MARXISME AND HEGEMONY PRINCIPAL BASIS
![](https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEgsW5ZxgfGVdeqKUMF4wlpLurvZYmYBG9knMuzrss545TA7LSnK1l45ubwCjDevRM7lzafREzjbyNUPg5ObOqt3KOLMn045XoPkFLJRfvUd_hNMl0L4Sq6lAc5jvOoYO7m__do5n_HhyQQt/s1600/photo_88512_landscape_650x433.jpg)
TABLE OF CONTENT
1.0 INTRODUCTION 2
2.0 MARXISME AND HEGEMONY PRINCIPAL BASIS
2.1 Marxism 4
2.2 Hegemony
Theory 5
3.0 THEORETICAL DIFFERENCES BETWEEN MARXISM AND
HEGEMONY THEORY
3.1 Marxism 8
3.2 Hegemony
Theory 10
4.0 THE DEVELOPMENT OF DEMOCRACY IN
MALAYSIA AND WHY COMMUNISM FAILED 13
5.0 CONCLUSIONS 17
REFERENCES 18
1.0 INTRODUCTION
1.0 INTRODUCTION
Marxism
Marxism is an
economic and social system derived from the work of Karl Marx and Friedrich
Engels (1829 - 1895). It is a theoretical-practical framework based on the
analysis of "the conflicts between the powerful and the subjugated"
with working class self-emancipation as its goal.
It asserts that
the Capitalist mode of production enables the bourgeoisie (or owners of
capital) to exploit the proletariat (or workers) and that class struggle by the
proletariat must be the central element in social and historical change.
According to Marx, a socialist revolution must occur, in order to establish a
"dictatorship of the proletariat" with the ultimate goal of public
ownership of the means of production, distribution, and exchange.
Classical
Marxism is a variety of Socialism and provides the intellectual base for
various forms of Communism. It was conceived (as to some extent was Anarchism)
as a reaction against the rampant Capitalism and Liberalism of 19th Century
Europe. It is grounded in Materialism and it is committed to political practice
as the end goal of all thought.
As a
philosopher, Marx was influenced by a number of different thinkers, including:
German philosophers (e.g. Immanuel Kant, Georg Hegel and Ludwig Feuerbach);
British political economists (e.g. Adam Smith and David Ricardo); and French
social theorists (e.g. Jean-Jacques Rousseau, Charles Fourier, Henri de
Saint-Simon, Pierre-Joseph Proudhon, Flora Tristan and Louis Blanc).
The defining
document of Marxism and Communism is "The Communist Manifesto",
published jointly by Marx and Engels in 1848. The first volume of "Das
Kapital" (Marx's ambitious treatise on political economy and critical
analysis of Capitalism and its practical economic application) was published in
1867, with two more volumes edited and published after his death by Engels. For
the most part, these works were collaborations and, while Marx is the more
famous of the two, he was strongly influenced by Engels' earlier works, and
Engels was also responsible for much of the interpretation and editing of
Marx's work.
Hegemony
Hegemony is the
political, economic, or military predominance or control of one state over
others. In Ancient Greece (8th century BCE – 6th century CE), hegemony denoted
the politico–military dominance of a city-state over other city-states. The
dominant state is known as the hegemon.
In the 19th
century, hegemony came to denote the "Social or cultural predominance or
ascendancy; predominance by one group within a society or milieu". Later,
it could be used to mean "a group or regime which exerts undue influence
within a society." Also, it could be used for the geopolitical and the
cultural predominance of one country over others; from which was derived
hegemonism, as in the idea that the Great Powers meant to establish European
hegemony over Asia and Africa.
The Marxist
theory of cultural hegemony, associated particularly with Antonio Gramsci, is
the idea that the ruling class can manipulate the value system and mores of a
society, so that their view becomes the world view (Weltanschauung): in Terry
Eagleton's words, "Gramsci normally uses the word hegemony to mean the
ways in which a governing power wins consent to its rule from those it
subjugates". In contrast to authoritarian rule, cultural hegemony "is
hegemonic only if those affected by it also consent to and struggle over its
common sense".
In cultural
imperialism, the leader state dictates the internal politics and the societal
character of the subordinate states that constitute the hegemonic sphere of
influence, either by an internal, sponsored government or by an external,
installed government.
2.0 MARXISME AND HEGEMONY PRINCIPAL BASIS
2.1 Marxism
Marxism
is a way of thinking critically, but it is not a “system”: “I have never
established a ‘socialist system’”, Karl Marx wrote in his “Notes on Adolph
Wagner's Lehrbuch der politischen Ökonomie” (1880). Marxism is analysis of the
development of the world as it is, a method that must forge an intimate
connection between practice and theory.
