Hegemony and Socialist Strategy

1. Hegemony Fills the Void of Historical Necessity

‘Hegemony’ will allude to an absent totality, and to the diverse attempts at recomposition and rearticulation which, in overcoming this original absence, made it possible for struggles to be given a meaning and for historical forces to be endowed with full positivity.

Contingency and Crisis. The concept of hegemony emerged not as a pre-defined political relation, but as a response to a crisis in Marxist thought. It arose to fill a gap where the expected "normal" historical development failed to materialize. This concept highlights the contingent nature of political interventions, which are required when the expected course of history is disrupted.

From Russia to Gramsci. The concept of hegemony evolved from its humble beginnings in Russian Social Democracy, where it addressed the need for contingent interventions due to the crisis of historical development. It then became a key element in Leninism, which focused on the "concrete situations" of class struggle in the age of imperialism. Finally, with Gramsci, hegemony became central to understanding the unity of a social formation, transcending its tactical or strategic uses.

A Logic of the Contingent. Each expansion of the term "hegemony" was accompanied by an expansion of what the authors call a "logic of the contingent." This logic stemmed from the fracture and withdrawal of the category of "historical necessity," which had been the cornerstone of Second International Marxism. The theory of hegemony, therefore, is a response to the crisis of essentialist monism.

2. Spontaneity and Necessity: A Dualism in Crisis

In a revolutionary situation, it is impossible to fix the literal sense of each isolated struggle, because each struggle overflows its own literality and comes to represent, in the consciousness of the masses, a simple moment of a more global struggle against the system.

Luxemburg's Spontaneism. Rosa Luxemburg's theory of spontaneism highlights the symbolic overdetermination of struggles in a revolutionary context. Each struggle, beyond its specific demands, represents the revolutionary process as a whole. This symbolic unity of the working class is a key aspect of her analysis.

The Limits of Spontaneism. While Luxemburg's analysis recognizes the contingent nature of revolutionary processes, it also limits the scope of this contingency by insisting on the necessary class character of the revolutionary subject. This limitation arises from her belief in the "necessary laws of capitalist development," which she sees as guaranteeing a future revolutionary situation.

A Double Void. The tension between the logic of spontaneism and the logic of necessity creates a double void. From the perspective of necessity, the duality of logics points to the limits of that category. From the perspective of spontaneism, the field of "historical necessity" presents itself as a limit to the working of the symbolic. This dualism reveals the limitations of both logics.

3. Orthodoxy's Response: Theory as a Guarantee

The subject of this strategy was, of course, the workers’ party.

Theory as a Guarantee. Marxist orthodoxy, as formulated by Kautsky and Plekhanov, assigned a new role to theory. Instead of systematizing observable historical tendencies, theory became a guarantee that these tendencies would eventually align with the Marxist paradigm. This was a response to the growing disjuncture between Marxist theory and the political practice of Social Democracy.

The Role of the Party. Kautsky argued that the party, as the depository of Marxist science, was essential for overcoming the fragmentation of the working class. The party's role was to subordinate the immediate material interests of the working class to the final socialist objective. This required a new privileged role for intellectuals, who were seen as the bearers of Marxist theory.

Limitations of Orthodoxy. The orthodox paradigm reduced the concrete to the abstract. Diverse subject positions were reduced to manifestations of a single position, the plurality of differences was either reduced or rejected as contingent, and the sense of the present was revealed through its location in an a priori succession of stages. This approach limited the political conclusions that could be derived from observable tendencies in advanced capitalism.

4. Revisionism's Autonomy: Politics as Recomposition

The autonomy of the political from the economic base is the true novelty of Bernstein’s argument.

Autonomy of the Political. Revisionism, as represented by Bernstein, broke with the rigid base/superstructure distinction of orthodox Marxism. It emphasized the autonomy of the political from the economic base, arguing that political intervention was necessary to overcome the fragmentation of the working class.

The Role of the Party. For Bernstein, the party was the organ that could hold the working class together despite its fragmentation. This political unity was not a reflection of an underlying economic unity, but a construction at the political level. This marked a significant departure from the orthodox view.

Limits of Revisionism. While Bernstein recognized the autonomy of the political, he failed to fully break with essentialist presuppositions. He introduced the ethical subject and the concept of evolution to provide a sense of direction to historical processes, but these concepts ultimately limited the effects of his rupture with determinism.

5. Syndicalism's Myth: Unity Through Division

‘(We) know that the general strike is indeed what I have said: the myth in which Socialism is wholly comprised, i.e. a body of images capable of evoking instinctively all the sentiments which correspond to the different manifestations of the war undertaken by Socialism against modern society.

Sorel's Radical Anti-Economism. Sorel, a key figure in revolutionary syndicalism, accepted the critiques of Marxism by Bernstein and Croce, but drew very different conclusions. He rejected the idea of a rational substratum of history and emphasized the role of will and action in shaping the future.

