Counter Hegemony

7/28/2019 Counter Hegemony

1/22

A. Dugin

Counter-hegemony in the Theory of Multi-polar World

The most important aspect of the theory of a multipolar world is

the concept counter-hegemony originally formulated in thecontext of a critical theory of International Relations (IR). In thetransition from critical theory to the theory of a multipolar world(MPW), this concept undergoes certain semantic transformationsthat must be disassembled in more detail. To do this, recall thebasic principles of the theory of hegemony within critical theory.

Understanding the "hegemony" in realism

The concept of hegemony in the critical theory is based on thetheories of Antonio Gramsci. It is necessary to distinguishbetween the concept of hegemony in gramscism and neo-gramscianism and how hegemony understand the realist andneorealist trend in IR.Classical realists use the term "hegemony" in a relative sense andunderstand by it the "actual and substantial superiority of thepotential power of a single power on the potential of the other,often neighboring countries." Hegemony may well be a regional

phenomenon, as the determination is made whether or not apolitical entity "hegemony," depends on what scale we use aconsideration. In this sense, the term is found in Thucydides, whospoke about the hegemony of Athens and of the hegemony ofSparta during the Peloponnesian War, classical realism is using itin exactly the same up to the present time. Such a conception ofhegemony can be called "strategic" and "relative".In neo-realism "hegemony" is understood in a global (structural)context. The main difference from classical realism is that here

the "hegemony" can not be regarded as a regional phenomenon,and it is always global. In neorealism K. Waltz, for example,approved the balance of the two hegemonies (bipolar world) asthe optimal structure of the balance of power on a global scale. R.Gilpin believes that hegemony may well be combined withunipolar, that is, there may be a global hegemony (today thisfunction is performed by the United States).In both cases, the hegemony of the realists interpreted as a wayof relating to each other the potential might of different powers.Understanding hegemony in Gramsci in radically different andplaced in a completely different theoretical plane. To avoidincorrect use of the term in IR, and especially in the MPW should


2/22

dwell on the political theory of Gramsci, in the context of whichthe hegemony is considered a priority in the critical theory andMPW. In addition, this analysis will see more clearly theconceptual gap between critical theory and MPW.

The hegemony of the concept of Antonio Gramsci

Antonio Gramsci, bases his theory, later called "gramscism",based on a rethinking of Marxism and its practical implementationin the historical practice. As a Marxist, Antonio Gramsci is surethat the socio-political history of completely predetermined by theeconomic factor. Like all Marxists, he explains the superstructure(superstructure, Aufbau) through basis (infrastructure, Basis).Bourgeois society is the quintessence of class society, where the

process of operation reaches the most concentrated expression inrelation to the ownership of the means of production and in theassignment of the bourgeoisie of surplus value produced in themanufacturing process. The inequality in the economic sphere(the base), and the rule of capital over labor is the essence ofcapitalism and determines the entire social, political and culturalsemantics (superstructure). This idea is shared by all Marxists,and there is nothing new or original. But Antonio Gramsci wondershow proletarian socialist revolution was possible in Russia, where

the point of view of Marx (to analyze the situation in the RussianEmpire in the XIX century, but in the long term prediction) andfrom the point of view of classical European Marxism of the earlytwentieth century, the objective state basis (lack of developmentof capitalist relations, a small percentage of the urban proletariat,the predominance of the agricultural sector in the total GDP of thecountry, the absence of the bourgeois political system, etc.)preclude the possibility of coming to power of the CommunistParty. Nevertheless, Lenin made this possible and started theconstruction of socialism.Gramsci conceptualize this phenomenon as fundamentallyimportant, calling it "Leninism". Leninism in the understanding ofGramsci, there is an avant-garde, anticipatory action consolidatedand strong political superstructure (in the person of theCommunist Party of Bolsheviks) to seize political power. As soonas it becomes fact and the revolution is successful, it should bethe rapid development of the base, a filling-accelerated pace ofthe economic realities that have not been realized undercapitalism: industrialization, modernization, "electrification","public education." So concludes Gramsci, in certaincircumstances, politics (superstructure) is able to stay ahead of


