Antonio Gramsci and Marxist Literary Critics

In Antonio Gramsci's piece on Intellectuals and Hegemony he addresses, a point somewhat reminiscent of Marx and Engels (since Gramsci has been influenced by their writings on what we read concerning intercourse), that those determined to be "intellectuals" in a given society will remain as the same persons, no matter what economic structure precedes or proceeds. He goes on to explain how the intellectuals are defined in this sense, and not in the sense that we're used to. What we might view an intellectual as would be an educated person, with some sort of learned significance within the society. Gramsci, through his own sense of logic, concludes that all humans are intellectuals, no matter what their occupation/duty might entail or ask of them.
After making this conclusion, he goes on to say, "All men are intellectuals...but not all men have in society the function of intellectuals." He explains that what he means is that (due to the time he lived in, and maybe in our own time as well) since the intellectuals that would lead the new (economic) structure of society would consist of those "closely bound to industrial labour even at the most primitive and unqualified level..." rather than those that might have preceded it. After this he goes on to describe several dialectic aspects of society and ultimately how hegemony is perpetuated by the dominant group.
The second part of his work concerns "The Revolution in the West" which would perhaps be the Russian Revolution, but I'm most likely mistaken, and closes with the theory of spontaneity, and finally with the difference between the war of position and the war of frontal attack concerning political dealings.

When a Marxist critic analyzes literature they (based on what we've read concerning Dickens and Kincaid, etc.) look for the underlying social dynamics that might be an allegory to what would have existed in the author's life. Once a connection between the story and societal/economical structures the critic will move on to label each section of the story with aspects typical of things relating to Marxism (capitalism, the [Christmas] Machine, proletariats, etc.). However silly it might sound without having read the interpretations given to us, the critics such as Vincent BlackShadow and the author of "Rudpolph's Shiny new Economy", are able to make actual connections between Marxism and the literature. In the case of BlackShadow, he is very spot on with his interpretations of Dickens since he explains how Dickens was actually criticizing the social dynamics which he lived in. Yet, for some reason, it's very difficult for me to see the tale of Rudolph the Red-nosed Reindeer a work inspired by Marxist ideology, though I can entertain the connections made. Gramsci relates to this in that he explains how intellectuals of the dominating group will aid in the perpetuation and conditioning of the social roles necessary for their society/group to function, so by what we are exposed to, we (perhaps unknowingly) adhere to what the dominating group requires of us in our capitalist-based society.