HEGEMONY OF PROLETARIAT – GRAMSCI

Gramsci’s conceptualization of hegemony may be considered as his most essential contribution to the Marxist thought. With some important departures from Classical Marxism, Gramscian concept of hegemony provides a new route for the revolution of proletariat. Within this new route, rejection of pure economist approaches, foreseeing democratic participation of other classes and groupings, emphasis on concepts such consent and legitimacy, inclusion of intellectual, cultural, moral dimensions clearly label it as a more peaceful way for the attainment of hegemony.

The concept of Hegemony, for many interpreters of Gramscian thought, is the Gramsci’s debt to the Lenin. (See Hoffman, 1984: 57, Adamson, 1980:172, Cammett, 1967: 205) Nevertheless advancement and re-theorization of the concept as a core and practical apparatus in the road toward revolution is an enough clue to make the concept Gramscian. As James Joll indicated Gramsci’s works was [g]iven indications of how a communist party in a liberal democratic state might actually hope to attain power”[1]

His re-theorization of the concepts and how it is, in Gramscian view, transformed from a pure political alliance into a new road toward proletariat revolution will be the basic theme of this paper. Within this theme, paper will illustrate how Gramsci by advocating Proletariat Hegemony, overcome the problems of Classical Marxism and Leninism in the road toward revolution

 

FROM DICTATORSHIP OF PROLETARIAT TO ITS HEGEMONY

For many interpreters of Gramscian thought, in the analyzing the notion of hegemony, Leninist foundation of the concept should not be underestimated. In such sense Cammett argue that the term first become creative phenomenon when Lenin [i]nsisted on a establishing a hegemonic relationship between working class and peasantry as a prerequiste for the revolution.[2] For Adamson it is futile to argue that the concept owes noting to Lenin.[3] Simon at this point emphasizes transformation of the term of ‘hegemony’ from a strategy used by Lenin to a concept by Gramsci.[4] Pellicani, who is suspicious about the peaceful potential of the concept, accepts the alterations in the concept as strategic corrections of classical Marxism but highlights this corrections [d]oes not alter a single aspect goal.[5] Nevertheless  these substantial strategic alterations in the concept of hegemony was enough to totally differentiate the classical usage of concepts as an alliance and created a totally new and fresh terminology of dynamic, flexible, representative ,legitimate and just hegemony which is peculiar to Gramsci.

Whether it is a new concept or borrowed and improved concept; inclusion of the notion of consent and intellectual, moral and cultural dimensions created a vertically deep concept of hegemony. On the other hand the concept horizontally extended by accepting and arguing that it is not peculiar only to proletariat but may applicable to any class rule including the bourgeoisie.

For Gramsci [l]egitimate consent as the predominant means of political control was normal within all societies.[6] However even as the state concept itself is necessitates use of force for its well functioning; the concept of hegemony thus encompasses coercion element along with consent. That is for Gramsci state is equal to hegemony; hence Gramsci defines the state apparatus as a [h]egemony protected by the armour of coercion.[7] Therefore it can be seen that the concept of hegemony works in a sensitive balance between consent and coercion. Traditionally, Adamson says, ‘states have had to use of force to restrain class conflict, especially when their consensual basis was weak.’ Therefore in a stronger hegemony, Gramsci minimizes the use of force by intensive and massive legitimate control given to political system. As Robert Cox, emphasized here, “For Gramsci, hegemony was more than dominance through coercion, sanctions punishments and inducements.”[8]

Gramsci’s point of view on hegemony can therefore be interpreted as a rationally drawn road map toward the proletarian state. Hegemony is there for attaining and consolidation of power but also for staying in power. Thus ones a class has been established by creating its self consciousness, it should start to seek to ways to become hegemony, not a dominant class. For Gramsci “A class is dominant in two ways i.e ‘leading’ and ‘dominant’. It leads the classes which are allies and dominate which are its enemies”.[9]More simply a pure dominance is parallel to the coercion element of hegemony and without obtaining consent, dominance can not be hegemonic. That is hegemonic status requires continuing functioning of the leading and dominance with [t]wo forms of control -coercion and consent- [10]

Gramsci at this point argues that;

“A social group can indeed must, already exercise ‘leadership’ before winning governmental power (this indeed one of the principal conditions for winning such power); it subsequently becomes dominant when it exercise power; bur even if holds it firmly in its graps, it must continue to’ lead’ as well”[11]

Thus leadership is a requirement for hegemony which differentiates it from the sole domination. For Gramsci “…the function of ‘domination’ without that of ‘leadership’ is dictatorship without hegemony.”[12]The above quote may illustrate the differences between Leninist usage of hegemony as a way toward dictatorship of proletariat and Gramscian notion of hegemony as the hegemony of proletariat.

