 Right, so I'm Nathan Hill, a professor in Chinese studies, and this is our next talk in this series. That's about Marxism in Asia and Asia in Marxism. And today's speaker is Professor Viren Murty from the Department of History at University of Wisconsin. He was educated at the University of Chicago, and has written. I will just try and summarize overview here, written various things about intellectual history broadly, especially in Japan and China. But today, he'll be telling us about Marxism in, let's say in Tamil speaking parts of India. The talk is titled, Back to the Future, Reflections on Tamil Marxism, Anti-colonial Nationalism, and Identity Politics. I'm going to just share my screen. I've put a bunch of different things together, so I might have to skip some of it. I've got about five sections and then a conclusion. So first an introduction, sort of why I'm interested in Tamil Marxism. I mean, what is someone like me who really works on, you know, China and Japan, why get into Tamil Marxism. I'll contextualize a certain debate in Tamil Marxism in relation to a larger question, namely the problem of identity politics. I mean, usually a lot of times identity politics is something that Marxists would criticize. But in, of course, Tamil Marxism, one of the interesting things it's a lot of it is about Tamil identity. So how do they bring these two together. In this there's a debate about Mao, so that may be a slight China connection. I had heard that there was going to be a talk about Mao, but now I guess maybe not in the series, but in any case, what I'm talking about now is not, it's not something very esoteric. It's some basic ideas and now that there's a debate about basically problem of contradiction. So when I go into the politics of tradition and then the Asiatic mode of production, I know you've already had a talk, I think it's by the Shanghu as a did something on the Asiatic mode here again will revisit that idea. And in this, in that part maybe we'll also talk a little bit about, you know, certain ways of reading Hegel on Asia. Two sections one on nationalism and then and then bringing it together with the kind of traditional contemporary debate. So why Tamil Marxism. So, let me say a little bit about my theoretical interest. And so the title back to the future the title of a book that I just finished and should be coming out by the in the summer, probably by the end of the summer. And this in this book, I deal with basically Chinese and Japanese, not just Marxism but but politics of time is what I call it. And there I the first chapter deals with value theory and the way in which value theory can turn into a kind of a modernization theory with a twist I'll talk about this at the end of my presentation. So back to the future narratives provide an alternative Marxist theory of the past, and in some cases they could be an example of theorizing from the global south in some sense. This whole series seems to be about that because it's about looking at Marxism but also looking at it from not just from Europe and America but from a larger perspective right and, and how do we think about that and you know some people have called it deep provincial Marxism specifically Harry Haritunian Japanese historian, who I'll talk about a little more. So this presentation points out the overlap. And this is again going to come at the end between what I call formal subsumption Marxism. This again will become clear at the end of the talk, and then Tamil identity oriented Marxism and showing how they could be both theoretically viable viable and both have like back to the future narratives. Now when I say back to the future narratives what do I mean, I mean those narratives that go back to a past, but they're actually trying to create a different future and in this context specifically a socialist future. This is part of a kind of global attempt to unite resistance from the standpoint of race cast right for especially in Tamil Marxism is important and then class. But at a time when these two movements seem to be separate right and this is where we often find you know even with the global interest in black lives matter. There was little interest in class when we when you thought about this as it's something we can also talk about in terms of, you know what I know, not that much about but what I want to learn more about is something like critical race theory and its limits with respect to class. So the debate forms a central theme of the thought talk that is this debate between sort of identity and class, and is relevant more globally, where they're different attempts to think racing and Marxism together. So Tamil Marxism brings together these two aspects right so that is identity and class but and but in in relation to these problems of post colonialism right so they're these two aspects of post colonialism and one is the critique of anti colonialism right as reproducing capitalist modernity. Now under this sometimes they have a critique of Marxism right so this is this is of course there's a big debate between post colonialism and Marxism that we could also talk about. But the second part is usually the search for alternatives in existing practices so and this might be connected to identity right and linking them to revolution and this we see in formal subsumption Marxism as well. Okay, so we should keep in mind here also now the link between identity politics and identity and the politics of tradition and language and that's going to become important in Tamil Marxism. So now coming to the deep the recent debate. So we have these two Marxists that I've been just beginning to read, especially the latter I've been focusing more on the latter the first time using more as a foil so and going to sacred and and with the moment. So the sacred is would be something he's more of the kind of, you know, orthodox Marxist maybe more on the modernization theory side, and then multiple and is all is much more about this kind of politics of tradition emphasizing, you know, identity as a possibility of resistance. And they have a debate that took place around in 2010. To actualize this debate we have to realize that language here language cast and nation come together. Now there's a bit of historical background that I have to cover here and it's not, I'm not going to spend much time on this but, but, you know, and and it's again something that has been written about quite extensively. But first the problem of identity right, often this identity something like Tamil Marxism or even, you know, a lot of the concepts that are that are used in these identity politics is given by the oppressor. And here you can think about, you know, missionaries such as Robert Caldwell wrote a book in 1856 called a comparative grammar of the Dravidian or South Indian family of languages. And this very, this book separates the Dravidian from the Aryan. Now this is a big debate there's an Aryan debate, you know, and I'm not going to get into that. But what's interesting for our purposes is that after this point, people could start using Dravidian as a kind of category of resistance versus the Aryan and so this became connected to cast politics right the Dravidian becoming. So that which is the lower caste even sort of maybe kind of a politics of equality again an anti caste movement and anti Brahmin movement especially. And this is very evident in the self respect movement by Evir Amasamy or Periyar as he's often called right. So this becomes this this then lays the groundwork for a lot of Marxists right so. So this opens a space to think about earlier the middle culture as Dravidian culture, which was socialistic so there's this idea. And we'll, we'll talk a little bit about this as I as I move on a couple of examples. So we'll return to this when we come to the problem of the politics of tradition. Okay, so both of the Marxists I mentioned. So going to say Karen and what the moment are connected to the Communist Party of India, Marxist, which, which was something that split from the Communist Party of India earlier that's another history that I