Neo-Gramscianismis the critical theory based on studying of the international relations andglobal political economy. This theory investigates various ideas, institutesand their material resources as they form concrete contours of the stateformation. Neo-Gramscianism analyzes how concrete social forces, the states and the dominatingideological formations define and keep world order.
Proceeding from it,neogramscian approach destroys the long-term stagnation and contradictionsexisting between so-called realistic school of a thought and the liberaltheory. This approach makes theoretical bases of two directions historic as apart of a certain world order, and tries to find interrelation in the relationsbetween a functional and structural component. The criticaltheory of the international relations is developed by Robert Cox who appliesGramsci’s principle to the international relations. The main idea of thistheory is under strong influence of works of Antonio Gramsci. He considered social factor of impact on historicalprocesses. A concept of social factor or civil society which, without beingdirectly neither political, nor economic, nevertheless, plays sometimes a keyrole. Gramsci called it ‘the doctrine about hegemony.’ Robert Cox,the former Marxist, such classical Marxist, applies gramscian model to thetheory of international relations.
Also begins to consider everything thatoccurs in the sphere of the international relations from the point of view ofhegemony. That is, from his point of view, there is a hegemonic discourse inthe international relations which not only is produced by heads of states, notonly class structures which are interested in comprehending the relationsbetween the states anyway in own interests. But there is still a huge number ofrepresentatives of science, theorists of the theory of the internationalrelations which accompany this imperious game and are hegemony carriers. The criticaltheory of Robert Cox is engaged in creation of a counter- hegemonic discourse. Thatis, the critical theory, despite the radical revolutionism, quite acceptableparadigm in the international relations.
Further wewill consider the main ideas stated by Cox in article “Gramsci, hegemonyand the international relations: The essay about a method” the 1983rdyear. This article establishes understanding by Cox of what Gramsci means byhegemony and concepts, adjacent to it. Cox shows how these concepts can beadapted, keeping the main sense, not deforming understanding of a problem of aworld order. Cox itself says about the article that it “is not criticismof the political theory of a research of Gramsci, and only brings some ideasuseful to revision of the current theory of the international relations out ofhis theory”. In hisarticle, Cox stops on origin of the theory of hegemony. He writes that thereare two main directions conducting to the idea of hegemony of Gramsci. The firstshould be looked for from discussions within the Third International concerningthe strategy of Bolshevist revolution and creation of the Soviet socialist state.”Gramsci, in fact, undertook the idea which was propagandized in circlesof the Third International: workers carry out hegemony over allied classes anddictatorship over the enemy of classes”.
According to Cox, In NorthernEurope, in the countries where capitalism was for the first time established,hegemony the bourgeoisie was established most fully. The secondline leading to the ideas of hegemony of Gramsci is traced in Machiavelli’scompositions and helps to expand potential scope of this concept even more.Gramsci analyzed that Machiavelli, especially wrote in work”Sovereign”, on a problem creation of the new state. Cox asks aquestion ‘whether the concept of hegemony of Gramsha is applicable at theinternational or world level?’ Extending from the national level tointernational At applicationof the concept of hegemony in a world order, becomes important to define whenthe period of hegemony begins and when comes to its end. The period in whichworld hegemony was it is created it is possible to call hegemonic and in whatdomination without hegemony, not hegemonic prevails. Illustrating it, Coxconsiders the last century and a half present, divided into four variousperiods, 1845-1875,1875-1945,1945-1965 and since 1965 till present.
It turns outthat historically to become hegemonic, the state have to find and protect worldorder which was universal, i.e. not an order in which one state directlyexploits others, but an order, at most of which the states (or, at least those,within reach from hegemony) which can find interests compatible to the interests.World supremacy, thus, at the beginning is externalexpansion of the internal (national) hegemony established by the dominatingsocial class. Hegemony atthe international level is … not merely an order among states. It is anorder within a world economy with a dominant mode ofproduction which penetratesinto all countries and links into other subordinatemodes of production. It is also acomplex of international social relationships whichconnects the social classes of thedifferent countries1.
The globalhegemony is described as social structure, economic and political structures.It cannot exist when only one component functions or prevails. Hegemony is aninteraction of all three structures together. The global hegemony is only inthat case possible. World hegemony,besides, is expressed in universal norms, institutes and mechanisms whichestablish the general rules of conduct for the states and for those forces ofcivil society which work outside national borders – rules which are supportedby the dominating way of production. One ofmechanisms via which universal norms of world hegemony are expressed is theinternational organization. The international organization functions as processby means of which institutes of hegemony and ideology are developed.