As Simon argues that; “Gramsci transforms hegemony from strategy into a concept.”[13] For Lenin hegemony was a strategy for revolution, [a] strategy which the working class and its representatives should adopt to win the support of the great majority.[14] It can be noticed that now hegemony is transformed from a “class alliance of the proletariat with other exploited groups, above all the peasantry, in common struggle against the oppression of capital” into a system of governance decorated with civil, intellectual, moral elements and become rather than a tool but an end.

 

CONSTRUCTION OF HEGEMONY

Above section illustrated how Gramscian view on hegemony requires more substantial and broader sense of analysis and how the concept is built on a structure of consent-coercion duality. Thus this section will be on Gramscian explanation of road toward proletariat hegemony. Pellicani at this point argues that “Whereas Lenin theorized the conquest of society through the violent conquest of the state, Gramsci proposed the inverse procedure; the conquest of the state through the cultural occupation of society”[15] Within the road toward hegemony, Gramsci draws a dynamic long-term route and introduces variety of new concepts where the hegemony could be created, constructed and maintained.

 

From Social Group to Alliance of Classes

Hegemony’s basic requirement thus a primitive definition may be leading to an alliance, or coalition of forces. Robert Cox, as a well known neo-Gramscian defines hegemony as; “Formation of a coalition of top-down forces activated by a common consciousness in which those at bottom are able to participate.”[16] In regard to those top-down forces Gramsci develops a creative and logical relation which is in parallel with his insistence on the necessity of the concepts such consent and persuasion. Here another departure can be noticed from Leninist approach to the hegemony by Gramsci’s rejection of economism and reductionism and his emphasis to a compromise within such coalition of forces.

His very notion of hegemony firstly requires a ‘transformation from economic-corporatism.’[17] For Gramsci the state of hegemony should be able to meet with the interests of other classes which can not be reduced to ‘merely economic and merely political ones’[18] Thereby ‘sacrifices of an economic-corporate kind[19] is necessary ‘if hegemony is to be secured’[20] Here what Gramsci criticizes is the materialism and economism of the classical Marxism could not be practical for the attainment of revolution. as Adamson argued “Gramsci did not deny that revolution could be carried out the economic corporate level…What he did argue that the attainment of an alternative hegemony was necessary before one could hope for a complete revolution.”[21] Thereby in the Gramscian thought, in the road toward revolution, (and also in the state of hegemony) emphasis to a democratic leadership can be easily noticed. According to Gramsci this transformation of economic-corporatist to hegemony stage is the first one which provides class with a consciousness before passing political hegemonic stage. In the first stage solidarity between segments of class achieved. Gramsci calls this stage as economico-corporative stage that “one trader feels that he must be solid with another trader, one manufacturer with another.”[22] First stage does not create a true social class nor does class consciousness. In the second stage social class is created and “consciousness of the solidarity of interests among all the members of the social group is reached; but still in the economic field.”[23] When the economic stages are completed, in the third stage, for the attainment of hegemony, the interests of the social class should transcend the economic-corporate interests and “must become the interests of other subordinate groups”[24] Gramsci’s very contribution to the concept of hegemony in relations of forces within it, is the inclusion of ‘national-popular’. Thus only with some sense of compromise the interest of leading social class may become the interest of other subordinate groups. Such compromise takes its place in the studies of Gramsci as ‘National Popular’:

” A class can not achieve national leadership and become hegemonic if it confines itself only to class interests: It must take into account the popular and democratic demands and struggles of the people which do not have a pure class interests, that is, which do not arise directly out of the relations of production” [25]

 