3/22

the economy (the basis). The Communist Party can go in front ofthe "natural" development of historical processes. Consequently,Leninism proves the existence of substantial autonomy for theadd-in basis.But Leninism, as understood Gramsci, confined to the field of

political superstructure segment - where the laws of power solvesthe problem of domination. Gramsci argues that thesuperstructure is another important segment that is not politicalin every sense of the word - that is, the party and paired directlywith questions of political power. He calls it a "civil society." Suchdetermination shall be accompanied by an explanation: "CivilSociety in the understanding of Gramsci," as he puts it in themeaning of the concept is not entirely coincide with the fact thatit is endowed with, for example, in the liberal theories. Civil

society, according to Gramsci, is the area of intellectual activity inthe broadest sense, the less of it direct political (party, state,administrative) activity. Civil society - a zone of deployment ofsmart areas of society, including the science, culture, philosophy,art, analysis, journalism, etc. For the Marxist Gramsci this area, aswell as the whole superstructure of course, expresses the laws ofthe basis. But ... Leninism shows that expressing the laws of thebasis, in some cases, the add-in can operate relativelyautonomously, going ahead of the curve processes unfolding in

the basis. Experience a revolution in Russia in the historicalexample shows how this is implemented in the segment of thepolitical superstructure. Here Gramsci puts forward a hypothesis:if this is the case in the political sphere of the superstructure, whynot something like this be in the area of "civil society"? From thisis born gramscist concept of "hegemony." It aims to show that inthe intellectual field (= "civil society by Gramsci") there issomething analogous to the economic differential (Capital vsLabour) in the basis differential and political superstructure in the(bourgeois parties and the government vs the proletarian partyand the government - for example, the Soviet Union). This thirddifferential and Gramsci calls the "hegemony" that is, a set ofstrategies of domination of bourgeois consciousness of theproletarian consciousness in conditions of relative autonomy withrespect to both politics and the economy. Another Germansociologist Werner Sombart, exploring the bourgeois sociology hasshown that comfort can be valuable as the Third Estate, which itpartly is, and other social groups that do not know and do nothave. Hegel's "Phenomenology of spirit" likewise said that theslave uses for self-reflection is not the consciousness, butconsciousness of the Lord. This item was laid by Marx as the basis


4/22

of Communist ideology. Following this chain of thought, Gramsciconcludes that the adoption or rejection of hegemony (=structures of bourgeois consciousness) can not directly dependneither on the fact of belonging to the bourgeois class (factorbasis), or from direct political involvement in the bourgeois (or

antibourgeois) the party or administrative system. Be on the sideof hegemony or against it is, in Gramsci, a matter of free choiceintellectual. When consciously intellectual exercises such achoice, he is from the "traditional" intellectual, is "organic", thatis, consciously choose their position relative hegemony.

This implies an important conclusion: to oppose the intellectualhegemony may well also in the society in which capitalistrelations in the basis and the political domination of thebourgeoisie in the superstructure prevail. Intellectual can reject or

accept the hegemony of the free, because it has a gap offreedom, similar to that which is in the political to the economic(as the experience of Bolshevism in Russia.) In other words, youcan be the bearer of proletarian consciousness and stand on theside of the working class and just society, being in the heart ofbourgeois society. It all depends on intellectual choice: hegemony- it is a matter of conscience.Gramsci himself came up with the concept for the analysis ofpolitical developments in Italy of the 1920s - 30s. During this

period, according to his analysis, in this country quite ripeconditions for socialist revolution - and the basis (developedindustrial capitalism and the intensification of class contradictionsand class struggle), and in the superstructure (political successesconsolidated the Left parties). But these seemingly favorableconditions, further analyses of Gramsci, the leftist forces wereobliged by the failure of the fact that in the intellectual sphere inItaly was dominated by representatives of the hegemony that is,introducing bourgeois stereotypes and cliches, even where it wasat odds with the economic and political realities and preferencesof active anti-bourgeois circles. This, in his view, and Mussolinitook advantage, turning hegemony in their favor (fascism, fromthe point of view of communists was a veiled form of dominationof the bourgeois class) and to prevent artificially socialistrevolution is brewing due to the natural historical course ofevents. In other words, driving a (relatively) successful politicalbattles, the Italian Communists, for Gramsci, lost sight of the "civilsociety", the intellectual sphere, "metapolitical" struggle, in whichhe saw the cause of their defeat.In this form gramscism has been adopted by the European Left(especially the New Left), and since the 1960s left-wing


5/22

movement in Europe gramscism to have put into practice. TheLeft (Marxist) intellectuals (Sartre, Camus, Aragon, Foucault, etc.)were able to introduce anti-bourgeois concepts and theories inthe center of the social and cultural life, using publishing houses,newspapers, clubs and university departments, which were an

integral part of the capitalist economy and acted in the politicalcontext of domination of the bourgeois system. Thus, they haveprepared events of 1968 that swept through Europe, and turn leftEuropean politics in the 1970's. How Leninism in practice provedthat the political superstructure segment has a certain autonomyand activity in this area may be ahead of the processes unfoldingin the basis, so gramscism in the practice of the New Left hasdemonstrated the effectiveness and practical value of the activeIP strategy.

