Gramsci was only depicted in this article, he didn't talk for himself. But from what Morera wrote, Gramsci endorsed neither "intellectual" nor "non-intellectual" influence in shaping society (I agree calling us all intellectuals is an empty gesture). At one point, Gramsci is described wanting the "teachers" to be learning as much as the students, and the "students" to be teaching as much as the teachers. This was what interested me: he described a civic scenario of dialectical, continual learning. Jumping off of the old cliche "Everything is politics," the article talked about how there is no such thing as a neutral civil society- even the ordinary organizations, like the PTA or some neighborhood red cross group, people are involved in day-to-day change their political agenda and function the more aware their members are of their own needs and desires. Maybe they don't call it "political agenda," but every dollar allocation contributes to the direction of a group. Civic education, whether its main goal is increased self-awareness or increased exchange between social sectors, is all about that human need to share you wrote about. Yes, we all need and want to share. I think the hard question is always the way we end up sharing- our sharing intelligence?
I like the one-liner post. "They've got no fear of the underdog. That's why they will not survive."
I'll get back to conceptions of the world after work.