From Alliance to Bloc: “Historic Bloc”

A more democratic alliance with the inclusion of ‘National-Popular’ such as interests of movements of national liberation, the women’s movement, the peace movement, demands of ethnic minorities, students[26] is now called for Gramsci as a Bloc, a bloc of social forces.[27] The Historical Bloc used by Gramsci illustrates; “a block of social forces in civil society with its leadership in the sphere of production”.[28] Gramsci’s special emphasis to the civil society within the concept of ‘Historic Bloc’ may be regarded in parallel to his ‘National-Popular’ concept. Civil society for Gramsci, is a comprehensive set of institutions such as trade unions, political parties, religious bodies, the mass media, cultural and economic organizations [29]and so on.

Whereas historical bloc encompasses the civil society, hegemony can be only be attain by capturing civil society. One other departure from Classical Marxism is noticed here as; When Gramsci defines Historic Bloc as the sum of structure and superstructure.[30] Within this sum, Gramsci replaces the civil society from structure to superstructure. On contrary for Marx ‘civil society conceived as economic structure’. [31]

On the other hand also within superstructure Gramsci differentiates the political society and civil society. For Gramsci superstructure is equilibrium between political society and civil society.[32] Thus civil society reflects both the coercion element of political society and consent element of civil society. That is civil society gives civil effect to the superstructure. While State and its components represents political society, on the other hand civil society represents ‘so called private organizations’.[33]

In short historical bloc is now not a merely political alliance[34] but sum of base and superstructure as “Dominance of one class which ‘leads’ its allies and may dominant over its enemies. Its chief class enemy may be attempting to organize an alternative historical block by attracting certain social forces over to its side and consequently weakening the present historical bloc.” [35]Within this dominance position the leadership position in the sphere of production [36]is also achieved.

However Historical Bloc is represents only a position of dominance rather than hegemony. Hegemony is something represents organic strong links within the Historical Bloc, and between the superstructure and base.

For Gramsci there is no sharpest separation between base and superstructure[37], therefore vertical fusion of structure and superstructure is necessary within the Historic Bloc. Otherwise Historical Bloc can not become hegemonic. As Adamson pointed out “Hegemonies always grow out of Historical Blocs, but not all Historical Blocs are hegemonic” [38]

 

“Organically” Organizing Historic Bloc into a Hegemony: “Intellectuals”

The concept of Historic Bloc in fat provide us with the one dimension of Cox’s definition of hegemony; ‘coalition of top-down forces’ [39]On the other hand ‘activation of this coalition with the common consciousness’[40]is the most crucial point of Gramscian thought. This stage is named in the Gramsci’s studies as the ‘intellectual-moral- reforms. Intellectual-Moral reforms stand for creating [a] common conception of the world[41] , with transforming people’s way of thinking and feeling … and their standards of moral conduct.[42] In theory intellectual-moral reform is a way for the vertical fusion of the base and superstructure. Thus it provides an organic link. According to Gramsci; “Effective leadership role would have been to develop truly ‘organic’ program of mass-elite relations”[43] Organic emphasis of Gramsci provides simple and natural meaning to the relations. The term is used in opposition to ‘empirical’.[44] That is proposed link should be representative enough to reflect all the values and interests within the historical Bloc. That is to say the compromised values and interests of other groupings should be reflected within this organic link.

Truly the device for this organic link is the ideology of the dominant class within Historic Bloc. Thereby this ideology also should not be imposed rather should be negotiated by unequal forces[45] and which would be reflective enough to combine National-Popular will. When the ideology becomes its organic shape, it is time for performing the expected task of intellectual-moral reform as political education of man-in-the-masses.[46] Man-in-the-masses find its place in the Gramscian terminology as ‘Common Sense’. The common sense represents the site which the dominant ideology is constructed.[47] It is the uncritical and largely unconscious way in which a person perceives the world.[48] Within this pedagogical process, the main task of intellectual-moral reform is performed by the educators, organizers, who are intellectuals who are also organically created by the dominant class. The “intellectual” phenomenon also finds its special place in the Gramscian terminology. Gramsci uses term in broader terms than Classical Marxism and Leninism. Also he by loading a very significant role to the concept creates a new outlook for intellectuals.

