Upload
charly-gardel
View
218
Download
0
Embed Size (px)
Citation preview
7/27/2019 Latin American Perspectives-1990-Munck-113-21.pdf
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/latin-american-perspectives-1990-munck-113-21pdf 1/10
http://lap.sagepub.com/ Latin American Perspectives
http://lap.sagepub.com/content/17/2/113The online version of this article can be found at:
DOI: 10.1177/0094582X9001700206
1990 17: 113Latin American Perspectives Ronaldo Munck
Farewell to Socialism?: A Comment on Recent Debates
Published by:
http://www.sagepublications.com
On behalf of:
Latin American Perspectives, Inc.
can be found at:Latin American Perspectives Additional services and information for
http://lap.sagepub.com/cgi/alertsEmail Alerts:
http://lap.sagepub.com/subscriptionsSubscriptions:
http://www.sagepub.com/journalsReprints.navReprints:
http://www.sagepub.com/journalsPermissions.navPermissions:
http://lap.sagepub.com/content/17/2/113.refs.htmlCitations:
What is This?
- Apr 1, 1990Version of Record>>
at UNIV OF OKLAHOMA LIBRARIES on August 20, 2013lap.sagepub.comDownloaded from
7/27/2019 Latin American Perspectives-1990-Munck-113-21.pdf
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/latin-american-perspectives-1990-munck-113-21pdf 2/10
113
Farewell to Socialism?
A Comment on Recent Debatesby
Ronaldo Munck
The revalorization of democracy by the left has led many to bid farewell
to socialism, at least in its present forms. The antagonism between authori-
tarianism (of all forms) and democracy has largely superseded that posited
between capitalism and socialism. Or rather, it is widely argued that this isthe case. This note does not attempt to set out a socialist project for Latin
America but simply seeks to demonstrate the continued relevance of social-
ism to the contintent, in spite of all the reservations expressed.Norbert Lechner has expressed a general feeling among Latin American
intellectuals in stating that &dquo;If revolution was the articulating axis of the Latin
American debate in the 1960s, in the 1980s the central theme is democracy&dquo;(Lechner, 1986b: 33). In the 1960s a rather apocalyptic vision of the &dquo;devel-
opment of underdevelopment&dquo; (things could only get worse) led to a rather
stark political choice between &dquo;socialism or fascism.&dquo; The victorious Cuban
Revolution meant that socialism was possible: The condition of &dquo;depen-dency&dquo; meant that it was necessary. The forthcoming socialist revolutionwas
seen as an inexorable product of the explosive social contradictions and the
perceived failure of capitalist modernization in the 1950s. When the militarycoups occurred in the 1970s and produced something akin to fascism, this
momentarily strengthened the illusion that socialism and fascism were the
only alternatives open to Latin American societies. In defeat, much of the
Latin American left accentuated its previous dogmatism. Indeed it is not an
exaggeration to refer to a quasi-religious concept of politics: hence the
current call of the 1980s to &dquo;desacralize&dquo; politics.Under the military regimes of the 1970s, intellectual endeavor turned from
the social and economic aspects of &dquo;dependency&dquo; to the origins and nature
of the new &dquo;bureaucratic authoritarian&dquo; states.’ Around 1982, with the
growinginternational economic crisis
shakingthe
stabilityof the
military
Ronaldo Munck teaches in the Department of Sociology at the University of Ulster and is a
Participating Editor of Latin American Perspectives. His most recent book isLatin America: The
Transition to Democracy (London: Zed Books).
LATIN AMERICAN PERSPECTIVES, Issue 65, Vol. 17 No. 2, Spring 1990,113-1210 1990 Latin American Perspectives
at UNIV OF OKLAHOMA LIBRARIES on August 20, 2013lap.sagepub.comDownloaded from
7/27/2019 Latin American Perspectives-1990-Munck-113-21.pdf
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/latin-american-perspectives-1990-munck-113-21pdf 3/10
114
regimes, the theme of democratization became the major focus of intellectual
debate.2The struggle against military rule had centered largely around the
issue of human rights, a defensive politics which took over from the visionof a socialist alternative. The overwhelming presence of the state under the
military encouraged a self-criticism of the left’s own statism. The megalo-maniac visions of a new order articulated by the Pinochets made many on
the left skeptical of their own previously confident vision of a future as a
guide to political practice in the present. Above all, the logic of war as
practiced by the military regimes led parts of the armed left to question its
own past militarism. It seemed that Clausewitz’s dictum had been stood on
its head: Politics was a continuation of war by another means. The conceptof difference was not accepted, and political adversaries were enemies to be
liquidated. The horrors of military rule - and the undoubted, if rarely ex-
pressed, feelings of culpability-led to a serious revision of how politicsshould be conducted. If the messianic concept of revolutionary politics had
to be overcome, so too would politics have to be demilitarized.
