Bibtex
Endnote
RIS
In his book review titled “Ambedkar as a Philosopher” (EPW, 11 December 2021), Chinnaiah Jangam writes that the author’s article (Singh 2018) titled “Three Moments in the Annihilation of Caste: Marx, Weber, and Ambedkar” in Suraj Yengde and Anand Teltumbde’s edited book titled The Radical in Ambedkar: Critical Reflections illustrates “the historic failure of mainstream Marxism to understand caste” (emphasis added). Jangam’s criticism of Marxism to understand caste is common to non-Marxist (read anti-Marxist) approaches—mainstream sociology, subaltern studies, and most Dalit studies of caste. My response below is directed not to Jangam in particular, but to non-Marxist caste studies in general.1 My objective is not the rebuttal of a particular author’s view, but an invitation to debate Marxism and caste seriously. In his book review titled “Ambedkar as a Philosopher” (EPW, 11 December 2021), Chinnaiah Jangam writes that the author’s article (Singh 2018) titled “Three Moments in the Annihilation of Caste: Marx, Weber, and Ambedkar” in Suraj Yengde and Anand Teltumbde’s edited book titled The Radical in Ambedkar: Critical Reflections illustrates “the historic failure of mainstream Marxism to understand caste” (emphasis added). Jangam’s criticism of Marxism to understand caste is common to non-Marxist (read anti-Marxist) approaches—mainstream sociology, subaltern studies, and most Dalit studies of caste. My response below is directed not to Jangam in particular, but to non-Marxist caste studies in general.1 My objective is not the rebuttal of a particular author’s view, but an invitation to debate Marxism and caste seriously. In his book review titled “Ambedkar as a Philosopher” (EPW, 11 December 2021), Chinnaiah Jangam writes that the author’s article (Singh 2018) titled “Three Moments in the Annihilation of Caste: Marx, Weber, and Ambedkar” in Suraj Yengde and Anand Teltumbde’s edited book titled The Radical in Ambedkar: Critical Reflections illustrates “the historic failure of mainstream Marxism to understand caste” (emphasis added). Jangam’s criticism of Marxism to understand caste is common to non-Marxist (read anti-Marxist) approaches—mainstream sociology, subaltern studies, and most Dalit studies of caste. My response below is directed not to Jangam in particular, but to non-Marxist caste studies in general.1 My objective is not the rebuttal of a particular author’s view, but an invitation to debate Marxism and caste seriously.
Test article
In his book review titled “Ambedkar as a Philosopher” (EPW, 11 December 2021), Chinnaiah Jangam writes that the author’s article (Singh 2018) titled “Three Moments in the Annihilation of Caste: Marx, Weber, and Ambedkar” in Suraj Yengde and Anand Teltumbde’s edited book titled The Radical in Ambedkar: Critical Reflections illustrates “the historic failure of mainstream Marxism to understand caste” (emphasis added). Jangam’s criticism of Marxism to understand caste is common to non-Marxist (read anti-Marxist) approaches—mainstream sociology, subaltern studies, and most Dalit studies of caste. My response below is directed not to Jangam in particular, but to non-Marxist caste studies in general.1 My objective is not the rebuttal of a particular author’s view, but an invitation to debate Marxism and caste seriously.