As organizers of hegemony, Gramscian intellectuals have influence within the all sphere of Historic Bloc. For Gramsci;“By ‘intellectuals’ must be understood not those strata commonly described by this term. But in general the entire social stratum which exercises an organizational function in the wide sense – whether in the field of production or in that of culture or in that of political administration.”[49]

Gramsci’s distinguishing study on intellectuals is his classification of intellectuals as traditional intellectuals and organic intellectuals. According to Gramsci traditional intellectuals are [a]ppeared as representatives of a historical continuity, uninterrupted even by the most complicated and radical changes in social and political forms[50]such as The Ecclesiastics, Literary man, philosophers and the artist.[51] On the other hand organic intellectuals represent those specially educated and trained group to promote culture of the dominant class. But also they have leading and organizing function such as ‘in the sphere of production: managers, engineers, technicians, etc., in the civil society: politicians, prominent writers and academics, broadcasters, journalists etc., in the state apparatus: civil servants, officers of the armed forces and magistrates, etc.’ [52]According to Gramsci “every social group, coming into existence …creates together itself, organically one or more strata of intellectuals.”[53] That is as Cammettt put forward “The interest of the organic intellectual are, however, more nearly identical with those of the dominant class of the time than the traditional intellectual’s.”[54]

According to Rosengarten Gramsci’s ideas on [t]he role of intellectuals in rationalizing systems of political control and domination[55] provides a different explanation to the intellectual-masses relations. In the transition of a class from “in itself” to “for itself” is indicated especially by the development of its own organic intellectuals. The development of proletarian hegemony depends on the development of intellectuals of a new type.[56] Organic intellectuals while provides social class with the cultural, social and political leadership. However [u]ntil this process reaches an advanced stage, traditional intellectuals are likely to fill the leadership vacuum.”[57]

 

REVOLUTION AS “WAR ON POSITION”

For Gramsci development of a class into a fully hegemony is the name of revolution. In countries where democracy and civil society developed vis-à-vis state, revolution against state to control its power, would be an empty and vague dictatorship. Thus rather than ‘capture of power in a single historical moment’[58], in order to speak about revolution, a social class should seek to create its hegemony, thus seek to create new historic bloc. In Gramscian thought revolution refers to becoming dominant and leader, by creating and dominating Historic Bloc, thereafter becoming hegemony within the political and civil society and in the end transforming [t]he state into a socialist state.[59] That is a social class should be on alert for capturing the “position” of the existing ruling class rather than looking out for true “movement” for revolution. ‘War on Position’ strategy developed by Gramsci through his comparison with the eastern and western states and outlining the differences between two, thus by rationalizing necessity of the different strategy for the revolution.

“In the east the state was everything, civil society was primordial and gelatinous; in the west, there was a proper relation between the state and civil society, and when the state trembled a sturdy structure of civil society on outer ditch behind which there stood a powerful system of fortresses and earthwork.” [60]

This is also true to argue that in the countries where the state apparatus is much stronger and important, the importance of the degree of legitimacy of state is in that sense could be reduced. In the totalitarian monarchs and interventionist governments of the east, where all oppositions, critical movements, existence of civil society are strictly controlled, monitored and even rejected, replacement of a totalitarian regime with another one make no sense for the man-in-the-masses. In such an atmosphere Bolshevik revolution’s claim for equality and democracy, in its alliance with the peasantry, in the war-torn Russia, in the time of capitalist economy totally destructed succeed. However the situation is quite different in the Western countries where consolidated capitalist economy supported by the legitimate parliamentary rule of capitalists. In this situation [l]ong term preparation in a war on position[61] is inevitable.

