Gramsci

https://classiques-garnier.com/l-histoire-et-la-question-de-la-modernite-chez-antonio-gramsci.html

Le marxisme ouvert d’Antonio Gramsci permet de redéfinir la philosophie de l’histoire en échappant à tout dogmatisme. Gramsci cherche en effet à penser le processus historique dans sa consistance tout en accordant un rôle central à l’activité et aux luttes humaines, en particulier grâce aux notions de praxis, d’hégémonie et de rapports de forces. L’auteur des Cahiers de prison s’attache ainsi à comprendre la complexité de la modernité européenne, depuis ses origines jusqu’à la crise organique qui marque son temps, et s’arrête notamment sur la Renaissance, la Réforme, la Révolution française, le Risorgimento, l’américanisme, le fascisme et le socialisme soviétique.

While the very possibility of a philosophy of history has been widely questioned, this book shows that Antonio Gramsci’s open Marxism gives it new life, away from all dogmatism. Gramsci seeks to conceive the historical process in its consistency while giving a central role to human agency and struggles, thanks to notions such as praxis, hegemony and relations of force. His determination to understand both the coherence and the complexity of European modernity leads him to trace its development from its origins to the organic crisis it was undergoing in his time, from the Renaissance and the Reformation to Americanism, Fascism and Soviet socialism, via the French Revolution and the Risorgimento.

El presente capítulo se propone, a partir del análisis del itinerario teórico de Gramsci sobre la cuestión del Estado desde la época de L'Ordine Nuovo hasta sus reflexiones carcelarias, indagar en la cues¬tión de la hegemonía y sus derivaciones en el actual contexto de los capitalismos periféricos como el argentino. Nuestro interés se centrará en un punto en especial: sobre qué bases materiales les es posible a las clases dominantes construir una supremacía hegemónica. En otras palabras, se trata de plantear si es posible la existencia de consenso entre las clases subalternas sobre la base de criterios puramente ideológicos, más allá de sus condiciones de vida reales consideradas en el mediano y largo plazo. De ahí el interés por insistir una vez más en las dimensiones que se abren a partir de la noción gramsciana de hegemonía.
PRIMERA PARTE Capítulo 4 de “ESTADO Y MARXISMO. Un siglo y medio de debates” Mabel Thwaites Rey (compiladora). Buenos Aires: Editorial Prometeo 2007 (Páginas 129-160)

Resumen: Hegemonía y orden internacional hegemónico son ontologías clave para la disciplina y la teoría de las Relaciones Internacionales, y por ello, se trata de conceptos en permanente disputa académica. En un escenario mundial caracterizado por la crisis de la globalización, que puede interpretarse como crisis de hegemonía, vuelve a ser oportuna la revisión de estos conceptos. Este capítulo reexamina el concepto de hegemonía a partir tanto de las aproximaciones clásicas, como de una teorización crítica que se basa en la sociología histórica. Desde el concepto de hegemonía de Antonio Gramsci, se examina la aportación de la escuela neogramsciana de Relaciones Internacionales, que, frente a conceptos como primacía o polaridad, propone una visión estructural y socio-histórica de la hegemonía y de la globalización como un orden internacional hegemónico específico de esta etapa histórica. 

Abstract: Hegemony and international hegemonic order are key ontologies for both the discipline and the theory of International Relations, and therefore, these are concepts in permanent academic dispute. In a global scenario characterized by the crisis of globalization, which can be interpreted as a crisis of hegemony, the revision of these concepts is timely again. This chapter re-examines the concept of hegemony from both the classical approaches and critical theorizations based on historical sociology. Grounded on Antonio Gramsci's concept of hegemony, the contribution of the Neogramscian school of International Relations is examined, which, in the face of concepts such as primacy or polarity, proposes a structural and socio-historical vision of hegemony, and of globalization as a specific hegemonic international order in this historical stage.

