The term hegemony has been used to gently express the dominant spirit of state imperialism adapted to modern times. In the face of the natural aggressiveness that characterizes imperialism, it adopts persuasive hues, without disregarding the dogmatic aim, setting an intellectual direction that is inevitably aimed at imposing as valid and exclusive a dominant ideology. If facing imperialism there is no other alternative for the weak than submission, with hegemony the door remains open for dialogue, even if it ends up leading to the leader's monologue. Until now it was understood as a form of domination that controlled the majority thought, an updated model of colonization or, as Gramsci says, the political, intellectual and moral direction of one State over another.Although the trend from the beginning of its career has been taxing on the part of the declared dominant, without the dominated formulating an open objection, it seems that the issue is not peaceful, since there are traits that this direction has been maintaining in a policy of convenience practiced by the theoretically submissive State or States. It can even be advanced that a State is hegemonic insofar as those affected tolerate its hegemony position, rather than by the determining fact of its hegemony.It can even be advanced that a State is hegemonic insofar as those affected tolerate its hegemony position, rather than by the determining fact of its hegemony.It can even be advanced that a State is hegemonic insofar as those affected tolerate its hegemony position, rather than by the determining fact of its hegemony.
Despite the softness of the form, the tax trend that always accompanies dogma cannot be avoided, hence the vigor of the ideas is not enough to establish and preserve hegemony, making it necessary for convincing argumentation to be accompanied by other compelling reasons. At bottom, it is a matter of mutual interests, so that when the weak state does not profit from the relationship, hegemony is eclipsed and the role of the strong state is questioned until it loses authority. Thus, hegemony is not established in perpetuity, or without conditions, but rather temporarily and motivated by reciprocal interests, it may even be added that the situation may reverse. Although the tax tends to close to other realities other than its own,the fact is that the hegemonic state to some extent ends up being dependent on the other, at least to define itself as such.
There has been a permanent debate among the strong states, including at the intellectual level that concerns hegemony, about the method to exert their influence in certain geographic areas, taking advantage initially of war superiority and imperialist practices. As the advance of civilization consolidates, it becomes necessary to resort to new arguments of conviction. Focusing on mass economic policy, the vanguard of change came from the expansion of the culture of consumption that demands, once the basic needs are satisfied, to continue consuming; which contributes to entering the spiral of what Galbraith calls the principle of consistency, insofar as it leads to compulsive consumption.From there, hegemony is maintained assuming sufficient capacity to meet the satisfaction of the consumer needs of the dissatisfied. But the issue is cleverly disguised in cultural terms. In his practice resides the principle of cultural superiority, which allows offering a consumerist lifestyle as a model of exportable welfare for the hegemonic. That due to its evidence it is imposed in many respects on any other, even leaving the indigenous cornered, insofar as it cannot compete effectively with the new model. Its transmission vehicle, so close to the masses - cinema, press, ICT - has an added effectiveness derived from global business, which has made culture an industry subject to the process of commodification of existence. Based primarily on the image,the risk of reaction is minimal, largely because it relieves the individual from the task of thinking; on the other hand, it can be considered solid, if one takes into account that, according to Sartori, in modern man the image exceeds the force of words.
Generally, the issue ends up being redirected today to economic arrogance, which allows control of money flows and maintains technological superiority. Both components maintain a deep symbiotic relationship, which is imposed even on cultural considerations, and are so energetic that in the welfare society they find no competitor, because today technological innovation, as Toffler observes, is the decisive element of accumulation. Thus, like the arguments based on military force, which were initially dominant, have gone into the background, although the blocs persist, however the runaway consumption that moves technology has abounded in the generalized priority of money, which has been defined like the uncontroversial spearhead of the new force.So the issue has been ventilated almost exclusively in market terms, which turns out to be consistent with a global economy system. Hence, hegemony is defined from the control of technology and money.
Located the role of weapons in the rear, that of money is hidden behind the cultural curtain and unique thinking. In this way, the hegemonic places as a screen of domination at the mass level the development of a culture of submission to his in his condition of superior, putting as a paradigm the way of existence of his nationals ready to be exported to other countries as merchandise at the mass level. But to strengthen itself, it needs to complete the process by selling a way of doing politics according to its desires, in order to obtain total control of the dominated from those same peaceful perspectives that the market itself demands. The way of doing politics revolves around the unquestionable principle of representative democracy, which has been used as a leader for the masses.However, to the extent that, as Barber observes, consumers are created, neglecting citizens, democracy does not work, because citizens are more attentive to consumerism than to the development of politics. The matter has been handed over to the political class exclusively due to simple negligence derived from the consumerist spirit, leaving periodic electoral processes as reminiscence. The result is that political action is aimed at parties consolidating their own class business. For this they play two bands. On the one hand, showing complacency with the hegemonic -either on the official terrain or forming duly controlled opposition-, the one that has been supplying the vital element and allows it to be strengthened as a local power. Of other,entertaining the respective national masses from the propaganda of welfare and paper rights, claiming the exclusivity of the benefits of the model.
