Suchergebnisse

Chodor examines the struggles against neoliberal hegemony in Latin America, under the 'Pink Tide' of leftist governments. Utilizing a critical International Political Economy framework derived from the work of Antonio Gramsci, he looks at its two most prominent members -- Venezuela under Hugo Chavez and Brazil under Lula and Dilma Rousseff. The author argues that Venezuela's Bolivarian Revolution represents a counter-hegemonic project that seeks to construct a radical alternative to neoliberalism, while the Brazilian project is better understood as a passive revolution aiming to re-secure consent for neoliberal hegemony by making material and ideological concession to the Brazilian masses. Despite their differences, the two projects cooperate at the regional level, driving the process of regional integration that aims to make Latin America more politically, economically and ideologically autonomous in the neoliberal world order. The book suggests this process opens up opportunities for a fairer, more prosperous and more democratic Latin America in the 21st century, challenging American hegemony and its neoliberal project in doing so.

This article offers a Gramscian response to the theory of post-hegemony, suggesting that its rejection of Gramsci rests on misrepresentations of his work. Through a closer engagement with this work, the article outlines the ways in which Gramscian analysis can in fact complement the insights of post-hegemony in analysing the ways in which the social order is secured and the strategies of resistance to this order. This combination of Gramscian and post-hegemonic insights, the article argues, offers a more nuanced and comprehensive insight into power, radical politics and resistance in the twenty-first century, an insight which risks being lost in post-hegemony's rejection of Gramsci and his work. The utility of this combined approach is illustrated via four short vignettes from contemporary Latin America: the emergence of the student protest movement in Chile since 2011; the Caracazo in Venezuela; the Argentine crisis in 2001; and the Bolivarian Revolution in Venezuela.

This article offers a Gramscian response to the theory of post-hegemony, suggesting that its rejection of Gramsci rests on misrepresentations of his work. Through a closer engagement with this work, the article outlines the ways in which Gramscian analysis can in fact complement the insights of post-hegemony in analysing the ways in which the social order is secured and the strategies of resistance to this order. This combination of Gramscian and post-hegemonic insights, the article argues, offers a more nuanced and comprehensive insight into power, radical politics and resistance in the twenty-first century, an insight which risks being lost in post-hegemony's rejection of Gramsci and his work. The utility of this combined approach is illustrated via four short vignettes from contemporary Latin America: the emergence of the student protest movement in Chile since 2011; the Caracazo in Venezuela; the Argentine crisis in 2001; and the Bolivarian Revolution in Venezuela.

On October 7, 2012, Hugo Chávez was comfortably re-elected president of Venezuela. Just days before the vote the impression given by major international print media was that the vote was a close-run thing, an assessment which proved to be at best optimistic. We argue that Western media coverage of the election in Venezuela was designed to skew the result towards the opposition and that these efforts singularly failed. The conclusions of our analysis are, first, that the "propaganda" model advanced by Chomsky is now faltering in the Americas and, second, that the region is acting in manner that is increasingly free of influence from the US. Venezuela thus stands as a case of the citizenry of a country actively and independently asserting its political agency despite clear attempts to redirect its thinking and decision-making.

On October 7, 2012, Hugo Chávez was comfortably re-elected president of Venezuela. Just days before the vote the impression given by major international print media was that the vote was a close-run thing, an assessment which proved to be at best optimistic. We argue that Western media coverage of the election in Venezuela was designed to skew the result towards the opposition and that these efforts singularly failed. The conclusions of our analysis are, first, that the "propaganda" model advanced by Chomsky is now faltering in the Americas and, second, that the region is acting in manner that is increasingly free of influence from the US. Venezuela thus stands as a case of the citizenry of a country actively and independently asserting its political agency despite clear attempts to redirect its thinking and decision-making.