some satisfaction to the subordinate groups while not undermining the leadership or vital interests of the hegemonic class. Hegemony and International Relations We can now make the transition from what Gramsci said about hegemony and related concepts to the implications of these concepts for international relations. First,however,it is useful to look at what little Gramsci himself had to say about international relations.Let us begin with this passage: Do international relations precede or follow (logically)fundamental social relations?There can be no doubt that they follow.Any organic innovation in the social structure,through its technical-military expressions,modifies organically absolute and relative relations in the international field too.17 By 'organic'Gramsci meant that which is structural,long-term or relatively permanent,as opposed to the short-term or 'conjunctural'.He was saying that basic changes in international power relations or world order,which are observed as changes in the military-strategic and geo-political balance,can be traced to fundamental changes in social relations. Gramsci did not in any way by-pass the state or diminish its importance.The state remained for him the basic entity in international relations and the place where social conflicts take place-the place also,therefore,where hegemonies of social classes can be built.In these hegemonies of social classes,the particular characteristics of nations combine in unique and original ways.The working class,which might be considered to be international in an abstract sense, nationalises itself in the process of building its hegemony.The emergence of new worker-led blocs at the national level would,in this line of reasoning,precede any basic restructuring of international relations.However,the state,which remains the primary focus of social stuggle and the basic entity of international relations, is the enlarged state which includes its own social basis.This view sets aside a narrow or superficial view of the state which reduces it,for instance,to the foreign policy bureaucracy or the state's military capabilities. From his Italian perspective,Gramsci had a keen sense of what we would now call dependency.What happened in Italy he knew was markedly influenced by external powers.At the purely foreign policy level,great powers have relative freedom to determine their foreign policies in response to domestic interests; smaller powers have less autonomy.8 The economic life of subordinate nations is penetrated by and intertwined with that of powerful nations.This is further complicated by the existence within countries of structurally diverse regions which have distinctive patterns of relationship to external forces.1 At an even deeper level,those states which are powerful are precisely those which have undergone a profound social and economic revolution and have most fully worked out the consequences of this revolution in the form of state and of social relations.The French Revolution was the case Gramsci reflected upon,but we can think of the development of US and Soviet power in the same way.These were all nation-based developments which spilled over national boundaries to become internationally expansive phenomena.Other countries have received the 169 Downloaded from mil.sagepub.com at LIB SHANGHAI JIAOTONG UNIV on Oclober 10.2010Downloaded from mil.sagepub.com at LIB SHANGHAI JIAOTONG UNIV on October 10, 2010