Gramscism in a critical theory: left bias

In the form in which we have described, gramscism and was

integrated into critical theory and its modern representatives of

the Ministry of Defense - Robert Cox, Stephen Gill etc. Although in

the spirit of postmodern they are even more emphasized the

autonomy of the scope of "civil society" and, accordingly, the

phenomenon of hegemony, putting an intelligent choice andepistemological strategies above political processes and

economic structures, in general, it is the continuity of the Marxist

left discourse has been preserved: for them, capitalism is

generally better pre-capitalist socio-economic system, although it

is clearly worse than the post-capitalist (socialist and communist)

model, which should replace it. This explains the structure of the

project counter-hegemony in the critical theory of Defense - it is

in the context of left-understanding of the historical process. Canbe described this way: according to the representatives of the

critical theory of hegemony (= bourgeois society, culminating in a

hologram of bourgeois consciousness) must replace an under-

hegemony (types of societies prior to the bourgeois and their

inherent forms of collective consciousness - premodern), only to

be ruined by the counter-hegemony that, after his victory, set the

post-hegemony. So, do Marx and Engels in the "Communist

Manifesto" in every key pressed on the fact that the claims of theCommunists to the bourgeoisie did not have anything to do with

the claims of the bourgeoisie by the feudal anti-bourgeois,


6/22

nationalist, Christian socialists, etc. Capitalism is pure evil,

absorbs relative (not so obvious and not so explicit) evil older

forms of public service, but to defeat the evil, to give him to fully

express himself, and only then to eradicate, and not retouched its

most odious features, only pulling thus the horizons of revolution

and communism.

It must be borne in mind when considering the structure of neo-

gramscianist analysis of international relations.

This analysis divides all countries into those where the hegemony

strengthened obviously (it is the developed capitalist countries

with the industrial economy, domination of the bourgeois parties

in parliamentary democracies, organized in accordance with the

samples of national States, a developed market economy and a

liberal legal system), and those where at different historical

circumstances that did not happen. The first countries to be called

"developed democratic powers", and the second - to refer to the

"borderline cases", "problem areas" or even the category of

"rogue states (rogue states"). The analysis of hegemony in the

countries where it has become stronger, fully integrated into the

overall Left (Marxist, neo-Marxist and gramscist) analysis. But the

case of countries with "unfinished hegemony" should beconsidered separately.

These countries Gramsci himself relates to the category

"Caesarist" (a clear reference to the experience through the eyes

of fascist Italy). "Caesarism" could be considered broadly - as any

political system, where the bourgeois relations exist in fragments

and their full political clearance (both classical bourgeois-

democratic states) is delayed. In "Caesarism" not important

principle of authoritarian rule, but it is the delay of a fullcomprehensive installation of the capitalist system (in the base

and superstructure), of the Western model. The reasons for the

delay may be very different: a dictatorial style of government,

clan elites, the presence of religious or ethnic groups in power,

the cultural characteristics of the society, the historical

circumstances of particular economic or geographic location, etc.

It is important, first of all, that in such a society, hegemony serves

as both an external force (the part of the fully bourgeois statesand the high-grade societies) and the internal opposition, one way

or another related to external factors.


7/22

Neo-gramscianists in the IR claim that "Caesarism" is exactly

"under-hegemony", so its strategy is to ensure that the balance

between the pressures from within and outside hegemonies,

going to make some concessions, but at the same time, making it

selectively, aiming at that whatever was to retain power and

prevent its capture by the bourgeois political forces, expressing at

the political superstructure of the structure of the economic basis

of society. Therefore, "Caesarism" doomed to a "transformism"

(the Italian transformismo") - a permanent adjustment to the

hegemony on the one hand, at a constant quest to delay,

postpone or sent by a false path that final, to which it is moving

steadily.

In this regard, the representatives of critical theory in the MoD

consider the "Caesarism" as that sooner or later be overcome by

hegemony, as this phenomenon is nothing more than a "historical

lag", and not an alternative that is not counter-hegemony as such.

It is obvious that to such an "Caesarism" modern representatives

of critical theory in the MoD relate most of the Third World, and

even the major powers, members of the BRICS (Brazil, Russia,

India, China and South Africa).

With such features, it becomes clear the limitations of the conceptcounter-hegemony of the representatives of critical theory in the

MoD and frank utopianism of their alternative projects - so that

"counter-society" Cox is something inconspicuous and uncertain.

They proceed from the troubled project of social and political

world order that must come "after liberalism" (I.Wallerstein) and

meet the familiar to the left of the communist utopia. A similar

version of counter-hegemony is limited by the fact that the hastily

puts many political phenomena clearly do not fall into thecategory of hegemony and gravitate to alternative versions of a

world order in the category of "Caesarism" and therefore "under-

hegemony", depriving them of any kind of interest for the

development of an effective counter-hegemonic strategy. But this

general analysis of the structure of international relations in the

light of the methodology of neo-gramscianism is an extremely

important area for the development of MWT.