won't get into. And one is perhaps the more more eclectic in his Marxist. Now they're too earlier figures that are worth mentioning just because they're, they're, they're well known. There's a sing God available to lean towards more towards science. These are one of the news in the, you know, during the founding of the Communist Party was he was there. And, and then give on them who's stressed more the politics of tradition. And these are sort of in some sense, you know, two real pillars of Marxism. Now, so there's the debate really is around the role of the past and nationalism in in in Marxism, especially the role of the past and identity. But we have to understand this contemporary debate in terms of some changes in our recent in Indian recent history. And so here, the movement I want to stress here is the movement from a kind of state centered capital accumulation to a kind of neoliberal worldview. So, basically, you know, the Nehruvian period, which is often thought of as, you know, some people even call it somewhat socialistic that I think is a is a mistake but it is it is more was more state centered and you had like import substitution all these kind of things happening at the time, right. And then, but you move from that to a neoliberal period right and this is especially the case in what with Modi, right. So, you know, many would say what more I decide it's already starting definitely later you know there's that this is a big debate, I mean this is a debate all over Asia when did neoliberalism actually start right. But you know, whatever one says today we're really in the midst of it in a lot of Asia. So, with this period of course there's there's a huge shift right so from the 80s, you go away from import substitution, right. So, this is where you then have, you know the Coca Cola was a big thing right because I mean I left in the actually the 80s and, and it was a time when you couldn't actually buy Coca Cola right and that was a big thing right and but but you know it was a big thing on both sides the left was our look you know the state is really doing something it's, you know resisting global capital and so on but you know by the 90s slowly all of this started changing. So, this of course creates a new kind of political, kind of political opportunities and situation right and so you have all these critics of, of neoliberalism as as you know, it's almost like a different form of imperialism and this is another debate that's being in Indian Marxism and something we can talk about because it's it's at the background of, of Tamil Marxism as well. This of course creates new kinds of inequality, and is also linked to new kinds of post in kind of sort of new kind of theoretical trends right and this is where the critique of post structuralism comes in. Now there are these people left behind the development right and a lot of people have written about this right. So, you have this idea the way in which neoliberalism really increases the inequalities and so on that that that were existing. But is also connected to identity politics and this is where we come to the context, content, content of the debate. We'll be looking at a number of essays by Mutumov and especially it's what many of them collected in this book called the politics or dialectics of Tamil identity, so, or that should actually be the dialectics of Tamil identity politics right so. So he draws on the Tamil past to connected to class based movements right so the anti colonial he's thinking about the re re kindling the anti colonial legacy in a neoliberal context. Now going to sacred and criticize them from the standpoint of class or more orthodox Marxism focusing on the economic. They're different from the value form critique, but they're united in this suspicion of a politics of the past right, and he wants to contend that the politics of the past is part of this post modern neoliberalism so you can't really use that right that that is going to constantly play into capital is the argument right and this is something that you know Marxist have made this point against post colonials and so on. And then back back to the future manuscripts I into I aimed to rescue the politics of the past from the Marxist critique and then reconnected with the goal of creating a socialist free future. So now let's turn to the Paul how the politics of the past you sometimes see in Marx right or the politics of the remnant. Now one obvious way is here, right, where he says in capital right alongside the modern evils we are oppressed by a whole series of converted evils arising from the passive survival of archaic and outmoded so modes of production with their accompanying train event and anachronistic social and political relations. We suffer not only from the living but from the dead, the dead, like the most as you live. So, this is a big, this is clearly at this point where really where it sounds like a very mass kind of modernization theory point point right that we've got to get rid of these you know these these out. We're being oppressed by that as well so we got to get rid of them as well that it's probably thinking of Germany. Now so this is where earlier extra economic forms persist. Now in this, in this debate, we now get to, to Mao right about you know how do we deal with this extra economic right. And going to say Karen contends that according to now we have to focus on the fundamental contradiction which is economic, and therefore I want us to get rid of these earlier forms of domination. That's that there's obviously that's obviously right, but mutimons responses to really think about the problem of imperialism and unevenness. So he claims that in Mao's essay the cure theory of contradiction should not be applied mechanically there various types of dialectics and works at work in contradictions. In an Eastern country right or the third world you could maybe say right here, here I'm not able to put also be considered the kind of lower country so such as China when one uses theory one has to be aware of both the universal and the particular dimension of contradictions. So, the problem in Mao and Mao himself talks about this right and he says for instance in Canada and capitalist society, the two forces in contradiction the proletariat and the bourgeoisie form the principle contradiction. The other contradictions such as those between the remnant and the bourgeois and the bourgeoisie are all determined or influenced by this principle contribution contradiction in a semi colonial country such as China, the relationship between the principle contradiction and the non principle contradiction presents a more complicated picture. And this is where he says that at certain times imperialism could be the main right imperialism when imperialism war launches a war of aggression against the country then the contradiction between imperialism in that country becomes the major contradiction. And in this case you could then say well that the nation form becomes important right so that's going to be something we can come back to. And Mutomohan then claims that Mao concretizes a way to ways to create a world beyond economic and non economic forms of domination. He highlights the importance of extra economic forms of domination by noting that Mao portrayed society as having complex overlapping contradictions which made it such that the revolution could not merely rely on the working class. And this is where the other identities have to come in right. So, we see this, this, many of you will obviously think about those out to say here and Mutomohan's also thinking of this and with the concept of over determination in Eastern society so over determination implies numerous forms of production which, which we see in various terms that now uses such as inter permeation, so on right, which is this different modes of production articulated with one another right and so this again brings us to the problem of multiple modes which will come to a second. So, but over determination is not the same every everywhere, even if it if it exists everywhere so I think the big