Theinternational organization functions as process by means of which institutes ofhegemony and ideology develop. Among features of the internationalorganizations which express the role of predominant force are:1. The organizations include the general rules whichpromote expansion of a hegemonic world order. 2. They are a product of such world order. 3. They ideologically legalize norms of a world order.4.
They co-opt elite of the peripheral countries. 5. They absorb the counterhegemonic ideas. Also inarticle Cox argues on the prospects of counter- hegemony.
He writesthat prolonged crisis in world economy (which beginning can be carried to theend of the 1960th and the beginning of the 1970th) is favorable for someenterprises which can lead to counterhegemonic problems. The neweffective political organization will be required to rally the new workingclasses generated by the international production and to build the bridge forpeasants and city outcasts. Without it, it is only possible to imagine processwhere local political elite, even such which are result of unsuccessfulrevolutionary shift strengthens the power in the monopolistic and liberal worldorder. Reconstruction of the monopolistic and liberal hegemony will be quitecapable to carry out a trasformismo, regulating many types of NationalInstitutes and the practician, including nationalization of branches. America has the right, owing to theprosperity, the most fair society, to interpose in the matter of other statesand to help them to go to democratization: To Afghanistan, Iraq, Libya, Syria.Notion of ‘Counter- hegemony’ as the pathway to anAlternative OrderThe concept of counter- hegemony is entered by RobertCox as generalization of a grams?ism and its application to a global situation.He says that today all system of the international relations is constructed onhegemony service.
Everything that is told us about the relations of the states,about sense of history, about wars and invasions, is clean promotion ofhegemony of world oligarchical elite. Substantially this construct keeps on anaxis of the intellectuals or the intellectuals choosing hegemony. R. Cox asksabout creation of an intellectual design of global alternative revolutionaryreality and for this purpose he enters the term of counter- hegemony, giving itfundamental justification. He speaks about need of the global historical blockof the world intellectuals choosing revolution, choosing criticism of thestatus quo, and that the most important, is not obligatory on the Marxist for abasis because the Marxism assumes a certain economic fatal predisposition ofhistorical processes. R. Cox considers that historical process is open and inthis regard domination of the capital is a construct.
In it differs fromneomarxists very markedly, including from Vallerstayn. This post-positivistic,constructivistic, postmodern idea of R. Cox which essence is that in theconditions of globalization it is necessary to ask about counter- hegemony soglobally as the bourgeois and liberal hegemony, carrying out trasformismo, willbreak a caesarism sooner or later.
The secondprinciple which is entered by Cox, this countersociety as today’s globalsociety is based on domination of the bourgeois and liberal principles i.e. issociety of hegemony. This society of hegemony in language, in images, intechnologies, in policy, in customs, in art, in fashion, in everything. Respectivelyit is necessary to construct counter- society. Everything that is good inglobal society, has to be destroyed, and instead of it new society, perhaps,society with the return sign has to be constructed. Instead of domination ofthe universal principles it is necessary to build local communes, instead ofthe liberal monologue we have to build a polylogue of organic cultures. Thus,counter-society will represent an alternative to that society which existtoday, in all its basic principles.
Aiter- globalization movement representsCoxian counter- hegemony Conclusion Inconclusion Robert Cox gives a conclusion that the problem of change of a worldorder begins with long, labor-consuming effort on creation of the newhistorical block within national borders. As forpresent world order that, critically estimating the own theory, Cox says that,today the world can develop according to two possible scenarios. If to considera world order as it appears today, then there is a prevailing historicalstructure, also as well as there are public forces which work on an alternativehistorical configuration of forces, the rival historical structures. One of thesescenarios is that relative decline of the American power concedes to moremultiple world with several centers of world forces. These forces will act asthe continuous agreement of constantly adjustable modus vivendi similar to theEuropean balance of a power supply system of the 19th century, but now on aglobal scale. But one widespread threat will hang over this process ofnegotiations on correction of the imperious relations, and it is a problem ofglobal warming and fragility of the biosphere which puts pressure upon allmankind to achieve progress in coordination of private interests in commoninterests of rescue of the planet. Other scenariois that continuation of fight for world supremacy, the prevailing conditionfrom the American side, is “a full range of domination”, pushingtogether forces of the USA against potential strengthening of the Eurasianpower.
War with terrorism which is waged by the USA renews need of the USA forworld supremacy. Trasformismois in what China since 1980 is engaged, than Putin’s Russia, especially duringMedvedev’s era is engaged, than the Islamic states are engaged recently. Theyincorporate some elements of the West, capitalism, democracy, politicalinstitutes of division of the authorities, help to take place to the middleclass, follow the tastes of the national bourgeoisie, internal hegemony andinternational external hegemony, but do all this not up to the end, not really,at the level of a facade to keep monopoly for the political power which is notstrictly hegemony.