Organic Intellectuals and Paid Subscriptions - Gramsci Meets Substack

A Gramscian Analysis of Substack

Introduction

In the previous essays of this series, I've explored how modern spectacles like the Super Bowl function as mechanisms of social control (Life in the Matrix), examined strategies for maintaining our grip on reality in an age of manufactured consent (Resisting the Matrix), and analysed how messaging apps fragment our information landscape into disconnected pieces (The WhatsApp Effect). Today, I turn to Substack itself (the platform you're reading right now) to examine how it both challenges and reinforces existing power structures through the lens of Antonio Gramsci's hegemony theory. While our earlier explorations revealed how spectacles distract us from substantive issues and messaging apps fragment our collective understanding, Substack presents a fascinating paradox: it simultaneously enables counter-hegemonic voices while operating within the market logics that underpin capitalist media systems. As I noted when discussing the paradox of digital resistance in our second essay, we often find ourselves "using the master's tools, if not to dismantle the master's house, then at least to build alternative structures within it." Nowhere is this contradiction more evident than on Substack, where writers can build what I'll call micro-hegemonies, these are spheres of influence that both challenge and reinforce existing power dynamics.

Substack presents a fascinating case study in the evolution of hegemonic structures in digital media. At first glance, the platform appears to challenge traditional media power by allowing individual writers to build direct relationships with their audiences, bypassing established gatekeepers. This democratisation of publishing seems to align with Antonio Gramsci's vision of organic intellectuals developing counter-hegemonic narratives outside institutional constraints.

However, when examined through a Gramscian lens, Substack reveals complex power dynamics that both challenge and reinforce existing hegemonic structures. To understand these dynamics, we must first situate Substack within the broader media ecosystem.

Substack's Unique Position in the Media Landscape

Substack represents a significant shift in how written content is created, distributed, and monetised in the digital age. The platform enables writers to publish newsletters and build direct relationships with their readers through a subscription model, creating a space that exists between traditional media outlets and social media platforms.

This transformation in media power structures connects directly to the patterns I explored in The WhatsApp Effect (last week) where I examined how messaging apps have changed our information consumption. While messaging apps fragment our information diet into disconnected pieces shared by personal connections, Substack represents a countervailing force, offering deeper, more cohesive narratives. However, both systems share an important feature: they bypass traditional gatekeepers and create new forms of curation based on personal relationships and algorithmic sorting rather than institutional authority.

In traditional media, writers typically worked for established publications, with editorial oversight and institutional constraints shaping their output. Social media offered direct access to audiences but prioritised brevity and virality over depth. Substack emerged to fill the gap between these extremes, offering writers independence while maintaining professional standards and enabling substantive long-form content.

The economic model is particularly noteworthy. Unlike traditional media's advertising-dependent model or social media's attention economy, Substack enables writers to earn directly from their readers through subscriptions. This creates different incentives compared to click-based advertising models, allowing writers to focus on quality and depth rather than viral potential or broad appeal.

Micro-Hegemonies and Organic Intellectuals

When we apply Gramsci's theoretical framework to this model, interesting patterns emerge. The platform creates micro-hegemonies where successful writers develop their own spheres of influence. These writers often become what Gramsci would recognise as organic intellectuals for specific ideological communities, helping to articulate and shape how their subscribers understand reality.

Gramsci identified organic intellectuals as those who emerge organically from a social class or group and help articulate that group's worldview and interests. On Substack, writers often serve this function for particular communities, whether political, cultural, or professional. They don't merely report information; they interpret events, create frameworks for understanding, and help subscribers make sense of complex realities.

Table 1: The Quantitative Dimensions of Substack's Micro-Hegemonies

The metrics in Table 1 (above) reveal the precise economic and social dynamics that Gramsci theorised in his analysis of hegemony. The substantial audience overlap between ideologically aligned publications (nearly one-third crossover in some cases) quantifiably demonstrates the formation micro-hegemonies (distinct counter-publics where specific organic intellectuals like Hedges shape subscriber worldviews). Simultaneously, the stark economic stratification, where only 5.7% of subscriptions are paid and a small elite of writers captures disproportionate revenue, mirrors the class dynamics that Gramsci identified as central to hegemonic structures.