As the logic ofwar gave way to a political logic, there was a revalorization
of civil
society againstthe
now-omnipotentstate. The
studyof social move-
ments - both old and new - was an expression of this new-found interest in
what lay beyond the state. A society devastated by military monetarism had
managed to recompose many of its social networks and fight back. This new
trend, as Lechner notes, was also influenced by the neoliberal conceptionsof the state and the individual, and inevitably took an ingenuous liberal flavor
(Lechner, 1986b: 33). It led, however, to a recognition of the plurality of
social interests: &dquo;The working class&dquo; was no longer. Or, as stated by Laclau
and Mouffe: &dquo;there is no single underlying principle fixing-and henceconstituting-the whole field of differences&dquo; (1985: 14). Society was no
longer seen as a self-defined totality. The democratization process would not
simply imply the political activation of preconstituted social subjects. Rather,the transition to democracy would at one and the same time forge new
subjects and collective identities while it constructed a new institutional
order. In the new, more fluid, conception of politics, political identities could
be decomposed and recomposed. It was not to be only the existing corpora-
tive institutions which would participate in the democratic game. As thedemocratic game was opening up so the rules of the game had to be
reestablished. Much of the process occurred at the level of discourse, and it
was sometimes the new social forces which most successfully articulated the
democratic interpellations.To the general &dquo;crisis of Marxism&dquo;3 we must add the more specific crisis
ofperspectives in the Latin American left in the wake of the demilitarization
process. The idea of a socialist Utopia has long since evaporated, but there
at UNIV OF OKLAHOMA LIBRARIES on August 20, 2013lap.sagepub.comDownloaded from
7/27/2019 Latin American Perspectives-1990-Munck-113-21.pdf
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/latin-american-perspectives-1990-munck-113-21pdf 4/10
115
is now a real crisis of identity of the lefts. Lechner asks: &dquo;What transforma-
tions do they propose? What is the possible and desired order? What does
socialism mean today in these societies?&dquo; (1986b: 35). Socialism may stillexist as a far-off dream but more often it is simply out of fashion. Daily life
under the military regimes has left a bitter legacy of fear, mistrust, and
individualism which may have overriden whatever experiences of solidarityexisted. For the party left, the dissipation of its traditional reference pointshas led to a bitter process of splits and recriminations. Against the compro-mises ofthe new democracies, some traditional left sectors still raise the dustybanners of &dquo;Liberation or Dependency.&dquo; The slogan of dependency would
reduce all the complex antagonisms and differences within society to the
overarching conflict with &dquo;imperalism&dquo; or, more simply, the International
Monetary Fund. The new democracies are denounced for their merely&dquo;formal&dquo; commitment to democracy and the old recipes of state socialism
are offered up as an alternative. So, there is an old left which has appearedto have learned nothing from the experience of the last twenty years, and a
new left which has not yet found its way in the new democracies.
The Latin American intellectual left’s disenchantment with socialism has
certain parallels with the disillusionment suffered by Western intellectuals
with regard to the Soviet Union in the 1930s, which led to &dquo;The God That
Failed&dquo; syndrome (Koestler et al., n.d). Andrd Gide felt at the time: &dquo;Who
can ever say what the Soviet Union had been for me? Far more than the
country of my choice, an example and an inspirtion - it represented what I
had always dreamed of but no longer dared hope; it was a land where I
imagined Utopia was in process of becoming reality&dquo; (Koestler et al., n.d.:
183).Then came the Moscow
Trials,the bitter
struggleswithin the
Republi-can camp during the Spanish Civil War, and the failure to confront the rise
of Hitler. Gide now felt that &dquo;The Soviet Union has deceived our fondest
hopes and showed us tragically in what treacherous quids an honest revolu-
tion can founder&dquo; (Koestler et al., n.d.: 198). In Latin America, the disillu-
sionment with the Cuban Revolution was not so profound, but the generalfeeling that socialism was &dquo;The God That Failed&dquo; is widespread. The swingtoward revolution in the 1960s and early 1970s has left bitter memories
among those who survived the military holocaust which followed. ArthurKoestler wrote after his disenchantment in the 1930s that &dquo;as a rule, our
memory romanticizes the past. But when one has renounced a creed or been
betrayed by a friend, the opposite mechanism sets to work ... the passionsof that time seem transformed into perversions, the shadow of barbed wire
lies across the condemned playground of memory.&dquo; Those caught up in &dquo;the
great illusion in our time&dquo; often embraced &dquo;a new addiction of the oppositetype&dquo; (Koestler et al., n.d.: 63-64).
