Methodology of Coyuntural Analysis

Notebook # 7: The Central Concepts of Coyuntural Analysis: The

Correlation of Forces in the Context of a Theory of Power
Part two

GENERAL PRESENTATION OF THE SERIES

This material that you have in your hands is the product of a practice and reflection of
many years of work. As a product of this process, we in SIPRO arrived to this
systemization with the contribution of many people and with the valuable collaboration
of Enrique Valencia who made the basic text of this edition possible. From his document
we try to be loyal to the methodological process he plants in a difficult theme, but
essential for those who carry out a labor of education and accompaniment to social
processes and the reality of our country.

These materials are aimed at contributing to all of those people from the ngo’s,
promoters, advisors, students, professionals, educators who accompany processes of
popular education and of social organizations, and for those intellectuals who produce
coyuntural analysis.

The notebooks we present here are a basic text, a contribution that does not signify the
last word over this subject. There is a lot still to be said, proposed, and written over it. For
many, the approaches and concepts can be debatable, questionable and anachronistic.
We are in agreement over that and that is what it is about: generate a reflection and
understanding that begins to find new roads and horizons in this galloping reality.

The content of these notebooks can be used in multiple forms depending on the interest.
It can easily be part of an extensive course, used for a more deep and focused discussion
on the theme, or it can be used as a tool for consulting. It does exempt its readers from
the task of going into depth, questioning, criticizing, connecting, proposing changes and
even less so of the challenge of sharing in a more accessible way if the theme is deeply
comprehended. This would be the central objective of our proposal.

In the face of the disordered reality in which we live, we see the necessity of stopping to
analyze it with the objective of accompanying the historical process of change and be
participants of it. That is why in Servicios Informativos Procesados, A.C., we revisit this
document and we retransmit it for those actors who want to be an active part of their own
history.

We hope that the systemization of these notebooks can be a modest contribution and
useful for the best development of the analysis of coyuntura.

Gustavo E. Castro Soto

1
Contents

Introduction

The Central Concepts of Coyuntural Analysis: The Correlation of Forces in the Context
of a Theory of Power

A. Statement of the Problem

B. Conceptions of “Power”

C. The Concept of correlation of forces: indicative elements of the relations of power

D. General criteria for the measurement of forces

E. Proposals for the indicators of forces

F. Proposals of forms of comparisons of forces: the correlation

Analytical Index

Bibliography

2
Introduction

We have arrived at the nexus of coyuntural analysis: the correlation of forces in a context
of a theory of power. This notebook entails what has been seen in the ones preceding.

We hope that this methodological proposal is enriched by your experience and that you
can communicate your contributions and suggestions to SIPRO.

In the notebook you will not find many examples so that you will be able to do it as a
coyuntural analysis while going through the chapters.

Our questions at the end of each chapter are intended to open avenues reflection. We will
talk about many concepts: power, hegemony, domination, consensus, militarism, politics,
dictatorship, etc.

We will try to give an answer to the questions: What criteria do I use to measure the
forces of other organizations? How can I do it? What indicators can I manage? What
technique do I use to measure the forces?, etc.

Gustavo Castro Soto

3
 THE CENTRAL CONCEPTS OF COYUNTURAL ANALYSIS: THE
CORRELATION OF FORCES IN THE CONTEXT OF A THEORY OF POWER

A) PROPOSING THE PROBLEM

In the previous notebooks we have already introduced the topic which is:

The CORRELATION OF FORCES is a central concept in coyuntural analysis.

The methodologists agree on the following:

In the unity of time-space a confrontation of social forces is expressed.

However, we encounter two common problems:

1. Generally the content of this expression is taken for granted and few efforts are made
to elucidate it (the central concept remains in the field of the implicit).

2. It is customary to manage a theory of power in familiar terrain without explaining its

fundamental elements.

But these problems are not exclusive to the methodology of coyuntural analysis. In the
combined social sciences there is still no satisfactory answer to the problematic of
POWER.1

Systematic reflections of the question of POWER are relatively recent.

We need to recuperate the theoretical richness that is found in the discussions in reference
to POWER and they have been relatively absent in the debates about the method of
coyuntural analysis.

Here we will try to reclaim some elements contributed by Fossaert, Foucault, Gramsci,
Marx, Poulantzas, and Weber, Cuéllar and Giménez.

What complicates this problematic is that the words POWER and FORCE are part of the
usual vocabulary of daily life and that we suppose that we all know their meaning.

Using them with little regard gives rise to slipping into uncritical conceptions and
appraisals.

B) CONCEPTIONS OF “POWER”

In the coyuntural analysis exercises, among other slippery concepts, we highlight six
extremes. We could mention others, but we will only refer to these by way of illustration.

1
GIMENEZ, 1981: 11.

4
6 extreme concepts of power:

1. The idea of power-no power

2. The idea of revolutionary power

3. The idea of dictatorial power

4. The idea of state power

5. The idea of economic power

6. The idea of contractual power

Let’s look at them one by one:

1. The idea of the Power-No Power relation

(Power or no power that is the question)

Power is something that

One has or one totally lacks

The extreme relation Power/No Power can then be described.2 This distinction suits
these hypotheses well. [maniqueas?]

Power is:
considered as negative.
suspected of lacking ethics.

is “bad,” “deceitful,” “swindling,” “authoritarian,” ambitious,” “unjust,” “elitist,”

“corrupt,” etc.

No-Power is:
considered as positive.
covered by “Good and Christian customs.”

is “good,” “humble,” “just,” “honest,” “clean,” “healthy,” [sound] “balanced,”

“democratic,” etc.

2. The revolutionary idea of Power

2
See the critique of this conception in Foucault, 1979: 144.

5
Those who understand power as something totally foreign and that they are completely
without, the correlation of forces and their modifications tend to be conceived on the
same plane: No strength against Maximum strength.

Therefore: [radical vuelta a la tortilla.]

Then, this conception will mythically privilege revolutionary conjunctures –against the
accumulation of forces in daily life—that supposedly open the doors for the assault of
power: Revolution.

The access to power is the work of one unique moment: Revolution!

3. The dictatorship idea of Power

Power is:
total dominance (dictatorship or pure domination)3 that is basically exercised through
violence (pure domination is an extreme case).

Within the conception we are discussing here supposedly would be the everyday case.
Said another way: Power is only equal to the domination of resources of physical
force that is expressed in the privileged way of military strength.

This conception of power demands the elimination of the enemy: not only to control him,
but to make him to disappear.

One considers:
Power as: the capacity to eliminate enemies.4

the dominated as “potential rebels.”5

Power/No Power + Military dominance = DICTATORSHIP (To accede to Power is

through a violent assault par excellence to exercise dictatorship)

E. Canetti, in his extraordinary essays “Power and Survival” describes for us in this way
delirious power and “Hitler According to Speer” in the conscience of words. From here a
psychoanalysis of the use we give (text and context) to the notion of power seems
indispensable.

4. The state idea of power

It has its privileged and unique resource in the state apparatus.6

3
Gimenez, 1981: 28.
4
FCE, México, 1981.
5
Gimenez, 1981: 15.
6
See the Foucauldian critique of this supposition in Morey, 1983: 257.

6
The path to arrive at power would be then the conquest of the apparatus (the army, the
judicial and juridical apparatus, economic and financial, of external and internal
relations).7

At the root:
Power = the state
Civil society = no power

This conception arrives at an erroneous conclusion: The correlation of forces will always
favor those who control the apparatus.

5. The economistic idea of Power

The basic supposition is: the economic forces are always the central political forces of
a society.8

If that were the case, a diagnostic of the productive sectors would be enough to find
through magic the diagnostic of political forces.

To make this expression more ridiculous, it would go like this: So much capital
corresponds to so much political power.

From the Marxist perspective the contributions of Gramsci are fundamental to discuss the
basis of economism.

6. The contractualist idea of Power

The vote

The only source of potency comes from fundamental and intentional contractual act or
the “cession” of individual sovereignty.

The relation would be: vote = power.

[we’ll lend it to you for a little while – thank you.]

In other words:
a. diverse individuals constituting the majority grant the power or decision making
capacity to an elected person.
b. only the vote of individuals can strip power from the elected individual and pass it
on to another.
c. it is an electoral notion of power.
d. it reduces consensus to its mere electoral expression.

7
See Fossaert, 1977: 52-53 and Notebook No. 4.
8
See the critique by Foucault, 1979: 134; distinctions in Cuellar, 1986: 111 (review the historical analysis
of K. Marx).

7
 e. the privileged correlation of forces will be revealed in the recount of votes.

Well, up to here CONCEPTIONS OF POWER. We believe it is necessary to move to

making explicit the contents of the central concept of coyuntural analysis and from there
work theoretically on these uncritical conceptions and appraisals.

QUESTIONS

1. Explain in your own words the diverse conceptions of power that are suggested.
2. Do you know another conception of power? Can you explain it in a few words?
3. Make a list of dictatorships that there have existed in Latin America and explain
why consider them so.
4. Give concrete names —give examples—to the other conceptions of power that
exist in your locality, region, country.
5. under what conception of power do you believe social change occurs?

