In this book Mark Rupert argues that American global power was shaped by the ways in which mass production was institutionalized in the USA, and by the political and ideological struggles integral to this process. The production of an unprecedented volume of goods propelled the United States to the apex of the global division of labor, ensuring victory in World War II and enabling postwar reconstruction under American leadership. He describes an 'historic bloc' of American statesmen, capitalists and labor leaders who fostered a productivity-oriented political consensus within the USA, and sought to generalize their vision of liberal capitalism around the globe. He focuses on the incorporation of industrial labor as a junior partner in this hegemonic bloc, and argues that the recent erosion of its position under the pressures of transnational competition and the political forces of right wing reaction may open up new possibilities for transformative politics.

In the early part of the 20th century, state and corporate propagandists used the mass media to promote the valor and rightness of ascending U.S. hegemony on the global stage. Critics who challenged these practices of mass persuasion were quickly discredited by the emergent field of communication research - a field explicitly attempting to measure and thereby improve the efficacy of media messages. Three strains of critical cultural and media theory were especially engaged with the continued critique of the role of commodified, industrially produced, mass distributed culture- the Cultural Marxism of the Frankfurt School, the Cultural Materialism and active audiences of Cultural Studies, and Critical Political Economy of Communication. This book examines these three paradigms, illustrating the major tensions and points of agreement between them, particularly in relation to the dominant paradigms of administrative social science research and media ecology within communication and media studies more broadly. From the perspective of the emergent cultural environment, Hegemony, American Mass Media and Cultural Studies argues that the original points of disagreement between these paradigms appear less contradictory than before. In doing so it offers a new theoretical toolkit for those seeking to understand the current struggles for a more just, more democratic media, culture, and society.

"When and why does international order change? Easy to take for granted, international governing arrangements shape our world. They allow us to eat food imported from other countries, live safely from nuclear war, travel to foreign cities, profit from our savings, and much else. New threats, including climate change and simmering US-China hostility, lead many to worry that the "liberal order," or the US position within it, is at risk. Theorists often try to understand that situation by looking at other cases of great power decline, like the British Empire or even ancient Athens. Yet so much is different about those cases that we can draw only imperfect lessons from them. A better approach is to look at how the United States itself already lost much of its international dominance, in the 1970s, in the realm of oil. Only now, with several decades of hindsight, can we fully appreciate it. The experiences of that partial decline in American hegemony, and the associated shifts in oil politics, can teach us a lot about general patterns of international order. Leaders and analysts can apply those lessons when seeking to understand or design new international governing arrangements on topics ranging from climate change to peacekeeping, and nuclear proliferation to the global energy transition"--

In this hugely influential book, Laclau and Mouffe examine the workings of hegemony and contemporary social struggles, and their significance for democratic theory. With the emergence of new social and political identities, and the frequent attacks on Left theory for its essentialist underpinnings, Hegemony and Socialist Strategy remains as relevant as ever, positing a much-needed antidote against ‘Third Way’ attempts to overcome the antagonism between Left and Right.

A comprehensive survey of how scientific disciplines have always been informed by politics and ideology on the basis of the Gramscian views in historical materialism, hegemony and civil society.

What is colonialism and what is a colonial state? Ranajit Guha points out that the colonial state in South Asia was fundamentally different from the metropolitan bourgeois state which sired it. The metropolitan state was hegemonic in character, and its claim to dominance was based on a power relation in which persuasion outweighed coercion. Conversely, the colonial state was non-hegemonic, and in its structure of dominance coercion was paramount. Indeed, the originality of the South Asian colonial state lay precisely in this difference: a historical paradox, it was an autocracy set up and sustained in the East by the foremost democracy of the Western world. It was not possible for that non-hegemonic state to assimilate the civil society of the colonized to itself. Thus the colonial state, as Guha defines it in this closely argued work, was a paradox--a dominance without hegemony. Dominance without Hegemony had a nationalist aspect as well. This arose from a structural split between the elite and subaltern domains of politics, and the consequent failure of the Indian bourgeoisie to integrate vast areas of the life and consciousness of the people into an alternative hegemony. That predicament is discussed in terms of the nationalist project of anticipating power by mobilizing the masses and producing an alternative historiography. In both endeavors the elite claimed to speak for the people constituted as a nation and sought to challenge the pretensions of an alien regime to represent the colonized. A rivalry between an aspirant to power and its incumbent, this was in essence a contest for hegemony.

Today power is in the hands of Wall Street and Silicon Valley. How do we understand this transformation in power? And what can we do about it? We cannot change anything until we have a better understanding of how power works, who holds it, and why that matters. Through upgrading the concept of hegemony-understanding the importance of passive consent; the complexity of political interests; and the structural force of technology-Jeremy Gilbert and Alex Williams offer us an updated theory of power for the twenty-first century. Hegemony Now explores how these forces came to control our world. The authors show how they have shaped the direction of politics and government as well as the neoliberal economy to benefit their own interests. However, this dominance is under threat. Following the 2008 financial crisis, a new order emerged in which the digital platform is the central new technology of both production and power. This offers new opportunities for counter hegemonic strategies to win back power. Hegemony Now outlines a dynamic socialist strategy for the twenty-first century.