which would be the dominant class. The story here is quite circular, production leads to consumption and application. “It is the fully articulate and systematic forms which are recognizable as ideology (109).” These forms or systems are well thought out because they equate to the culture of the classes.

The way hegemony differs from this is that it’s not a socially constructed system or structure; it is just “a realized complex of experiences, relationships, and activities, with specific and changing pressures and limits (112).” It’s very complex and unlike a socially constructed system, it “does not just passively exist as a form of dominance. It has continually to be renewed, recreated, defended, and modified. It is also continually resisted, limited, altered, challenged by pressures not all its own (112).” Dominance, when it comes to hegemony, needs to be renewed consistently and molded around the expanding experiences of the consciousnesses of the subordinated and dominant classes.