Most revealing is the tension between content and economics: Substack's $650 million valuation depends on extracting value from writers who often critique the very capitalist system that funds the platform. This empirical data doesn't merely illustrate theoretical principles but reveals concrete manifestations of how digital publishing platforms simultaneously enable counter-hegemonic content while incorporating it into market structures, exactly the dialectical process that Gramsci's analysis would predict.

Case Study: The Chris Hedges Report as Micro-Hegemony in Practice

To understand how these micro-hegemonies function in practice, we can examine The Chris Hedges Report, one of the most prominent examples of counter-hegemonic content creation on Substack. With hundreds of thousands of subscribers, Hedges has established what Gramsci would recognise as an influential sphere of organic intellectual activity.

Hedges embodies the organic intellectual in several distinctive ways. As a Pulitzer Prize-winning journalist who spent fifteen years as a foreign correspondent for The New York Times before leaving institutional media, he brings established credentials while operating outside mainstream constraints. This trajectory allows him to leverage institutional cultural capital while positioning himself as a critic of those very institutions.

His Substack's focus on "US foreign policy, economic realities, and civil liberties in American society" provides subscribers with interpretive frameworks that challenge dominant narratives. What makes this particularly effective as a micro-hegemony is the direct relationship Hedges cultivates with his audience. Subscribers receive not just his weekly columns and television show, but additional podcast material and "periodic access to direct chats" with Hedges himself. This personal connection creates the intimate bond between writer and audience that strengthens hegemonic influence over subscribers' worldviews.

The comment sections on his articles reveal how this micro-hegemony fosters counter-hegemonic consciousness. Subscribers don't merely consume content but actively engage in discussions that reinforce shared understandings. As one commenter noted about their relationship to Hedges' perspective, "Here in Blutopia, the majority of folks I know hate and have hated Hedges for years - I love the man for his truth." This statement reveals how membership in Hedges' community becomes part of subscribers' identity formation, with clear boundaries between those who accept his truth-claims and those who reject them.

Perhaps most revealing for our Gramscian analysis is Hedges' own acknowledgement of the economic paradox at work. He explicitly states that "Substack more than replaced the income I lost when RT America was shut down" while emphasising that "Substack permits me to maintain total editorial independence." This perfectly illustrates the tension we've identified between counter-hegemonic content and market-based platforms. Hedges generates substantial revenue by critiquing the very capitalist system that enables his platform, and his financial success depends on commodifying his critique.

Hedges' political positioning further reinforces his role as an organic intellectual for those seeking alternatives to mainstream politics. His history includes writing speeches for Ralph Nader's presidential campaign and supporting Green Party candidates, positioning him as an articulator for groups that feel marginalised by the two-party system. In Gramscian terms, he helps give theoretical coherence to political resistance movements that might otherwise remain disorganised.

The Chris Hedges Report demonstrates how Substack enables the creation of influential counter-public spheres while simultaneously incorporating them into market systems. This dynamic highlights Gramsci's insight that hegemony is never simply imposed from above but requires constant negotiation and renegotiation across different social domains.

While Hedges' success demonstrates the platform's potential for counter-hegemonic influence, it also reveals broader tensions in Substack's economic model. However, this process is complicated by the platform's economic structure. While Substack presents itself as democratising media, its success metrics (paid subscriptions) tend to reward writers who already have significant cultural capital or who appeal to audiences with disposable income. This creates what Gramsci would identify as a form of class-based intellectual production, where certain voices and perspectives become amplified based on their ability to monetise their content.

The Organisation of Culture and Algorithmic Power

The "Substack ecosystem" demonstrates what Gramsci called the organisation of culture. Writers often cross-promote each other, creating networks of aligned perspectives that can function as alternative knowledge systems. These networks can either reinforce existing hegemonic structures or create counter-hegemonic spaces, depending on their composition and aims.