Here are the basic principles of Marxism:
• Opposition to an
economic system based on inequality and on the alienation and exploitation of
the majority (by means of the system of wage labor), a system whose purpose is
to obtain profits for some people rather than satisfying the needs of all. This
describes capitalism, but one can obviously imagine other systems that would
present similar essential characteristics, to which Marxists would be equally
opposed.
For the transformation of
society, Marxism considers that a revolutionary process that will lead to a
society based on cooperation and the free distribution of goods and provision
of services is necessary.
• “The emancipation of the
workers must be the task of the workers themselves.” This is principle is
inherent to real Marxism, which implies democracy and self-emancipation; it
also means that democracy is the indispensable foundation for a new society
(called socialism or communism). This society, liberated from the diverse forms
of domination, will have to be freely constructed by its members.
• Internationalism, which
is simultaneously the recognition of the common interests of the workers of the
entire world and of the need to struggle on a world scale, and of the goal of
abolishing nations in the transition to a human world community.
• The knowledge and
analysis of History (the materialist conception of history).
• The recognition of the
existence of social classes that divide men and women into distinct segments of
the population; the recognition of the profound inequalities and injustices
that separate these classes; and the recognition that as long as society is
divided into classes, there will be conflicts between these classes (the class
struggle).
As a result, while they
participate in the day-to-day class struggle of the workers, Marxists work on
behalf of a reorganization of society that will put an end to this class
division.
• The free exercise of the
critical spirit. “Doubt everything”, Marx said; for the goal is to perceive
reality as it is, in order to understand it better and thus to transform it.
These
principles, or some of them, could very well be embraced by other political and
social tendencies: if this is the case, then so much the better! Marxism does
not attempt to isolate itself, quite the contrary: the goal is to contribute to
the constitution of a movement of all of society for the creation of “an
association, in which the free development of each is the condition for the
free development of all” (Karl Marx, The Communist Manifesto).
2.2 Hegemony
Hegemony
is derived from the Greek word Hegemonia. The word hegemony literally means
supreme command, or supremacy in Greece, particularly in designating the
diplomatic and military control which was granted to an individual state
because of the authority, bravery and war experience of its citizens by a
number of other states.
In
order to understand the basis principle of this theory, one must learn about
Antonio Gramsci before proceeding to this theory of hegemony.
"It was Gramsci who, in the late
twenties and thirties, with the rise of fascism and the failure of the Western
European working-class movements, began to consider why the working class was
not necessarily revolutionary, why it could, in fact, yield to fascism."
(Gitlin, 1994)
According
to Gramsci, hegemony locks up a society even more tightly because of the way
ideas are transmitted by language. The
words we use to speak and write have been constructed by social interactions
through history and shaped by the dominant ideology of the times. Thus they are loaded with cultural meanings
that condition us to think in particular ways, and to not be able to think very
well in other ways.
For
a modern, U.S. example, consider the word "welfare." What feelings
and images come to mind? Someone who is
poor. Unhappy, perhaps. Passive.
Irresponsible. Overloaded with
children. Struggling to go to school.
Ashamed. Maybe out to cheat the
system. A drain on the taxpayers. A
bureaucratic institution that needs continual attention and reform. All
negative images, evoking anger or pity.
Think about it. We have had no word to describe this system of
government payments that carries a positive connotation. No word that evokes images of dignity and
family pride or of a nation's debt to those it cannot or will not furnish with
the opportunity for meaningful work and a relevant education. Gramsci's point is that we have been
conditioned by our language to think -- and feel about that thinking -- in ways
that serve the dominant ideology. And if
that dominant ideology insists that poverty is the fault of the individual
while systematically keeping certain groups or classes of people poor, that
hegemony must be dislodged by substantive, revolutionary change.
Gramsci
added another dimension to the definition of hegemony: domination by consent. It seems impossible that anyone would consent
to be oppressed, or that we ourselves might be consenting to oppress
others. But no matter how outraged we
are at the poverty that exists in the richest country in the world, all most of
us do to fight it is tinker with the system.
We know that the rich are getting richer while the poor and the middle
class are feeling less and less secure.
We know, but we accept.
"What can one person do?" we say. "The poor have always been with
us." It's a fatalistic feeling we
have, but Gramsci doesn't blame us for it.