Brazilian projection towards South America has been an important issue since its re democratization process in the 1980s. Still, Brazil’s regional behavior could not be considered as a hegemony, under the realist point of view, that is, exerted by its hard power. Nor liberal, considering the option for multiplicities initiatives and a low level of institutionalization. Therefore, we propose to apply the Gramscian concept of hegemony to analyze if Brazil could exert hegemony towards South America throughout its participation in regional integration processes. To do so, we have chosen to use a qualitative method of analysis along with a typical case-study to develop a prelaminar theory illustration, based upon a literature review of the Brazilian foreign policy (primary and secondary sources). This inquiry leads us to argue that there is a dubiety regarding Brazil’s regional action. Firstly, due to the lack of institutionalization of South American regional organizations and; secondly...

Article on the comparison of Gramscian and Foucauldian understandings of civil society.

Published in the book "A Panacea For all Seasons?" (Freise, Pyykkönen, Vaidelyte, eds., 2010, Nomos): http://www.amazon.de/Panacea-all-Seasons-Governance-European/dp/3832947876

A reconstrução diacrónica do conceito de “história integral” nos Cadernos do Cárcere de Gramsci mostra que duas exigências fundamentais da “filosofia da práxis” são articuladas através desta noção: 1) a necessidade de redefinir o materialismo histórico (isto é, uma teoria da história) a partir de uma perspectiva particular: a perspectiva das massas populares na sua luta política pela emancipação; 2) a necessidade de combater a revitalização da hegemonia burguesa proposta por Benedetto Croce através da sua «história ético-política», que Gramsci lê como uma teoria da «revolução passiva». Se a história ético-política baseia-se na exclusão do conflito da história, a história integral mostra que esta premissa não é um elemento teórico, mas uma necessidade política. Em outras palavras, a história integral revela não apenas a “falsidade” da posição teórica de Croce, mas ao mesmo tempo a sua capacidade de produzir uma determinada “verdade”, isto é uma “hegemonia”.

Antonio Gramsci est l’auteur italien le plus prisé de la pensée critique. Ses concepts, désormais appliqués à toutes sortes d’époques et de continent, peuvent nous aider à comprendre les soubresauts politiques de son pays natal, piégé dans un «équilibre catastrophique des forces».

RESUMO: O presente texto problematiza a questão racial sob a lente gramsciana, preferencialmente sobre o con-ceito de hegemonia, que visa auxiliar no debate a respeito da população negra no âmbito de uma sociedade capi-talista. Lançamos mão de inúmeros especialistas e de diversas áreas das ciências sociais para respaldar a relevância teórica de Gramsci na dimensão histórica, social, cultural, política e econômica na compreensão vivenciada pelos afro-brasileiros.

Artz, Lee, Dana L. Cloud and Steve Macek, Eds., The Point is to Change It: Marxism and Communication Studies (Peter Lang Publishers, 2006). 263 pages. Cited by 14. Reviewed in European Journal of Communication Studies, Reference and Research Book News; Sociology.

A timely analysis of the power and limits of political parties—and the lessons of the Civil War and the New Deal in the Age of Trump.

American voters have long been familiar with the phenomenon of the presidential frontrunner. In 2008, it was Hillary Clinton. In 1844, it was Martin Van Buren. And in neither election did the prominent Democrat win the party's nomination. Insurgent candidates went on to win the nomination and the presidency, plunging the two-party system into disarray over the years that followed.

In this book, Cedric de Leon analyzes two pivotal crises in the American two-party system: the first resulting in the demise of the Whig party and secession of eleven southern states in 1861, and the present crisis splintering the Democratic and Republican parties and leading to the election of Donald Trump. Recasting these stories through the actions of political parties, de Leon draws unsettling parallels in the political maneuvering that ultimately causes once-dominant political parties to lose the people's consent to rule.