C) THE CONCEPT OF THE CORRELATION OF FORCES: ELEMENTS

INDICATIVE OF THE RELATIONS OF POWER

We begin with the definition of coyuntural analysis as: as a correlation of forces in the
current moment of a national totality.

Its not just any correlation, but a specific one “in the current moment of a social totality.”

In essence:

We propose the investigation of conjuncture as a historic-present analysis of power

in its broad and complex sense.

Although we do not intend a complete presentation or discussion about the topic, we

allow ourselves to show:

19 ELEMENTS INDICATIVE OF THE RELATIONS OF POWER

1. Power as a relation of force.

2. Where there is power there is correlation.
3. Power crosses all of society asymmetrically.
4. Actors have the power of their resources.
5. Resources have stages or moments.
6. Stages are articulated dialectically and organically.
7. Actors occupy a place in the social formation.
8. Actors do not always represent the entire class.
9. Classes and their representation are formed in social practice.
10. There is a complexity in the relations of power.
11. Domination crosses social structure.

8
 12. Hegemony unites and leads.
13. There is active and passive consensus.
14. The state procures consensus and participation.
15. Power materializes in a historical bloc.
16. Strategic preparation possesses force.
17. Struggle is asymmetrical.
18. Domination is multidimensional.
19. This analysis of power is for capitalist society.

1. POWER as a RELATION OF FORCE

At the most generic level, we can talk about power as “a relation of force.”9

POWER
→we do not understand as
mere will to dominate (extreme subjectivity)
mere capacity of an individual (extreme individualism)

→we understand power as

“objective and structural characteristic of the entire social system in which will and
individuals have their place.”

We also clarify this in relation to the opinion of Poulantzas: “The concept of power,
then, cannot be applied at a structural level.”

Let’s recoup 2 characteristics:

a. Exercise of power (the relation enacted)
b. Capacity or possibility to do (force)10

It’s a current struggle and a potentiality.

2. Where there is POWER there is CORRELATION

“Where there is power there is resistance,”11 where there is power there is correlation.

If we postulate the simple relation A → B we find that in B a “resistance” emerges: b →

a.

The relation of force A → B will tend to react b → a, although the first relation can
continue being the predominate one.

At this point the idea of correlation has an important meaning:

Co-relation

9
Foucault, 1979: 135. (Gimenez, 1981: 22) (Poulantzas, 1978: 118).
10
Gimenez, 1981: 14.
11
Foucault, 1983: 177.

9
→does not indicate a simple relation of force: A ↔ B
→signals a reciprocal relation, confrontation or struggle: A ↔ B

3. POWER crosses all of society asymmetrically.

Against the supposition of the binary opposition Power/No Power, we propose with
Foucault that: “We all have some kind of power in the body.”12

In a social formation in which the capitalist mode of production is the subordinate, the
least that actors have is the power of labor.

In representative societies, the “common man” possesses at the very least a “infinitesimal
fraction of power” with which one decides “about the course of the life of the state.”13

All of the proceeding means: Power crosses all of society.

But neither do we propose the opposite extreme as if power was distributed in the best
way.

We only try to break away from the models that tie POWER exclusively to a center or
dominant class and ignore the reactions of the dominated sectors and therefore social
complexity.14

We can then add: Power crosses all of society asymmetrically.

4. ACTORS have the FORCE of their RESOURCES

We refer to the category of FORCE as:

→ the “resources”15 that actors commit to the confrontation.
→ the “capacities”16 (on the condition that they are not understood in a simply
individualistic manner).

Even Marx makes “force” and “capacity” similar when he speaks of the force and
capacity of work.

In confrontation x, A ↔ B, actor A intervenes with specific and different resources that B

commits and therefore obtains the advantage.

Here is the presence of asymmetry!

12
Foucault, 1979: 144.
13
Gramsci, 1975a: 110.
14
Fossaert, 1981: 29.
15
See Cuellar, 1986: 107-108.
16
Marx, 1980a: 203.

10
But the question of this differentiation does not refer only to RESOURCES that are
committed to conjuncture or current resources (in the sense that they are in play in that
period).

There is more at the root:

The correlation implies an “asymmetry” or “inequality”17 that we can call

structural given that it does not develop in a vacuum but rather in an “objective
structure of social inequality.”18

Because of the position they maintain in the SYSTEM

→ the ACTORS in the confrontation depend on differentiated resources
economic
political
ideological
→ we call them
that can be utilized in conflicts19
→ POTENTIAL RESOURCES
(potential in the sense that they can be put into play in the conjuncture).

We can say it another way:

ACTORS do not commit in all periods (with some exceptions) all of their resources;
they are partial: they act on some in certain moments.

But this structural “bookkeeping”:

• Is not a fact that is fixed forever; it is crossed over by social dynamism
(modifications).
• It is not economic bookkeeping: more political and ideological resources
necessarily for those who possess more economic resources.
• It is not a state bookkeeping: more resources always for those who control the
state apparatus.

Example

In a conjuncture X the consensus that a political organization can achieve

(let’s suppose that it is not representative of the principal factions of capital nor
the controlling bureaucracy of the state apparatus)
→ is a fundamental resource for the struggle and can destabilize the balance.

5 RESOURCES have their STAGES or MOMENTS

17
See Cuellar, 1986: 97; Gimenez, 1981: 24.
18
Gimenez, 1981: 23.
19
Cuellar, 1986: 107.

11
This play of resources (what Gramsci also calls the “relation of forces”) implies diverse
“stages or moments” that constitute an expression of the contradictory social totality:

a. The first: economic.

“A relation of social forces closely bound to the structure, objective, independent of the
will of men, that can be measured with exact or physical scientific systems.” (Objective:
analyze the disposition of forces in the sphere of production).

b. The second: political.

“A successive moment is the relation of political forces: that is to say, the appraisal of the
stage of homogeneity, self consciousness and organization reached by the different social
groups.”

c. The third: military.

“…it is that of the relation of military forces.”

6 STAGES are articulated DIALECTICALLY and ORGANICALLY

FOR COYUNTURAL ANALYSIS

→ DIALECTIC and ORGANIC ARTICULATION

→ THEORETICAL RECONSTRUCTION

↓
of these three stages

→ will allow us to reconstruct the CORRELATION OF RESOURCES that are

confronted in a specified circumstance.

→ demands the concrete investigation of the nexus and contradictions of the economic,
political-ideological and political-military forces.

But:
This ARTICULATION has nothing to do with economism that, for example, postulates
that the “fundamental historical crisis are provoked immediately by economic crises.”20

(that the movements of forces in the economic moment immediately produce

displacements of forces in the political-military).

Let’s clarify:

* Proposing as methodological-theoretical principal once and for all the total superiority
of dominant economic groups would be to ignore the complex reality of power.

20
Gramsci, 1975a: 74.

12
* Rejecting economism does not mean ignoring the conditioning that the economic
moment exerts on the rest of the relations of forces.

* The economic moment allows us to detect if the “necessary and sufficient conditions”
exist for the transformation of society.21

Gramsci clearly speaks of CONDITIONS (the famous contradiction between the

development of productive forces and the social relations of production), what is missing
is the COLLECTIVE WILL or the social subject that achieves transformation; what is
missing are the other two moments.

In the second moment, the political, one of the ideologies transformed in part [en
partido]:

“tends to prevail, to impose itself, to distribute itself throughout every social area,
determining besides the unity of economic and political ends, the intellectual and moral
unity, proposing all of the questions around which the struggle boils not on a corporate
plane but rather a “universal” plane and creating in that way the hegemony of a
fundamental social group over a series of subordinate groups.”22

The FUNDAMENTAL ACTORS, moreover, will tend to structurally safeguard their

economic domination.

This will be another of the conditions of the “economic moment” and before which their
political-military postures will relate [relativizarán] in different historical periods.

It has to do with breaking from the economic equation:

ECONOMIC POWER = POLITICAL POWER:

In the Eighteenth Brumaire Marx shows that in the case he studies, the bourgeoisie…

“in order to maintain intact its social power it has to weaken its political power; that
bourgeois individuals can only continue exploiting other classes and gently enjoying
property, family, religion, and order under the condition that its class be condemned with
the other classes to the same political worthlessness [nulidad].”23

7 ACTORS occupy a PLACE in the SOCIAL FORMATION

The PROTAGONISTS that intervene in this struggle are “collective actors”24 that
occupy “places or positions within the social structure.”25

21
Gramsci, 1975a: 67; 71.
22
Gramsci, 1975a: 72.
23
Marx, 1980b: 447.
24
Cuellar, 1986: 104.
25
Gimenez, 1981: 23.

13
These PLACES refer to the different INSTANCES –that we already tackled in
Notebook number 4—of the SOCIAL TOTALITY.

It is necessary to locate the position of the protagonists (where are they?) in the spheres
of
↓production consumption

↓political military relations

↓cultural relations

in the POLITICAL and IDEOLOGICAL FORMATIONS

↓ cohabit
↓ ally themselves
↓confront eachother

→ an enormous quantity of groups or organizations cross [atravesados] by social classes

→ one of them (expression or representative of one or several fractions of a class)→ is

able to articulate a national direction and conquers the state apparatus with which it
guarantees an economic domination.