However, in order to overcome the limitations of a critical theoryof Defense and the full potential neo-gramscianism should be

qualitatively expand this approach, going beyond only the left


8/22

(even "leftist") discourse, which puts the entire structure in the

area of ideological sectarianism and marginal exotics (where it is

in the present). In this issue we will have the invaluable

assistance by the ideas of French philosopher Alain de Benoist.

"Right wing gramscism" conceptual revision of Alain de Benoist

Back in the 1980s, the French representative of the "New Right

(Nouvelle Droite"), Alain de Benoist drew attention to Gramsci's

ideas in terms of their methodological potential. Just as Gramsci,

de Benoist opened fundamental metapolitic as a special area of

intellectual activity that prepares (in the form of "passive

revolution") further economic and political developments.

Successes of the "new left" in France and in Europe in general

only confirmed the effectiveness of this approach.

Unlike most of the French intellectuals of the second half of the

twentieth century, Alain de Benoist was not a supporter of

Marxism, which made his position somewhat apart. However,

Alain de Benoist built his political philosophy on the radical

rejection of liberal and bourgeois values, rejecting capitalism,

individualism, modernism, as well as geopolitical Atlanticism andEurocentrism of the West. Moreover, he contrasted the "Europe"

and "the West" as two antagonistic concepts "Europe" for him is a

field deployment of special cultural Logos, coming from the Greek

and actively interacting with the richness of Celtic, Germanic,

Latin, Slavic and other European traditions, "West" - the

equivalent of the mechanistic, materialistic, rationalist civilization

based on the predominance of technique over all others. "West"

Alain de Benoist after O. Spegler understood as a "decline of theWest" and, together with Friedrich Nietzsche and Martin

Heidegger was convinced of the necessity of overcoming

modernity as nihilism and "abandonment of the world being

(Seinsverlassenheit). West in this understanding was identical to

his liberalism, capitalism and bourgeois society - all that "new

right" called to overcome. Not being a materialist, "new right" at

the same time agreed with the key meaning given Gramsci and

his followers to the sphere of "civil society." So, Alain de Benoistcame to the conclusion that the phenomenon named Gramsci,

"hegemony" is a set of strategies, attitudes and values, which he


9/22

considered an "absolute evil". This led to the proclamation of the

principle of "right wing gramscism.

"Right wing gramscism" means the recognition of the autonomy

of "civil society in the understanding of Gramsci", together with

the identification of the phenomenon of hegemony in this area

and the choice of its own ideological position on the opposite side

of hegemony. Alain de Benoist publishes policy work, "Europe, the

Third World - one and the same battle", entirely built on the

parallels between the struggle of the peoples of the Third World

against the Western bourgeois neo-colonialism and the desire of

European nations to be free from alienating dictatorship of the

bourgeois market society, morals and practices of traders, Instead

of the ethics of a hero (Sombart).

Essential "gramshism right" for MWT is that this understanding of

"hegemony" can stand up to a point beyond the left and Marxist

discourse and reject the bourgeois order as to the basis (the

economy) and in the superstructure (politics and civil society) but

this is not after hegemony becomes total and global planetary

fact instead. Hence it is extremely loaded with meaning nuance in

the title of another program of Alain de Benoist "Against

Liberalism" as opposed to "After Liberalism" of neomarxistImmanuel Wallerstein: to de Benoist in any case it is impossible to

rely on the "after" and should not be allowed to come true for

liberalism as a fait accompli, you have to be against liberalism

now, today, to fight with him in any position and at any point in

the world. The hegemony attacks on a planetary scale, finding

their carriers as to the prevailing bourgeois societies and in

societies where capitalism has not yet definitively established.

Therefore contrhegemony should be thought out sectarianideological constraints: if we want to create a counter-hegemonic

bloc, in its composition must enter all the representatives of anti-

bourgeois, anti-capitalist forces - left, right, or not at all amenable

to no classification (Ada Benoit himself consistently emphasized

that the division into "left "and" right "is outdated and does not

meet the real choice of position, and today is much more

important if someone stands for hegemony or against it).

"Right wing gramscism" of Alain de Benoist brings us back to the"Communist Manifesto" of Marx / Engels and contrary to their

exclusivist and dogmatic call to get "clear from fellow travelers'


10/22

calls for a Global Revolutionary Alliance, which brings together all

the enemies of capitalism and the hegemony of those who

essentially against it. It does not matter what is taken as a

positive alternative - is more important in this case, the presence

of a common enemy. Otherwise, according to the "new right"

(refusing to be precise, calling themselves the "right" - the name

given to representatives of the flow by their opponents),

hegemony will be able to divide their opponents by artificial signs

to oppose one to another in order to successfully cope all

individually.