Crisis! takes us beyond the common explanations of social determinants to illuminate how political parties actively shape national stability and breakdown. The secession crisis and the election of Donald Trump suggest that politicians and voters abandon the political establishment not only because people are suffering, but also because the party system itself is unable to absorb an existential challenge to its power. Just as the U.S. Civil War meant the difference between the survival of a slaveholding republic and the birth of liberal democracy, what political elites and civil society organizations do today can mean the difference between fascism and democracy.

The Rashtriya Swayamsevak Sangh and its affiliated groups - usually known as the "Sangh Parivar" - are the most powerful organisations in India today. But ask what they stand for, and you will get two very different answers. Critics of the RSS describe them as anti-secular, medieval and anti-democratic; but supporters of the organisation claim that it is a selfless social service group concerned only with genuine nationalism. Starting with the RSS' own texts, and exploring its history and the relationship between its beliefs and Indian politics, this book examines both of these claims. On this basis, it tries to answer two key questions: what do these groups actually stand for, and what does their rise mean for India's future?

The challenge of Marxism to the establishment caused him to be excluded from the academic field. Gramsci says, altogether, that Marxism will be the common sense of our age, because it is a formation that has influenced a wide area in many different ways in social sciences.

This essay deals with Raniero Panzieri’s interpretation of Gramsci, focusing on the period 1944-1959. In this period Panzieri made his career in the Italian Socialist Party and became one of the leading figures of the socialist cultural politics. The period was also marked by great historical events, in Italy and abroad: the crisis of Frontism, the process of “de-Stalinization”, the “Hungarian facts” and the “neo-capitalist” revolution (§ 1). So, it is not surprising that Panzieri’s approach to Gramsci has known a “qualitative leap” in the years between 1953 and 1959, by touching several issues – democratic journalism, culture-politics (theory-practice, intellectuals-masses) linkage, alliance of subaltern classes, consiliarism – and trying to “translate” them in a different “historical language” (§§ 3-4). The previous period (1944-1952) was instead a period of investigation and research: the first edition of Gramsci’s works and other publications allowed Panzieri to be acquainted with the Anti-Croce and the position on the “Southern Question” (§ 2); but Panzieri’s cultural work was influenced also by the mass political work he carried out in Sicily in the same years. The conclusion is that Panzieri’s peculiar “Gramscism” consisted first of all in the attitude to consider the theory-practice unity not only a theoretical and ideological question, but also and above all a practical, political and organizational one (§ 5).

Longish Description, concentrating on the theoretical content:

The book has a very broad purview.  It examines paradigm change in several areas, including economic policy and welfare provision, but focusing on education reform. 

Accordingly, it has as one, among several alternative titles, including
SOCIAL LEARNING IN AN ERA OF TRANSNATIONALISM:  
Coalitions and the Effect of Neo-Liberalism on Institutional Models and
SOCIAL LEARNING AND HEGEMONY:  Framing Education Reform in the US

Most relevant, however, are two other alternates:
MARKET EMULATION MODELS IN EDUCATION REFORM, 
4th Order Change and Cultural Development Pathways:
Aristotle's 4 Causes, Social Learning and Theories of Hegemony
 and
4TH ORDER CHANGE AND EDUCATION REFORM:
Market Emulation Models, Aristotle's 4 Causes, 
Peter Hall's Social Learning and Theories of Hegemony

The phrase '4th order change' references Peter Hall’s 1993 article on social learning, compares his 3 orders of change to Gramsci's theory of hegemony, suggesting the struggles of hegemony are the arena of a 4th order of change. 