↓ This is the PLACE of the problem of political-ideological representative abilities

[representatividad]

8 ACTORS do not always REPRESENT an ENTIRE CLASS

We showed that the collective actors that are in confrontation are “traversed by social
classes.” With this we evade falling into a simplistic notion: each organized group is
always a direct and complete expression of a class.

CLASSES express themselves in the organizations and parties, but not every organization
is a direct and complete expression of a class:

1st problem: In reality, CLASSES show themselves to be fractured in diverse component

elements.

2nd problem: Except for special historical situations, with difficulty an organization is the
true representative of class interests.

If we limit ourselves to what the organizations say, how many true representatives of the
working, campesino, popular class would there be in Mexico! This takes us to:

14
3rd problem: being representative is not an issue of mere will; it is necessary that the will
be effective, that it adequately interpret the interests that it says it defends and, in that
way conquers representation.

4th problem: Representations do not only refer to a single fraction or class; there are also
plural representations although one finds in them the leadership of one or several
fractions [faction].

5th problem: Only because of economism are classes considered only in reference to
production.

9 CLASSES and their REPRESENTATION are FORMED in SOCIAL PRACTICE

In the sphere of PRODUCTION material conditions for the existence of classes are
constituted, but:

it is in “the process of organization where identity and class consciousness are

constructed.”26

Example

The political parties “energetically act on them (the organizations) to develop,

consolidate and universalize them.”27

That is to say: Classes are being constituted the same as representation.

→ Only in the periods in which different fractions of a class act as a BLOCK, can one
speak of global expression or representation.

The BLOCK OF ALLIANCES, with one direction, is therefore global representation.

In the same, one can situate here the COUNTER HEGEMONIC BLOCK.

On the other hand, generally in daily life, we find:

partial representations:
→fractions in struggle to consolidate a global representation.
or
→in the case of the subaltern classes a struggle to join popular interests.

In specific moments fundamental classes are expressed politically in their diverse

fractions or through their political-ideological representations.

But → representation is not eternal → There are periods in which events separate
fractions of classes from their representations.28

26
Aziz, 1982: 25.
27
Gramsci, 1977: 81.
28
Gramsci, 1975a: 76.

15
Therefore: it is important to permanently analyze the nexus or the ruptures between an
organization and those it represents, and the scope of the program it wants to achieve.

10 There Exists a COMPLEXITY in POWER RELATIONS

The question is:

What is the content of this interaction between ACTORS that commit resources?
To where does the “imminent[?] strategy in the relations of forces” point?29

In general, one can answer partially: The content is DOMINATION (A -ÆB).

The “probability of finding obedience to a command of specific content between given

people.”30

But it takes this Weberian formulation and these aspects are stressed:

Not so much from the command (A) and the obedience (B) Æ

RATHER Æ

From the middle through which obedience is assured:

PHYSICAL FORCE or COERCION

(besides the physical, juridical or ideological).

Even in colloquial speech, the word force has a sense of obligation and coercion: “by
force”. Therefore, the command of A will be effective only with the coercion of B.

So, the relation of forces is taken only as a repressive inter-relationship.

CAREFUL!

This vision rules out other change mechanisms in the correlation of forces Æ

• Negotiation
• Pressure
• Dialogue
• Peaceful demonstrations
• Civil disobedience
• Etc.

29
Foucault, 1983: 178.
30
Weber, 1969: 43.

16
A position that is exceeded by the same Weber, who speaks of different types of
legitimacy.31

Here is the point of Foucault’s famous question:

Would we obey power if it were only repressive, if all you had to do was say no?32

Magisterially, Gramsci proposes that:

If “a nation’s dominant classes have not managed to surpass the stage of economic
corporation[?] that impels them to exploit the popular masses, to the extreme
conceit by the conditions of power, or, to reduce them to biological vegetation, it’s
evident that one can not talk about the power of the State, rather, only of a disguise
of power.”33

Gramsci concludes:

In a situation of this extreme economic domination, the structural solidity of a

country will be minimal.

There is only a disguise of POWER, fundamental aspects centered in the HEGEMONIC

RELATIONSHIP are missing in order to give solidity and a consistent structural
framework.

The POWER RELATION goes beyond mere COERCION (or pure domination).

Here lies one of the great contributions of Gramsci’s political reflection:

The SUPREMACY of the social actors can manifest itself in a:

DOMINATION (COERCION) and in a HEGEMONY (CONSENSUS)

Or in the combination:

MORE COERCION Æ LESS CONSENSUS

LESS COERCION Æ MORE CONSENSUS

Or in a certain equilibrium.

We call this THE COMPLEXITY OF THE POWER RELATION:

31
Ibid: 170-197.
32
Morey, 1983: 244.
33
Gramsci, 1977: 35.

17
COERCION-CONSENSUS OR DOMINATION-HEGEMONY.34

The STRATEGY immanent to a relation of forces is a complex of actions that go beyond

the simplicity that pulls out obedience in a brutal or co-active way.35

It includes, without negating the existence of the repression as an act of power, the
generation of a conception of the world and the acceptance of a social direction.

Because of that:

In the analysis of the correlation of forces of AÅ>B is indispensable to reconstruct

this complexity of the domination-hegemony.

11 DOMINATION crosses the SOCIAL STRUCTURE

We can understand as DOMINATION:

The supremacy that a social group obtains with coercion

That can be

PHYSICAL Æ (repression in the strict sense);

JURIDICAL Æ (legislation whose violation demands punishment);

ELECTORAL Æ (violence or fraud);

IDEOLOGICAL Æ (moral violence directed by propaganda, rumor, the media, schools,

etc.)

The last resort of this form of predominance is DICTATORSHIP.36 Here we are

speaking about political domination.

The distinction that speaks of economic domination is essential:

The capacity of a social actor to extract the excesses (appreciation) of others, thanks
to the dominion that it has from fundamental economic resources and the position
that it keeps in the social relations of production.

Economic coercion, in a capitalist society, is the “method by which the plustrabajo is

dispossessed.”37

34
Here we use the contributions in relation to Gramsci de Aziz, Buici-G., Fossaert, Giménez, Macciocchi
and Portantiero.
35
Fossaert, 1981: 42.
36
Giménez, 1981: 21.
37
Ibid: 61.

18
Marx, on several occasions, refers explicitly to coercion or economic coercion. They
can be seen especially in the sections in which he speaks of the formal and real
subsunción of the work of capital.38

It is a “deaf coercion”39:

• The worker on many occasions does not feel it in that way rather as a natural
law, but it is present everyday in the work process.

• It takes place in a simple monetary relationship and from the buying and
selling of the labor force, without the need for political or extra-economic
coercion.

• The “despotism of capitalism” is completed through the movement of the law of

supply and demand of work.

• A relative overpopulation (greater supply) maintains salaries within the lanes that
suit capital.40

• Because of the competition among workers, the price of their labor tends to
become cheaper.

• Along with the accumulation of capital appears the other side of the coin: “the
accumulation of misery”.41

In the process of production and because of the hunger of appreciation:

“capital is converted into a coercive relation that imposes on the working class the
execution of more work prescribed by the narrow boundary of its own vital
necessities.”42

Distinguishing between political and economic domination does not mean that there
exists an absolute separation between them.

Example:

On occasions when in union struggle solidarity and unity increase among organized
workers, some fractions of capital can consider them an obstacle to the free play of
supply and demand, and promote coercive actions on the part of the State.

38
See Marx, 1981: 54-77.
39
Marx, 1980a: 922.
40
Ibid: 797-922.
41
Ibid: 805.
42
Ibid: 376.

19
Moreover, the role of the State in the social formation dominated by capitalist relations
implies an inter-relation between both dominations:

Guaranteeing in a contradictory unity (representation of “general interests”)

economic domination of the bourgeoisie. That is the function of the ideal capitalist
collective.

12 HEGEMONY UNITES and LEADS/MANAGES

We understand HEGEMONY as:

“the intellectual and moral direction of a historical-national project.”43

It requires two things:

a. The capacity to drive (direct) in order to effectively interpret and represent the
interests of similar and allied groups.

b. The capacity to create around itself a unity or at least a generative ideological-

cultural convergence of consensus.44

A national hegemony:

• Implies enormous work in direction to conquer the support and participation of

the “masses”.

• Includes a series of initiatives in all social fields to articulate a worldview, a

national-popular culture.

• Includes the proximity of leaders/masses.

There are DEGREES in the possible hegemonies in a particular social situation.

13 There is ACTIVE CONSENSUS and PASSIVE CONSENSUS

Conquered CONSENSUS45 can simply be:

a. PASSIVE and indirect, or ideally, b. ACTIVE and direct.46

Gramsci uses the word consensus not in the sense of unanimous assent. For example, he
speaks of the “consensus of the majority” (trust, adherence and assent).