"Indeed," he says, "fatalism is nothing other than the
clothing worn by real and active will when in a weak position."
Gramsci
believed that everyone, no matter what their occupation, their interests, or
their education, is able to work out their own coherent ideas of how the world
really works. Despite his description of
hegemony as society's brainwashing, he had great faith in people's ability to
go beyond the mere acceptance of the ideas they grew up with and become
critical thinkers.
"To
criticize one's own conception of the world means to make it a coherent unity
and to raise it to the level reached by the most advanced thought in the
world," Gramsci wrote from his prison cell. "The starting-point of critical
elaboration is the product of the historical process to date which has
deposited in you an infinity of traces, without leaving an inventory."
In
other words, critical thinking about our own thinking process can move us
toward our own coherent philosophy when we begin to trace the origins of our
most deeply held beliefs. "What do
I really think about this difficult teenager I'm tutoring?" "Where did these beliefs come
from?" "What people and what
institutions taught me to think this way?"
"And where did their beliefs come from?" Gramsci's fate might
lead us to think of ways people in our own country with disturbing ideas have
been silenced -- by censorship, by rumor mongering, by lynching, by
incarceration. If you volunteer for a prison education project you may be
surprised by the number of creative, deeply intelligent men and women who are
thinking, discussing, writing and growing as human beings in much the same way
Gramsci did -- despite the sometimes cruel and retaliatory conditions of their
incarceration.
3.0 THEORETICAL
DIFFERENCES BETWEEN MARXISM AND
HEGEMONY
THEORY
3.1 Marxism
The
notion of ideology, as it informed critical social theory throughout the
twentieth century, emerged in the work of Karl Marx (1977; also see Marx and
Engels 1989). Here, ideology refers to the ways in which society as a whole
adopts the ideas and interests of the dominant economic class. Marx’s model of
ideology rests upon a historical-materialist perspective, which asserts that
material reality is the foundation of social consciousness. Material reality
sets boundaries on the ideas that may emerge as important, or even acceptable,
in a given social setting. However, it is through the dominant ideologies of
capitalism that the working classes take for granted their exploitation within
economic structures of inequality.
For
Marx, the most important aspects of material reality center on human productive
labor. The appropriation of resources from the natural world for the production
of goods is the foundation of social life. Within a capitalist mode of
production, the most important social relations are those between members of
the working class as they engage in productive labor, as well as the relations
between the working class and the capitalist class, which owns the means of
production (such as factories and machines). Through their owner to appropriate
the labor of the working classes, who lack access to the means to produce the
necessities of survival — including food, clothing, shelter — for themselves.
Ideology
enters Marx’s theoretical framework to explain how the subordinate classes take
exploitative relations of production for granted, as something solid and
unchangeable. One way in which this is accomplished is the way in which objects
with use value become commodities characterized by their exchange value.
Objects produced through human labor have value insofar as they fulfill a
particular function. The use value of wood may be realized if I build a house;
the use value of an apple is realized when I eat it. By contrast, exchange
value refers to the social labor that is required to produce the same objects
for a capitalist economy.
The
move from use value towards a system of exchange value removes from visibility
the role of human labor in producing value. Commodity “fetishism” refers to the
way in which the objects produced by human labor are divorced from that
productive labor and are re-located in the economy of exchange value within a
capitalist mode of production (Marx 1977). This process is ideological in the
sense that it obscures the central importance of labor to social life. It
transforms the material product of human labor into a “social hieroglyphic”
which is undecipherable to capital’s subordinate classes. Through this process,
elite social groups naturalize capitalist relations of production. Workers come
to view the capitalist mode of production as the only viable option, where they
must sell their labor power to the capitalist class in order to obtain
commodities. Ideology, then, functions to secure the participation of
subordinate classes in exploitative relations of production.
For
Marx, the equation of labor power with money, or wages, is another way in which
ruling groups secure the consent of the working classes for their own
exploitation. Workers exchange their labor power for wages, which they use to
purchase the commodities that they produce, but which the capitalist class owns
and sells. This transmutation of labor into wages creates a false reality for
workers. Marx writes:
What flows back to the worker in
the shape of wages is a portion of the product he himself continuously
reproduces. . . . The illusion created by the money form vanishes immediately
if, instead of taking a single capitalist and a single worker, we take the
whole capitalist class and the whole working class. The capitalist class is
constantly giving to the working class drafts, in the form of money, on a
portion of the product produced by the latter and appropriated by the former.
