A Critique of the Naxalite View on Caste and DV Rao: Need for a More Inclusive Marxism

Shudras and Dalits (the lowered castes) are tortured even in today's Indian democracy while the Naxalites, who claim to fight against all discrimination, adopted an economy-based class-struggle-centric perspective on caste . Early Naxalites did not pay attention to caste , but DV Rao did . After Naxalbari (1967), Rao and T. Nagi Reddy opposed both parliamentary leftism of CPI (M) and left adventurism of CPI (M-L) . Rao delved into caste issues in PDR . In March 1974 Rao commented: “Caste system, a survival of slavery and feudalism, is linked with the present-day political system in India…Behind the ideological-political framework, there is the economic foundation of semi-slavery and semi-feudal relations in our country. … Therefore abolition of landlordism is the first essential task to root out the caste division and untouchability. Hence the need of an agrarian revolution…”. So, Rao too examined caste from an economic perspective although non-economic oppressions also existed . I would argue, caste is not necessarily a derivative of economic systems . Instigated by Gramsci, Laclau and Mouffe recommended for counter-hegemony through a 'chain of equivalence' opposed to global neo-liberal hegemony. I would contend, such opposition cannot mobilise different population groups under governmentality (Foucault) who might have different perceptions of Suffering. Since non-economic oppression or economic exploitation is associated with morality, I propose an ethico-political concept of Injustice in place of neo-liberal hegemony. This article detects four dominant elements of Hegemony in India: Justifying Devastation of Nature, Neo-liberal Values Defending Class Exploitation, Ethical Suppression of Community Rights [based on Gender, Adivasi, Caste, Minorities], Righteousness for Abrogation of Individual Rights . For Orthodox Marxism class exploitation causes suffering leading to class struggle. I argue that two forces impact struggle: Suffering and Injustice. Humans are animals, having morality. Or, on what ethical grounds did Marxism dismiss class exploitation, freedom fighters or religious devotees embrace suffering? Sufferings are of two types: Morally legitimate and Morally illegitimate (Injustice), the latter invokes Resistance. Suffering is caused not only by class exploitation, but also by other forms of Injustice. Downtrodden are ‘phenomenologically’ opposed to their ‘lived experience’ of Suffering by class exploitation. So, Orthodox Marxism conferred Injustice a subordinate position asserting that amoral Marx discovered scientific Historical Materialism. Borrowing from Vanessa Wills , I contend that there was always a moral dimension in Marx and we can interrogate Althusser who opposed Young Marx to Matured Marx. “Complete re-winning of man” persisted . For Marx, alienation is a key form of Suffering and Injustice : This is a consciousness of an inverted reality. ‘Morality’ is not a universal truth but ideological tool . Marx continued moral criticisms against capitalism and bourgeois rights claiming the individual, even the capitalist, is not free , even in 1867 . Marx dreamt of ‘history’ of man which can begin with humanity's rational control over its powers and the nature and “rich individuals” . “Human flourishing” of Marx's earlier ethics still sustained as “rich individuality” in the Grundrisse and Capital I . Without resisting all the dominant elements of Hegemony , Indian people cannot attain the moral goal of ‘rich individuals’ . A ‘more inclusive Marxism’ should blend class-struggle with other resistances against Injustice and power. Since Foucault discarded emancipatory revolution, we endorse 'optimism of the will' of Gramsci abandoning 'pessimism of the intellect' of Foucault. Undeniably, class-struggle remains significant vis-a-vis global corporate capitalism and neo-liberal hegemony. Whether class-struggle or gender/ Dalit resistance will play the central role at a given moment will depend on the particular configuration of power. Injustice is an entry point to a non-reductionist, non-essentialist (Richard Wolff) and overdetermined (Althusser) understanding of irreducible dialectics.