For instance, when established journalists move to Substack, they often bring traditional media frameworks with them, essentially extending existing hegemonic structures into new spaces. At the same time, previously marginalised voices can find audiences and build communities around perspectives that challenge dominant narratives.

The newsletter format itself shapes consciousness in ways Gramsci would find significant. The intimate, personal tone typical of Substack writing creates what feels like a direct relationship between writer and reader. This intimacy can make the writer's perspective feel more natural and authoritative, potentially strengthening their hegemonic influence over their audience's worldview.

Algorithmic Hegemony and Platform Power

Substack's recommendation algorithms and promotion systems also perform hegemonic functions, though perhaps less obviously than other platforms. When Substack promotes certain writers or topics in its discovery features, it's participating in what Gramsci would call the selection and organisation of culture, helping to determine which voices and perspectives gain prominence.

The platform's role in media debates about disinformation and content moderation also reflects Gramscian dynamics. Substack's relatively hands-off approach to content moderation positions it as a space for "free speech," but this freedom operates within the constraints of what Gramsci would call the existing hegemonic framework of liberal capitalism, where success is ultimately measured in market terms.

This algorithmic curation of content creates what I previously described in Life in the Matrix as a form of manufactured reality, where our perception is shaped not just by the content itself but by the invisible systems determining which voices we encounter. Just as I argued that spectacles like the Super Bowl function as mechanisms of social control, Substack's recommendation algorithms perform their own hegemonic function, often more subtly, but no less significantly.

The Political Economy of Substack

Tension Between Counter-Hegemony and Market Forces

Interestingly, Substack's model reveals a tension in modern hegemonic structures. While it can facilitate counter-hegemonic voices by providing them a platform and potential income stream, it simultaneously subjects these voices to market forces that might pressure them to moderate or adapt their messages to maintain subscriber growth.

This exemplifies what Gramsci identified as the complex relationship between economic structures and cultural production. Even spaces that appear to challenge dominant power structures often reproduce certain aspects of those structures through their economic models and incentive systems.

Publications like "Critical Perspectives" demonstrate how Substack has become particularly valuable for specialised, thoughtful content that might struggle to find a home in traditional media. The platform allows for regular, in-depth analysis of complex topics without the pressure to simplify for mass appeal. This has created a space for "public scholarship" - content that maintains academic rigour while remaining accessible to engaged general readers.

The Political Economy of Paid Subscriptions

Substack's subscription model creates what some analysts have termed a cultural paywall that inherently stratifies access to content along economic lines. While free newsletters remain available, the most substantive analysis and community engagement typically exists behind paywalls ranging from £5-£15 monthly. This structure immediately raises questions about who can afford to support multiple paid newsletters.

Data suggests that Substack's most successful publications disproportionately attract university-educated, urban professionals with disposable income. This demographic skew creates what in Gramsci is an economic filter that shapes the platform's intellectual landscape. Counter-hegemonic content on Substack thus often circulates primarily among those with sufficient economic privilege to access it, a striking contradiction for content often critiquing economic inequality.

Subscription Stratification and Information Inequality

This economic structure creates a tiered information ecosystem: free subscribers receive limited content while paying subscribers gain access to complete analysis and community discussions. From a Gramscian perspective, this stratification reproduces class-based information asymmetries. The most compelling counter-hegemonic analysis becomes accessible primarily to those already possessing cultural and economic capital.

A materialist analysis would note that knowledge production and consumption on Substack remains bound to market logics despite its counter-hegemonic potential. Writers must ultimately produce content that appeals to those with subscription capacity, potentially limiting truly radical perspectives that might alienate paying audiences.

The Writer - Economics of Cultural Production

Substack's top earners (those making £100,000+ annually) represent a small fraction of total writers, creating what resembles a cultural gig economy with pronounced inequality. Most writers earn modest sums, while a small group of Substack elites capture disproportionate subscriber revenue. This structure reinforces existing cultural capital advantages where writers with established credentials or audiences from traditional media can more easily monetise their perspectives.