at UNIV OF OKLAHOMA LIBRARIES on August 20, 2013lap.sagepub.comDownloaded from
7/27/2019 Latin American Perspectives-1990-Munck-113-21.pdf
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/latin-american-perspectives-1990-munck-113-21pdf 5/10
116
In Latin America, the new addiction of the left is democracy. If that is not
to be another God which failed, its limitations must be closely probed. To
simply counterpose democracy and authoritarianism is ultimately as debili-tating as the previous socialism/fascism disjuncture. Just as there were
political alternatives between the latter, so the term democracy begsdeconstruction. Arthur Rosenberg in his classic study of democracy and
socialism argued that &dquo;In 1848 the concept ofdemocracy generally embracedthe labouring masses, in so far as they fought against the wealthy upper class.
In the meantime, however, the concept of democracy had been taken over
into the camp of the wealthy bourgeoisie.... While the older democratic
movement had had a definite social content, now the social fighting slogansno longer belonged to the essence of bourgeois democracy&dquo; (Rosenberg,1965: 302). The desire for class conciliation by this now purely political formof democracy contrasted sharply with its social revolutionary origins.Whereas in 1848 &dquo;the democratic idea had actually moved the masses and
had carried them to the barricades,&dquo; this was no longer the case, and as a
general conclusion, Rosenberg notes that &dquo;The democratic movement had
been wrecked every time on its social contradictions&dquo; (1965: 153). In relation
to the new democracies of Latin America, there can be no evasion of the
social contradictions they bear within themselves. Only the fully egalitariansocialist extension of democracy can move toward a resolution of the
grievous social and economic problems of the continent.
That socialism is still necessary in Latin America (and elsewhere in the
Third World) seems clear, but the question then arises as to what type of
socialism. The bureaucratic socialism of the actually existing &dquo;workers
states&dquo; is hardlyan
attractive alternative. For Andrew Levine, in his Arguingfor Socialism, &dquo;communism requires precisely what radical democratization
fosters: autonomous individuals capable of coordinating behaviour without
coercive restraint&dquo; (Levine, 1984: 114). Socialism, if it is to fulfill its
objectives as a transitionary stage to full communism, must perforce be
democratic. Certainly, democratic socialism in this sense has never been
historically realized. The point is, as Levine stresses, that &dquo;had he reason to
think socialism realizable only in the state bureaucratic form, there would
hardly be a case for socialism even in theory&dquo; (1984:196). To make socialisma viable and attractive option, its democratic form must be well thought out
and made realizable. No one can act on behalf of the working class: Mass
participation in the ruling bodies of society is a prerequisite. As classical
Marxism stressed, only the working class can free itself. Furthermore, as
Rousseau insisted, only real popular control educates. Genuine control bypeople over all the social, political, economic, cultural, and other aspects of
their life depends on a full exercise of democracy. In a sense, if socialism
at UNIV OF OKLAHOMA LIBRARIES on August 20, 2013lap.sagepub.comDownloaded from
7/27/2019 Latin American Perspectives-1990-Munck-113-21.pdf
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/latin-american-perspectives-1990-munck-113-21pdf 6/10
117
must be democratic to achieve the ojectives it sets out, conversely one could
argue that the full flowering ofdemocratic principles across society demands
a postcapitalist breakthrough. A theory of socialist democracy barely existstoday, confused as the term often is with social democracy or &dquo;actuallyexisting socialism.&dquo;
One area where the new socialist democracy can learn from &dquo;bourgeoisdemocracy&dquo; is in the field of individual rights. Liberalism continues to thrive,as Norberto Bobbio argues, because &dquo;it is rooted in a philosophical outlook
which, like it or not, gave birth to the modern world: the individualistic
conception of society and history&dquo; (Bobbio,1987: 116). The left has scarcelycome to terms with this fact and has continued to advocate an organicist viewof society where the individual is subsumed by the collectivity. Not surpris-ingly, thenew liberalism of the new right finds a popular audience which has
become disenchanted with statist social democracy. To deal with this situa-
tion it is not necessary for socialism to take on board wholesale (or even