43
Aziz, 1986: 28.
44
Ibid: 21.
45
See Gramsci, 1975a: 109.
46
A distinction of Gramsci, 1975a: 193 and 1975b: 18.

20
Let’s look at each one:

a. ACTIVE CONSENSUS

Supposes:

The work and the presence of the “new intellectual” as “permanently persuasive.”47

A “center of formation, irradiation, diffusion, persuasion.”48

That conquers the trust of INDIVIDUALS or SOCIAL GROUPS.

But it goes beyond mere trust:

Whoever “consents”,
And PARTICIPATES,49
“adheres to a program”
and “intelligently elaborates” it50;
is identified as the “individual with everything”.

That is why it is---“DIRECT”.

It is the place of the militant or “the active and responsible work vanguard”.

In ACTIVE CONSENSUS the “moment of the vote” is not the last phase, rather,
only a moment of political participation in a strategy.51

b. PASSIVE CONSENSUS

It is the pure assent that is given to an individual, group, organization or party,

fundamentally through conformity.

• It is not an active assent but an attitude of “there is no other”, “better a known

evil than an unknown good.”

• This attitude is borne of the prestige and the relative trust held by the
hegemonic group.52

• It is the place of the simple, passive citizen, integrated in the masses and that
only “consents” to the initiatives that come from the leaders.53
47
Ibid: 15.
48
Gramsci, 1975a: 109.
49
Ibid: 193.
50
??
51
Ibid: 110.
52
Gramsci, 1975b: 18.
53
Gramsci, 1975a:193.

21
 • It is “indirect” because it bestows consent not in a militancy in which an organic
militant/direction relationship is found, but in a simple conformist assent.

Expressions of this passive consensus can be as much the vote as abstentions, both
moved by conformity.

14 THE STATE procures CONSENSUS and PARTICIPATION

Relations of power are considered the sustenance of the State and, at the same time,
the State is conceived as the fundamental unlawful retainer of Power.

THE STATE = POWER

To conquer the State (apparatus Is the state conception of Power.

and power) is to win Power.

Without stopping to understand the importance of the State for relations of power, we
assume that the latter is bigger than the [power of ?] Leviathan. Foucault puts forward
that one “must study power from outside the model of Leviathan”54; Fossaert, that “the
State is far from being the only organized power of society”55.

Example

In civil society there is a permanent struggle to win the trust of different sectors, there is
an expression of social powers; of course, there exists the real power of the large
consortia.

However, we should not neglect, through a desire for “theoretical anti-statism”, the
fundamental question of the:

POWER of the STATE:

“It is the ultimate expression of complex relations of domination and hegemony”56,

with a class character.

It is the expression of the correlation of forces between social classes.

It overcomes the bipolar idea of POWER:

There is a struggle for control of the institutional supports (State apparatuses) of the
POWER OF THE STATE. Those that control them:

54
See Foucault, 1979:147.
55
See Fossaert, 1981:28.
56
Giménez, 1981:44.

22
Will have at hand the important resources to impress their character upon the State.

AND

Will be able to articulate the general interests.

CAREFUL!

While a co-active conception is maintained, the State will be spoken of as especially

repressive, only from the perspective of the legitimate monopolizing of the physical
co-action.57

A repressive sketch of the State will emerge with greater clarity in instrumentalist
conceptions.

On the other hand, from Gramsci’s perspective:

The State is “hegemony disguised as coercion”58 (accent on hegemony), it is

“dictatorship plus hegemony”.59

The conception of the State as repressor:

• Omits the hegemonic relations.

• Falls easily into catastrophic visions.

If the framework that sustains a State were only co-action, it would have serious
weaknesses. It could be broken more easily in organic crises. On the contrary, with:

The wide conception of the State:

• The strength that provides the capacity of direction and the consensus conquered
by the masses is understood.60
• Hegemony is the cement and oil of the power of the State.

Without hegemony there is a disguise of POWER in as much that one of the fundamental
elements of this relation is missing.

Because the State:

“signifies, in particular, the conscious of the big national [multitudes]; then, what is
necessary is a sentimental and ideological “contact” with such [multitudes], and in
certain measure, sympathy and understanding of their needs and demands”.61

57
Weber, 1969:44.
58
Gramsci, 1975a:165.
59
Gramsci, 1977:92.
60
Gramsci, 1975a: 94.

23
That is:

A consolidated and strong State will be one that conquers the CONSENSUS and the
PARTICIPATION of the popular masses, one that achieves that the citizens are
“functionaries” that adhere enthusiastically to the program of the State.62

15 POWER materializes in a HISTORICAL BLOCK

The struggle for power in a social formation materializes in the “HISTORICAL

BLOCK”. Three groups can be distinguished:

a. The leading fundamental class or class faction. A block formed by the leading faction
and…
b.The social groups (led) that are the social base of the hegemony. …its allies, that
exercises leadership from the State and that…
c. The excluded subaltern classes of the hegemonic system.63 …dominates the
subaltern groups (on occasion we can speak of the subaltern block).

THE HISTORICAL BLOCK:

• Is not merely and only an alliance between class factions.

• Implies the leadership by one of them.64
• Demands the presence of a “full State”,

With the organic adherence to:

Intellectuals and the people;

Leaders and those led;

Governors and the governed.65

Ð
WIDE CONSENSUS

It is the unit of infrastructure and superstructure, which means:

The social leadership (economic, political and ideological) AND

The political guarantee of the

61
Gramsci, 1976:34.
62
Gramsci, 1975a:201.
63
Portelli, 1987:89.
64
Buci-G., 1985:342.
65
Ibid.:347.

24
REPRODUCTION OF SOCIAL FORMATION:

Permits the functioning of the social totality (economic formation, political formation and
ideological formation):

Benefiting a class faction or group of factions.

In the context of a permanent struggle.

Gramsci shows:

“The fact of the hegemony undeniably presupposes that the interests and tendencies of
the groups upon which hegemony is exerted are taken into account, that a certain balance
of compromise is formed, that is, the leading group makes sacrifices of an economic-
corporate order, but it is also undeniable that such sacrifices and such a compromise can
not pertain to the essential, since if the hegemony is ethical-political it can not stop being
economic, it can be nothing less than based on the decisive function that the leading
group exercises in the ruling nucleus of the economic activity.”66

16 STRATEGIC PREPARATION possesses STRENGTH

The asymmetrical struggles of power are directed in “relatively rational” modalities

named:

STRATEGIES AND TACTICS67

According to:

The level of strategic preparation68 of the contenders

AND

The development of the struggle.

These modalities can be:

EXPLICIT OR IMPLICIT

Therefore:

• The strategy—tactics is not a simple desire of intellectuals involved in politics, it

is a necessity of the struggle.

66
Gramsci, 1975a:55.
67
Giménez, 1981:25.
68
Gramsci, 1975a:83.

25
 • This strategic will to be efficient should begin with the real conditions of the
social formation.
• The contender relies on another factor of power.
• We do not postulate a strategic volunteerism, but the given practice/totality
relation.

If two quantitatively unbalanced forces (the number as resource) clash, the STRATEGIC
PREPARATION can be the deciding factor and that which reverts the confrontation in
favor of the one with less.

We can say this in another way:

• Who knows where it goes,

• Upon what resources does it rely,
• Which are the best roads to reach its objective,
• Where are the weaknesses of its opponent found,
• “the so-called ‘imponderable factors’ tend to reduce to zero”69,

It relies on a fundamental, qualitative RESOURCE (strength):

STRATEGIC PREPARATION.

An indispensable element to rely on this resource:

“is the force permanently organized and long predisposed, that can be made to advance
when it is judged that a situation is favorable (and it is favorable only in the measure in
which such a force exists and is impregnated with combative ardor)”.70

17 STRUGGLE is ASYMMETRICAL

The correlation of forces in specific moments of a social formation is revealed under the
form of a “struggle”.

We can understand STRUGGLE as:

The “confrontation in action between protagonists endowed with a determined potential

of power”.71

Diverse RESOURCES (economic, political and ideological) clash to conquer hegemony

and domination.

There are 3 FUNDAMENTAL STRUGGLES:

69
Gramsci, 1975a:83.
70
Ibid:75-76
71
.Giménez, 1981:24.

26
 a. Those that attempt to reach the control of the APPARATUSES and POWER of
the STATE (wide) and obtain the monopoly on the LEGITIMATE COERCION,
among other questions.
b. Those whose PROTAGONISTS utilize RESOURCES in order to achieve
LEADERSHIP and therefore the most ACTIVE CONSENSUS possible.
c. Those that ACCUMULATE (potential) RESOURCES in order to use them in the
conflicts that will so deserve them.

The CONFRONTATION DOES NOT TAKE PLACE in an absolutely polarized sphere

between:

Absolute control of the State No control of the State

Absolute coercion no coercion
Absolute consensus no consensus
Total leadership no leadership

Rather, relativities clash in an asymmetrical frame where one (leading/dominant block)

has the advantage;

for example, in the apparently most simple and bipolar case, that of COERCION.

Certainly a sector controls the so-called legitimate COERCION, but it confronts legal and
illegal impositions of the other PROTAGONISTS.

The laws:

Are not invented by the mere will of domination of one class faction (they are also
crossed by the struggle of classes and they are an expression of it).