The workers give these drafts back just as constantly to the capitalists … The
transaction is veiled by the commodity-form of the product and the money-form
of the commodity (Marx 1977).
Marx’s
use of terms like “illusion” and “veiled” suggests that both the commodity form
and money play an ideological role in securing the willing participation of the
working classes in their own domination. Wages construct an illusion for the
working class that veils the exploitative relation of the appropriation of
surplus value.
In
Marx’s writing, resistance to ideology must take a primarily material form. It
is not sufficient to analyze ideological systems from a theoretical or academic
standpoint. He writes, “All forms and products of consciousness cannot be
dissolved by mental criticism . . . but only by the practical overthrow of the
actual social relations which gave rise to the idealistic humbug” (Marx and
Engels 1989). Political praxis must involve people acting for social change
within the mode of production. Just as material reality gives rise to the
dominant ideologies of a society, people can only overcome the ideology of
capitalism through action directed at transforming the economic substructure of
society.
3.2 Hegemony
Theory
The
notion of “hegemony” is rooted in Gramsci’s (1992) distinction between coercion
and consent as alternative mechanisms of social power. Coercion refers to the
State’s capacity for violence, which it can use against those who refuse to
participate in capitalist relations of production. By contrast, hegemonic power
works to convince individuals and social classes to subscribe to the social
values and norms of an inherently exploitative system. It is a form of social
power that relies on voluntarism and participation, rather than the threat of
punishment for disobedience. Hegemony appears as the “common sense” that guides
our everyday, mundane understanding of the world. It is a view of the world
that is “inherited from the past and uncritically absorbed” and which tends to
reproduce a sort of social homeostasis, or “moral and political passivity”
(Gramsci 1971). Whereas coercive power is the exclusive domain of the State,
the institutions of “civil society,” such as the Church, schools, the mass
media, or the family, are largely responsible for producing and disseminating
hegemonic power (Gramsci 1996). In industrial capitalist societies, hegemonic
power is the prevalent form of social power; the state relies on coercion only
in exceptional circumstances.
Gramsci
ascribes a greater degree of importance to the cultural superstructure of
capitalist societies than is attributed by Marx. From this perspective, the
superstructure does not simply reflect the economic base. Rather, there is a
meaningful degree of autonomy between the spheres. This means that the ideas of
the ruling classes do not necessarily become the defining values of society as
a whole. Rather, ongoing social action creates and reproduces hegemonic power.
Hegemonic networks of power are the result of contestation between ruling
elites and “subaltern” groups. Because contestation is basic to the process of
constituting hegemony, there is never a unified, totalizing system of
ideological domination. Hegemony and counter hegemony exist in a state of
tension; each gives shape to the other. For Gramsci one of the main issues
facing dominant social groups is how to maintain the necessary degree of
“ideological unity” to secure the consent of the governed (Gramsci 1971).
Gramsci
also asserts that hegemony has a material dimension. It is not only a system of
ideas, floating above economic structures. Rather, the social action of
everyday life produces hegemonic effects. Writing about the emergence of
Fordist production in the United States, for example, Gramsci (1992) describes
an American hegemony that is “born in the factory”. Gramsci (1996) describes
how the interplay of our cultural and material surroundings constructs hegemony
as follows:
The press is the most dynamic part
of the ideological structure, but not the only one. Everything that directly or
indirectly influences or could influence public opinion belongs to it:
libraries, schools, associations and clubs of various kinds, even architecture,
the layout of streets and their names.
Furthermore,
hegemony often lies beneath the surface, unarticulated. As Williams (1977)
writes, “A lived hegemony is always a process. It is not, except analytically,
a system or a structure. It is a realized complex of experiences,
relationships, and activities, with specific and changing pressures and limits”.
This illustrates how hegemony works as a sort of common sense, rather than as a
coherent body of thought, such as we would associate with ideology.
Gramsci
gives us an image of society in which the cultural realm is a central location
for the exercise of social power. By comparison with the Frankfurt School
theorists, however, hegemonic power is something that is always contested,
always historically contingent and always unfinished. He ascribes a high level
of importance to the subaltern classes, intellectuals, and revolutionary
political parties as agents for social change. For Gramsci, a revolutionary
seizure of the means of production is not a viable tactic for creating radical
social change in modern capitalist societies. Where a society is characterized
primarily by the exercise of hegemonic power instead of coercion, a prolonged
cultural “war of position” is more important, where the hegemony of the ruling
classes is dissembled and a new hegemony is crystallized (Femia 1975). This
occurs as subaltern groups realize their own capacity to become philosophers of
their daily experience; they come to understand the hegemonic common sense that
they otherwise take for granted.
