Contribution short abstract:

Under what conditions do subaltern movements that struggle in an “empirical-Marxist” hegemonic context turn to a reworking of Marxist praxis and when do they instead radically reject the Marxist tradition? This is a question I reflect on by comparing my research experience in Kerala and Cuba.

Contribution long abstract:

Under what conditions do the movements of the most oppressed and marginalized in society that struggle in an “empirical-Marxist” hegemonic context turn to a reworking of Marxist praxis and when do they instead radically reject the Marxist tradition? Is there a role for the critical Marxist anthropologist in enabling the former rather than the latter to take place? This is a question I want to reflect on by comparing my experience of doing Marxist research in Kerala and Cuba – both contexts where “empirical Marxism” has a strong influence. In both contexts, institutional Marxism, supposedly “out of necessity”, becomes a force translating the pressures of global capitalism into the local political economy, leaving little space for a prioritizing of subaltern struggles. The latter, then, logically seek autonomous forms of organizing: in Kerala Dalit-Adivasi activism, in Cuba Black activism. What are the precise breaking points at which such autonomous organizing emerges and beyond which any adjustment by the Communist parties in question is interpreted as hypocritical and/or cooptive? Are there any instances of successful reconciliation (i.e. a genuine re-prioritization of subaltern demands in empirical Marxism) or are the cycles of dis-identification that follow a breaking point so strong that subaltern struggles will inevitably drift towards anti-Marxism? What are the ensuing blind spots in subaltern movements? And what can we learn from the biographies of subaltern activists who have stayed true to Marxism even when fighting a complacent empirical Marxism?