Denunciation of Eurocentrism in historical sociology

On a completely different side came to the same problem a

modern researcher of international relations and one of the main

representatives of the historical sociology John Hobson. In his

keynote paper "Eurocentric conception of world politics," he

analyzes almost all approaches and paradigms in IR terms laid

down in the hierarchy constructed by comparing the States and

their roles, structures and interests with the Western model of

society, taken as a universal standard. D. Hobson concludes thatall of the schools in the MoD are built on the implicit

Eurocentrism, recognizing the universality of Western European

societies, and considering the phases of European history

compulsory for all other cultures. Hobson rightly sees this

approach as a sign of European racism, gradually and

imperceptibly blending of biological theories about the

"superiority of the white race" to the concepts of universality of

Western cultural values, strategies and technologies, and afterthat, interests as well. "White Man's Burden" becomes

"imperative of modernization and development." In doing so, the

local societies and culture that are subject to the "modernization"

by default - no one is asking them whether they agree with the

fact that Western values, technologies and practices are

universal, or are willing to argue something. Only when faced with

violent forms of desperate resistance in the form of terrorism and

fundamentalism, the West (sometimes) asks, "what for they hateus so much?" But the answer is ready in advance: "It comes from

the savagery and the ingratitude of non-European peoples for all


11/22

the benefits that Western "civilization" brings with itself.

It is important that Hobson clearly shows that racism and

Eurocentrism are not unique to the bourgeois theories of Defense,

but also to Marxism and including critical theory IR (neo-

gramscianism). Marxists, for all their criticism of bourgeois

civilization, convinced that her triumph is inevitable, and this

share is common to Western culture euro-ethnocentrism. Hobson

shows that Marx himself partly justifies colonial practices in that

they lead to the modernization of the colonies, and hence bring

nearer the moment of proletarian revolutions. Thus, in a historical

perspective, Marxism is an accomplice of capitalist globalization

and ally of racist civilizational practices. Decolonization thought

by Marxists only as a prelude to the construction of the bourgeois

States, which only remains to embark on a full industrialization

and head towards the future of the proletarian revolutions. And

it's not much different from the neo-liberal theories and

transnationalists.

John Hobson proposes to begin the creation of a radical

alternative - to the development of MO theory, based on non-

eurocentrist and anti-racist approaches. He agrees with the

project "counter-hegemonic bloc", nominated by neo-gramscianists, but insists on his release from all forms of

Eurocentrism, and hence on its qualitative expansion.

The project of non-eurocentrist IR theory leads us directly to

Miltipolar World Theory at last.

Transition to multipolarity

Now it is possible to bring together everything told about a

counter-hegemony and to place in it a context of the Multipolar

World Theory (MWT) which, in fact, is the consecutive not

eurocentrist theory of IR rejecting hegemony in its bases and

calling for creation of wide counter-hegemonic alliance or the

counter-hegemonic pact. Counter-hegemony in MWT is

comprehended in a similar way with theories of neo-gramscianist

and representatives of the IR critical school. Hegemony is

domination of the capital and bourgeois political system of thesociety, expressed in the intellectual sphere. Differently,

hegemony firstly is of all a discourse. Thus among three segments


12/22

of the society, allocated Gramsci basis and two components of a

superstructure (policy and "civil society") MWT in a consent with

the post-modernist and post-positivistic epistemology,

predominating considers discourse level, that is the intellectual

sphere. For this reason the question of hegemony and counter-

hegemony seems the central and fundamental MWT for

construction and its effective realization in practice. The area of

metapolitics is more important both politicians, and economy. It

doesn't exclude them, but logically and conceptually precedes to

them. Finally, the person deals only with the mind and its

projections. Therefore the device or a consciousness

reorganization automatically involves change (internal and

external) the world. MWT is fixing of the counter-hegemonic

concept in a concrete theoretical field. And till a certain moment

of MWT strictly follows a gramscizm. But where business reaches

clarification of the substantial party of the counter-hegemonic

pact, there are essential divergences. The most basic is refusal of

the left dogmatism: MWT refuses to consider bourgeois

transformations of modern societies on all space of a planet as

the universal law. Therefore MWT accepts a gramscism and

metapolitics rather in the version "new right" (Alain de Benois),than in the version "new left" (R.Kox). Thus position of Alain de

Benois isn't exclusuvist and doesn't exclude Marxism - in that

degree in which he is an ally in the general fight against the

Capital and hegemony. Therefore, strictly speaking, expression "a

gramscism on the right" isn't absolutely exact: it would be more

correct to speak about an inclusive gramscism (A counter-

hegemony understood widely, as all types of opposition of

hegemony, that is as generalizing and etymologically strict"counter -") and an exclusive gramscism (A counter-hegemony

understood narrowly, only as "post-hegemony"). MWT stands up

for an inclusive gramscism. More in details this position of

overcoming right and left, and also an exit out of conceptual limits

of political ideologies of the Modernist style, is developed in a

context of the Fourth Political Theory which is inseparably linked

with MWT.