So laws (juridical impositions) exist that the LEADING FACTION has to accept—
transfer in order to conserve its strategic predominance.

Moreover, there are also forms of COUNTERHEGEMONIC STRUGGLES in which

COERCION is used:

Armed struggle Unacceptable forms within Acceptable forms within the

the framework of the law framework of the law
(civil resistance, land (strikes or legislation).
takeovers, work stoppages,
etc.)

Even in many situations of armed struggle, the legal framework becomes the only
parameter to return to social and political “stability”, although it is lived in the context of
absolute impunity that provokes the rules of law.

27
In the same way, dictatorships have ended in order to return to the framework of the
State of Law. Consequently, legal struggle is also a recourse not at all despicable in
certain moments of conjuncture, but not determinant.

In that which respects CONSENSUS, there is a permanent battle (with its highs and
lows) to conquer the trust of different sectors of society.

Example

Political parties fight to continue amplifying their relative consensus that will be able to
express themselves in the number of votes.

One case: the struggle between the different conceptions of economic politics in the
country at a given moment are confrontations in that they lead to consensual movements,
that is, sectors that are conquered for one position or another.

18 DOMINATION is MULTIDIMENSIONAL

To summarize:

Domination demands from those dominated—economic and political discipline72

before the imposition; the hegemony of those led; consensus; active participation in
a cultural convergence.

The relation

Dominant—dominated leading—led

Is expressed in the relation

Coaction—discipline driving—consensus

Conclusion:

If we were trying to schematically reduce it to a formula of the relation of power, it

would be the following:

POWER = DOMINATION (ECONOMIC COACTION + POLITICS + DISCIPLINE) +

HEGEMONY (STRATEGIC DIRECTION AND PREPARATION + PASSIVE
CONSENSUS + ACTIVE CONSENSUS).

a. For the DOMINANT (economic and politically) CLASS OR CLASS FACTION

NOT TO BE LEADING, it only maintains passive consensus and has lost active

72
See Weber, 1969:43.

28
 consensus (it would “only be unlawfully detaining the single coercive force”73
and the control of the excesses).
b. For the ECONOMICALLY DOMINANT CLASS FACTION TO BE
HEGEMONIC, but not politically dominant; or that it be hegemonic and
dominant.74
This complex or multi-dimensional relation gives rise to diverse situations:
c. That BEING HEGEMONIC AND DOMINANT (economically and politically) IT
IS WEAK IN ITS STRATEGIC PREPARATION in a given moment.

Conclusion:

If we put forward a CORRELATION OF FORCES (confrontation of powers) with a

mechanist or economist instrument we can in no way reconstruct the complex
problematic of the DOMINATION—HEGEMONY.

In this way what is needed is the concrete analysis of multiple relations of power that are
expressed in the coyuntura.

19 This ANALYSIS OF POWER is for CAPITALIST SOCIETY

We propose this analysis of power evidently for the capitalist societies.

Consequently a fundamental question is raised regarding a STRATEGY of social

transformation.

How do you conceive of relations of power for a new social organization?

The answer exceeds the purposes of these Notebooks, we only affirm that:

From the point of view of a DEMOCRATIC and POPULAR STRATEGY, the following
is required:

The tone in the ACTIVE CONSENSUAL RELATIONS

The reduction to the minimal expression, of COACTIVE ACTIONS

The effective distribution (due not to the volunteerism of a few individuals, but to the
form of social organization) of the ECONOMIC, POLITICAL, AND IDEOLOGICAL
RESOURCES.

Truly the implicit, utopic horizon is the total elimination of social co-action.

73
Gramsci, 1977:52.
74
Cuellar, 1986:111.

29
This project of social organization with accent on the CONSENSUAL and on the
distribution of RESOURCES, does not mean leaving for the future the realization of
these aspects.

In the same action of the PRESENT, in its social demands and its way of organizing
itself, a democratic and popular project needs to go advancing in the indicated lines.

PREGUNTAS

1. Explain in your own words each one of the 19 elements indicative of the relations of
power. Explain their principal concepts.

2. What would you vary or add to each one?

3. Do you find other elements indicative of capitalist society?

4. Elaborate [come up with] an exercise of coyuntural analysis applying sequentially

these indicative elements.

5. Based on these elements being characteristics of a capitalist society, what “indicative

elements” could you formulate for an “education for peace”?

6. Do you have another option for defining the proposed concepts? Which ones?

7. In the correlation of military forces, what other indicators make reference to its
imbalance? Conquered territory? Liberated zones?

8. Come up with a list of dictatorship that have developed lately in Latin America and
express why (using the elements and concepts seen here).

9. Can the interests dialogue and negotiate with a contradiction of the social system that
is excluding?

10. Do you consider national campaigns called “National Reconciliation,” “National

Dialogue,” etc., to be effective instruments or resources?

D) GENERAL CRITERIA FOR THE MEASUREMENT OF FORCES

How to proceed with the coyuntural analysis to theoretically reproduce the very
correlation of forces of a certain period of a social formation?

We present schematically the following 6 CRITERIA, based above all on the theoretical
aspects reviewed in the preceding chapter.

We suppose that:

30
The CORRELATION OF FORCES is a confrontation of RESOURCES to conquer
more POWER (in its broad and complex sense: hegemony-domination), in the
context of a strategy.

We will broach these 6 CRITERIA:

1. COMPARE THE STRENGTHS AMONG THE BLOCKS

2. DISTINGUIS THE MOMENT OF THE RESOURCES

3. VALORIZE THE RESOURCES WITH OBJECTIVITY

4. ANALYSE THE RESOURCES OF THE SOCIAL TOTALITY

5. EXPLAIN WHY THE CORRELATION OF FORCES CHANGED

6. PERMANENTLY DIAGNOSE THE RESOURCES

Let’s look at each one:

1. COMPARE THE STRENGTHS AMONG THE BLOCKS

A CORRELATION OF FORCES means:

A relativity, in the context of the presence of a HISTORICAL BLOCK that articulates a
given SOCIAL FORMATION: relative forces (blocks) confront each other, although one
of them is asymmetrical, and they compare themselves to each other.

The strength of one block The weakness of one block

⇓ And vice versa ⇓
Is the weakness of the other is the strength of the other

2. DISTINGUIS THE MOMENT OF THE RESOURCES

One should distinguish between the contenders:

RESOURCES

POTENTIAL FORCES those that can be employed in a coyuntura already

those that have access

fundamentally for
structural reasons

ACTUAL FORCES those that are being

used effectively in a
coyuntura

31
This distinction is necessary to comprehend:

Why in certain situations there exists an equilibrium between forces that are structurally
very imbalanced.

The root principle is that all the available resources are not employed in every coyuntura.

Nevertheless, the fact that an organization possesses greater potential resources given its
situation in the social structure, implies a threat or latent force that its counterpart
analyzes and takes into account.

3. VALORIZE THE RESOURCES WITH OBJECTIVITY

In this “accounting” of ACTUAL AND POTENTIAL RESOURCES, the coyuntural

analysis demands the greatest level of OBJECTIVITY possible.

This requires a permanent epistemological vigilance and in its proper measure about
the:

VALORIZATION OF RESOURCES

a of the same organization or block b of the other organizations or

blocks (especially those considered
enemies)

without under or over valorizations

There are no magic potions to achieve this objectivity. However, the confrontation of the
analysis of forces with its practical results (the defined tactics) is an indispensable
element.

4. ANALYSE THE RESOURCES OF THE SOCIAL TOTALITY

The “accounting” of resources crosses over the social totality (economic, political-
military, and political-cultural).

The analysis needs to include the resources of each block in the context of the totality and
with the condition of the economic moment:

a) For the control of the production process and of the surplus (knowing that the control
of the resources that reproduce the economic domination will be defended by capital).

b) By the control of the apparatus and the power, by the social direction, by consensus
and cultural unity.

Those that refer to the STRUGGLE:

32
Objective:
to diagnose the unequal disposition of resources in the productive sphere.

Objective:
to diagnose the unequal disposition of resources in relation to the political/hegemony
domination.

In the exercise of conyuntural analysis the fear of the analysis of this second factor often
presents itself. As if diagnosing it implied a guerrilla proposal in the short run.

None of that. This fear (obstacle) should be questioned to open the door to the diagnostic
of the disposition of unequal police-military resources.

Simply for prevention, it is a fundamental question for the analysis in social movements.

In the case of the BLOCKS

⇓ (as are included the relations
direction/ those led,
political representatives/ class faction,
tactical alliances, strategic alliances)

the form should be distinguished in which the available resources are articulated
actual and
potential

For example: does one make use of such resources only in a momentary way? Are they
a lasting articulation of resources or weak “casual groups”?

We can extend in this direction the description that Gramsci makes of the “casual
groups”:
“a multitude of people dominated by immediate interests or prisoner of the
passion stirred up by impression of the moment, transmitted without any critique
or ‘reunited’ as a ‘multitude during a rainstorm under a shed,’ made by men not
ground by responsibilities toward other men.”75

5. EXPLAIN WHY THE CORRELATION OF FORCES CHANGED

The objective should not only be to confront relativities, but also:

To explain the most significant variations of the correlation of forces between the blocks:

Was a potential resource used? Was a new and greater strength accumulated in the same
conjuncture? Were resources lost? Why?

