Dominant classes survive crises by out-maneuvering subordinate groups

Evidence

Once again, in Gramsci’s concept of “hegemony,” for example, we discover the beginnings of a way of conceptualizing how classes, constituted at the fundamental level of production relations, come to provide the basis of the social authority, the political sway and cultural domination of a “class alliance on behalf of capital,” without reducing the idea to what Marx once called the “dirty-Jewish” question of class interest, narrowly conceived. This latter form of economic reductionism, Gramsci argues, conceives of history as “a continuous march é de dupes , a competition in conjuring and sleight of hand. ‘Critical’ activity [i.e., Marxism] is reduced to the exposure of swindles, to creating scandals, and to prying into the pockets of public figures” (Prison Notebooks ). Which of us cannot quickly recall that brand of Marxism of exposure? — Hall, Stuart, Essential Essays, Volume 1, 527 (#corroborates, via linked claim)

Categorization

• XREF: connects to: A class becomes hegemonic when its elite transcends narrow corporate interests; Dominance is maintained through unstable equilibria that concede some subordinate interests; Catastrophic stalemate can result from momentary dominance failure rather than organic crisis (+7 more)

Related

• Dominance is maintained through unstable equilibria that concede some subordinate interests (similarity 0.92)
• A class becomes hegemonic when its elite transcends narrow corporate interests (similarity 0.91)
• Hegemony is achieved by more than mere class dominance (similarity 0.88)
• Hegemony explains class domination without reducing it to narrow class-interest exposure. (similarity 0.86)
• Hegemony is reproduced through unstable, shifting equilibria rather than static dominance (similarity 0.83)
• Early crisis discourse conflated domination with Gramscian hegemony (similarity 0.82)
• Hegemony requires economic leadership, not just compromise concessions (similarity 0.81)
• Hegemonic leadership is exercised by a historic bloc, not a whole class (similarity 0.81)
• Cultural domination has real effects without being all-powerful or all-inclusive (similarity 0.80)
• Hegemony is not equivalent to ideological domination. (similarity 0.80)
• Hegemony explains class rule as cultural and political sway, not just economic interest (similarity 0.80)
• Hegemony is a precarious, ever-rebuilt dominance won mainly through consent plus coercion. (similarity 0.80)
• Hegemony is an unstable equilibrium that dominant forces must continually resecure (similarity 0.79)
• Hegemony is an unstable ongoing process, never a settled victory (similarity 0.79)
• Hegemony must be perpetually won and can be lost. (similarity 0.79)

Broader Connections

• Hegemony explains class domination without reducing it to narrow class-interest exposure. #corroborates (0.85) — Hall, Stuart, Essential Essays, Volume 1, 527
• Dominance is maintained through unstable equilibria that concede some subordinate interests #corroborates (0.78)
• Catastrophic stalemate can result from momentary dominance failure rather than organic crisis #expands (0.72)