The political, sovereignty and hegemony in carl schmitt and antonio gramsci: A comparison from historicist perspective

The economic and political changes and wars experienced since the beginning of the 20th century have caused the state as a whole to enter into various crises. These crises have been tried to be resolved according to current conditions and historical purposes. At this point, two types of crisis solutions come to the fore. Either a conservative, authoritarian solution that aims to save the state from its current situation and restore it to its former power, or a revolutionary solution that aims to establish a new order by eliminating the state and all the values it represents. The main issue that Schmitt and Gramsci aim with their work is also related to this. Both thinkers were interested in the question of how to provide political leadership in crisis conditions. In order to answer this question, they have come to a forward-looking guiding position both by making retrospective analyzes and by developing various concepts. In terms of how political leadership can be achieved, both thinkers have similarities in terms of the historical sources they feed on. The basic line that separates them has been the relationship established with the public during the establishment of the leadership. Schmitt aimed to develop a sovereign state, thinking that the people should be created for the state. Gramsci, on the other hand, thought that the state should be created by the people and aimed to develop a theory of the state according to the people. While Schmitt argues that the state should build its people; Gramsci argues that the state should be built by the people. As a result, this study aims to compare the two thinkers with their historical references by emphasizing the similarities and differences of Gramsci and Schmitt's ideas on addressing and constructing the state. Keywords: Antonio Gramsci, Carl Schmitt, State, Sovereignty, Hegemony, The Political.