AFTER THE“LIBERATION”of the Iraqi city of Tal Afar fromthe IslamicState, in September 2017. The IslamicState got
its recruits overwhelminglyfromamong the victims of the U.S. invasion of Iraq.
IVORPRICKETT/NYTissueof caste. There has beena verypowerful idea, which
thesenewcaste-based elitespropagatemostvociferously,
thatthe materialinterestof a castecanonlybe represen-
ted by membersof thatcaste.Thiskindof castepolitics
oftencollideswithclass-based politics.My observationis
thatthe Left has supported moreor lessevery progressive
initiativearisingfromtheoppressedcastes,andit has
undertakennumerous initiatives of its ownon the caste
issueat the groundlevel, all of whichgo unreportedin the
media andunrecognised by thoseupwardlymobileelites.
Whenthe Leftgoesoutto organisethe urbanandrural
working classes,it necessarilyorganises peoplefromthe
oppressedcastes—preciselybecausemostof the working
class,especially amongthe rurallandlessandthe urban
sectorsof meniallabour, comesfromthoseoppressed
castes.So, yes,therehasto be greater sensitivity,greater
energydevoted to thisissue,greatmasseducation of Left
cadres on the questionof caste.However,the questionof
casteis currentlyso muchmonopolisedby thecaste-
basedelitesthatthereare greatlimits imposedon what
theLeftcando.Whateverit actually does shouldalso
receive its properrecognition. Thechargeof Eurocentri-
citygetslevelledagainstthe Leftmostlyby membersof
thoseupwardly mobileelites.
SomeLeft writers say that apart from somepassing
referencesto “class”thereare no concretedefinitions
of it by Marx.Mao Zedongwas brilliantin defining and
analysingclass in Chinese society.SamirAmintalks
aboutsix classesin modern capitalistsociety.In Marxist
vocabularywhatis class,and how it is different fromthe
liberal understanding of the categoryof class?
AnyonewhothinksMarxdoesnotdefine classmust
havea verymechanisticnotion of whatconstitutes a
“definition”.EveryMarxistwhohasever done classana-
lysis,Mao andSamirAminincluded, has derivedhis/her
categoriesof analysisfromMarx.Thatwouldnothave
beenpossibleif Marx’sownworkdidnotoffervery
precisecriteriafor determining whata classis. It is true,
though,thatMarxwasnot a positivist,noran American-
stylesocialscientistin searchof a 11-word—orseven-
word—definitionthatcouldbe markedrightor wrongin
a multiplechoice exam. Marxwasa dialectician. Forhim,
classis aboveall a relationalcategory—thatis, a social
relation,likecapitalitself.Neither meansof production
normoney are capitalas such;thesebecomemeansand
formsof capitalaccumulation onlyundercertaincircum-
stances.Likewise, thereis no proletariatin andof itself. It
existsonlyin relationto its polaropposite,namelythe
capitalistclassandonlywithinan elaboratestructure of
classrelationswhichin its totalitywe knowas capitalism.
If therewereto be no capitalismor a capitalistclass,
whichis whatthe word“communism”signifies, human
beingswouldstillworkbut therewouldbe no proletariat.
Varioustypesof working classesandclassfractionsexist
within an overall,historicallydetermined systemof
property,productionanddistribution.Wecanspecify
thestructural positionsandattributes of particular
classesor classfractions in anygivensocial formationbut
Marxismcannotoffer a formalistic,suprahistorical
definitionof classperse, a sortof definition thatwould
applyto all classesat all times.GRAMSCI’SCONTRIBUTIONThereis a narrativethat presentsGramscias purelyan
intellectualand culturaltheoristdivorcedfromclass
analysis.His writingsare also being treatedby someas
abreakfrom the Marxisttraditionup to that time,and in
someway highlycriticalof that also.How do you read