The Myth of the General Strike. Sorel saw the general strike as a myth, a body of images that could unite the proletariat and give a sense of direction to its struggles. This myth was not based on any objective reality, but on the will of the working class to impose its vision of economic organization.

The Limits of Syndicalism. Sorel's radical anti-economism made visible the void that had been concealed in other Marxist tendencies. His emphasis on the mythical constitution of social agents led some of his followers to abandon the working class and embrace nationalism, contributing to the rise of fascism.

6. Hegemony as Contingent Articulation

In fact, ‘hegemony’ here designates, more than a relation, a space dominated by the tension between two very different relations: a) that of the hegemonized task and its ‘natural’ class agent; and b) that of the hegemonized task and the class hegemonizing it.

Hegemony in Russian Social Democracy. The concept of hegemony in Russian Social Democracy emerged from the recognition that the Russian bourgeoisie was too weak to carry out its "normal" historical tasks. This forced the working class to take on tasks that were not its own, creating a space of indeterminacy.

The Two Relations of Hegemony. Hegemony involves a tension between two relations: the relation between a task and its "natural" class agent, and the relation between a task and the class that hegemonizes it. The articulation between these two relations is contingent and not logically determined.

Trotsky's Analysis. Trotsky's theory of permanent revolution emphasized the hegemonic transference of tasks as the very substance of revolution. However, his analysis still maintained the class character of the tasks and the agents, limiting the scope of the hegemonic relation.

7. The Democratic Revolution: A New Political Logic

The Russian revolution – the revolution ‘against Capital’, as Gramsci called it – had to justify its strategy by broadening to the maximum the space of indeterminacy characteristic of the struggle for hegemony.

Dislocation of Stages. The Russian Revolution, as Gramsci called it, was a revolution "against Capital" because it had to justify its strategy by broadening the space of indeterminacy characteristic of the struggle for hegemony. This involved a dislocation of stages, where the working class took on tasks that were not its own.

The Limits of Class Identity. The Leninist tradition, while recognizing the importance of hegemony, still maintained the class character of social agents. This led to a separation between leaders and led within mass movements, and to an authoritarian practice of politics.

Democratic Potential of Hegemony. The concept of hegemony, however, also carries a potential for the democratic expansion and deepening of socialist political practice. It allows for the articulation of a multiplicity of antagonisms and demands, and for the transformation of class identities through hegemonic tasks.

8. Antagonism: The Limit of Objectivity

Our thesis is that antagonisms are not objective relations, but relations which reveal the limits of all objectivity.

Beyond Real Opposition and Contradiction. Antagonisms cannot be reduced to either real oppositions or logical contradictions. Real oppositions are objective relations between things, while contradictions are logical relations between concepts. Antagonisms, in contrast, reveal the limits of all objectivity.

Antagonism as a Limit. Antagonism is a relation where the presence of the "Other" prevents a subject from being totally itself. It is not a relation between full presences, but a relation that reveals the impossibility of their constitution. Antagonism is the limit of the social, not an internal moment of it.

Equivalence and Negativity. Antagonisms are constituted through a logic of equivalence, where the differential positivity of terms is dissolved, and identity is defined negatively. This negative identity is not directly representable, but is expressed through the equivalence of its differential moments.

9. Radical Democracy: Beyond Essentialism

For us, a non-exclusive public sphere of rational argument is a conceptual impossibility.

The Limits of Consensus. A radical democracy acknowledges the impossibility of a final reconciliation or a fully inclusive "we." Conflict and division are not disturbances to be eliminated, but are inherent in the possibility of a democratic politics.

Hegemony and Consensus. Any form of consensus is the result of a hegemonic articulation, and always has an "outside" that prevents its full realization. This is not a weakness of democracy, but its very condition of possibility.

The Need for Antagonism. A radical politics requires the definition of an adversary and the acceptance of the ineradicability of antagonism. Without conflict and division, a pluralist democratic politics would be impossible.

10. The Hegemonic Struggle: A Continuous Process

So our motto is: ‘Back to the hegemonic struggle.’

The Need for a New Hegemony. The Left must elaborate a credible alternative to the neo-liberal order, instead of simply trying to manage it in a more humane way. This requires drawing new political frontiers and acknowledging the ineradicability of antagonism.

Beyond Deliberative Democracy. The model of "deliberative democracy," which seeks a rational consensus, is inadequate for a radical politics. Any form of consensus is the result of a hegemonic articulation, and always has an "outside" that prevents its full realization.

Back to the Hegemonic Struggle. The Left must engage in a hegemonic struggle to build a chain of equivalences among democratic struggles. This requires a vision of a different way of organizing social relations, one that restores the centrality of politics over the tyranny of market forces.

Last updated: February 4, 2025