In this way, an economic and political order has been imposed by the hegemonic State, which affects a plurality, accepted by those who are ultimately subjects, but it does not seem to be so with the political class as soon as its leadership is compromised.
Until now, the literary account consisted of weak states allowing themselves to be colonized culturally and politically, while the strong ones provided national well-being through the flow of money and respected the role of local elites. While strong states believed in exercising their hegemony, self-pleased with their superiority and convinced of the effectiveness of their economic model, the others extracted their share of the benefit. In this process, the privileged position of the companies championed by the hegemonic was evident. By offshoring, they expanded markets, produced cheaply, and later sold to their own nationals at first-world prices. Corporate dividends soared as the wealth of their nationals suffered.Locally, the political class grew in power, having freed itself from the stigma of localism. Inserted in globalization, it gained positions, since, as Bauman maintains, the sense of the local implies poverty and social degradation in a globalized world.
At the international level, something analogous happened with the class that emerged from globalization, exhibiting its power since the creation of international organizations, originally created to reinforce the role of the hegemonic. It must be borne in mind that globalization has been decisive in consolidating the dominance of hegemonics over the weak, because the dependence of peripheral countries on the dominant countries, as Borón or Petras maintains, has increased. The globalization of financial, industrial and commercial capital has promoted the appearance of multinational companies of all kinds. However, this situation has promoted the change in international policy with the creation of international organizations in charge of coordinating the globalization process,which inevitably leads to the emergence of a new bureaucracy through whose dispositions the hegemonic must pass, even if in principle it was submissive.
Reality ends up emerging from appearance. The USA example could be cited as hegemony among hegemonies, affected by that hegemony of convenience accepted by the culturally colonized, who have used the money of colonization to provide dropper welfare for their nationals and consolidate their own political bureaucracy - political class - and technique -class of state employees-. Likewise, at the international level - the ruling class in international organizations - this other bureaucracy with similar characteristics is also not in a position to lose its privileged position. While the masses indulge in consumerism, solely concerned with satisfying their real or created needs, the bureaucracies rebel against the hegemonic because they oppose continuing to subsidize them.They use citizens as a shield, saying that they will lose their well-being, their freedom - despite the big brother imposed at all levels with the help of new technologies - and their straw rights if they are lowered from their position as defenders of the general interests., when it turns out that whoever will cut their influence and privileges is none other than the local and international political bureaucracy. It seems clear that the political class, submissive in principle, accepted in its own interest the dictates of the hegemonic and thus transmitted it to the masses. Today, at the zenith of the arrogance of the exercise of power, the discourse changes and turns against the old goodness of the hegemonic State, using all the arguments at its disposal in a fight between borrowed power and real force.The praxis of bureaucratic rebellion against the politics of capitalism is centered on propaganda, aided by the mass media - curiously capitalist - that as faithful to the idea of capital they have to serve whoever pays so as not to unbalance the income statement. The task of the media is to intoxicate its followers by exposing the evils of a sector of reformist political capitalism that is not in a position to continue building its hegemony by injecting huge amounts of money to defray a bureaucracy that, controlling the masses Play along. On the contrary, the bureaucracy is presented as essential in its condition of guarantor of freedom, rights, plurality and, in general, the topics of the moment,when she is only concerned with the preservation of her class interests.
As Negri and Hart say, the nation-state, although they have not disappeared, has lost power, that empire classified as a legal-political order has been transferred to a set of supranational organisms and devices. What has even affected the march of the hegemonic state. Delivered to the development of the idea of Empire, the old hegemonic State had been neglecting its own nation-State, which made it lose its base support. With this, he planned the threat of diluting himself as a nation in the international adventure, to which must be added the risks of being an excessively indebted economy. However, the hegemonic state that now aspires to recover the path of the capitalist nation-state from capitalism, displacing the political class as a product of representative democracy, faces obstacles permanently. Your new policy,Globally contested by media propaganda seeking the support of the masses, it has brought to light the weakness of modern hegemony. With the result of reaching the conclusion that if a State aspires to be described as hegemonic, the arms arsenal, the culture, the level of exportable well-being, and even the technological advances are not enough to maintain dominance, but it must be made to run your money in abundance in all directions and respect the powers that emerge in its shadow. You must sow a lot of money to keep yourself, because the submission of the dominated has a price and traditional hegemony is maintained as long as there is business for the submissive. The main problem is the bureaucracy, because it makes them uncomfortable if their salary is reduced, as well as if their competencies are cut.It has to continue playing its privileged role, otherwise it launches the masses against the hegemonic, its leadership capacity being contested.
In the end, it turns out that hegemony as a pattern of domination is not energetic but fragile, since abiding by the condition of a hegemonic state responds to the convenience of both the weak state political class and the directed national masses. It seems evident that we must feed the subjugated States, since without food there is no hegemony, and respect the role of the traditional political class. With regard to international organizations, it is about allowing the bureaucracy to play its role and earn a salary, even if it plays to govern money and milk multinationals, but above all it is necessary to contribute funds. Otherwise, this economic, political, technological and cultural direction of the hegemonic State, despite the support of certain traditional sectors of capitalism, will be deeply questioned,because it is a hegemony of convenience.
Download the original file
