Who Practices Hegemony?: Class Division and the Subject of Politics

Rosenthal, John

doi:10.2307/1354233

Cited by 7 publications

(2 citation statements)

References 0 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…En su respuesta, Lukács sintetiza el sentido de su análisis del concepto de conciencia de clase. Este concepto es central tanto para el proceso de hegemonización de la sociedad (Rosenthal, 1988), como para la supervivencia de la clase misma, ya que las clases o bien adquieren conciencia de su propia vocación universal, o bien "están condenadas, aún en caso de victoria accidental, a la derrota final" (Lukács, 1970, p. 82).…”

Section: El Problema De La Conciencia De Clase En György Lukácsunclassified

Conciencia y lucha de clases entre Lukács y Žižek.

Cacciatore

2019

Rev. SoftP

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Este artículo analiza el concepto de conciencia de clase de György Lukács a la luz de las reflexiones elaboradas por Slavoj Žižek sobre la lucha de clases. En contra de la opinión generalizada de que las sociedades occidentales han entrado en una era postpolítica, el objetivo de este artículo es poner de manifiesto que el conflicto entre trabajo y capital sigue siendo relevante para entender las dinámicas contemporáneas del capitalismo globalizado. Para ello, se argumenta que la lucha de clase es inherente al mundo capitalista moderno. El proceso de toma de conciencia de clase por parte del proletariado, elemento imprescindible de la lucha de clase, se ve sin embargo constantemente obstaculizado por las clases hegemónicas a través de la cortina de humo del populismo. Por último, la teoría de Žižek sobre el concepto de lucha de clases se contempla como un constructo potencialmente eficaz para la construcción de un nuevo sujeto revolucionario.

show abstract

Section: El Problema De La Conciencia De Clase En György Lukácsunclassified

Conciencia y lucha de clases entre Lukács y Žižek.

Cacciatore

2019

Rev. SoftP

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…. to hegemonize as a class would imply a limited or unsuccessful attempt" (Rosenthal 1988). Successful hegemonizing agents must abandon their sectional interests, whether they try to align the interests of dominated groups with those of the economically dominant or to orchestrate a counter-hegemonic project which coordinates the resistance of subordinate groups.…”

Section: Imentioning

confidence: 99%

Regulation Theory, Post-Marxism, and the New Social Movements

Steinmetz

1994

Comp Stud Soc Hist

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The new social movements pose a direct challenge to Marxist theories on what should be their most secure terrain-their ability to identify the main lines of social division and conflict and to explain the broad contours of historical change in the advanced capitalist world. Many writers have seen French regulation theory as promising a reinvigorated Marxism that avoids the pitfalls of functionalism, teleology, false totalization, and class reductionism while simultaneously offering a convincing analysis of phenomena such as the new social movements. Yet German analyses of the new social movements as responses to the contradictions and crises of the Fordist mode of regulation reveal not only the strengths but also the limits of the regulation perspective. In contrast to the abstract presentations of their own perspective, regulation theorists tend to interpret social formations and historical change in terms of all-encompassing totalities. The regulation approach can remain relevant for understanding conflict and change in contemporary capitalist societies only by relinquishing such totalizing ambitions. More generally, Marxism can only remain viable if it allows its central conceptual mechanisms to coexist with a range of heterogeneous theoretical mechanisms, that is, if it acknowledges the difference between the levels of theory (abstract) and of explanation (concrete).My argument is presented in four parts. The first sketches the specific problems posed by the new social movements for traditional Marxist theory. The second section discusses the major attempts to analyze the new social movements in terms of revised versions of traditional Marxism. The most convincing of these approaches, regulation theory, is discussed in the third part. Here I focus on the work of Joachim Hirsch and Roland Roth, especially their book, Das neue Gesicht des Kapitalismus (1986), which presents an interpretation of the development of the new social movements in West Germany between the 1960s and the 1980s. In section four, I sketch an alternative interpretation of the German new social movements, suggesting that they I am grateful to Julia Adams, Julia Hell, Doug McAdam, Moishe Postone, members of the CSST seminar at the University of Michigan, and an anonymous reviewer for comments on an earlier version of this paper.0010-4175/94/1769-0500 $5.00

show abstract

The People as Hegemonic Construction: Ernesto Laclau and Chantal Mouffe’s Radical Democracy

Fiorespino

2022

Radical Democracy and Populism

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Who Practices Hegemony?: Class Division and the Subject of Politics

Cited by 7 publications

References 0 publications

Conciencia y lucha de clases entre Lukács y Žižek.

Conciencia y lucha de clases entre Lukács y Žižek.

Regulation Theory, Post-Marxism, and the New Social Movements

The People as Hegemonic Construction: Ernesto Laclau and Chantal Mouffe’s Radical Democracy

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About