question here is what unevenness has to do with this right what how does that unevenness what what is the role of unevenness here. So let's summarize what we've done so far. So, we've got. We now have two different Marxist interpretations of identity politics right one and interpretation of identity politics is postmodern and emerging after the defeat of class politics right so that's the critique of neoliberalism and identity politics go together. So the idea Mutomohan wants to put forward and that is the idea of an identity politics out of the over determined relations of colonial capitalist imperialism. So that is where you know identity politics before it was called identity politics was existing in anti anti colonial struggles right that's the point. Okay, so now let's examine the second form of identity politics and more grief and in greater detail. Right. So this is where we get to the politics of tradition and the asianic mode of production. So, so in colonial capitalist Indian society, it is a fact that that inherited foundations changed right so this is where everything is reconstituted. However, the asianic mode of production which has survived for a long time reveals itself by influencing identity politics. So the interesting part of the book unusual when I first read it I thought was kind of kind of strange but he brings in the asianic mode of production. But then as I read it I began to think well what's he doing with the asianic mode of production. And it's really the asianic mode of production is really representing kind of inherited forms of community. So this is first, both, first we could say both Hegel and Marx use the concept of the orient to show a path different from the West and that I think is the possibility here. Now since we have different ways of tackling the concept of that I'm thinking of the asianic mode of production, just as with the remnant. The usual mode is negative the asianic mode of production is outmoded, it's anti freedom, the core the concept itself has to be disregarded, right and that discarded and that's Perry Anderson is both the lineages of this lineages of state of the absolute So recently, so people have problematized this view, you know the losing gutter II story I don't have the gutter either but in I think it's in 1000 plateaus or anti edifice and one of those they they try to, you know, reuse the concept in a different way. And with the moment is sort of similar to this except he's trying to look at the possibilities of the asianic mode almost becomes something potentially positive. And if we look at Marx himself on this there are things we see that we look at it from a different perspective it's sort of nice right I mean this cooperation in the late of the labor process if we find it in the beginning of human civilization among hunting So this is a predominant feature of the agriculture of Indian communities is based on the one hand of common ownership of the conditions of production. And on the other hand the fact that those cases the individual has little torn himself free from the umbilical cord of his tribe or community as a bee from his hive right. So, both these characteristics distinguish this form of cooperation from capitalist cooperation. And what's interesting here, and this is, you know, what what's here is that it is there is something communal about this right and and but you know common ownership of the mode of production that sounds like conditions of that sound that could be socialism as well so there's a way in which what has to happen is this has to be sublated into something else right. So if it's sublated and it's if these things are already there then, well, that's, that could be something positive. So, so this is where part of the past could turn into the future. So let's go and context this idea of the communal remnants to to Marx's famous letters about, you know, there was a switch and we were talking I was talking to Nathan about this in the beginning. It's worth citing a little bit. And so this is where he's talking about these are cake types of communal property. And he says you know we shouldn't be afraid of these we should have they could actually we could actually be drawing on them, especially given that we are in a global capitalist world at this point. Now Harry Haratunian who I mentioned here in his book. After Marx also talks about this. And he says that this is, you know, these are possibilities for a new kind of historical community, right. And that I think is, you know, we can, this is where you have use value and non differentiation of subject and objects still prevailed, bringing with it possibilities for a different form of political community so this, I think is very much than this is someone who's, I would call him a formal subsumption Marxist so we'll come we'll come back to him later. And now let's think about this in the Tamil context. So with the more and claims that we need to build on the legacy of previous previous time a lot of it so themselves revived and reinterpreted classical Tamil literature and philosophy you reimagined socialism. So, some of these are not going to talk much about but you know I'm these are people I'm interested in learning more about myself, I mean one is there's a Buddhist revival at this period by someone named IOT does. I don't know a lot about Buddhist politics but again Buddhist politics connecting it somehow to socialism, and that is by, you know, sort of, you would call this kind of utopian socialism, but we have to sort of sublate this rather than negate it. And then the one that I already mentioned already began this project and look at more and sort of continuing this right five finding alternative narratives of socialism that hire that highlight both the lower casts and the problem of class. Now Buddhism is important from the standpoint of cast because it goes against the Hindu kind of ideal and this is where I'm big car would be important here right and, and I'm big current dots both sort of connect Buddhism to both the working people and the peasants. Now in the Tamil tradition there you'll often find it here again there's a lot of work to be done and I've only sort of scratched the service but, but the examples of how to, you know, how where what are some of the sources that he's looking at to try to develop socialist ideas. So people go back to through coral right he's, it's a text by to do a lot of our, and it was, it was written around the compiled around the third century BC to the fifth century. See. Now the, the, the passages in through color that would come on highlights are the following. So one is, you know, the feeling of I in mind or not nothing but vanity and pride, he crushes them entered the world higher than than that of the gods. So this idea of self negation, he wants to connect to a kind of communal idea, right. So points to a communal form of identity but it might appear that we're soft, sacrificing subjectivity here so it's like, and this was of course Hegel's critique of the Orient. But Hegel also writes positively about this kind of unity beyond the self and, and this is where you know we can go back to the Hegel problem of that I think that one was talking about. So here the, the, you know, Chatterjee Partha Chatterjee makes a draws on Hegel in a very similar way, and in to to what the mohan's drawing on on Marx's Asiatic mode of production to sort of flip it, and say that you know if you look at the family substantiality, you have this whole discussion of love which is all about the unity of one consciousness with another the overcoming of self consciousness or it's not. It's not just my self consciousness but the renunciation of my independent existence with another and the other with me so. So I'm not going to read this is a very nice passage but I'm not going to read the whole thing because I think I'm probably taking a little too much time here. But, but the point here that the Chatterjee tries to do is to try to flip this and say again here wait a second we've got here, a kind of socialist potential here. Even though Hegel is going