The
Gramscian model of hegemony departs significantly from the Marxist notion of
ideology, while retaining Marxist foundational categories of class, the
capitalist mode of production, and the distinction between the economic base
and the cultural superstructure. Among the advances made by Gramscian theory is
the attention to hegemonic power as an often-implicit “common sense” rather
than a coherent body of thought, which is inherently unfinished and
historically contingent. It is the embodiment of hegemony in everyday common
sense, through the mundane activities connected with work, school, the family
and the church, that secures the consent of capital’s subaltern classes.
4.0 THE DEVELOPMENT OF DEMOCRACY IN MALAYSIA
AND WHY COMMUNISM FAILED
A multi-racial
country such as Malaysia is fragile and is built along a racial lower class and
ethnic lines. The incident of May 13, 1969 is a good example of this. This is
when the communists indoctrinated the people at all levels -- government
officials, trade unionists, the armed forces, police, and middle classes --
with communist ideology. Their second goal was to cripple the government and
create instability within the politic and in the economy by using the
categories of people mentioned above to take advantage of the instability in
order to overthrow the government of Malaysia. The communist's party main
targets were the middle and lower classes living in remote and rural areas.
These were classes that were easy to influence because the means of
communication and information from the government were limited. Most of the
people living in remote areas were Chinese and Malay; it was difficult to
influence the Malays because of their strong religious belief which included
the concept of a God. Politics were dominated by the Malays. The communist
party took advantage of this to start propaganda about the diversity of the
races such as Malays' political dominance and the Chinese and Indian people
being second class citizens. The Communist Party of Malaya (CPM) was supported
by the People’s Republic of China and Soviet Union through a third country,
namely Indonesia during the Sukarno period.
The failure of
CPM to achieve its objectives was basically due to the overall success of the
Malaysian Government itself. The government was able to carry out effectively
its program of development, political stability, racial integration, economic
reform, security operations and winning the "hearts and minds of the
people". The Department of Information was created to repel communist
propaganda which attempted to overthrow the government through destabilizing
the economy and disrupting political life.
Other than that,
the reason why communist failed in Malaysia can be known as;
a) Political Stability
Due to the complex nature of Malaysia as a Federation, with
administration at the federal and state levels as well as the multiracial,
religion and cultural composition of it population, Malaysia was considered
fortunate to have a comprehensive constitution. The Malaysia Constitution is
supreme, consisting of fundamental laws which describe the manner in which the
state (nation) is organized administratively and how justice is administrated.
The Constitution includes basic features such as guaranteed fundamental rights,
special powers to combat subversion and the ability to declare states of
emergency , special protection of the Bumiputra, the official religion and
freedom of communities to practice their own religion in peace and harmony, and
the other institutions within the country such as the conference of rulers,
among other things. Therefore in Malaysia's case, the constitution can
definitely be considered as an instrument in ensuring security, be it from
internal threat through defining fundamental values on which the political
society is founded thus propagating peace and harmony or from external threat
through the function of government. After the event of May 13, RUKUNNEGARA, a
form of national ideology was formulated, consisting of five principles that
were acceptable to all the communities, and provided the common basis for the
aspirations of all Malaysian. It is a further means to promote cohesiveness and
a nationalistic spirit among the population.
Political stability affects national security in Malaysia since any
instability will bring about internal insecurity and a host of other factors
that will weaken the state, such as investor confidence and unemployment
thereby causing an economic slowdown or recession and providing an advantage
and cause for an upsurge in communist ideology. Also, since political parties
are still built along racial lines or tend to champion certain racial groups
and interests, any political instability will bring about racial confrontation
or clashes. This situation can further be externally exploited. Since
independence, Malaysia has been governed by the Barisan Nasional (coalition
government). In every general election in the past, the government has also
managed to secure the much coveted two- thirds majority in parliament. This is
important as the passing of any bill to amend the constitution requires a two-
thirds majority. It is also often as having political stability. However
Malaysia's political system is still maturing, being only 40 years old. In its
process of transition to a liberal democracy, like in any typical young
political system, constitutional changes of government and leadership can cause
tension, anxiety and instability which may then affect national security. For
example, the May 13 incident accrued soon after the 1969 general election.
b) Security
The National Security Council under the Prime Minister's department was
established in 1971 with the responsibility of coordinating policies relating
to the security of the country and the overall direction of security matters.
