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tarianism (of all forms) and democracy has largely superseded that posited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