to say the problem is that it negates the, the individual and come to that moment in a minute. So the point here is that is both in the family and that's the description of love and the asiatic mode of production we have the substantiality of community that in some sense could could be something that we could draw. The problem that Hegel sees here of course is the destruction of subjectivity or the lack of subjectivity right. And, you know, and this is where Mutimohan is the he here sites CLR James to sort of, again, citing Hegel, which is where he says the ultimate truth is not just substance but also subject right so. So, we have to think about the idea of fruit and this is Hegel in the phenomenology. And so we are citing Hegel so I'm citing Mutimohan citing CLR James citing Hegel, but, but any case the point here is Mutimohan is trying to break out of a linear narrative where self the self interest of civil society and capitalist colonialism are necessary before one can get to the, to unite substance and subject. And so he finds this unity, even in earlier texts and this is where we have come to the record again. The same, the same text but the same number 972 where he says the manner of birth is the same for all human beings but their reputations vary because they differ in the lives they lead. And here I think that the real interesting point is this say Toriel, which is really, which is really Toriel is actually a term for work so I could you could translate it that way, in which the work they do and that is the that's their subjective input really puts it differently but you can, but you can you can then see how this could be mobilized against cast right because of the birth they're all the same right. And yet, you know they're there, it's the work that they do that that the changes things right. And so this is one way of thinking about substance and subject together. Now, this is a kind of textual kind of critique but their argument is that you're also you also have practices that develop these critiques. And now we've shown how the politics of the Asiatic mode of production the politics of the remnant of the politics tradition come together. What these have in common is the use of earlier forms of community against capital capitalism and we see this in the Zasiewicz letter. Now in the modern period, especially in the context of empire and imperialism, the form that this takes is the nation. And so now we come to the next section which is the politics of tradition and nationals. Now in this we often have, you know, the question of whether the nation form is going to exist and so on and but but I think the, the, the real question here in relation to identity politics is a kind of the question of how one understands anti colonial nationals right. So a new manner of uniting substance and subject sort of brings us to the problem of anti colonial nationals. So after all part of the task of finding socialism and Tamil classics concerns the construction of a Tamil national identity, but this is not necessarily become the construction of a Tamil national state right. And so that means that this idea of the nation is connected to a larger idea of Indian socialism right, and eventually of course world right. So here at the sub-state level Tamil Marxism such as Mutamo and are creating a national identity. So he then compares this to the conception this to auto auto bowers I'm going to talk a little bit about auto auto bower here, because I think he's sort of relevant in his because he also separates the nation and the state. So if you think of power and Tamil nationalism power actually talks about cast but he's much more in the part that he's probably more interested in his Jewish identity. But that gets us into another interesting topic, but one perhaps for another day. So, first, some Marxists and the idea that the nation would become less important this time for progress while Austro Marxist such as power believe that nations would continue. Moreover, and so this becomes that brings up the whole issue of nations and capitalism which is another issue that we might want to get into. So more of a Mutamo and focuses on power because he believes that there's an important distinction between Central and Eastern Europe as opposed to Western Europe, and power is thinking a lot about Central and Eastern Europe right. So Eastern Europe are sort of in his opinion, I think an interesting idea that's more similar to the oppressed nations of the world. So, so you can sort of separate and stop thinking of Europe as one unity, right. Okay, so in Central Europe bowers thinking of the Austro-Hungarian Empire which consisted of numerous nations right including Hungary and so on right. So the question here again, so the relation to the Indian context is sort of interesting right. So for this reason, power did not consider language as the basic basis of the nation which might seem to go against one of the premises of Tamil Marxism. But, but we should not forget that as we have seen for example in meetings of court to record Tamil is actually a culture, right, rather than just so that's why pun powder, how to seal is really cultural politics, or politics of tradition. So moreover, since power was thinking within an empire he separated nation from state. So let's look at a couple of sections bowers. So here, the first citation really from power really talks about a national community of culture, right, achieving self determination, right, and that's within so this is all within a state right so so they're going to. So this is where you get sort of identity and difference. So, again, again, he's also talking about the thinking of the nation as cultural rather than territorial again separating it from the state. And this, he thinks is going against is a kind of imperialism right because imperialism might be, you know, much more, much more of a territorial principle. So this is where you get a different principle where you kind of, you know, you have the personality principle and so on. And, and he's interested in kind of the minority groups right and that's that again could is something that I think with the moment season is important for the Tamil position. Okay, so now, this type of cultural definition of the nation is, of course, I could be ideal and multinational states such as such as India where where you have all these problems of diversity and the question of course is how do we think of a socialism that that is able to, you know, respect that diversity. So the Marxist dimension of Tamil Marxism lies in drawing on so called backward regions to confront capitalism and form the formulated native narrative community. Now in the midst of the discussion of our movement argues that the nation draws on earlier communal structures and plays on the, on these terms in a crew, which is like an ethnic community and, and or which is a tribe in which is, which is ethnic community. And here again he brings back zasulich right so that you can then have, you know, various versions of zasulich going on and then somehow connect. So now summary of this section before moving on to the final section. So the politics of what the most nationalism complex because it thinks within the context of empire but also in terms of, of community. Now anti colonial nationalism has to be different from imperialist nationalism and this is again the, an old post colonial problematic right this was back to Chatterjee all of those people were sort of critical of anti colonial nationalism because it reproduced the structures of domination. So let's examine now how this problematic resonates with contemporary debates and Marxism and this is where I'll slowly come to, to value theory. So Tamil Marxism and recent debates around around Marxism. So, much of what with the long saying might seem counterintuitive one seen from the standpoint of certain dominant strands of contemporary Marxist theory. There's been a trend in the past few years just stress the global dimension of capitalism and constantly and constantly consequently pay less attention to