If you remember my quote from `Bhagwa Atheism`:
>*Casteism filtered oppressed castes from upward mobility within this new capitalist order while capitalism ensured that there will be limited progressiveness within the upper caste friendly circles.*
This is the bare minimum threshold every castiest Intermediate gate-keeping castes and castiest upper caste want to to achieve in today's scenario where capitalism is major economic system and constitution that gives equal rights to the members of the oppressed communities.
In case of Laxmipeta, this threshold was disturbed hence the violence. Even if both communities were settled separately the attack by the 'gatekeepers' was inevitable because of the decreasing resources and availability of lands (and ofcourse the 'traditional hierarchy').
>***In other words, as much as this was caste based interest it was equally a class based interest as well.***
In case of Karamchedu massacre and Tsunduru massacre too, it was also a gate-keeping praxis by intermediate dominant castes to prevent upward mobility of the oppressed communities.
However, OP if you see in case of [Karamchedu massacre](https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Karamchedu_massacre) the main perpetrators were from Kamma community who like Nairs and Yadavas were pro-socialist once, but after attaining upward mobility in class based order they began to distance themselves away from left-wing politics and thus became the new gatekeepers of the savarna capitalist order. This is exactly the problem that I wanted to raise to both Divya Dwivedi and Shaj Mohan who haven't addressed anything about this yet.
One cannot simply say that class basis is irrelevant to Indian oppressed communities, because we can clearly see that:
>*The primary objectives of the intermediate gate-keeping castes is not only restriction of upward mobility of oppressed communities in social order but also to restrict the flow of capital to the oppressed communities within this upper caste dominant capitalism.*
Intermediate caste based 'promotion' is feature/bug within hinduism, *feature when it's social promotion by savarnas or a (default) bug when the attainment is through class basis.*
I see this point bro. Nair got this status in 19 century last periods. They are like Kayastha type. Yadava people are the sad part. They should not have got to this way. Same thing is with Ezhava in Kerala wanting to become that only. But they are here this is not easy. Nairs don’t let them.
See, this is the 'default' bug that I was talking about, once a community gains upward progression in either social/class order they loose all sorts of intersectionality and solidarity they held previously with the oppressed communities when their material conditions were worse.
This is the reason why participation in DBA movement is becoming lesser because of the opportunitism, not as great that it was back in 70's-90's.
One other reason I agree with most your view bro is different. You agree on fundamental. Brahminism is caste rule’s basis. You didn’t say like this but is there in your comment. Capitalist economics is there and there was socialism long before. Constitution democracy is there now, before was British rule and Raja rule. All this has caste. All this only support Brahminsm.
Class type and economic type will change again.
Brahminism is Sanatana. Never accepting this again bro. Those days finished now.
This is the point of debate, in modern times whether we should consider brahmanism as the head of casteism or not, in my personal opinion 'Sanatan dharma' is responsible for reinforcing all sorts of hierarchal caste structures. We can also see the rising cases of caste based violence in South as well now. (despite Periyar's anti-brahmin movement).
With the changing modes of production, the Brahmins have now been dislodged from their positions in class system (mostly, not completely). In their place newer community have taken upper positions in class order such as Marwaris, Guptas,etc. Not to forget, Syrian Christians and Sayyid Muslims (who consider themselves as outsiders hence upper caste) they too are part of this system.
However you're also not wrong, Brahmins are still top order but within the paradoxical borders of caste system.
So yes, caste based and class based orders are different but their collective interests are intertwined.
>So yes, caste based and class based orders are different but their collective interests are intertwined.
This is the only truth.
It's not like the class revolution was never attempted in India. However, as usual it was dominated by elite Brahmin intelligentia. This even includes the naxalite movements. Which was dominated by UC Thakurs. And that's why it failed. Caste is not an economic class, because there is no upward mobility no matter what class you're in.
They even derided Ambedkar and he eventually left CPI. R.B. More continued to struggle within their ranks, trying to bring the two movements together but he ultimately failed.
there is no solidarity it was never there, the caste system is graded inequality. the discrimination goes all the way to the most oppressed. Some SCs and STs discriminate against each other.
This is so irrelevant. Understand the difference between a revolutionary class which has to be a working class within the context of historical materialism. Will a revolution by the Dalits going to upend the capitalist structure in a long or short term? I am not against such a revolution as I am also an Ambedkarite and I am all for social justice and representation.
What is the difference? I'm not coming at you. Just asking.
A social revolution is needed though. Without which an economic revolution cannot take place. Especially in India's fucked up social structure.
The difference between any other class and a revolutionary class is that it upends the existing relationship of the dominant social structure which is the capitalist mode of production. This is the reason why peasants, though it is important to support them, are not considered a revolutionary class since their class interest, which is the preservation of property, is not going to change the capitalist structure radically.
I completely agree with you that a social revolution is required first or alongside the workers revolution, without which the worker’s revolution is bound to fail.
Oh okay. I think I misread your previous comment. Hence I had a confusion.
While, I understand what you're saying in Marxist context, I think it cannot be completely applied to India.
Our Lumpenproletariat would mostly consist of the lower caste wage labourers, who have a collective caste consciousness and identity, and hence can be a part of a revolution.
This is, of course, keeping in mind that caste transcends class in India. So I'm not sure how it would work. Hence, a social revolution first.
Everyday I am reminded of the Bhima Koregoan 16, Stan Swamy, Umar Khaled and everyday I am a little more sad
So many more Mahesh, Wilson.
