War of position requires unprecedented concentration of hegemony and interventionist government

Evidence

This seems to me to be the most important question of political theory that the post-war period has posed, and the most difficult to solve correctly. It is related to the problems raised by Bronstein [Trotsky], who in one way or another can be considered the political theorist of frontal attack in a period in which it only leads to defeats. This transition in political science is only indirectly (mediately) related to that which took place in the military field, although certainly a relation exists and an essential one. The war of position demands enormous sacrifices by infinite masses of people. So an unprecedented concentration of hegemony is necessary, and hence a more “interventionist” government, which will take the offensive more openly against the oppositionists and organise permanently the “impossibility” of internal disintegration-with controls of every kind, political, administrative, etc. — Antonio Gramsci, Selections from the Prison Notebooks, 903

Categorization

• DEFINE: Central definition of the war of position as a concept distinct from frontal attack, tied directly to concentrated hegemony.
• XREF: Directly feeds the Islamophobia toolkit: hegemonic racism is fought and reproduced through gradual positional struggle in civil society, not frontal legislative defeat.
• QUESTION: Worth chasing: how do modern Islamophobia movements wage a ‘war of position’ through cultural institutions—think tanks, campus campaigns, media normalization?