I add a 4th order of paradigm change – what I call changes in ideo-utopian visions – to arrive at 4 Levels of Analysis of Social Learning, the first three more or less from Hall, the last from Gramsci, although I will argue that some of the other levels are also present in his work: 
1. 'Settings' – how policy makers experiment with policy instruments, such as tax rates or the federal reserve rate.
2.  'Instruments'  – Methods by which policy goals are realized (or sought to be realized), such as choosing between an Income Tax, Tariffs, Value Added Taxes, etc.
3. 'Policy Goals and Political Coalitions'  – The selection of goals and the forming of decisive political coalitions, such as those behind Thatcher and Ronald Reagan's electoral victories, but which could be extended to the creation of historic blocs that supported the implementation of Neo-liberal policies in Chile and other countries.
4. 'Ideo-Utopian Visions'  – The shared understandings Political Coalitions use to justify their policies, whether by ideology (i.e., Keynesian and Social Welfare approaches versus Monetarist and Hayek-infused approaches), through campaign and their slogans (i.e., The New Frontier and Morning in America or manipulation of language (i.e., 'The Death Tax' and the meaning of the word 'trust').

This obviously casts a wide net.  However, it puts these in historical context by looking at the conditions that made possible the advent of neoliberalism through several pathways:  by force of arms in Chile, through the ballot box in the UK and the US, and with the aid of International Financial Institutions, such as the IMF, in much of the developing world. 

The main topic is how public K-12 education in the US has been affected.  Robert Slavin once noted that education in the US has been in “an uninterrupted state of reform . . .  since the publication of A NATION AT RISK “ in 1983 under the first Reagan-Bush Administration. RISK, like other influential documents before it, linked the nation’s temporary failures in international competition to the systematic failures of the school system.  Purposes of education were narrowed, with civics, art and music, physical education being marginalized and Science Technology Engineering and Math programs (STEM) programs expanded.  The emphasis became job and college readiness.  Accountability became a watchword of those called for systematic reform and a single metric of  'achievement' – achievement measured by standardized tests – became ascendant. 

Herbert M. Kliebard's THE STRUGGLE FOR THE AMERICAN CURRICULUM, 1893-1958, there are four types of curricula that have vied for dominance in American schools: 1) Social Efficiency, which  urges that schools be oriented to economic needs and training of the work force.  2) Humanism, or the Liberal Arts tradition,  emphasizes general intellectual skills and familiarity with the cultural traditions of society and understanding of other cultures.  3) Social Meliorism sees the schools as an instrument for social, political and economic change.  4) Developmentalism which starts with the psychological development of the learner and the needs of the individual learner. 

For the last 40 years, the first goal has eclipsed the others.  Moreover, Social Efficiency had been defined in terms of economic goals and the Humanist perspective has been challenged by the ideal of a 'modern individual,' competitive, entrepreneurial and acquisitive, in keeping with the creation of a 'nation of owners'.”  Accordingly, Social Meliorism has a new, highly influential school, with roots  in the works of Joseph Schumpeter and Ayn Rand, in which the entrepreneur is the hero of history.  Finally, Developmentalism, in the Neoliberal view, can be adequately addressed through Skinneresque theories and a type of mechanical causalism in which incentives, primarily monetary incentives, create the motive force of social change.

The central enquiry is theoretical – a connection between the theory of Gramscian hegemony and accounts of Social Learning in the social sciences literature.  Gramsci's work is concerned. in large part, with how we conceive of things.  Hall is concerned with the paradigms by which we understand phenomena and implement policy. My argument is that thery are complimentary – that what we normally refer to as cultural or ideological hegemony constitutes, is an extension of Hall's terminology, a 4th order of change. 

Hall famously (if you an academic with a taste for macro-economic policy analysis) built on accounts of social learning and policy learning, such as those put forth by Hugh Heclo.  Of his three orders of policy change and social learning, two were based on the study of state-centric models in which the decision makers were relatively insulated from public pressure.

Third order change was something different, however – a paradigm change usually caused by (or at least occasioned by) the failure of policy and involving sociological and discursive factors.  Thus something like the concept of hegemony seems to be implicit in Hall's original 1993 article. 

I point to the most general epistemological paradox: Facts without concepts are blind, concepts without facts are empty. This is directly descended from Kant's statement, “Thoughts without content [observations, facts] are empty, intuitions without concepts are blind.” 