unevenness, especially in so far as unevenness appears as an alternative, or the roots of an alternative. So from this perspective, focus on earlier forms of community to confront capitalism is considered reactionary or potentially fascist. And actually, when I was when I mentioned singhara singhara veyler and jivan and the singhara singhara veyler was a little concerned about Tamil identity because, you know, he's writing in the 30s and for these can start it could lead to fascism. And I think it could but I don't think that that's that is that is that is necessary that is a necessary development. So in other words, if such or if such works identify an evenness, they don't highlight the possibility that this has a possibility of resistance and this is what I'm thinking of the mainstream kind of Marxist. In recent works. There's a lot of works that stress this kind of global capitalism and this is often often connected. We can talk about how the value form fits fits in here. Now my own earlier work on John Diane actually follows the, the, the more this this kind of much very very much value theory focused focusing on moist postone will be one of the people who really expresses value here. And I'm still somewhat indebted indebted to his work. But, but I, but I'm also concerned. I have my concerns so Andy Liu is a recent book on South Asia, both both South Asia and East Asia, one of the few books that, and often is a very interesting economic history of these two places, but it's very much grounded in this kind of value theory and he says that one of the suggestions offered in this book is, is that the conditions of the possibility of abstract human labor, premised theories of value turned upon specific human limitations and determinative social practice whether living in Glasgow or Shanghai. So he's wants to get any writing in the early 20th late 19th century, I think it's you got looking at this kind of a total global picture that again where unevenness ceases to be that important. Because imperialism is not that important either. So this is a tendency to reorient capitalism away from specific class relations to abstract abstraction and a specific theory of value. Right, so you don't really have to you can have all kinds of forms of labor but you're still abstract domination. The side effects of all of this is the the revolutions. Basically we're all capitalist. I mean they didn't that there's not there's not a real big that the whole the whole socialist movement of the 20th century is now subsumed under under productivity or capitalist right. But you, and this is a what's what's great or interesting about this book is it's actually very in some ways pro it's trying to argue for the global south saying hey wait a second they're not marginal they, they're also capitalist, they're great so they're everybody can be happy and be capitalist right. And it's a weird place that we that Marxism has got itself into so. So like the source basically saying, you know, in the most productive years the gains and in. So, you know, the gains of, of like agriculture really grew right is what he wants to say after the, the Great Leap forward. The trend so that this trend in revisionist histories of the revolution which try to which rescue them by showing them they, they, how well they accomplished capitalist goals. In effect, what I say is they take their revolution out of revolution. Now it's not surprising that this global position has been very easily appropriated by non Marxist works. And take this example like global fort is right, which looks at Nazi Germany, Soviet Russia, and, and it also looks at compares it to the US. And so if you think about this. What it does is it says well yeah I mean, okay so you've got Soviet Russia that what it's being socialist sees us to matter anymore. So while these books are laudable and bringing couple of global capitalism and picture picture, they write as if the socialist movements and imperialism are unimportant. One of the important points in this narrative is not only the downplaying third world Marxism but also the whole 20th century socialist experience and I think these two are connected. So Marxism, of course, is in some sense, I mean it's it's it's an it's an alternative to like Soviet socialism but but definitely Chinese socialism was was a big inspiration there. So against this emphasis on capitalism which turns the world into a night in which all cows are capitalist. So some Marxists have stressed formal subsumption. And here there's a lot of discussion and somehow I get into what we mean by formal subsumption Marxism. So there's been a trend against the homogenous homogenizing vision of capitalism this making a space for us to rethink movements such as Tamil Marxism. Some scholars are promoting this term and draw creatively on Marxist concepts of real and formal subsumption. I'm going to read this whole thing but basically because because Marx says something very specific about real and formal subsumption and I think the, the theorists who use this. And to I'll mention here must have been the auto and Harry Haritunian. They're there, they're actually using it in a more broad sense. So initial that the, the, the specific meaning of it is is that so formal subsumption is when capitalism first begun begins. It's the use of earlier forms of production right, and it says without changing the character of the actual labor process and the actual motive working. Right but then, eventually, you then get to in one narrative right you then revolutionize the actual motive labor right and the real nature of the labor process as a whole. And that's real subsumption right so so that's so that's the very specific idea, but I think what's happening with formal subsumption is that we're now beginning to talk about it more as things that cannot be completely subsumed by capital. So the formal subsum so many of the formal subsumption theorists. They use the term form of not merely to discuss labor, although that's part of it, because you know the various assillage ideas again could be considered a formal subsumption. But to speak about practices and experiences that are not consumed subsumed by, by capitalist right and this is where it intersects with chakraborty is a history to right where you have, you know history one being the history of capital where you know everything and history to being these, these kind of experiences that that cannot be completely subsumed right and these are all themes I think in the Marxism. So I've already suggested how such experiences might be part of a socialist project so I'm not going to talk about that more. So let me summarize here so through through referring to formal subsumption we might see the possibility of constructing different paths out of capitalism by drawing on earlier forms of community. These earlier forms of community might be embedded in texts traditions and practices so they're different kind of ways of thinking about this. To some extent the right wing is already sort of doing this and then you find narrative much many more narratives of community on the right than you do on on the left. Now conclude. So, so the new this new version of reading formal subsumption returns us to what we call back to the future narratives right which is, which I see in with the models Marxism. Camille Marxism suggests that we might need to rethink empire nation in relation to socialism that was the auto power movement, a moment. And then, but the back to the future narrative and now I talked about the limits to this presentation is only the first step in a larger socialist vision, which again has to be informed by a theory of struggle struggle towards a post capitalist society. This is a larger question that goes beyond the scope of this talk, and I'll stop there and look forward to your comments. In my experience as a consumer of books about Marxism. There's a tendency that people are either kind of theory heavy or, or historical, and I really feel like this paper. There's a lot of theory and a lot of history very beautifully intertwined to some extent. Ethnicity