piecemeal) the doctrines of the new right. For Bobbio, the task of democratic
socialism is to seek a new theory of social contract to replace that put forward
by the neoliberals. It would start form the &dquo;incontestable individualist con-
ception of society&dquo; while striving to implement &dquo;a principle of distributive
justice&dquo; to make it compatible with the principles ofsocialism (Bobbio, 1987:
117). In Latin America this type of debate has sprung from two quite differentsources: first, the undoubted resonance of Friedmanite policies across wide
layers of society, and, second, themore restricted but probably deeper impactof the human rights compaigns during the military dictatorship. Individual
rights are not seen as a bourgeois illusion or luxury, and a recognition of
individual interests need not lead to a Hobbesian
society.Marxism had
traditionally closed itself off from these issues to its own disadvantage.Certainly democratic socialism will not result from a naive (or Machia-
vellian) marriage between Marxism and liberalism. A concept worth pursu-
ing to break out of this impasse would be that of &dquo;autonomy.&dquo; Just as with
&dquo;freedom&dquo; or &dquo;liberty,&dquo; the term is subject to diverse interpellations, but canbe defined as the power or right of self-government. The Italian new left set
the category of automomia operaria (workers’ autonomy) on the political
map; the women’s movement imposed its political and organizational auton-omy ; and nowwe have the &dquo;autonomy of politics.&dquo; In their different ways all
threemoves represented a rejection of bureaucratic socialism. Autonomy, for
Levine, implies &dquo;freedom from the deliberate imposition of ends&dquo; and allows
people to seize control of their lives and their destinies&dquo; (1984: 35). It is the
means whereby the &dquo;free development of each&dquo; is compatible with the &dquo;free
development of all,&dquo; to recall the terminology of classical Marxism. In terms
of the project of democratic socialism, autonomy entails a recognition of the
at UNIV OF OKLAHOMA LIBRARIES on August 20, 2013lap.sagepub.comDownloaded from
7/27/2019 Latin American Perspectives-1990-Munck-113-21.pdf
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/latin-american-perspectives-1990-munck-113-21pdf 7/10
118
diversity of social interests, the refusal of class reductionism, and, above all,of economism. In the new democracies this orientation would imply a turn
toward the new social movements which have done so much to revitalizedemocracy. Above all, it leads to a &dquo;new way of doing politics&dquo; which fullyaccepts the autonomy and validity of this dimension of society. As John
Keane has shown, the pursuit of a socialist and pluralist civil society requiresthe weakening of all bureaucracies and the establishment and strengtheningof spheres of autonomous public life (Keane, 1984). Socialism does not
imply an &dquo;end of politics&dquo; as some Marxist formulations would imply, nor
under capitalism should socialists vacate this terrain.
Democratic socialism can also be associated with the Gramscian strategyofhegemony. As Anne Sasoon notes, &dquo;the building ofhegemony, the gainingofwidespread consent, and a democratisation as the practice of politics is an
integral part of the socialist revolution in Gramsci’s conception&dquo; (Sasoon,1980: 223). The democratic socialist parties (single-party Leninism beingincompatible) not only need to practice internal democracy but also to
maintain democratic (not vanguardist or elitist) relations with the workingclass and other
oppressed layersin
society.Whereas both Leninism and social
democracy look toward institutional engineering as a means to change,Gramsci directs our attention instead to the need for a prefigurative strategyof change. It is not on the magic day of the revolution that social, cultural,and ideological transformation will take place. A strategy of hegemonyentails the building of prefigurative practices and institutions (of socialism)in the here and now. This is very far from the statist and instrumentalist
conception of politics held by Leninist &dquo;professional revolutionaries&dquo; and
social reformers alike. In today’s postmodern culture,4 a new political realismis both possible and necessary as politics become secularized. As Lechner
argues, this new political realism may also lead to a new sensibility ofwhat
is possible which might help to reduce the distance between political pro-
grams and the daily experiences of the people (1986a: 10-11). A hegemonicand prefigurative practice by democratic socialism is in keeping with the
postmodern de-dramatization of politics.Finally, we can consider the practical politics of democratic socialism.