J.Hobson's contribution to development of inclusive counter-

hegemony is extremely important. Its appeal to build the non-


13/22

eurocentrist theory of IR precisely coincides with MWT purpose.

The international relations have to be comprehended from plural

positions. At construction really universal theory representatives

of the most different cultures and civilizations, religions and

ethnos, societies and communities have to be listened and

considered. In each society there are values, the anthropology,

the ethics, the standards, the identity, the ideas of space and

time, of the general and private. In each society there is,

eventually, own "universalism" - at least, own understanding of

that is "universal". That the West thinks of "universality", we

know, even too. It is time to provide a vote to other mankind.

It also is multipolarity in its fundamental measurement: free

plurality of societies, people and cultures. But before this pluralitywill be able to be developed really, it is necessary to define the

general rules. And it also is the theory of the International

Relations. And such which will assume openness of terms,

concepts, theories, concepts, a plurality of actors, complexity and

polysemanticity. Not tolerance, but partnership and mutual

understanding. MWT in this case is not the ending, but start, a

cleaning of basic space for future world order.

However the appeal to multipolarity sounds not in empty space.

In a discourse about the international relations, in global political,

social and economic practice hegemony dominates. We live in the

rigid eurocentric world where one superstate (USA) in total with

her allies and vassals (NATO country) where the market relations

dictate all rules economic the practician where bourgeois political

standards undertake as obligatory where equipment and level of

material development are considered as the highest criteriawhere values of individualism, personal comfort, material welfare

and "freedoms from" are extolled above all the others

imperialistically dominates. In a word, we live in peace the

triumphing hegemony stretched the networks in planetary scale

and subordinating to all mankind. Therefore to make multipolarity

reality, the radical opposition, fight, opposition is necessary.

Differently, the counter-hegemonic block (in its inclusive

understanding) is necessary.

Let's consider, what resources are present at this potential block.


14/22

Syntax of hegemony/syntax of counter-hegemony

Hegemony in the conceptual hologram is based on conviction thatthe present in everything surpasses an antiquity (past), the

Modern triumphs over Premodern, and the West in everything

surpasses not - the West (The East, the Third world).

Structure syntax of hegemony in the most general view has:

The West ( The West) = present (Modern) = purpose = benefit =

progress = universal values = USA (+ NATO) = capitalism =

human rights = market = liberal democracy = right

Vs

Other (the Rest) = backwardness (Premodern) = needs

modernization (colonizations/the helps/lessons / external

management) = needs a westernization = barbarity (wildness) =

local values = a sub-capitalism (still not capitalism) = non-

compliance (insufficient observance) human rights =

unfair market (State participation, clannishness, group

preferences) = sub-democracy (default democracy) = corruption

These formulas of hegemony are axiomatic and autoreferential,

as some kind of "self fulfilling prophecy". One term locates other

of a chain of equivalence and is opposed to any term (symmetric

or not) from the second chain. By these simple rules any

discourse of hegemony is under construction. It can have visibility

of a causality, an exemplariness, the descriptive, analytics, the

forecast, historical research, sociological poll, debate, oppositions,

etc. But in the structure hegemony is under construction on such

skeleton, covering it with million variations and the told stories. If

to accept these two parallel chains of equalities, we appear inhegemony and are completely coded by its syntax. Any objection

will be is extinguished by the new suggestive passes skipping


15/22


16/22

completely gives us a free hand for expansion of a counter-

hegemonic discourse.

In this case we provided these basic rules for a specific goal: for

preliminary and most general calculation of those resources on

which it is possible to count theoretically at creation of thecounter-hegemonic pact.

Global revolutionary elite

The counter-hegemonic block is under construction round

intellectuals. Therefore, the global revolutionary elite rejecting

"the status quo " in its most deep basis has to be its kernel. Thisglobal revolutionary elite is formed round syntax of counter-

hegemony. Trying to comprehend the situation from any point of

the modern world, in any country, culture, society, a social

class, professional function, etc., - the person in search of deep

answers about a society organization in which he lives, will come

sooner or later to understanding of basic theses of a hegemonic

discourse. Certainly, it is given not to everyone though, across

Gramsci, each person is the intellectual to a certain degree.However only the full-fledged intellectual represents the person in

full and perfect sense; he is some kind of delegate in parliament

of conceiving mankind (homo sapiens) from more his modest

representatives (from those who can't or doesn't want to realize

completeness of data to the person as to a type of opportunities

culminated in opportunity to think, that is to be the intellectual).

Such intellectual also means when we speak about hegemony

detection. At this moment it becomes before a choice, that isrealizes the opportunity to become "the intellectual organic": he

can tell hegemonies "yes" and accept its syntax, further working

in its structure, and can tell "no". When he speaks "no", he goes

on counter-hegemony searches, that is looks for access to global

revolutionary elite.