language class and cast are all orthogonal yeah you have Brahmins who speak Tamil have very dark skin. Yeah. So I'm just curious about like this interest in seeing kind of Dravidians as non grammatical which of course has a certain you know historical truth to it there's no doubt but yeah, like, like how, how does, how does the sort of question of, of Tamil speaking Brahmins, you know, fit fit into this for, I don't know, either for like Tamil speaking Brahmins or for Tamil speaking Marxist theorists. Well that's good I mean I think that's a great question and one that is definitely very close to my heart because I mean my mother was a Tamil speaking Brahmin. So, so, you know and when I go to India I'm often around Tamil speaking Brahmins and then most of them are not. I don't know if Tamil makes them any more Marxist, but, but I think, but I think the question and I think it goes to the heart of the whole movement because what you end up having is a question of what kind of Tamil are you talking about right, and they really re, you know this, this was something that I didn't get into in the talk but you know they began to rethink the language, right and, and, and since you're a Sanskrit scholar I mean, you know, it, it really shows I mean in the use of the use the attempt to avoid Sanskrit because the whole point of there saying well what is the difference between Brahmin Tamil and well first of all the Brahmins, they have a they have a bit of a dialect, right. So that's, that's one thing that auto automatically in fact I didn't know this, because I actually started studying Tamil only, you know maybe a couple of years ago. When I started thinking about this project and, and then it's when I realized that, you know, all the Tamil that I'd heard when I was younger is Brahmin Tamil it's not, it's not pure Tamil. You know, and the most obvious example is in some of the verb conjugations right. Did you say that they know you're you Brahmin, you know, and, and, and, and, and the thing is, so you do avoid all of that. And you use, use indigenous Tamil words, and that but of course, they're obviously Brahmins if they're because if you really, if you study classical Tamil literature. Well, that's what you're that's the kind of Tamil you're going to get. And now this caused all kinds of problems right because, you know the people who are going to do that and learn all of that are not going to be the masses. So this is where then Jeeva Nandam had to rethink a lot of this and go back to folk and so it becomes a really complicated a really complex question that you begin to have to really go to a lot of these, you know, you have to go to, you know, folk traditions and so on and, and in some sense this is something that, you know, I think they're parallels to the Chinese traditions right because like the Chinese Revolution have to keep going. You know they've got this language okay we've got we've got, you know, plain speech but then it's a language that, you know the masses are not really that familiar with and then they have to go back and rethink it. You know, go right and go to, you know, the countryside and looks, you know, collect songs and so on. And, you know, I think there's some of that going on as in this context as well. But, but yeah, so it's a it's a large question. Yeah. Well maybe this transitions kind of smoothly into another question I have which is sort of the what's the. This guy's name by Mutu Mutu, Mutumon Mutumon. I mean he sounds like, first of all, just a great Marxist theorist and makes you wish I could read Tamil. Maybe you'd get to get him translate. Well, let's say, I think there's a danger with with, which is sort of related to what we were just talking about with, let's call it high Marxist theory which is you know that you go into a sort of factory and you and you say like, you know, well, Kowski says this and Rosa and so I wonder what, like, like, does he have any kind of concrete revolutionary political vision of like, so this is so in, you know, right here in India right now we should fight Modi and neoliberalism by doing X. Yeah, I mean I think that's something I'd have to look into a little more I mean because they're all they all have connections to the Communist Party and so that could be, you know, but this is the big problem with with Marxism is that we are so, we are so out of the mainstream that that concrete political practices. It becomes almost banal sometimes I mean, yeah, that you know that you know like as you said I mean we have to fight Modi we've got to fight, you know the Hindu right, you know, but all that of course you can connect it to cultural politics right. What, you know, and we have to forget you go against the Brahmin elite, you know, because who are very pro Modi even though Modi is not a Brahmin but, but you know that. So there's, there's that you then you know it becomes something that you know maybe most left liberals would would probably also agree to so I think that the big question is going to be well how do we, how do we get from there to something further, right. And how do we get from that, how do we link that to a larger movement and this is where maybe class is going to come in. Maybe the best we can do anywhere now is in the you touch on this is is is kind of finding ways of articulating the sense of belonging that are not overtly on the right. Yeah. And then that you know that I mean that it's, I actually say that like the Hindu to a movement, you know, saying, you know, global capitalism is right there in the Rig Veda is is no is a remarkable political if not intellectual achievement, you know, and that's where I think you guys are no no but socialism is there, you know, yeah, yeah, and I sort of like that. Yeah, I think that is the that is the real issue that I think that, you know, we've, we've come to a place where, you know, and then I think that the Modi is really interesting because there's a nationalism there doesn't. And I think that what's happened, I think is that the left has had a much and the Marxists have had a much more difficult time dealing with nationalism. And I think that's what's exact that especially happens when we stress global capitalism. Right, that we end up saying and the end and I think post colonialism has done a bit of damage on this too, even though you know they're because because they are so much about deconstructing the nation to right so that we've deconstructed the nation so much that it becomes much much easier for the right to just take a monopoly on the nation for. And I think that that is something that, you know, has very, I think the left is only recently begun to realize that right that that that it really needs. You know, it's, I think in Indian Marxist circles, I think the problem of caste was also neglected. And that I think is again some reason why Tamil Marxism is, you know, has a slightly better track record perhaps because of the whole history of Periyar and the whole that movement there was there was a little more of consciousness and I think, you know, also note that the South definitely Tamil Nadu and Kerala I've always been a little more resistant to, to Modi, right, and the BJP I mean there's actually elections going on in Coimbatore right now so. You know, and they're trying to mobilize against, you know, keep the keep the DMK I mean which is against both, you know, Congress and the BJP. I have a very specific question at you which is, when you're talking about value form analysis, to me that that that makes you think immediately immediately of Mikhail Heinrich send the kind of noia Marx lecture like is am I right. Yes, Mikhail Heinrich is one of them. I think. Yeah Mikhail Heinrich for sure, you know, there's a whole the noi mark like lecture lecture and you know post on is the one I know best because I, I was very influenced I am very influenced by his work. I'm not in this but I mean I think, and if I were to continue and say, you know, where do we go from here where what does what does any politics of tradition have to deal with. And keep in mind it's going to be some of