Hegemony, culture and power

By: Hugo Marcelo Balderrama - 21/09/2026

Guest columnist.
Share:     

Power is understood as the ability that A has to make B do an action Z. Let me explain with an example: Fidel Castro could force Cubans to spend five hours listening to his speeches.

There are two methods of exercising power: 1) violence, which is very expensive and only works in the short term, and 2) hegemony, which is the most effective, since those subjected accept the subjugation and the loss of their freedoms without discussion.

For Gramsci, hegemony is sustained through the cultural, ideological, and moral consensus of subordinate sectors, combining leadership and domination. This means that a dominant class manages to have its worldview, values, and norms accepted as natural and legitimate by society at large, reinforcing its control without relying solely on coercion or force. The secret of hegemony lies not in ending debate, but in shutting it down.

In turn, Theodor Adorno observed that the culture industry (media, entertainment system and educational institutions) could be used as a mechanism for mass manipulation, a tool in the pursuit of hegemony.

Therefore, it was evident that figures born from the Sao Paulo Forum would use the cultural industry in their quest to hegemonize the narrative, let's see:

In the first half of 2007, the Chavista government disbursed $8 million to Danny Glover, star of the Lethal Weapon saga, to film a biopic about Haitian military and political leader François Dominique Toussaint Louverture. A year later, they granted him another $10 million with the promise that filming would begin that same year. However, Lorena Almarza, then president of Villa del Cine, announced in the following months that production was postponed until 2009 because the team was still having trouble securing the remaining funds. In the end, the money was lost, and the film was never released.

Note that while the Caribbean tyrant was helping to fatten the bank accounts of Hollywood progressivism, his people were starving and suffering from a lack of toilet paper.

For his part, Fidel Castro, from the very beginning of his dictatorship, spoke of "decolonizing culture," a euphemism to mask censorship. In fact, from his entry into Havana on January 8, 1959, cameras would forever follow Castro, through documentaries, fictional films, and even animated shorts, portraying him as the father of a new Cuba. The audiovisual recordings that documented the arrival of the rebels in the Cuban capital have acquired symbolic and representative value, becoming emblematic images of Cuba's contemporary history. There appear Fidel, the bearded troops, and the "jubilant people" who filled the streets and sidewalks.

The Cuban Institute of Cinematographic Art and Industry and the International Film and Television School of San Antonio de los Baños were used by the Castro dictatorship to spread its poison around the world. Filmmaker Santiago Álvarez, camera in hand, used to travel to various countries speaking of the "benefits" that the revolution had brought to artists, especially to the film industry.

Oliver Stone's documentary Comandante (2003) is perhaps the film in which the Cuban dictator shows the greatest openness and interaction with the filmmaker, to whom he dedicates the most time. However, it is not the only film made about him. Others include ¡Fidel! (1968), by Saúl Landau, the result of several days of filming and various locations; and A Day with Fidel, by the Italian journalist Gianni Minaá, which stems from a 16-hour day of filming.

Between September and December 2017, Los Kajrkas, a historic Bolivian folk music group, received Bs. 171,400 for three concerts. The group's leader, Gonzalo Hermosa, said: "Evo is a gift from God."

We can close this note with two lessons: 1) Hunger does not topple dictatorships; it strengthens them, and 2) Tyrants care more about propaganda than the suffering of their people.

«The opinions published herein are the sole responsibility of its author».