In Kant's framework, all mental activity results either from affection (receptivity) or from the mind’s self-prompted activity (spontaneity). Kant conceives of the mind as constituted by two fundamental capacities, which he labels “receptivity” [Receptivität] and “spontaneity” [Spontaneität]. The former is the mind’s capacity to be affected and produce “representations” [Vorstellungen]; the latter, however, comes from the mind itself without any external stimulus.

This leads to his distinction between “sensibility” [Sinnlichkeit], “understanding” [Verstand], and “reason” [Vernunft].  Sensibility is very much in the moment, Understanding has a largely analytic function (trying to break down the objects of sensibility), while Reason has a largely synthetic function (trying to unify the objects of sensibility into a coherent system).  This tension between Reason and Understanding manifests itself in the antinomies, which are the core paradoxes of the Kantian system.  Moreover, the tension presents a general danger; as argued by Gramsci, analytical distinctions which are treated as organic realities are worse than blind facts – they not only blind us, but can point us in the wrong direction and keep us from seeing properly. 

Eventually, I argue this is not a paradox because there are always feedbacks and interactions between the two.  In fact, I think of them not as two things, but as two faces of the same thing which we distinguish analytically and sometimes forget how they are organically united. And paradoxes, apparent or real, are important:  The force of paradoxes is that they are not contradictory; they rather allow us to be present at the genesis of the contradiction.

My reconstruction of Hall adds a 4th order or change, applying Aristotle's 4 causes and the introduction of theories of hegemony to explain 3rd and, especially, 4th order changes.  It also makes reference to Kant's antinomies, of which, like Aristotle's causes and the revamped orders of change,  there are 4.

I seek to make a connection between Aristotle's 4 causes and Kant's 4 Antinomies, but it is the latter which is most relevant.  For Kant, each antinomy describes a tension between the analytic and synthetic faculties of consciousness. I argue that this corresponds to the tension between the Incremental and the Constructionist.  It is a long argument, but I believe it is worthwhile and provides insight into paradigm change, whether in education, welfare provision or economic policy.

A 80 anni dalla morte di Antonio Gramsci, «Filosofia Italiana» intende tracciare, in un fascicolo monografico, un bilancio delle ricerche più recenti sul suo pensiero. Pur riservando una particolare attenzione ai temi e ai nessi più contigui alla filosofia, la rivista si propone anche di esplorare le nuove prospettive di ricerca che si sono aperte grazie al dialogo multidisciplinare e al contatto fecondo con tradizioni culturali diverse da quelle del contesto di origine della riflessione gramsciana. Temi del numero di «Filosofia Italiana» saranno: filosofia e marxismo, egemonia e traducibilità, studi culturali e linguistica, antropologia e studi di genere, storiografia e studi subalterni, pedagogia e questione degli intellettuali.

In order determine if sustainability is a megatrend, it is necessary to clarify the nature of sustainability and how it fits into the overall area of political and consumer culture. We first examine the character of a megatrend and establish a working definition that is used for the remainder of the chapter. We then arrive at a working definition of sustainability that positions it on a continuum from weak to strong sustainability. While the sustainability question has both production and consumption dimensions, the focus of the chapter is on sustainable consumption within a culture of consumption. We then argue that the political aspects of consumption become prominent under conditions of environmental stress or impending limits to economic growth. Incorporating the political reveals that, within advanced market societies, the market has achieved supremacy as the means through which sustainability is addressed. We suggest that the New Political Economy (NPE) incorporating a Gramscian perspective provides a framework through which to challenge the assumptions which have led to unsustainable market behavior. The conclusion drawn from this perspective is that sustainability is more than a megatrend as it leads to both systemic and permanent transformation within market societies.