The political modernization school of the 1950s set great store by the conceptof &dquo;civic culture.&dquo; Almond and Verba wrote that &dquo;the civic culture appears
to be particularly appropriate for a democratic political system. It is not the
only form of democratic political culture, but it seems to be the one most
congruent with a stable, democratic system&dquo; (Almond and Verba, 1963 : 366).That is to say, democracy depends not only on institutions but also on the
political culture of the people involved in them. Marxists, if they heard this
&dquo;interpellation&dquo;at all, would
respondthat revolutions were not tea
parties,
at UNIV OF OKLAHOMA LIBRARIES on August 20, 2013lap.sagepub.comDownloaded from
7/27/2019 Latin American Perspectives-1990-Munck-113-21.pdf
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/latin-american-perspectives-1990-munck-113-21pdf 8/10
119
or, in another culinary analogy, that omelettes cannot be made without
breaking eggs (heads). In the heady days when revolution was around the
corner, civic culture was the last thing on people’s minds. Now, in the new
democracies of the Southern Cone there is a fruitful and passionate debate
on the culture of democracy.s In more general terms, Gavin Kitching has
argued that &dquo;A socialist world must necessarily be a world very different from
the one we know, a world permeated at every level with what the ancient
Athenians called the principle of ’civic virtue,’ where citizens’ duties are
stressed as much as their rights - and indeed, in which the performance of
such duties is an important safeguard of rights&dquo; (Kitching, 1983: 45). If this
is the case for postcapitalist societies, it is a principle which must apply to
democratic socialist political practice in the here and now, in keeping with
the spirit of hegemony and prefigurative politics. At this stage, it could be argued that the conception of socialist democracy
being advanced has no bearing on the Third World, given the pressing and
immediate economic and social problems which dominate politics. In this
conception, the failure to achieve economic democracy is seen as a kind of
constraint or limit on theprospects
of
political democracy. Another variant
sees in the foreign debt a sword ofDamocles across the path ofthe advancingdemocracies. Yet democracy has not only flourished under prosperous and
secure economic conditions. As with all forms of economism these variants
on the &dquo;economic constraints&dquo; argument deny the autonomy of the politicalrealm. Democratic institutions are no less &dquo;real&dquo; because social and economic
inequality prevails: It would be absurd, to expect reversal of historical
patterns in a handful of years. We can say, that democracy is not only an
objective in its own right but that it sets the most favorable terrain to pursuethe interests ofthe oppressed in society. There can be few thinking people in
Latin America today who believe that dictatorship exposes the true face of
capitalism and imperialism and will therefore galvanize the masses into
action. We also need to reject any fanciful notion that the new democracies
have only been placed in power (and allowed to remain there) by their
imperial and military masters to act as &dquo;fall guys&dquo; for the economic crisis.
The popular acclaim for the various austerity programs under the new
democracies (&dquo;democratic austerity&dquo; being a concept the left cannot compre-
hend) in itself shows the limits of this notion as a guide to political practice.Paul Baran wrote in the mid-1950s that &dquo;socialism in backward and
underdeveloped countries has a powerful tendency to become a backward
and underdeveloped socialism&dquo; (1957: 9). Thirty years later, experienceshows this warning to be perfectly valid. We need to evaluate the precise role
ofexternal counterrevolutionary pressures in Third World socialist states, but
we cannot
escapethe conclusion that
democracyhas been
mainly conspicu-
at UNIV OF OKLAHOMA LIBRARIES on August 20, 2013lap.sagepub.comDownloaded from
7/27/2019 Latin American Perspectives-1990-Munck-113-21.pdf
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/latin-american-perspectives-1990-munck-113-21pdf 9/10
120
ous by its absence. Arguably, it is only the fullest democracy which can
prevent the emergence and consolidation of a new ruling class no matter how
&dquo;revolutionary&dquo; this elite may be. Even if we accept that the advance of
capitalism in the once peripheral areas of its global expansion is &dquo;progres-sive&dquo; in a general historical sense, this is not a recipe for political quietism.It does imply, however, an honest reevaluation of &dquo;actually existing social-
ism&dquo; in the Third World and its economic, political, and social strategies.’The militarized Leninism which guides political struggle also needs reassess-
ing, as it seems to foster bureaucratic practices. Above all, Third World
Marxism needs to reconsider its attitude to democracy, which is not merelya luxury of the far-offimperalist centers nor a sham introducedbyopportunistpolitical leaders. As Andrew Levine states so eloquently: &dquo;Marxian politicsrepresents an extreme valorization of democratic values. It is radical demo-
cratic politics, inscribed in the framework of the Marxian theory of history&dquo;
(1984: 225). If the implications of this statement were accepted, &dquo;under-
developed socialism&dquo; would not be so prevalent today.
