Canada’s path toward an increasingly authoritarian government has been long underway. If it were not for me living in Norway for two and one half years over a decade ago, I would have never come to fully understand how something so totalizing and complete could occur in a nation that was as free as Canada had once been. In this article I will describe how this "War of Position" has occurred. Italian Neo-Marxist philosopher Antonio Gramsci argued that in modern democracies, overthrowing a system requires a long-term "war of position"—a slow, systematic battle to contest cultural values and build a counter-hegemony in civil society—rather than a direct, sudden "war of movement" or violent frontal assault. Moreover, this attack on the very basis of our constitutional form of government was aided by immigration where people who had fled authoritarian regimes voted for politicians who would recreate the type of government from which they had fled.
The concept I am describing comes from Antonio Gramsci's distinction between a "war of movement" and a "war of position." In simple terms, Gramsci concluded that in advanced liberal democracies, political power is maintained not merely through laws, police, or economic structures, but through a web of cultural institutions that shape what people regard as normal, moral, and legitimate. Therefore, revolutionaries could not simply storm parliament or seize government buildings. They would first have to win influence within civil society: schools, universities, churches, media, entertainment, professional associations, and the intellectual class.
Whether one agrees with Gramsci or not, many scholars argue that Canadian politics since the 1960s has resembled a "war of position" far more than a direct political struggle.
1. The shift from economics to culture
Prior to the 1960s, Canadian political debates were often framed around:
• Labour versus capital
• Federal versus provincial power
• English versus French Canada
• Resource development versus industrialisation
Beginning in the late twentieth century, political combat increasingly moved into the cultural sphere:
• Language rights
• Multiculturalism
• Gender roles
• Indigenous reconciliation
• Environmental values
• Sexual ethics
• National identity
A Gramscian would argue that this happened because political actors recognised that whoever defines the culture eventually influences the law.
2. Universities as a battleground
Many critics on the political right explicitly describe Canadian universities as the clearest example of a successful war of position.
From the 1960s onward:
• Marxist scholarship became more common in some humanities departments.
• Critical theory, postmodernism, post-colonial studies, and later intersectionality became influential.
• Concepts such as systemic discrimination, social construction, privilege, and power structures became common academic frameworks.
These ideas gradually moved from universities into:
• Teacher training
• Journalism schools
• Public policy programmes
• Government bureaucracies
Supporters view this as intellectual progress and greater social awareness.
Critics view it as exactly what Gramsci described: a long march through institutions that reshaped public assumptions without requiring electoral revolution.
3. Multiculturalism as a hegemonic project
Canada's official multiculturalism policy provides another example.
Prior to the 1970s, many political leaders assumed Canadian identity would primarily rest on British and French foundations.
Today, multiculturalism is often treated not merely as a policy but as a defining national value.
A Gramscian analysis would note that this transformation occurred through:
• Education
• Public broadcasting
• Immigration policy
• Civil service norms
• Cultural funding
The goal was not simply legal reform but a redefinition of what it means to be Canadian.
4. The Charter and rights discourse
The 1982 Charter of Rights and Freedoms shifted many political debates into courts and constitutional language.
Political questions increasingly became framed as:
• Rights
• Equality
• Inclusion
• Constitutional protection
Rather than winning every argument through elections, activists often sought victories through judicial interpretation and public persuasion.
Again, a Gramscian observer would say this reflects a war of position:
• Change the assumptions.
• Change the legal interpretations.
• Change institutional norms.
• Eventually laws and policies follow.
5. Media and public broadcasting
Institutions such as the CBC, major newspapers, universities, arts organisations, and cultural grant bodies are often identified in Canadian political debates as sites where cultural hegemony is contested.
Progressive critics argue these institutions historically reinforced:
• Colonial narratives
• Elite interests
• Anglo-centric assumptions
Conservative critics argue they now disproportionately reflect:
• Progressive social values
• Identity-based politics
• Post-national understandings of Canada
The key Gramscian point is that both sides understand these institutions matter because they shape public consciousness.
6. Indigenous reconciliation
The reconciliation movement may also be viewed through a Gramscian lens.
The objective has not merely been legislative reform but a change in cultural understanding:
• How Canadian history is taught
• Which historical figures are celebrated
• How land, sovereignty, and treaties are understood
This is an effort to reshape national narratives, which is precisely the type of cultural struggle Gramsci believed was decisive.
7. Conservative counter-movements
The war of position concept is not exclusive to the left.
Canadian conservatives increasingly pursue their own cultural strategy through:
• Alternative media
• Think tanks
• Independent schools
• Policy institutes
• Podcasts and online platforms
Many conservatives concluded that winning elections while losing cultural institutions produces only temporary victories.
That conclusion is remarkably Gramscian, even if many conservatives would reject Gramsci's broader ideology.
Has Gramscian ideas actually "worked" in Canada?
I argue:
• Traditional institutions have been weakened.
• National cohesion has declined.
• Ideological conformity has increased within elite institutions.
Even a neutral historical observation is that Canadian politics today is heavily shaped by contests over culture, language, identity, education, history, and public narratives. That emphasis on civil society rather than revolutionary violence is remarkably consistent with Gramsci's idea of a long-term "war of position."
Ironically, one could argue that almost every major political faction in contemporary Canada, progressive and conservative alike, now operates on Gramscian assumptions: they increasingly view schools, media, culture, bureaucracies, churches, and social institutions as the decisive terrain on which political power is ultimately won or lost.
Which is why, Canada as a project favouring rugged individualism with an unregulated market is dead! Worse still are how few of you are even aware of why Canada is in the process of becoming an ever-increasing authoritarian nightmare with no way out. Oh you may see many things that the radicals in charge are doing that you may not like but you have no idea that they are following a well-documented script in totalizing government.
No comments:
Post a Comment