This search can stop at the intermediate stage: always there are

local structures (traditionalist, fundamentalists, communists,

anarchists, ethno-centrists, revolutionaries of different types, etc.)

which, realizing a hegemony call, reject it, but do it at local level.


17/22

Here we are already at the level of organic intellectuals, but for

the present not realizing need of synthesis of the refusal of

hegemony in the form of universal planetary strategy. However,

entering in real (instead of imagined) fight against hegemony,

any revolutionary will find sooner or later its transnational,

exterritorial character: for the purposes hegemony always resorts

to a combination of internal and external factors, attacking that

considers the opponent or an obstacle of the imperial sovereignty

(elements of the second chain - Other (the Rest)). Therefore the

local resistance to a global challenge at once will reach the

natural limits; hegemony can once recede, but it will come again,

and it is simple to evade from it anybody won't manage and

never.

At the time of such understanding the representatives of local

counter-hegemony most developed intellectually will feel need of

an exit to level of fundamental alternative, that is mastering by

counter-hegemonic syntax. And it is already direct way to Global

Revolutionary Alliance. Thus objectively the world counter-

hegemonic elite also will be naturally formed.

She also is fated to become a counter-hegemony kernel. Most ofall MWT is necessary for it.

Counter-hegemony resources: "revisionists" of a world order and

their levels

Classical theories of IR, particularly, realism, divide countries into

countries, which are satisfied with the real state of affairs and

balance of forces in a world order, and countries, which are not

satisfied and who would like to change in own favor. The first are

called "as supporters of the status quo", the second are called as

"revisionists".

Those forces in the world, which are entered in hegemony and are

satisfied with it regardless of their scale and influence, represent

one half (thinking) of mankind, "revisionists" represent the second

half. Counter-hegemonic elite considers total of "revisionists" as


18/22

the resource naturally. "Revisionists "need MWT whether they

understand it or not. The need of MWT can be quite unconscious,

but if we accept model of "Caesarism" and to assume that many

political units are only and exclusively occupied with processes of

"transformism" (transformismo), MWT gives them an additional

argument to oppose hegemony pressure. Differently, the counter-

hegemonic elite (widely understood, more generally described by

us, on the right and left side) has a powerful natural resource in

the person of "revisionists".

In order that this resource will exist, it is not obligatory that

leading political elite of the countries - "revisionists" are solidary

with counter-hegemony or accepted MWT as the management of

creating the foreign policy. It is a right time to remember value of

an intellectual discourse in its autonomous condition (on what the

neo-gramscianists insist). There is enough of that intellectuals of

Global Revolutionary Alliance will realize value and the caesarist

functions of modes in a global field of hegemony; "revisionists"

work intuitively whereas representatives of the counter-

hegemonic pact work quite conscious. Their interests coincide.

And it does the counter-hegemonic pact by obviouslyfundamental force: "revisionists" provide to hardware, global

revolutionary elite provides software.

"Revisionists " in the modern world are a number of the powerful

and developed States which owing to various historical

circumstances are placed by global hegemony in such conditions

where they feel restrained. On the logic , their further

development imposed by a global discourse, inevitably will leadthem to undesirable consequences to actual political elite, or to

further deterioration of position of these states. "Revisionists " are

very various: some of them are inclined to a compromise with

hegemony, others, on the contrary, try to evade in every possible

way from its influence. But there is a field for activity of global

revolutionary elite everywhere.

The most serious association of the countries - "rrevisionists " isBRICS. Each of these countries is a huge resource, and the

management of all club "Second world" is interested objectively in


19/22

multipolarity - therefore, nothing prevents to advance in them

MWT as the strategic program of foreign policy.

Round the countries of "Second world" gravitate the whole

constellation of large regional powers (Argentina, Mexico - in Latin

America; Turkey, Pakistan - in the Central and Forward Asia; Saudi

Arabia, Egypt in the Arab world; Vietnam, Indonesia, Malaysia,

South Korea - in the Far East, etc.). Each of these countries also

can be carried to "revisionists" and has the impressive list of

regional ambitions,which is almost impossible or difficult to satisfy

in hegemonies system. These countries have a lot of fears and

calls in the field of the safety to which reflection of hegemony

doesn't promote.

Besides, there is a number of the countries which are in direct

opposition of hegemony (Iran, North Korea, Serbia, Venezuela,

Bolivia, Ecuador, etc.). It is provides to Global Revolutionary

Alliance exclusive strategic platforms.

On the next under - the state level there is a need of more careful

analysis, urged to reveal "revisionists" at political level those

political parties and movements, which for these or those

ideological reasons are required reject a hegemonic discourse inits.