This security structure was extended to the state, district and village levels
parallel to the development structure. In this respect, the Prime Minister (and
the Minister of Defense) the late Tun Abdul Razak bin Hussian said," The
primary task of armed forces is to fight the communist, but at the same time
they must also help implement the government development plan. This is part of
the fight against communist. Defense and development go hand in hand." The
NSC further developed this concept into what is known as KESBAN (security and
development), and this concept as one of it instruction, particularly to fight
the communist menace.
The strength of the communist movement lies in winning the heart and
minds of the populace and the sympathizer country. Internally, the Malaysian
government was successful in containing the communist armed struggle in the
early eighties but is still looking for a way to eliminate this ideology from
the people totally. Development in the rural area is important as the communist
strength is spreading propaganda in this area to gain support. The government
should establish very close relationship with the people. This will make it
easy for development and help security forces implement their task with the
information provided by the populace. A successful external policy is also
important to counter the communist armed struggle. This is because the CPM is
supported by sympathizer countries. The domino theory is frightening for
Malaysia. The purpose of ZOPFAN and joining NAM is used as protection for
Malaysia against the communist external threat.
c) Social Development
Besides the political and
economic factor, the socio - cultural factor divides into different areas,
language, religion and cultural practices, which also play an equally important
part in keeping the different races apart. It has been said, if the people of
Malaysia are to be truly of one Bahasa Malaysia, the challenges and answers lie
in the socio cultural factors more than any other component.
Racial integration and
relations in Malaysia have improved since the 1970s and the 1980s and were
accelerated after the eighties. The rapid economic growth has contributed in
making a society with less to complain about, since there is now more to share.
In effect, the government and the people are coming of age as an independent
country, confident and proud as a nation and as individuals, with a future that
is promising yet at the same time demanding of a vision that can build upon the
success thus achieved. Such a "Vision", however must always take in
consideration the maintenance of fairness and justice to all Malaysian.
It is impossible in Malaysia
to have only one culture as every race have their own culture and will try to
protect them. The communist theory of social revolution means that there will
be one dominant culture. Malaysia countered this theory by promoting every race
and harmony between the races. The communist dialectical materialism theory
states that is no creator and no god. This theory provided a good way for the
government to counter communism. Most Malaysians are either Muslims, Hindu,
Buddhist or Christians. The government promotes belief in God and encourages
people to believe strongly in their own religion. The government also promotes
freedom of worship.
5.0 CONCLUSIONS
Through this
theoretical overview, I have traced a route through a map of theories of
Marxism and hegemony. These key theorists provide a variety of explanations for
the ways in which ideology and discourse function to convince people to accept
systems of social inequality as acceptable and immune from social
transformation. In explaining why people consent to unequal relations of social
power, they also illuminate possibilities for resistance to ideological power
and for social change.
If this model of
power, domination, and consent is correct, there are also important
implications for theory and political practice. In this model, power is
discursive, while having material effects. It flows throughout daily life in
multiple directions. As such, it is untenable to envision a Marxist style of
revolution, which can ultimately overcome power. Instead, we are better off
directing theory and practice at destabilizing our consent to these power
relations. Social theory might help produce the kind of reflexivity that
encourages us to better monitor and manage relations of power. This leaves us
with the prospect of an endless project of challenging and minimizing the
harmful effects of power relations, through practices like radical democracy or
cyborg politics.
ATTACHMENT
REFERENCES
Agger, Ben. 1998. Critical Social Theories: An Introduction. Oxford: Westview Press.
Eagleton, Terry. 1991. Ideology: An Introduction. London: Verso.
Femia, Joseph. 1975. “Hegemony and Consciousness in the Thought
of Antonio Gramsci.” Political Studies 23:29-48.
Gramsci, Antonio.
1971. Selections from the Prison
Notebooks of Antonio Gramsci. Translated by Q. Hoare and G. N. Smith. New
York: International Publishers.
Marx, Karl. 1977.
Capital: A Critique of Political Economy
(Volume 1). Translated by B. Fowkes. New York: Vintage Books.
Marx, Karl and
Friedrich Engels. 1989. “Excerpts from
The German Ideology.” Pp. 246-261 in Basic Writings on Politics and
Philosophy, edited by L. S. Feuer. New York: Anchor Books.
Parry, Benita. 2004.
“Problems in Current Theories of Colonial
Discourse.” in Postcolonial Studies: A Materialist Critique. London: Routledge.
Williams, Raymond. 1977. Marxism and Literature. New York: Oxford University Press.