NOTES
1. The "dependency" label, of course, covered many disparate, sometimes antagonistic,intellectual trends. A useful survey of these debates is contained in Chilcote (1982). As to the
"bureaucratic authoritarian" state debate, a seminal reference is Collier (1979).2. A major accomplishment of this intellectual endeavor is O’Donnell et al. (1986).3. This is a crisis still not accepted as such by very many Marxists. Recent events in China
or East Germany (not to mention "Gorbachevism") can leave little doubt that the old certainties
of Marxism (especially in its Leninist variant)are no
longer.4. Deployment of the term "postmodern" should not be taken as uncritical acceptance of the
whole cultural baggage implied. For a forceful critique of much of this "new thinking," see
Harvey (1989).5. That this debate has led to the debilitating civic culture notion of mainstream political
scientists coming into vogue again is, of course, not inevitable. For a discussion of participatory
democracy, workers’ control, and other "alternatives to capitalism," see Elster and Molne (1989).6. For a path-breaking and wide-ranging attempt to set this agenda, see Post and Wright
(1989).
REFERENCES
Almond, Gabriel and Sidney Verba
1963 The Civic Culture. Boston: Little, Brown.
Baran, Paul
1957 The PoliticalEconomy of Growth. New York: Monthly Review Press.
at UNIV OF OKLAHOMA LIBRARIES on August 20, 2013lap.sagepub.comDownloaded from
7/27/2019 Latin American Perspectives-1990-Munck-113-21.pdf
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/latin-american-perspectives-1990-munck-113-21pdf 10/10
121
Bobbio, Norberto
1987 The Future of Democracy. Cambridge, England: Polity Press.
Chilcote, Ronald H. (ed.)1982Dependency and Marxism: Toward a Resolution of the Debate. Boulder, CO: Westview
Press.
Collier, David (ed.)1979 The New Authoritarianism in Latin America. Princeton: Princeton University Press.
Elster, Jon and Karl O. Molne (eds.)1989 A lternatives to Capitalism. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Harvey, D.
1989 The Condition ofPostmodernity. Oxford: Basil Blackwell.
Keane, John
1984 Public Life and Late Capitalism. Cambridge, England: Cambridge University Press.
Kitching, Gavin
1983 Rethinking Socialism. London: Methuen.
Koestler, Arthur et al.
n.d. The God That Failed. London: The Right Book Club.
Laclau, Ernesto and Chantal Mouffe
1985 Hegemony and Socialist Strategy. London: Verso.
Lechner, Norbert
1986a La democratización en el contexto de una cultura pos-moderna. Santiago:
Documentos de Trabajo (292), FLACSO.1986b "De la revolución a la democracia." La Ciudad Futura 2 (October).
Levine, Andrew
1984 Arguing for Socialism. London: RKP.
O’Donnell, Guillermo, Philippe C. Schmitter, and Laurence Whitehead (eds.)1986 Transitions from Authoritarian Rule Prospects for Democracy. Baltimore: John
Hopkins University Press.
Post, Ken and Phil Wright1989 Socialism and Underdevelopment. London and New York: Routledge.
Rosenberg, Arthur
1965 Democracy and Socialism. Boston: Beacon Press.
Sasoon, Anne
1980 Gramsci’s Politics. London: Croom Helm.
at UNIV OF OKLAHOMA LIBRARIES on August 20, 2013lap.sagepub.comDownloaded from