Writers without pre-existing audiences or institutional credentials face significant barriers to building sustainable income streams. This economic reality means that many marginalised voices (those most needed for genuine counter-hegemonic discourse) struggle to establish viable publications. Gramsci would note how this economic filter reinforces dominant class perspectives even within supposedly alternative spaces.

Cultural Production and Class Consciousness

The subscriber demographics of successful Substacks create feedback loops that shape content in subtle but significant ways. Writers, consciously or unconsciously, adapt their analysis to resonate with their audience's class position and worldview. For counter-hegemonic publications, this creates a tension between radical critique and subscriber retention that can domesticate potentially transformative perspectives.

Even when critiquing capitalism or class structures, Substack writers often frame their analysis in ways that comfort rather than challenge their predominantly professional-class readership. Again, this dynamic exemplifies Gramsci's insight that even counter-hegemonic spaces can inadvertently reproduce aspects of dominant ideology through their economic foundations.

Geographic and Global Inequalities

Substack's economic model also reproduces global inequalities. Writers and readers from wealthy Western nations dominate the platform, with subscription pricing set at levels prohibitive for many Global South participants. This creates what I see as "digital imperialism" where Western perspectives on global issues receive disproportionate amplification through superior monetisation opportunities.

The economic barriers to entry for non-Western writers mean that counter-hegemonic critique of Western imperialism often comes from Western writers themselves rather than from intellectuals in affected regions. This dynamic reproduces problematic representation patterns where Global South perspectives remain filtered through Western intermediaries.

Reification of Information as Commodity

Perhaps most fundamentally, Substack's model exemplifies what Lukács termed reification, the transformation of social relations into things. Information and analysis become commodities to be purchased rather than elements of a commons. As stated above, from a Gramscian perspective, this commodification process can undermine the counter-hegemonic potential of content by subjecting it to market discipline.

As one Substack writer noted in addressing their own audience: "There's something deeply ironic about building a sustainable business by critiquing capitalism." This contradiction lies at the heart of Substack's political economy and illustrates the complex ways market forces can both enable and constrain counter-hegemonic possibilities.

Transformed Relations and Conclusion

The Altered Writer-Reader Relationship

By altering the relationship between writers and readers the subscription model creates a more direct connection, Substack has created spaces for counter-hegemonic consciousness to develop, as writers and readers collectively work through alternative frameworks for understanding society. This has made Substack particularly valuable for critical analysis of social, political, and economic systems.

Conclusion: Both Challenge and Reinforcement

Understanding these dynamics helps us see how Substack both challenges and reinforces existing power structures. While it provides opportunities for counter-hegemonic voices, it does so within a framework that may ultimately strengthen certain aspects of cultural hegemony, particularly those related to market forces and existing intellectual hierarchies.

For Gramsci, hegemony was never simply imposed from above but required constant negotiation and renegotiation. Substack exemplifies this process, creating spaces where dominant narratives can be challenged even as the platform itself operates within broader hegemonic frameworks.

As readers and writers on platforms like Substack, we can be more conscious of these dynamics, recognising both the opportunities and limitations of digital publishing in challenging existing power structures. By understanding the Gramscian dimensions of these platforms, we can more effectively use them to develop counter-hegemonic perspectives while remaining aware of their constraints.

This awareness doesn't diminish the value of platforms like Substack but rather helps us engage with them more consciously, using them as tools for intellectual development and community building while recognising the broader systems in which they operate.

The tensions within Substack's model exemplify what I've previously described as the paradox of digital resistance, using the master's tools to build alternative structures within existing frameworks. As I noted in 'Resisting the Matrix,' we cannot completely escape the systems we critique, but we can create spaces of resistance and clarity within them. Substack represents precisely this kind of paradoxical space, simultaneously challenging aspects of media hegemony while reinforcing certain market-based logics that underpin the broader capitalist system.

Note: For readers interested in a different critical perspective on Substack that focuses more directly on ownership structures and venture capital influence rather than hegemonic dynamics, Jeff Fox's recent analysis Behind Substack's venture capital backers' Fox Finances Behind the Scene (May 2, 2025) offers a darker, more sinister interpretation centred on individual ownership and ideological motivations driving the platform's development.

---