Revolution via war on position should be expected in the time of crises of authority;  [w]hen the ruling classes, though still dominant, are no longer hegemonic and when the insurgent classes exercises considerable hegemony but without domination.[62]

When the opposition and demand for domination symbolized through strikes, boycotts and unrest intensified, ruling class usually uses some counter strategies to mollify the unrest by making some social reforms in parallel to demands of opposition groups.[63] Gramsci calls this tactics employed by the ruling class as ‘Passive Revolution’ in which is used for disorganize opposition forces.[64] At this stage, revolution in claiming domination of political society should be launched as war on position, as an anti-passive revolution of ruling class by [c]ontinual extension of class and popular-democratic struggles.[65]

 

CONCLUSION

Gramscian hegemony can be regarded as a toll that activated and revived the communist ideology by rationalizing and legitimizing its way toward power. It can be claim that new outlook imposed by Gramscian thought saved the communist ideology to become out-mode, especially in the Liberal countries. His generalization, on the other hand, provides a rational way for every class who seek to come to power. Therefore applicability of Gramsci’s thinking makes it more distinct and favorable. Often communism regarded as one payer theatre of the communist party and ideology, here it can be suggested that Gramsci activated the pay by reviving extras and figures in it.

BIBLIOGRAPHY

BOOKS

  1. Gramsci Antonio, “The Modern Prince and Other Writings”, London: Lawrence & Wishart Ltd, 1957
  2. Joll James, “Gramsci”, London: Fontana, 1977
  3. Adamson l. Walter, “Hegemony and Revolution, A study of Antonio Gramsci’s Political and Cultural theory”, London, University of California Press, 1980
  4. Simon Roger, “Gramsci’s Political thought, An Introduction”, London: Lawrence & Wishart Ltd, 1991
  5. Cammett M. John, “Antonio Gramsci and the Origins of Italian Communism”, Stanford, California: Stanford University Press, 1967
  6. Sassoon Anne Showstack (2nd Ed.) “Gramsci’s politics”, Minneapolis: University of Minnesota press, 1987
  7. Pellicani Luciano, “Gramsci, An Alternative Communism”,Stanford: Hoover institution Press, 1981
  8. Richard Wyn Jones. “Critical theory and World Politics”, Boulder, Colo.; London:  Lynne Rienner Publishers, 2001
  9. Hoffman John, “The Gramscian Challenge: Coercion and Consent in Marxist political theory”, Oxford: Blackwell, 1984

ARTICLES

  1. Rosengarten Frank, “The Gramsci-Trotsky Question (1922-1932)”, Social Text, No. 11. (Winter, 1984-1985), pp. 65-95
  2. Hawley P. James, “Antonio Gramsci’s Marxism: Class, State and Work, Social Problems”, Vol. 27, No. 5, Sociology of Political Knowledge Issue: Theoretical Inquiries, Critiques and Explications. (Jun., 1980), pp. 584-600
  3. Ruccio F. David, “Unfinished Business, Gramsci’s Prison Notebooks, Rethinking Marxism”, Vol.18 No.1 (January 2008),pp. 1-7
  4. Ozcelik Sezai, “Neorealist and Neo-Gramscian Hegemony in International Relations and Conflict Resolution during the 1990’s”, Journal of Economic and Social Research, (Fall 2005), No: 1, pp. 88-114

 

WORLD WIDE WEB

  1. Carl Cuneo, Hegemony In Gramsci’s Original Prison Notebooks: Notes on the Concept of Hegemony in Gramsci, [Online] , September-December, 1996[Cited 3 Jan. 2008]; available from World Wide Web: < http://socserv2.mcmaster.ca/soc/courses/soc2r3/gramsci/gramheg.htm> [one screen]

[1] Rosengarten Frank, “The Gramsci-Trotsky Question (1922-1932)”, Social Text, No. 11. (Winter, 1984-1985), p. 66

 

 

[2] Cammett M. John, “Antonio Gramsci and the Origins of Italian Communism” , Stanford, California: Stanford University Press, 1967, p.204

[3] Adamson l. Walter, “Hegemony and Revolution, A study of Antonio Gramsci’s Political and Cultural theory”, London, University of California Press, 1980, p.172

[4] Simon Roger, “Gramsci’s Political thought, An Introduction”, London: Lawrence & Wishart Ltd, 1991 , p.25

[5] Pellicani Luciano, “Gramsci, An Alternative Communism”,Stanford: Hoover institution Press, 1981, p.7

 

[6] Adamson l. Walter, “Hegemony and Revolution, A study of Antonio Gramsci’s Political and Cultural theory”, London, University of California Press, 1980, p.168

[7] Hoffman John, “The Gramscian Challenge: Coercion and Consent in Marxist political theory”, Oxford: Blackwell, 1984. p.55

[8] Ozcelik Sezai, “Neorealist and Neo-Gramscian Hegemony in International Relations and Conflict Resolution during the 1990’s”, Journal of Economic and Social Research, (Fall 2005), No: 1, pp. 88-114

 

[9] Ibid.