Donna Amoroso's Traditionalism and the Ascendancy of the Malay Ruling Class in Colonial Malaya has formed one of the most influential analyses of the conservative political development of colonial and post-colonial Malaya. Central to her work was the category of "traditionalism", through which she exposed the way in which the invention and reinvention of traditions by the British colonial state laid the groundwork for the reproduction of monarchical and aristocratic power under colonial rule, creating the foundations for the "traditional" nature of the subsequent nationalist movement. In this piece I wish to argue that the process described by Amoroso can be best understood in terms of Antonio Gramsci's notion of the passive revolution of capital, a theory of conservative political, social and economic transformation under conditions of capitalist development. Expanded in the Indian (and post-colonial) case by theorists such as Partha Chatterjee and Sudipta Kaviraj, I will argue that this concept can, in the context of Malaya, form the basis for understanding Malaya's model of conservative nation-state formation, in particular highlighting the importance of three elements which Gramsci saw as central to the process of passive revolution: the state as an institution above class conflict, the coalition as a mediation between classes, and a molecular or gradualist theory of political and economic change.

The social critic Jeffrey Masson recently recalled of the
psychiatric survivor movement that: [t]hey had a great
deal to teach those of us who were training to become
some sort of mental health professional (psychologists,
psychiatrists, psychoanalysts, even social workers and
therapists from other schools). Yet I learned that by
and large their voices were not heard, or if heard, were
immediately discounted. When they tried to talk to
us, we did not listen. During my entire eight years [of
training to be a psychoanalyst] never once were they
called in to speak to us of their direct experience with
psychiatry. In fact, I can’t remember the movement ever
even being referred to by our teachers. (Foreword in
Cohen, 2015, p. xi)

Este ensayo es una versión más acabada de notas desarrolladas en discusiones dentro de las redes sociales (Facebook, Twitter) así como en intercambios personales con participantes en torno al significado, posibilidades y alcance del movimiento ciudadano de protesta #RenunciaYa. El ensayo propone una «hoja de ruta» que puede llevar al movimiento ciudadano hacia la demanda de una refundación del Estado como solución no solo a la crisis de legitimidad por la cual atraviesa actualmente el Estado (debido a los escándalos sin precedentes de corrupción en el gobierno del presidente Otto Pérez Molina) sino, también, a la crisis de hegemonía del modelo de dominación implantado por elites políticas y económicas desde el momento mismo de la transición a la democracia liberal precariamente construida dentro de un contexto de transición al neoliberalimo extractivo, acumulador y globalizador.

The present essay will attempt to approach to Lacan´s (1959-1960/1992) interpretation of Antigone through Zizek´s (2009) theories about violence. I will use the notions of `objective´ and `subjective´ violence to analyse it within the sophoclean tragedy. The Antigone question, that shows the conflict between the individual and the community laws established by power, enlighten Zizek’s theories about contemporary violence in a capitalistic context. Zizek´s thought about it and Lacan´s approach to Antigone shared a fundamental attempt to overcome the moralistic reading of these questions. Avoiding this simplistic approach will be one of the goals of this essay.

This article explores the ways in which Gramsci's engagement with Machiavelli and The Prince in particular result in three significant developments in the Prison Notebooks. First, I analyze how the 'heroic fury' of Gramsci's lifelong interest in Machiavelli's thought develops, during the composition of his carceral writings, into a novel approach to the reading of The Prince, giving rise to the famous notion of the 'modern Prince'. Second, I argue that the modern Prince should not be regarded merely as a distinctive (individual or collective) figure, but rather, should be understood as a dramatic development that unfolds throughout 'the discourse itself' of the Prison Notebooks, particularly in the crucial phase of reorganisation in the 'special notebooks' composed from 1932 onwards. Third and finally, I suggest that the combination of the two preceding themes is decisive for understanding the modern Prince as a distinctive form of political organization. Rather than equated with a generic conception of the '(communist) political party', this notion was developed as a part of Gramsci's larger argument regarding the necessity for anti-Fascist political forces in Italy in the early 1930s to grow into an antagonistic collective body guided by principles of 'living philology'.

