Thread by @KhalidAAnsari4

In the context of the unfortunate lynching of the Dalit-Sikh, my plea is that we should not miss the wood for the trees. +
#FarmerProtest #DalitSikh

We are no longer confronted with the pre-1990s state of “passive revolution” where no single class—corporate-business, agrarian elite, bureaucratic-administrative, etc.—had acquired hegemony, and there was space for coalitions and negotiations. +

At present, the corporate capitalist class has attained hegemony, and the state’s relative autonomy has significantly eroded. Most political parties have been either silenced or bought off. +

The most significant symbol of non-corporate capital that could offer some countervailing force to the increasing corporatization of most sectors of the economy is the “farmer.” +

Of course, it is not a monolithic class, but the majority of the farmers are poor with medium and small landholdings. +

Besides, most working class, primarily in the unorganized urban sector, have a secondary identity as farmers as they often have small landholdings in their villages. The identity of the ‘farmer’ and ‘working class’ largely interpenetrate in India. +

The corporate class’s takeover of the farm sector and the introduction of modern technology will not lead to the proletarianization of the farmer and the fulfillment of vulgar Marxian fantasies of a coming working class insurrection. +

Most likely, it will lead to severe unemployment, pauperization, and dehumanization of the farming class. Paupers don’t create revolutions but think of the next meal. +

The corporatization of farming will also compromise food security and may usher in intolerable food inflation that will drastically affect all vulnerable sections. No iron laws of capitalism dictate the turn to corporate monopolization. +

It is more a question of the political choices we make as citizens. +

A counter-hegemonic bloc—comprising unorganized working class, artisans, students, unemployed youth, and various social movements—needs to be constituted with the “farmer” as the central symbol if we have any possibility to arrest prospective corporate servitude. +

However, the farmers or any other section of our society are not angels. We are all made up of flesh and bones and influenced by various superstitions, caste supremacism, patriarchal values, religious fanaticism, and so on. +

In the course of the struggle, all those issues may and should be legitimately raised, but the core focus of the battle must not be displaced. +

Any movement is susceptible to several problematic interpersonal issues, inter or intragroup cleavages, infiltration of state agents, cooption of leaders, misrepresentation strategies, conspiracies, and so on. +

One has to deal and engage with those issues, but the movement’s success must be primarily gauged by creating awareness and meeting the key demands. +

After months of resistance and sacrifice of so many lives, the ruling regime has shown little flexibility in responding to farmer demands for apparent reasons. As I said before, the farmer is the most potent symbol of non-corporate capital. +

Theoretically, it keeps the possibility alive for the aspirations of the informal working class, artisans, poor students, unemployed youth, and so on, mostly belonging to the Bahujan-Pasmanda classes. +

Despite the recent euphoria around the unfortunate lynching of the Dalit-Sikh, I am not convinced that the prosperous farmer is a more significant menace than the corporate sector. +

I am also not confident that this is a fit moment for withdrawal from the farmer agitation or launching a debate on conversion. In my view, the bottom line should be obvious—if the farmers go down, we all go down.