the things he was talking about like the changing composition of capital and those kind of things right. I do. I think that the, the, but there are many issues connected to value marks, very value theory Marxism I mean it's really the focus on the value form. And those first three chapters of capital. And the question I think a lot of questions is how do we understand those I think, how do we think of those in terms of the larger society are those are those. Those social forms that that unproblematically become global. Right. So that my question is, when we talk about global capitalism we also have to think about how it globalizes. It sounds like for you, the, or maybe, maybe the issue is in, you know, when we move from concrete labor to abstract labor what like what is the actual sort of what is the actual social practice that that implements that and, and how global is, is, is that a very sort of rough and ready critique of, of the, the CCP in the 1950s is they were like well you know, like as long as we believe, you know, strongly enough we don't actually have to worry about, you know what, what agriculture outputs really are. So, so I think there's on the one on the one hand I think everyone thinks there is, there's some sort of fundamental material determination of, of societies. On the one hand, it seems like you're saying it's very it's very easy for even Marxist in thinking about value theory to to you to universalize and dehistoricize the, the, the categories of capitalist abstraction. Yeah, yeah I think I think that's part of it I think, you know and you mentioned Mikhail Heinrich and I because my Mikhail Heinrich I would think of the many, the people I've read and I, you know I can't say I've read all of them. He's one of the most careful. And, and I think that's, because, you know, he, there are a lot of conflations that I think some of the others make that that he doesn't. And so the first one is the relationship between capitalism and market. So that if you think about postone. One of the things he wants to say is that there is no, you know, that, that you can have capitalism without a market. And that then allows you to have to talk about state capitalism. And so, and this is the reason why because because the value form is something that can operate without the market right so that is that is the point that he wants to make. Now Heinrich doesn't go there, right so Heinrich steps back for making that so that. So there that's one thing is just just the relationship, you know between like market and capitalism. And, and, you know, but when you make that distinction well then you get into another issue, which is, you know what is the status of those first three chapters of capital, right. When he's talking when Marx is talking about exchange right and things like that. And he says that you don't have the category of wage labor yet. And then the question is how do we are those in this is I'm here I'm influenced by a French Marxist named Jacques bidet, who, who, you know, he has a very interesting theory that the first three chapters in some sense are talking about the market but without without capitalism yet, you know, and then when then you have a chapter that is about the transformation of money into capital, and then you get capital. But then then that makes a very interesting shift between these two and then and then there's a political moment. You know which is about, you know, the boundaries of capital. Right. And that is a there's a political problem there and that gets us to the nation and the state and I think the real the real problem is is is a very old problem in Marxism and that is how do you theorize the state, you know since Ralph Miliband and Paul Ansa's we've been we've been talking about that and it's, it's, and I think what what's very interesting about value theory Marxism is that it's able to it almost in many cases and I in here again Heinrich, you know, he's got an essay he's got an essay on the state and stuff which it's okay which we again sees the problem. But I think, but I think often the value form almost tries to trump the state and say well the state is also an expression because bureaucracy is also an expression of the value form. And then I think then then we're in some trouble, I think. The other the other problem is the globalization of capital again is connected to the state, because that's how you can theorize imperialism right well often the value theory Marxist will say well no the imperialism is not not that important, because it's a secondary kind of thing right the real thing is capitalism. The real issue. As I was trying to present it is really a question of, you know, how can we can we draw on identity politics for in for Marxism and I think that that's that's really an important issue for us. There's so much of the liberal left, you know, and in some sense the right are also are all connected with identity politics because if you think about Modi. There's a kind of identity politics with him to it's a Hindu identity and it's a Hindu identity politics that sort of connected to a kind of neoliberal project. What's so great about that is an ideology is that it can get people, it can get different people, right, you can have people who are my relatives in India who will support Modi because of the economic stuff right. You know, well you know all that you know anti Muslim that's not really serious it's just, you know, there he's really about developing the economy right, but, but then, but then you can also have those who are sort of anti imperialist, who can also support Modi. And this is what's really mind boggling because he's so pro American some ways. I mean we'll have to see what he does with the Russia, Russian issue, you know, there are a lot of people who are, you know, sort of pro sort of Indian identity and maybe a bit anti west who also can support Modi so so he's able to grasp these two right, these two sides, more broadly, I guess you know we can, if we think about the way people are rallying around race and so on like that and things like that. The question for Marxism is, can we then, you know, connect that to a larger kind of movement that that has a vision that goes beyond just affirming identity. And so that somehow affirming identity has to be connected to something broad, broader. And, and so that's where you're going to have to really rethink what what identity means, right. There was a little discussion in the papers, after the publication of volume three where basically, you know various people most famously, Bavaric were sort of waiting to say like I was just all nonsense and now that volume can tell yeah. And, and a lot of that centered around this, this transition I don't remember exactly where it happens in capital, but where where he's like, Okay, you know we have the whole thing with the so funny actually that though like the weaver who sells you buys the Bible and you know. And, and like you said there's no wage labor in that whole discussion. So, so I think it's, it's clear that angles thought and one of the positive viewers thought that at least this is just a sort of a kind of methodological discussion, where we where we're introducing different, you know determinations and so we say okay well here's the commodity, which, and his description commodity comes straight out of out of Smith, right. And then, and then it's some, and then you have each of these sort of terms of the screw right. Yeah, and the, you know the interesting thing actually is that you know in simple commodity exchange then, then, at least in theory, commodities will sell at their properties. Right. And so it's actually this, this the introduction of the movement of capital investments across sectors is what throws things off of their labor value so it's actually linked to the transformation problem. And, and, and then this reviewer had said okay this is great theory but you know it's just a, it's just an analytical device. Yeah. Yeah, but then angles wanted to say no no no like historically speaking, like commodity markets were free and labor