War-time hegemony can be lost to subordinates at the peace table
Evidence
It is obvious that, in an alliance, what counts are the conditions in which a State finds itself at the moment of peace. Therefore it may happen that whoever has exercised hegemony during the war ends up by losing it as a result of the enfeeblement suffered in the course of the struggle, and is forced to see a “subordinate” who has been more skilful or “luckier” become hegemonic. This occurs in “world wars” when the geographic situation compels a State to throw all its resources into the crucible: it wins through its alliances, but victory finds it prostrate, etc. This is why in the concept of “great power” it is necessary to take many elements into account, and especially those which are “permanent”—i.e. especially “economic and financial potential” and population. — Antonio Gramsci, Selections from the Prison Notebooks, 983
Categorization
- XREF: Gramscian hegemony here covers interstate relations, paralleling how hegemonic blocs among social groups within a state can shift and be lost.
Related
- Hegemony must be perpetually won and can be lost. (similarity 0.82)
- Hegemony is a precarious, ever-rebuilt dominance won mainly through consent plus coercion. (similarity 0.80)
- Hegemony requires economic leadership, not just compromise concessions (similarity 0.80)
- Hegemonic rule substitutes protracted positional struggle for frontal assault on the state. (similarity 0.80)
- Hegemony is an unstable ongoing process, never a settled victory (similarity 0.79)
- Southern urban forces derived strength from representing Northern urban prestige (similarity 0.78)