[10] Ibid.

[11] Carl Cuneo, Hegemony In Gramsci’s Original Prison Notebooks: Notes on the Concept of Hegemony in Gramsci, [Online] , September-December, 1996[Cited 3 Jan. 2008]; available from World Wide Web: < http://socserv2.mcmaster.ca/soc/courses/soc2r3/gramsci/gramheg.htm> [one screen]Ibid.

[12] Ibid.

[13]  Simon Roger, “Gramsci’s Political thought, An Introduction”, London: Lawrence & Wishart Ltd, 1991 , p.25

[14] Ibid. p 25

[15] Pellicani Luciano, “Gramsci, An Alternative Communism”,Stanford: Hoover institution Press, 1981, p.4

[16] Richard Wyn Jones. “Critical theory and World Politics”, Boulder, Colo.; London:  Lynne Rienner Publishers, 2001, pp.56

[17] Adamson l. Walter, “Hegemony and Revolution, A study of Antonio Gramsci’s Political and Cultural theory”, London, University of California Press, 1980, p.173

[18] Sassoon Anne Showstack (2nd Ed.) “Gramsci’s politics”, Minneapolis: University of Minnesota press, 1987, p.111

[19] Hoffman John, “The Gramscian Challenge: Coercion and Consent in Marxist political theory”, Oxford: Blackwell, 1984., p.54

[20] Ibid. p.54

[21] Adamson l. Walter, “Hegemony and Revolution, A study of Antonio Gramsci’s Political and Cultural theory”, London, University of California Press, 1980, p.172

[22] Gramsci Antonio, “The Modern Prince and Other Writings”, London: Lawrence & Wishart Ltd, 1957, p.169

[23] Ibid. p.169

[24] Ibid. p.169

[25] Simon Roger, “Gramsci’s Political thought, An Introduction”, London: Lawrence & Wishart Ltd, 1991 , p.48

[26] Ibid. p.27

[27] Ibid. p.36

[28] Ibid.p.31

[29] Ibid. p.30

[30] Sassoon Anne Showstack (2nd Ed.) “Gramsci’s politics”, Minneapolis: University of Minnesota press, 1987, p.120

[31] Adamson l. Walter, “Hegemony and Revolution, A study of Antonio Gramsci’s Political and Cultural theory”, London, University of California Press, 1980, p.172

[32] Ibid. p.217

[33] Simon Roger, “Gramsci’s Political thought, An Introduction”, London: Lawrence & Wishart Ltd, 1991 , p.79

[34] Sassoon Anne Showstack (2nd Ed.) “Gramsci’s politics”, Minneapolis: University of Minnesota press, 1987, p.121

[35] Ibid. p.122

[36] Simon Roger, “Gramsci’s Political thought, An Introduction”, London: Lawrence & Wishart Ltd, 1991 , p.31

[37] Ibid. p.27

[38] Adamson l. Walter, “Hegemony and Revolution, A study of Antonio Gramsci’s Political and Cultural theory”, London, University of California Press, 1980, p.177

[39] Richard Wyn Jones. “Critical theory and World Politics”, Boulder, Colo.; London:  Lynne Rienner Publishers, 2001, p.56

[40] Ibid. p.56

[41] Simon Roger, “Gramsci’s Political thought, An Introduction”, London: Lawrence & Wishart Ltd, 1991 , p.69

[42] Ibid. p.28

[43] Adamson l. Walter, “Hegemony and Revolution, A study of Antonio Gramsci’s Political and Cultural theory”, London, University of California Press, 1980, p.191

[44] Ibid. p.191

[45] Simon Roger, “Gramsci’s Political thought, An Introduction”, London: Lawrence & Wishart Ltd, 1991 , p.72