markets were free before capital markets were free. So this is not a theoretical thing it's it's actual historical process, and has a discussion about, like, you know which societies he thinks had, you know, like, like where in history, in terms of time and space can we actually find simple commodity. Yeah, yeah, yeah. So, so that is a big debate and I think, and I think a lot of people were sort of critical of that of it being historical. And I think that's how value theory came because the, the, the, the, the thing about the value theory reading that's sort of interesting is that it's it's very Hegelian and for that I should sort of like it. But, but, but I think, I think bidet has a point when he says, you know, one of the things like you mentioned with the weaver and so on. If you look at that first chapter. A lot of it is, it's it's artisanal labor. It's, it's people coming in it's almost, if you think about it, it's like, you know, I was just reading some work by a guy named as he's a Renaissance historian named Michael Martoccio. And it's all about markets in the 12th century in Italy and then bidet draws on this as well. And you see you have markets, but it's not a it's not capitalist markets they're like there's there's there's another logic that's that's working there. And it almost seems like he's getting that I mean it's not quite being historical, although it there could be historical places where this, there's something close to that. Once you get into the history, then you've got to get into a lot of the externalities that are there like there's maybe an idea of honor that's influencing the value and interestingly and this I only know from Martoccio's work and that is that, you know, there's, they could actually they were actually selling places, you could actually sell sovereignty, right. But, but that's, but also that's also relevant because by the time you get to the third, you know, fourth, fifth chapters, you begin to already get an enclosed space where capitalism is taking place right so that, so that you begin to get the boundaries of capital and laws right and things like that that that come in and a lot of the Marxist work and is really happening in that abstraction. Well, I mean he was quite explicit about this methodologically says you know I'm assuming away all foreign countries so I don't think that's. No, no, that's not a problem I mean it's something that comes up at the end right when you get the very primitive religion. Yeah. And, but, and I think the other point that you made I made with the transformation problem is also important right because there is the idea that things are selling at their value. And that's a big, that's a big, a big issue, you know, because value is socially necessary labor time right. That's a that's a difficult idea to think about in real life and I remember when I was writing my dissertation so the first book was really was something that my my advisor came, you know, I was in my advisor's office you didn't like all this value theory and he said, he goes, you know, but how do you explain the price of a shuttle the feet. You know, oh that's a monopoly price that doesn't that's that doesn't have to be covered by value theory, but. And then he goes what about what about my my daughter wants a Gucci bag you know yeah yeah yeah yeah yeah all these things. And so the problem is that it's so value and price and because you know you go to the economics department and they're only interested in price. Yeah, yeah, they don't they don't price and value are the same for that. Right. And so, so then you've got to sort of explain that no what he's not not interested in sort of predicting prices, but he's trying to get it a logic of society. I think not not interested is exactly the right way of putting it, because this is what like, when, you know, when I, when I, I don't know, when I run into people and there's like, what you're reading Marxist economics, it's all it's all wrong because it can't predict prices like, you know, you don't become Marxist to play the stock market. So, getting back to what you were saying. Yeah, it sounds like that the strong implication of Marxist presentation, is it capitalism is a form is a mode of production among many that are compatible with the market. And that the the implication then is if you don't have a market. That's not capitalism and so that's what I always you know when I read this kind of state capitalist literature I always think, why don't we just call this a different mode of production. You know, I mean, maybe it's a small point but no no that's an important point because, because when you call it capitalist, you seem to be legitimating it see that's the weird thing about our world today that, you know, like, like Andy Leo's book I mean he's it's it's it's pro China. Right. And, and this was the thing because I, this was one of the things that was very interesting when I brought Moishpo stone to China, right. And, and we had a, we had a discussion with a lot of Chinese leftists, right. And he was, you know, talking about his theory of value, the value form and all that's global capitalism and all of that. And he talked about China and he was trying to praise China. And he says, you know, Mao made a great contribution to China by being such a good capitalist. You know, and they're, and they're furious. And he's like, he's like, no, no, I'm praising you, I'm praising Mao, you know, and, and, and you know that is the it's a lot of it has to do with that whole idea of, you know, state capitalism. Now I'm really, I know area I don't know anything about but I think that's kind of close to the reigning ideology, right is that like, you know, you know, Dung realized that we needed to release the potential of the forces of production and that it's a little more primitive accumulation. Thank you very much and and everything will be fine in 2050 when we when we actually move when we have when when our, when we've had enough capitalism to move to socialism right so I think that that would sort of imply that to the extent that Maoism was a success. You know, let's say I think, you know, I think Dung and and she would, would agree with past on then, you know, that's my sort of yeah sort of in some ways they would I think, you know, and unlike the orthodox Maoist who wants to say that there's something else. Yeah, yeah, yeah. And so this you know the narrative of the Cultural Revolution, right that says, you know you want it and that that I think you know that narrative I think is sort of, you know, India is India is interesting to bring into this because India sort of goes into in two different ways there's the Indian there's some, you know branch in I think now the CP I am is really pro China. I think even yeah more because they. So then they they end up having to say that China even today is sort of is sort of socialist right, or at least not capitalist, you know something something along those lines so they're going to, and I think that, you know, the the Maoist party, you know, there's a there's a communist party that leans towards Mao right and they would be much more, you know that no no there's, they're very anti contemporary China. Yeah, so that. So I think that kind of thing is still so the new left is is in China is a different is a difficult kind of beast because they they're somewhat you know when it comes to China America relations they're very pro China. They're very pro Mao, you know way that you know they want to keep that as a vantage point to criticize the present. And I think that what for stone was doing is sort of almost taking, taking the rug out from yeah yeah yeah I see that. Yeah, because, and I think that, and I think that that's really, you know this whole idea of, you know whether the Union and China and communist China were both capitalist I mean that really takes away the whole 20th century socialist movements right, because then with that all third world Marxism go right because they're all just state centered modes of capitalist accumulation right who that didn't understand the value for