Groucho Marx

After reading Gramsci I found myself asking pretty general questions that seemed to raise a problem, or at least were hidden to me - maybe I just didn't pick up on it:
Are these ways of thinking just the natural results in society? Or, are they concepts that the dominant class understands and that is the reason why they are the dominant class? There is mention that the working class is too busy with their everyday lives, but, even if they were fully aware and able to grasp the hegemony idea, is it even possible that they could change anything?

I am bringing up these questions wary of the possibility that maybe I have fallen into the trap, but any struggle seems fruitless to me. It doesn't even seem all that bad: “A social group can, indeed must, already exercise 'leadership' before winning governmental power (this is indeed one of the principal conditions for the winning of such power); it subsequently becomes dominant when it exercises power, but even if it holds it firmly in its grasp, it must continue to 'lead' as well."
It sounded negative when I read it, but this doesn't seem like material to start a bloody revolution over. Although, in my mind I am applying the situation in relation to sports, assuming that the goal of the leader is the same as those he is leading - to win the game. Society and economics are in a different league I think.
For me, the purpose of all this is to see the world from different angles, from a self-aware position, specifically on the idea of control like that which we studied with genre. Then we can recognize things for what they are and make an informed, intellectual choice, form an opinion, disagree or agree, and ultimately accept or not accept the way something is, knowing you can't change it, or try to change something we think we can. That explanation confused me. I don’t know if that’s what Gramsci means here:

"So one could say that each one of us changes himself, modifies himself to the extent that he changes the complex relations of which he is the hub. In this sense the real philosopher is, and cannot be other than, the politician, the active man who modifies the environment, understanding by environment the ensemble of relations which each of us enters to take part in. If one's own individuality means to acquire consciousness of them and to modify one's own personality means to modify the ensemble of these relations."

Maybe I just don’t feel passionately enough about it, or more specifically, I am not personally and directly effected in a manner negative enough to rouse such revolutionary ideas. Do I like the way everything is? Not really, but the way I see it is, what happens if you realize you don’t have power? Run for president? Then what? I don’t even think the president could change things, and even then, it would only be another hegemony that is set up, another structure of ideas on living that would be put into order. I was more interested in the Marxist reading of “Girl”, which seemed to give more insight to the way the capitalist system controls: “As such the absence of plot in the story is more than a directionless narrative; it is the result of the girl’s oppression. Such is the condition of the working class: It does not progress beyond the perpetuation of its own labor. The girl will go nowhere, within or beyond the narrative of what her work––her life––entails. She is without any means for social advancement; she will always need to ‘make ends meet.’” This echoes Strinati from the Gramsci text: "People can accept the prevailing order because they are compelled to do so by devoting their time to 'making a living', or because they cannot conceive another way of organising society, and therefore fatalistically accept the world as it is. This, moreover, assumes that the question why people should accept a particular social order is the only legitimate question to ask. It can be claimed that an equally legitimate question is why should people not accept a particular social order?" I don’t completely agree, because it is also possible to conceive another way of organizing society and still not have the means to make it happen.

I don’t feel like this blog is going anywhere, too all-over-the-place.
I found it hard to link the Marxist readings to the Gramsci text.