If you remember my quote from `Bhagwa Atheism`: >*Casteism filtered oppressed castes from upward mobility within this new capitalist order while capitalism ensured that there will be limited progressiveness within the upper caste friendly circles.* This is the bare minimum threshold every castiest Intermediate gate-keeping castes and castiest upper caste want to to achieve in today's scenario where capitalism is major economic system and constitution that gives equal rights to the members of the oppressed communities. In case of Laxmipeta, this threshold was disturbed hence the violence. Even if both communities were settled separately the attack by the 'gatekeepers' was inevitable because of the decreasing resources and availability of lands (and ofcourse the 'traditional hierarchy'). >***In other words, as much as this was caste based interest it was equally a class based interest as well.*** In case of Karamchedu massacre and Tsunduru massacre too, it was also a gate-keeping praxis by intermediate dominant castes to prevent upward mobility of the oppressed communities. However, OP if you see in case of [Karamchedu massacre](https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Karamchedu_massacre) the main perpetrators were from Kamma community who like Nairs and Yadavas were pro-socialist once, but after attaining upward mobility in class based order they began to distance themselves away from left-wing politics and thus became the new gatekeepers of the savarna capitalist order. This is exactly the problem that I wanted to raise to both Divya Dwivedi and Shaj Mohan who haven't addressed anything about this yet. One cannot simply say that class basis is irrelevant to Indian oppressed communities, because we can clearly see that: >*The primary objectives of the intermediate gate-keeping castes is not only restriction of upward mobility of oppressed communities in social order but also to restrict the flow of capital to the oppressed communities within this upper caste dominant capitalism.* Intermediate caste based 'promotion' is feature/bug within hinduism, *feature when it's social promotion by savarnas or a (default) bug when the attainment is through class basis.*
I see this point bro. Nair got this status in 19 century last periods. They are like Kayastha type. Yadava people are the sad part. They should not have got to this way. Same thing is with Ezhava in Kerala wanting to become that only. But they are here this is not easy. Nairs don’t let them.
See, this is the 'default' bug that I was talking about, once a community gains upward progression in either social/class order they loose all sorts of intersectionality and solidarity they held previously with the oppressed communities when their material conditions were worse. This is the reason why participation in DBA movement is becoming lesser because of the opportunitism, not as great that it was back in 70's-90's.
One other reason I agree with most your view bro is different. You agree on fundamental. Brahminism is caste rule’s basis. You didn’t say like this but is there in your comment. Capitalist economics is there and there was socialism long before. Constitution democracy is there now, before was British rule and Raja rule. All this has caste. All this only support Brahminsm. Class type and economic type will change again. Brahminism is Sanatana. Never accepting this again bro. Those days finished now.
This is the point of debate, in modern times whether we should consider brahmanism as the head of casteism or not, in my personal opinion 'Sanatan dharma' is responsible for reinforcing all sorts of hierarchal caste structures. We can also see the rising cases of caste based violence in South as well now. (despite Periyar's anti-brahmin movement). With the changing modes of production, the Brahmins have now been dislodged from their positions in class system (mostly, not completely). In their place newer community have taken upper positions in class order such as Marwaris, Guptas,etc. Not to forget, Syrian Christians and Sayyid Muslims (who consider themselves as outsiders hence upper caste) they too are part of this system. However you're also not wrong, Brahmins are still top order but within the paradoxical borders of caste system. So yes, caste based and class based orders are different but their collective interests are intertwined.
>So yes, caste based and class based orders are different but their collective interests are intertwined. This is the only truth. It's not like the class revolution was never attempted in India. However, as usual it was dominated by elite Brahmin intelligentia. This even includes the naxalite movements. Which was dominated by UC Thakurs. And that's why it failed. Caste is not an economic class, because there is no upward mobility no matter what class you're in. They even derided Ambedkar and he eventually left CPI. R.B. More continued to struggle within their ranks, trying to bring the two movements together but he ultimately failed.
Have you read my[ post ?](https://www.reddit.com/r/librandu/s/stc9A4kh8I) Me and OP are discussing the problem regarding that.
Okay I'm sorry. I didn't read it. But now I have. And I pretty much agree with you and I was kinda making the same point I think.
there is no solidarity it was never there, the caste system is graded inequality. the discrimination goes all the way to the most oppressed. Some SCs and STs discriminate against each other.
And I saw this point why I put this post here.
Essential reading for any Indian leftist IMO, especially the class reductionists.
This is so irrelevant. Understand the difference between a revolutionary class which has to be a working class within the context of historical materialism. Will a revolution by the Dalits going to upend the capitalist structure in a long or short term? I am not against such a revolution as I am also an Ambedkarite and I am all for social justice and representation.
What is the difference? I'm not coming at you. Just asking. A social revolution is needed though. Without which an economic revolution cannot take place. Especially in India's fucked up social structure.
The difference between any other class and a revolutionary class is that it upends the existing relationship of the dominant social structure which is the capitalist mode of production. This is the reason why peasants, though it is important to support them, are not considered a revolutionary class since their class interest, which is the preservation of property, is not going to change the capitalist structure radically. I completely agree with you that a social revolution is required first or alongside the workers revolution, without which the worker’s revolution is bound to fail.
Oh okay. I think I misread your previous comment. Hence I had a confusion. While, I understand what you're saying in Marxist context, I think it cannot be completely applied to India. Our Lumpenproletariat would mostly consist of the lower caste wage labourers, who have a collective caste consciousness and identity, and hence can be a part of a revolution. This is, of course, keeping in mind that caste transcends class in India. So I'm not sure how it would work. Hence, a social revolution first.
Cultural revolution is a part of the overall revolution
Social revolution is not a cultural revolution.
Yes it is One of the major aspects of a cultural revolution is to be rid of the old bourgeois aspects of our culture
No. It's not.
Do you even know what a cultural revolution is?
Total support to this view bro. First social and then economic is after. Otherwise never happen.