Ponencia presentada en la conferencia:
INCURSIONES GRAMSCIANAS ARGENTINAS
Dilemas actuales, a 100 años de Octubre, a 80 años de la muerte de Antonio Gramsci
(Buenos Aires, 21, 22 y 23 de junio de 2017)
Centro Cultural de la Cooperación “Floreal Gorini”
Facultad de Ciencias Sociales – Universidad de Buenos Aires

In riferimento a un personale percorso di ricerca nel campo all'antropologia medica, l'Autore presenta, in forma provvisoria, appunti che riflettono sulla elaborazione di una prospettiva "italiana" nel rapporto fra antropologia medica e governo dei corpi.

This article offers a reconstruction of the Gramscian conception of the emergence of capitalism. Such a reconstruction is necessary because Gramsci does not give us a systematic conception of the transition from feudalism to capitalism. Despite this, we find reflections in his Prison Notebooks where he analyzes some elements that played a decisive role in this transition or, conversely, constituted obstacles to it (the importance of the construction of a national-popular collective will, thanks to a real hegemony of the bourgeoisie over the rest of the population, and the establishment of an integral State; the negative role of the Catholic Church, especially in Italian history, as opposed to the Protestant movements). This study of Gramscian thought is enriched by a dialogue with several important authors: Max Weber obviously, but also the historians Henri Pirenne and Robert Brenner.

Cet article propose une reconstruction de la conception gramscienne de l’émergence du capitalisme. Un tel travail de reconstruction est nécessaire dans la mesure où Gramsci ne propose pas une conception systématique de la transition du féodalisme au capitalisme. Malgré cela, les réflexions des Cahiers de prison  analysent des éléments ayant joué un rôle décisif dans cette transition ou ayant à l’inverse constitué des obstacles à cette dernière (importance de la construction d’une volonté collective nationale-populaire, grâce à une véritable hégémonie de la bourgeoisie sur le reste de la population, et à la mise en place d’un État intégral ; rôle négatif de l’Église catholique, en particulier dans l’histoire italienne, par opposition aux mouvements protestants). Cette étude de la pensée gramscienne s’enrichit d’un dialogue avec plusieurs auteurs importants : Max Weber évidemment, mais également les historiens Henri Pirenne et Robert Brenner.

1920年代にロシアのすぐれた経済学者コンドラチェフは、約50年周期の「大循環」の存在を統計的に示すとともに、その物質的基盤を長期的な償却期間を持った基礎的資本財（インフラストラクチュア）に見出した。これは一般に「長期波動」論として知られる。しかし、コンドラチェフが長期波動について論じる１年前に、すでにトロツキーはコミンテルン第３回大会において、世界資本主義の約140年のトレンドを分析して、その中に10年周期の景気変動とは異なる、大きな成長率の変化をともなった「諸段階」を見出し、それにもとづいて、1920年代における世界資本主義の動向と革命の展望について論じていた。そこでのトロツキーの時期区分は、後にコンドラチェフが複数の大循環を提示した際の時期区分とほぼ一致している。両者は1923年から1926年にかけて長期波動の性格をめぐって論争を展開する。本稿は、この論争は主たる内容を紹介するとともに、トロツキーの長期波動論には２つの異なった種類があることを指摘し、この２つの長期波動にもとづいて、トロツキーの理論の真の意義について、およびコンドラチェフの長波論との根本的な違いについて明らかにする。またその過程で、トロツキーのフォーディズム論がその長期波動論と深く関連していることも示す。

This paper proposes a partial reconceptualization and a redesign of the Framework of Hydro-Hegemony, an analytical tool devised to study how power, hegemony, and power asymmetries can influence transboundary water politics. This is done by presenting the original Circle of Hydro-Hegemony (CHH), an analytical framework that places the neo-Gramscian notion of hegemony at the centre of its structure, to illustrate how various forms of power are connective in the function of hegemony. Following a theoretical discussion on how the concepts of power and hegemony can interact, the case of the Aral Sea basin in Central Asia will provide a practical application of the CHH to transboundary water politics.