75
Gramsci, 1985 a: 184.

33
(It will help to see the elements mentioned in the F Chapter, point 2, about the criteria of
“significance.” Included here are the distinctions between “organic” and “occasional”
movements, according to Gramsci’s76 nomenclature.)

The explication of the previous questions will be a point of departure for:

Trying to modify the ⇒ by means of ⇒ some TACTICS

correlation of forces

and
including, on special occasions,

⇒ by a NEW STRATEGY

That is:

It deals with a NON-NEUTRAL criteria: the will to transform the relations of forces in
benefit of the block.

6. PERMANENTLY DIAGNOSE THE RESOURCES

This “accounting” is DIALECTICAL:

It supposes the permanent ⇒ It implies the continuous

confrontation and mobility of displacement of FORCES.
RESOURCES. It is not a still
photograph.

It supposes a diagnostic of the It implies the implicit will, on

moment in the same the part of the analyst, to
MOVEMENT OF promote CHANGES and
RESOURCES, in the instances accumulations of
⇒ in that displacements of forces RESOURCES.
originate and are produced.

That is why:

The accounting of the RESOURCES is a hypothetical correlation of

forces, solidly founded, that requires a contrast in the daily social
76 struggle.
Gramsci, 1975 a: 68.

34
PREGUNTAS

1. Explain in your own words each one of the 6 general criteria for the measuring of
forces.

2. What would you change or add to each one of them?

3. What other methodological criteria would you propose?

4. Design an exercise of coyuntural analysis applying these criteria.

5. Do you believe the State should play a role as arbiter, negotiator, facilitator, rector or
director?

E) PROPOSALS OF THE INDICATORS OF FORCES

For the coyuntural analysis we should construct a series of INDICATORS that permit us
to measure with the greatest precision possible the resources that are confronted in the
fields of the economic and political domination, and in that of the hegemony.

So, Gramsci:

“To identify with exactitude the fundamental and permanent elements of the process” so
as to respect the production and in relation to the political: reduce to zero the
imponderable factors.77

We can come up with an endless list but here we will present a series of indicators that
emerge from the criteria mentioned in the preceding chapter. As well as what was already
shown in Notebooks 5 and 6 (temporal and spatial delineation).

We will first present the indicators that we will broach schematically:

1 INDICATORS FOR THE ECONOMIC FIELD (national, regional, or local)

a fundamental factions of capital in the economic aspect.

b fundamental popular sectors in the economic aspect.
c economic politics.

2 INDICATORS FOR THE FIELDS OF HEGEMONY/DOMINATION

77
Gramsci, 1985 a: 63, 71, and 83.

35
a the relative number
b its place in the economic structure
c form of conscience
d level of organization
e grade of strategic preparation
f alliances
g political-military resources
h economic resources
i judicial resources

We will now see what each one consists of: ⇒

1 INDICATORS FOR THE ECONOMIC FIELD (national, regional, or local)

It supposes an analysis of the process of the accumulation of capital.

In general terms, it requires an analysis of the actual situation of the process of:

And of the most important

√ Production contradictions that are found in
√ Distribution and this process.
√ Consumption of goods

⇒ With this analysis one can proceed to the diagnostic of the disposition of
ECONOMIC FORCES

a Fundamental factions of capital in the economic aspect:

Who are the principal capitalists? What corporations control in the different branches and
sectors? What is the importance of these corporations in the process of accumulation?
What are its relationships with other capital at the national-international level?

All of these questions refer more to the typically structural aspect, but they are required to
investigate:

What is the current situation of these corporations? (Products, sales, financing,

technology, wage earners, utilities). Locate the corporations in their relating (percent of
corporations in relation to others) in different aspects. What is the situation of the
corporate guild? What conflicts are there between the different corporations and factions?
What contradictions are there between factions of capital/state and factions of
capital/popular sectors?

b Fundamental popular sectors in the economic aspect:

36
How many workers are there? What enterprises sell their labor force? What are their
actual life conditions: real salary, employment-unemployment, health, education?
Situation of the trade organization? Inter-trade conflicts? How many campesinos are
there? What type of campesinos? What kind of land ownership? What and how much do
they produce? What are their actual life conditions? Situation of sector organization?
Inter-sector conflicts? Contradictions between popular sectors/capital factions; popular
sectors/state?

c Political economy:

What sectors are favored by the political economy? Which ones does it harm and why?
What are the fundamental elements? What variations are there in the political economy?
What type of contradiction is established between popular sectors/state, factions of
capital/state, in this political economy?

2 INDICATORS FOR THE FIELDS OF HEGEMONY/DOMINATION

Here is supposed an analysis of the social formation in these aspects.

We have shown that the confrontation of forces is found between COLLECTIVE

ACTORS.

For the analysis of these fields of the domination-hegemony an identification founded

on the principal groups, organizations or blocks that confront each other is
required.

Given this identification, at least hypothetically, one can proceed to the coyuntural
analysis of the following indicators for COLLECTIVE ACTOR:

a) the relative number

b) its place in the economic structure
c) form of consciousness
d) level of organization
e) grade of strategic preparation
f) alliances
g) political-military resources
h) economic resources
i) judicial resources

Basically we retake them from ARROYO.78 These indicators are one more of the little
developed aspects of coyuntural analysis despite its importance.

a The relative number

A irreplaceable resource in the POLITICAL STRUGGLE is QUANTITY:

78
Arroyo, 1977: 19-21.

37
The LARGER the QUANTITY
of people bound together ⇒ the GREATER THE FORCE of an
organization or BLOCK

Every organization that seeks social leadership looks to conquer the confidence of the
largest part of the population.

However, the number is only one aspect. The case of a casual multitude can arise, as
we would see in Gramsci: the conjunction of a force (multitude) with a weakness
(casual).

To realize at least partially, the different qualities of groupings of numbers, we propose

3 subdivisions:

Militants: subjects active participants

Active in the daily life of the organization and in the definition of its STRATEGY.

For an electoral organization, the militants are those that promote the vote of others.

Sympathizers: potentially militant subjects

Their participation in the organization is still limited, they coincide in general terms with
the STRATEGY, but they are not active creators in the daily life.

For an electoral organization they are those that permanently vote for it.

The Mobilized: subjects that occasionally participate

They participate in some of the organization’s actions but they do not totally agree with
the STRATEGY; among them are found doubtful elements that oscillate between
sympathy and apathy, between support and conformism.

In some special circumstances or amid a lot of great general political activity, they tend to
become more mobilized.

We could show that:

The GREATER NUMBER of militants ⇒ The GREATER the RESOURCES for the
construction of HEGEMONY

The FEWER NUMBER of militants ⇒ The FEWER the ACTIVISTS of CONSENSUS

On the other extreme:

38
The GREATER NUMBER of mobilized ⇒ The GREATER the OCCASIONAL
FORCE and with a strong RECURRENCE
to the EBB

It is important to be able to situate these numbers in their relativity: in percentages of the

population and in comparison to other organizations.

For these situations, electoral analyzes are of great usefulness but they could tend to be
completed with studies of the “quality” of the vote (militants, sympathizers and
mobilized).

Examples:
There are:
-votes of the caudillo: “this is the leader”
-punishment votes: “to see if the next time I’ll be fulfilled.”
-traditional votes: “here, we always vote for…”
-bought votes: “I’ll give you and you’ll give me…”
-coactioned votes: “if you don’t vote for me, I will not give you…”
-alienated votes: “there are no errors, it is the only one, the best”
-stolen votes: “two plus two equals three”
-alternate votes: “it’s now the other guy’s turn”
-tactical votes: “together we’ll destroy the enemy”
-cultural votes: “s/he’s of my land”
-fearful votes: “better a known evil than an unknown good”
-opportunistic votes: “I will achieve…”
-There is…abstaining

b Place in the Economic Structure

The militants, sympathizers and mobilized have a place in the social economic structure.

These “places” of the accumulation of capital:

Do not have the same Some are in neuralgic

strategic importance points and others less
weighty

That’s why a place is a resource and provides one more element of force.

The consequence is: that if the number of those bound belong to a fundamental structural
place, they will have greater force.

Example

39
The militants can have a majority of mini landowning campesinos or workers of the most
important industrial branches of the country; or medium-sized entrepreneurs.
But it does not involve the falling, then, into a workerism at all costs.
There are cases in which, to continue with the example, the mini landowners of a
strategic petroleum region have an additional force.

c Form of Consciousness

The clarity in temrs of the INTERESTS that are attempted to defend and the
IDEOLOGICAL HOMOGENEITY of those bound to it.