[46] Adamson l. Walter, “Hegemony and Revolution, A study of Antonio Gramsci’s Political and Cultural theory”, London, University of California Press, 1980, p.152

[47] Simon Roger, “Gramsci’s Political thought, An Introduction”, London: Lawrence & Wishart Ltd, 1991, p.72

[48] Ibid. p.72

[49] Ruccio F. David, “Unfinished Business, Gramsci’s Prison Notebooks, Rethinking Marxism”, Vol.18 No.1 (January 2008),p. 4

[50] Gramsci Antonio, “The Modern Prince and Other Writings”, London: Lawrence & Wishart Ltd, 1957, p.122

[51] Ibid. p.122

[52] Simon Roger, “Gramsci’s Political thought, An Introduction”, London: Lawrence & Wishart Ltd, 1991 , p.109

[53] Gramsci Antonio, “The Modern Prince and Other Writings”, London: Lawrence & Wishart Ltd, 1957, p.119

[54] Cammett M. John, “Antonio Gramsci and the Origins of Italian Communism” , Stanford, California: Stanford University Press, 1967, p.202

[55] Rosengarten Frank, “The Gramsci-Trotsky Question (1922-1932)”, Social Text, No. 11. (Winter, 1984-1985), p. 65

[56] Hawley P. James, “Antonio Gramsci’s Marxism: Class, State and Work, Social Problems”, Vol. 27, No. 5, Sociology of Political Knowledge Issue: Theoretical Inquiries, Critiques and Explications. (Jun., 1980), p. 558

[57] Adamson l. Walter, “Hegemony and Revolution, A study of Antonio Gramsci’s Political and Cultural theory”, London, University of California Press, 1980, p.143

[58] Simon Roger, “Gramsci’s Political thought, An Introduction”, London: Lawrence & Wishart Ltd, 1991 , p.32

[59] Ibid. P. 32

[60] Sassoon Anne Showstack (2nd Ed.) “Gramsci’s politics”, Minneapolis: University of Minnesota press, 1987, p.198

[61] Joll James, “Gramsci”, London: Fontana, 1977, p.100

[62] Hoffman John, “The Gramscian Challenge: Coercion and Consent in Marxist political theory”, Oxford: Blackwell, 1984, p.54

[63] Simon Roger, “Gramsci’s Political thought, An Introduction”, London: Lawrence & Wishart Ltd, 1991 , p.28

[64] Ibid. p.28

[65] Ibid. p.28

By |2015-07-25T22:25:33+00:00Ocak 11th, 2013|Categories: Çeşitli, Internationals, Uncategorized @tr|0 Comments

Leave A Comment

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.

Sorumluluk Reddi

Sozercizmeci.com.tr adresinde yer alan makale ve yazılar, akademik yazım kuralları ve araştırma yöntemlerine bağlı kalınmaya çalışılarak, akademik ve profesyonel ilgi alanlarım doğrultusunda düzenlenmiş yayınlardır. Hertürlü kişinin bilgi edinmesi amacıyla yayınlanan bu makalelerin içerikleri ve güncellikleri hususunda her ne kadar azami özen gösterilmiş olsa dahi, bu konuda herhangi bir teminat verilmemiştir veya sorumluluk üstlenilmemiştir. Sitelerin, kullamından dolayı doğrudan veya dolaylı yönde oluşabilecek tüm riskler kullanıcı ve ziyaretçilere aittir. Sitelerdeki tüm makaleler Sadık Sözer Çizmeci’ye aittir. İzinsiz şekilde makalelerin bir kısmı veya tamamı kopyalanamaz, yayınlamaz. Sitelerde yer alan tüm bilgiler, bilgilendirme amaçlıdır, kesinlikle yasal veya profesyonel tavsiye niteliği taşımamaktadır.

Dısclaımer

Please consider that the website you have visited contains general information only, not professional or legal advice. Although I have taken great care in compiling the content of sozercizmeci.com.tr, I cannot guarantee that all information is accurate and complete. This website is made available to you for personal use only. You may read all of the contents online, download articles and make copies of them or read stored copies. You may share the content with anyone you want. However, you may not alter the files or represent yourself or some third party other than Sadık Sözer ÇİZMECİ as the owner or author of the articles included in this web page.