On the next under - the state level there is a need of more careful

analysis, urged to reveal "revisionists" at political level those

political parties and movements, which for these or those

ideological reasons are required reject a hegemonic discourse in

its essential element. Such political forces can be right or left,

religious or secular, nationalist or cosmopolitan, parliamentary or

considerably oppositional, mass or "elitist". All of them can be

integrated into strategy of counter-hegemonic elite. Such parties

and movements can settle down in a political zone of

"revisionists", and in the field of those countries where hegemony

strengthens firmly and thoroughly. Under certain circumstances

especially in the conditions of crisis or reforms even in such

powers certain windows of opportunity for non-conformist forces

and them (relative) success and advance open.

In a segment of civil society of possibility of counter-hegemony


20/22

are wider because here carriers of a hegemonic discourse act

directly, without masks. In the field of science, culture, arts, the

philosophies carriers of counter-hegemony which owning syntax,

are capable to resist effectively to ideological opponents because

quantity and weight in this environment has very minor value.

One talented and prepared intellectual from counter-hegemony

can cost thousands opponents. In the non-political sphere where

sciences, culture, art, philosophy settle down, counter-hegemony

can use a huge arsenal of means and methods from religious

and traditionalist to vanguard and post-modernist. Being guided

by correctly understood counter-hegemonic syntax, it won't make

work to develop the most various intellectual strategy which are

throwing down a challenge to western "axiomatics" of the

Modernist style. This model also can be applied not only in not

western societies easily, but also in the developed capitalist

countries, repeating in a new historical situation successful

experiment new "the left wing gramscism" in Europe of the 60-

70th years of the XX century.

Set of under - the state political structures and the boundless

zone of "civil society" (in Gramsci's understanding) gives us

median level whereas the States ("revisionists") as those can betaken for macro level of expansion of counter-hegemonic practice.

And at last, micro level is individuals who also can be counter-

hegemony carriers under certain conditions , because after fight

field for MWT is a person in all of his measurements from

personal to social and political. The global should be understood

anthropologically.

We receive the huge tank of resources which is located at thedisposal of potential global revolutionary elite. In that situation

when rules are set by hegemony, and "sub-hegemony" or simply

"not hegemony" passively resists to it, this resource is

neutralized, or involved in infinitesimal degree and in strictly local

situations, that isn't consolidated, scattered and is exposed to

gradual entropy. In this case for the hegemony it is no more, than

a passive obstacle, inertia and the object which is subject to

conquest, "domestication" or dismantle (so for construction of theroad cut down the wood or fill up bogs). But all of his becomes a

counter-hegemony resource when counter-hegemony turns into


21/22

force realizing, into the historical subject, into the phenomenon.

All of this are transformed to a resource when the global

revolutionary elite turned to MWT as to the theoretical base.

Before and without it all listed moments are not a resource.

Counterhegemony and Russia

It is necessary to project the principles of counter-hegemony in

MWT context on a situation in Russia.

In a context of the neo-gramscianist analysis modern Russia

represents classical "caesarism" with all its typical attributes.

Hegemony, for its part, places Russia surely in a chain "the Rest"

and builds its image with the classical syntax: "authoritarianism"=corruption=need of modernization =do not observes human

rights and freedom of the press=the State interferes with

business questions, etc.

Subjectively Russian management is occupied with processes of

"transformismo", constantly balancing between hegemony

concessions (participation in the international economic

organizations, such as the WTO, privatization, the market,

democratization of political system, fine tuning under educationalstandards of the West, etc.) and aspiration to keep the

sovereignty, and at the same time and the power of ruling elite

with a support on "patriotic" moods of masses. In the

international relations, Putin adheres unambiguously to realism

whereas the Government and expert community obviously

gravitates to liberalism that creates a doublethink typical for

"transformismo"

For MWT and counter-hegemonic elite such situation creates the

favorable environment for expansion of autonomous activity and

represents the natural enclave promoting its development,

strengthening and consolidation. Russia unambiguously treats

camp of "revisionists" in the international system, having lost the

provision of one of two superstates in the 90th years of the XX

century and having sharply reduced the sphere of the influence

even at the next boundaries. One-polarity of a world order andhegemony strengthening in the last decades (=globalization)

brought to Russia exclusively negative results as were under


22/22

construction geopolitical, strategically, ideologically, politically

and "psychologically" - at her expense. And though preconditions

for an active revenge obviously didn't ripen, the general

atmosphere and the main objective tendencies help with society

to formation of MWT and promote strengthening and

crystallization of the Russian segment of global counter-

hegemonic revolutionary elite. Moreover, Vladimir .Putin's steps in

questions of the foreign policy, directed on strengthening of the

Russian sovereignty, its intention in construction of the Eurasian

Union, his critic of the unipolar world and the American

domination, and also incidental mentions of multipolarity as most

desirable world order all this expands a field of opportunities for

organic creation of the full and well-founded theory of counter-

hegemony in MWT context.

Counter Hegemony

Documents