We can very schematically demonstrate this with Gramsci.79

4 Levels of Consciousness

* The economic corporate ---- (the simple trade union unity)

* The general class, but only economic ---- (merely vindicative)
* The class’ political consciousness ---- (that comes to establish itself even as
community of interests with other subordinate
groups)
* The extreme individualism 80---- (we propose to add before this one)

The analysis of the FORMS OF CONSCIOUSNESS is one of the least developed aspects
for coyuntural analysis. We present here only a schematic that even the presentation of a
hypothesis would imply a much wider work. The advances in psychosocial and
psychoanalytical studies can be of great use.

Phase of economic
submission corporate
(or lack of phase
autonomy)

Arroyo
distinguishes
FOUR
LEVELS

Hegemonic
Labor union phase
phase

79
Gramsci, 1975 a: 71-72.
80
Arroyo, 1977: 20.

40
In light of the competition for the offer of a labor force, situations can arise in which
some people ideologically identified with other social actors do not even arrive at trade
union consciousness.

Absence of solidarity

Economic solidarity of These four levels imply Merely labor union

class different solidarity
SOLIDARITIES:

Hegemonic solidarity
(with the group of
subaltern classes)

Each one of these goes on assuming and surpassing the one before, in such a way that a
disposition to a hegemonic solidarity implies a greater resource in the POLITICAL
STRUGGLE than that only in the labor union solidarity.

This is an aspect difficult to measure: How do you measure levels of consciousness?

Without resolving the problem totally, we propose a road to the solution:

Through the demand that raises an organization or block and through the struggles81, the
levels of consciousness can detected in those that it moves.

We should especially provide ourselves with nominalism, above all in reference to the
valorization of “party” consciousness.

The fact of belonging to a political party does not automatically signify the phase of
hegemonic consciousness.

They impede analyzing which ones are the LEVELS OF CONSCIOUSNESS of those in
coalition:

Party Centeredism Party Patriotism

81
Ver ibidem: 20.

41
 The exclusive valorization The over valuing of
of organizing form of the the organization to
political party, in which it belons. We
detriment the other forms could extend the
of social organization expression and
(“only the party speak of
organization is PATRIOTISM of
authentically the movement, of
Revolutionary”) the union, the
cooperative, etc.

These valorizations are accentuated in the conception of one partyism/mono partyism to

the death:

In the political proposal that tries to unify into one single authority every social
movement, every organization, and every group.

Only, to indicate the extreme, we show that a BLOCK that relies on:

a great number of militants (many of them from fundamental structural places)

a homogenous consciousness (solid).

will have :
a MULTIPLICATION OF FORCES!
(it does not suffice to use the mathematical sum).

Three separate individuals do not develop the same FORCE (we can identify their forces
as A, B and C, together D):

that is, A + B + C is not equal to D

The FORCE that the reunited 3 develop implies an additional element (multiplication, we
call it here as unification, in such a way that A x B x C = D.

d Level of organization

The political confrontation is the geographic and sector reach of the group, organization
or block.

There can be
Organizations with reach:
Local regional national
Or with preferential presence in the field:
Rural urban rural and urban

42
Or with presence in strategic geopolitical zones (we have already spoken of the
economic, we add here the political).

EXAMPLE
A solid, regional organization (suggest the name) and only in the rural sector, will have
influence, to that which has consolidated nationally, in the rural and urban sectors, and in
the strategic geopolitical zones (like borders, the central zone in which the political and
the greater part of the industry are found). If besides this last one, it relies on militants its
forces are further multiplied.

e level of strategic preparation

It becomes concrete in 2 interrelated elements: the clarity of strategy and tactics and the
ability of the leadership that implements them.

We refer to “ABILITY” as:

The capacity developed by an organization to place itself in the SOCIAL and

POLITICAL struggle, in the CONFRONTATIONS of FORCES, and in the
circumstances of each moment, to accumulate STRENGTH effectively, before the
considered PRINCIPAL ENEMY.

This implies a coherent relation between:

Particular Tactics and General Strategy

Continuing with the extreme ideal case that we have been showing throughout:

A BLOCK with a great POTENTIAL would be that which has the RESOURCE of
excellent STRATEGIC PREPARATION, besides a national presence and in the principal
regions of the country and with HEGEMONIC CONSCIOUSNESS in a wide group of
militants.

f alliances

To form alliances, in the strict sense, is:

To accumulate RESOURCES to achieve the objective that is sought, through the

concurrence of different ALLIED FORCES.

We can say that politics, among other questions, is the art of forming ALLIANCES.

ACTORS do not only develop in political struggles; they live a continuous game of
ALLIANCES in order to advance on the road indicated by STRATEGY and to confront
the PRINCIPAL ADVERSARY.

43
When an ALLIANCE is formed the RESOURCES of those ALLIED are interwoven to
achieve an OBJECTIVE. A BLOCK is formed based on them with the HEGEMONY of
a sector.

We include the distinction between:

STRATEGIC ALLIANCES and TACTICAL ALLIANCES

Let’s look at each one of them:

They coincide in the final objective proposed in the STRATEGY.

Strategic Alliances
(the organizations)
They can have differences in the nature by which it is sought to arrive at it or in the
characterizations or elaborated analyzes in the period or in the forms of action that are
considered most appropriate for the coyuntura.

They are companeros in struggle over the long run and tend to unify their forces in a
more solid manner; they can even become one organization easily.

They do not coincide in STRATEGY (not in the objective nor in the means)
Tactical Alliances
(the organizations)
Circumstantially they have the same objective in the short term.

They are a daily resource in the political struggle and companeros in struggle over the
short term.

They generally imply short duration and weakness in the coalition.

The Politics of Alliances:

They do not happen through the art of magic (with everything and that the coincidence of
objectives truly occurs).

It implies work in analysis, conviction, and pacts.

They are a labor of hegemony.

It requires an analysis of possible allies: their strategies, their forms of action, their social
influence, their composition, and, in general, their STRENGTHS.

It presupposes the clarity in the coincidence in the strategic and tactical objectives.

It presupposes the capacity to show how necessary the alliance is (to generate
CONSENSUS among the members of the organization proper as well as others).

44
Alliances confront eachother at 2 Extremes:

SECTARIANISM
Absence of a politics of solid, agile and effective coalitions. Because of the fear of
“contamination”, of other strategies or of being absorbed by other organizations, the
sectarians lose a fundamental nature to ACCUMULATE FORCES and easily confuse
SECONDARY ADVESARIES with the FUNDAMENTAL CONTRADICTION.

OPPORTUNISM
Politics of undifferentiated alliances without taking into account the STRATEGY,
without analyzing the capabilities of the allies and on many occasions without it
mattering allying itself with PRINCIPAL ADVERSARIES in detriment to the pacts with
important STRATEGIC ALLIES.

So, a BLOCK with a politics of consolidated and able alliances and with the elements of
forces that we have already mentioned, will prepare important RESOURCES for
POLITICAL STRUGGLE. It will not mean a simple sum, but a MULTIPLICATION OF
FORCES.

g. POLITICAL-MILITARY RESOURCES82

Some propose that this indicator only should be studied in the final situations of open and
generalized confrontation, but the correlation of forces demands its permanent
consideration.

It does not involve postulating a militaristic strategy at all costs, in the style of the
provocative or naïve groups that promote useless or irresponsible confrontations.83

The objective is to take into account, in the characterization of forces, this indicator.

Gramsci distinguishes 2 levels in this analysis:

TECHNICAL MILITARY and the POLITICAL MILITARY84

Technical Military
Is the measurement of military resources in the strict sense.
In the analysis of the state:
measurement
The level of development of military technology, type of arms, quantity of police and
military in its diverse bodies, paramilitary groups, effective action (legal and illegal) of
repressive bodies.
resources
In the point of view of opposition, the possibilities of repression are asked for.

82
Gramsci, 1975 a: 73-74; Arroyo, 1977: 23-24; Gallardo, 1988: 113-114; Lopez, 1979: 54-55.
83
Arroyo, 1977: 22.
84
Gramsci, 1975 a: 73-74.

45
At this level the distinction between ACTUAL RESOURCES and POTENTIAL
RESOURCES is fundamental for the coyuntura.

If we only propose the analysis from the potential (coercive-military forces on which the
state depends structurally and the factions of capital that have semi-militarized bodies)
and as if always current at every conjuncture, it would fall into political defeatism: there
is nothing to do before such a powerful enemy.

But these coercive forces do not act at every moment.

The key to conjunction is to measure which resources are being utilized effectively and
which will be used feasibly.

POLITICAL-MILITARY
The political actions that posses the “virtue to determine reflections of military
character.”85

Militaristic strategists easily forget this element. They prefer to underline the technical-
military from the popular opposition and they lose the ability to generate consensus.

They forget, then, RESOURCES of enormous effectiveness like, for example:

§ the insurgent and counterinsurgent role of the victimized civil population by the armed
confrontation (displaced)
§ the dispersion of the dominant military force in all a great territory and on occasion,
unknown
§ the taking advantage of the correlation of forces at the international level
§ the personalities with special moral weight that impose themselves and balance public
opinion
§ a broad politics of alliances that imposes a dissuasion of the use of state military force
§ the denunciation in diverse forums and international media communication
(underestimating electronic media)
§ massive resistance
§ civil disobedience

Continually cases of sectors arise that have a technical-military level extremely

developed (potential force for the coyuntura), but with great weaknesses in the political-
military field.

Example: national & international

When the delegitimization of the use of repressive forces is achieved like the Mexican
army before the EZLN.

85
Ibidem: 73.

46
A resource –political-military superiority– 86 is conquered in this way, that can be
fundamental for the significant displacement of the correlation of forces: the repressive
potential force is not actualized.

Gramsci proposes that:

Politics should be “superior to the military part”87; that the “destruction” of the enemy is
the “dissolution of its links as an organic mass.”88

h. Economic Resources

The groups, organizations, parties or blocks have a potential differentiated to the financial
level.

This potential favors ⇒

The mobilization of personnel

The use of mass media
The publication of books, magazines, or videos etc.

that can have full-time professionals

In this case, we should be attentive to the mechanisms and suppose that:

The economic resources of one class, for example, the bourgeoisie, are directly from the
organizations that defend their interests.
The latter can have access to those (the former), but not necessarily.

A concrete analysis (another necessary redundancy) is needed that identifies the

RESOURCES of an organization: ⇒
Those in which it effectively counts
Those that it utilizes in the coyuntura

Example:
The financial (powerful) of the PRI through its intimate relation with the State and its
apparatuses and the quantity of full time personnel that it counts on through the
secretary’s and the corporatized organizations, favors it in the electoral conjunctures.

Generally, here is found one of the weaknesses of the organized popular sectors,
conditional by its place in the social structure: its bases work with a fixed schedule or
they dedicate the majority of their to time to subsistence labor; with difficulty they have
important surpluses for the party or organizational “quotas”.

86
Arroyo 1977: 21.
87
Gramsci, 1975a: 91.
88
Ibídem: 172.

47
But they can partially replace these weaknesses, with creativity and with massive support.
Consensus also has its face of popular financing.

i. Legal resources

The struggle develops in the framework of an established legality, although it is not

restricted to it.

⇓
Legality

⇓
Illegality

Both are expressions

⇓
Class struggle
and of

Control by social sector89

This double characterization grants differentiated LEGAL RESOURCES to the different

sectors in struggle.

What is demanded then, for political struggle and analysis of the correlation of forces, is
the study and permanent identification of these resources.

In diverse occasions, the following idea is privileged:

Legality is only the expression of control by a social class ⇒ and therefore,

It is considered that it is not feasible that popular or oppositional sectors can use legal
resources.

It prevents them from taking elements of strength into account.

In synthesis, we propose the consideration [recognition] of these resources in the

correlation of forces.

THE RELATIVE NUMBER (MILITANTS, SYMPATHIZERS, MOBILIZED)

+THE PLACE IN THE ECONOMIC STRUCTURE
+FORMS OF CONSCIOUSNESS (INDIVIDUAL, PROFESSIONAL, CLASS,
HEGEMONIC)
89
Gimenez, 1981: 83.

48
+LEVEL OF ORGANIZATION (GEOGRAPHIC & SECTOR REACH)
+LEVEL STRATEGIC PREPARATION (STRATEGY, TACTICS & ABILITY OF
LEADERSHIP)
+ALLIANCES (STRATEGIC & TACTICAL)
+POLITICAL-MILITARY RESOURCES (TECHNICAL & POLITICAL)
+ECONOMIC RESOURCES
+LEGAL RESOURCES

Questions

1. Explain in your own words what you understood of each one of the indicators of
the economic field and of hegemony-domination.
2. What would you add to or change of these indicators?
3. What other indicators do you consider to be important to take into account?
4. Are peaceful struggles (hunger strike, civil disobedience, marches,
demonstrations, non-cooperation, etc.) the only measures to modify the
correlation of forces and generate change?
5. Would you agree that these “peaceful struggles” are only “contestations [?] to
“state power” and its decisions and that they do not generate proposals of historic
projects?
6. Do you think that every struggle for power is violent (not necessarily physical)?
7. Do you think that physical violence understood as harm to another is inherent to
man[kind]? Is it a socio-historical product?
8. The resource of “dialogue” can resolve all the contradictions, conflicts, interests,
necessities, desires, and distinct values?
9. Within the vocabulary of human rights and “education for peace,” can we find
another concept different from “non-violence,” “enemy,” etc., but in a positive
sense?
10. Does the “contradiction” imply that there are “irreconcilable interests” that would
not be resolved by means of “dialogue” and “negotiation”? Is only winning or
losing the solution?

F. Proposals of Forms of Comparison of Forces: Correlation

After having presented some theoretical proposals around the concept of the
CORRELATION OF FORCES, the criteria for its analysis and the indicators of forces,
we will express a possible technique to determine said correlation.

We suppose the objective is to

characterize anticipate favor

the significant displacements of forces. To do that we will tackle the following elements:

1. Correlation of Forces
2. Projects
3. Resources

49
 4. Opportunities and Threats
5. Tactic and Strategy
6. Evaluation
7. Second Analysis

Let’s look at them one at a time:

1. Correlation of Forces

a. Begin with the former [earlier] CORRELATION OF FORCES (include the

characterization of principal actors).
b. If there is no previous analysis you can begin with a hypothetical presentation (it
will help to compare the analyzed conjuncture).

2. Projects

a. identify the PROJECTS90 that articulate the BLOCKS OF PRINCIPAL ACTORS

or protagonists (in the period being studied).
b. characterize the ACTUAL and POTENTIAL FORCES OF EACH BLOCK
(mentioned indicators: disposition and movements of the economic forces and of
the fields of hegemony/domination).

We will identify by PROJECT:

the explicit and intentionally structured programs

the conjunction of implicit and unintentional interests materialized in the actions that
implicitly articulate a strategy and tactics

If it is difficult to identify the BLOCKS, the principal “fields of confrontation”91 or

conflicts can be shown that are established and how they are generated around those
distinct BLOCKS.

It is important to work with all the mentioned indicators in order to overcome unilateral
analysis (excessive optimism or paralyzing pessimism).

3. Resources

a. compare the CURRENT and POTENTIAL RESOURCES from within each

BLOCK.
b. Establish the RELATIVITY OF POWERS (that are confronted in the period).

Objective ⇒ the TENDENCY OF FORCES ⇒ (direction toward what indicates a

correlation of forces)

90
Zarco, 1988: 98. Gallardo, 1988: 80.
91
Souza, s/f: 36.

50
A symmetry Relative Equilibrium

It implies the presence of a CURRENT RELATION and its possibilities to remain in the
future.
To guard against:

OPTIMISM
(overestimation of the force itself, without its context)
the analysis in the comparison with other forces

PESSIMISM
(underestimation of the force itself, without its context)
Detect the significant movements of force in comparison with the earlier period.

The significance will be “measured” in relation to the GENERAL STRATEGY presented

and should not be able to lose the necessary objectivity.

Be guided by the STRATEGY to measure the significance:

Is to critically establish the parameters from the point of view of the analyst.

4. Opportunities and Threats

a. characterize in the circumstances of the period which are the opportunities that are
opened in the conjectural (to accumulate more FORCE in the sense of the
STRATEGY of the BLOCK).
b. Characterize WHICH ARE THE PRINCIPAL THREATS (what impedes the
accumulation of FORCES or what signifies the accumulation of forces of the
ADVERSARIES.

This in the context of the confrontation of strategies and of the analyzed tendencies. This
group will permit the identifying, at the CONJUNCTURAL MOMENT, among other
characterizations, as the period of:

-crisis of the hegemonic sector or the subaltern blocks

-hegemonic solidification or of the subaltern sectors
-incrementation[?] of the coercion facing consensus
-consensual moment and reduction of repression
-economic crisis and the worsening of “objective conditions”
-economic peak of the dominant sectors
-explosive combination of economic crisis and hegemonic crisis
-political-military crisis

5. Tactics and Stragey

a. propose TACTICS and/or STRATEGIES to MODIFY the CORRELATION OF

FORCES in the sense favorable to the DEFENDED STRATEGY.

51
6. Evaluation

a. evaluate the ANALYSIS BASED on the PRACTICAL RESULTS of the

proposed TACTICS and STRATEGIES.

7. Second Analysis

a. initiate the ANALYSIS OF THE FOLLOWING PERIOD.

In summary, we propose the following schema of the COMPARISON OF FORCES:

Begin with the earlier correlation of forces →

Identify the principal projects of the analyzed period→
Characterize the current and potential forces of each block→
Compare these resources in each block→
Establish the tendency of forces and detect the significant movement of forces→
Determine the opportunities and threats of each block→
Characterize the Conjuncture in relation to the struggle of domination/hegemony→
Present proposal to modify the correlation of forces in the sense favorable to the defended
strategy→
Evaluate the analysis based on the results→

It does not imply a linear sequence, independent of the order these would be the elements
to take into account.

Questions

1. Explain in your own words each one of the 7 proposed methodological

steps.
2. What comments, contributions, changes, suggestions would you make to
these elements?
3. Do you have another methodological proposal?
4. Come up with an exercise of conjunctural analysis applying these or other
elements (you can follow the line of examples that you have been applying
throughout the Notebook.)

52