Vivek Chibber: Postcolonial Theory and 'Really Existing Capitalism'
HTML-код
- Опубликовано: 9 июн 2015
- 14th May 2015, 19h, Cinema Europa, Zagreb, Croatia
8th Subversive Film Festival "Spaces of Emancipation: Micropolitics and Rebellions"
Moderated by: Katarina Peović Vuković
"One of the striking contradictions of postcolonial theory is that, even though it presents itself as the analytical framework of capitalist domination, it rejects the idea of a universal theory. Hence, it is in the awkward position of the acknowledgment that capitalism has been globalized, but denying that we can conceive a general theory of its functioning or its properties. This is a deep and devastating contradiction at the very heart of postcolonial theory. I will examine the sources of this dilemma and argue that the best framework for understanding capitalism remains a Marxian one, which I further defend from the accusations of weakness made by postcolonial critics."
Vivek Chibber is professor of Sociology at New York University. He was born in Delhi, India and came to the U.S. at the age of 15, where he has resided since. He has a BA from Northwestern University and a PhD from the University of Wisconsin-Madison in 1999. He is the author of Locked in Place: State-Building and Late Industrialization in India (Princeton: 2003), which won several awards, including the American Sociological Association's Barrington Moore Jr. Prize and Choice Magazine's Outstanding Book Award, and Postcolonial Theory and the Specter of Capital (Verso: 2013), which won the American Sociological Association PEWS award for best book of the year.
www.subversivefestival.com/for...
The tea on spivak burned my tongue
THIS IS THE SMARTEST GUY IN THE SOCIAL SCIENCES I'VE LISTENED TO FOR A LONG TIME
Yeah he's really smart. At least a few other Jacobin contributors are too.
exactly...such a breath of fresh air to hear him...im reading his book for sure now
27:15 "gamut", I haven't learned a new english word in like 12 years. Thank you lord Vivec.
38:00 where he unequivocally throws down the gauntlet is :chefs kiss:
I wish more academics would be brave enough to be this direct rather than couching their criticisms in dense obtuse language.
In India Marxism did not fail yet the marxists surely did .. take the case of bengali communist movements : at a grass root level during the 50s and 60s a lot of social and political change eventually lead to some economic justice in the 70s and 80s.. Marxism was delivered to the masses .. yet over time, the bengali brahmin caste system played out it's age old apartheid against equality .. today, bengal is deeply caste-ridden and economically busted despite the millions of sickle and hammers around..
You guys are doing an incredibly amazing job! Inviting every major left thinker on the planet is nothing short of amazing.
lol the part on Spivak
Wow, fantastic discussion...Thanks!!!
Definition of capitalism as production for exchange would take in 'simple commodity production'. I would think alienation of the primary producers from the means of production is also important.
That guy is so clear when he talks.
thank you for such a radically different perspective from our elite academic circles who do not want pc theories and realism to ever be questioned. bravo! he has mastered Marxist theory and its variants for real, unlike so many who talk about Marxism but havent read it properly even. im inspired to read it again now hearing Marxism articulated so brilliantly and comprehensively.
Hi ! Could you please turn on the "automatic subtitles" option ?
sorry, there doesn't seem to be an option for that..
@@SkriptaTV i promise you there is one. tutorial here : ruclips.net/video/LcHIZ9aI9TA/видео.html
@@bonjourlafrance2170 unfortunately, we are not being offered the options from this tutorial in our editor. namely, RUclips does not automatically generate subtitles for us, we are not sure why.
@@SkriptaTV Try to see if this works. ruclips.net/video/Xw6pO6C2Cdc/видео.html
exellnt talk
I've heard that Professor Chibber will be visiting Turkey this year!
did he
Production for Exchange--not before 16th century? Yes, provided the International trades in older, pre-Christian eras are dismissed. Isn't it?
East vs West and North vs South... that's how we see it.
34:42 talk about running cover for liberalism. smh.
19:00 So then if every local society should have its own government are we going back 1,500 years to Celtic Ireland in the time of St Patrick when there were tribes with their own kings. is that what you suggest?
Pal, it's already here. Are you not paying attention??? 🙈😏
15 minutes in only, but this seems OVERBLOWN. Asia is incredibly westernized, it has liberal bourgeoisie, it has weekends, TVS, roads, nuclear families, tourism, cafes, labour unions, local NGOs, local anti-racism, general strikes, modern armies, and the whole thing
🤡🤦♂️
in an attempt to escape one fatuous binary (the bourgeoisie as agents of social change), Chibber has created another: the agency of the proletariat. A more pragmatic constructivist approach may be more helpful where agency of the proletariat is achieved through the philosophy and political discourse engendered by the bourgeoisie and (god forbid) aristocratic regimes embedded within an historical narrative. This would account for diverse capitalist experiences while preserving the logic of Marxist analysis (within an east/west comparison)
what
Why is it necessary to adopt any approach to preserve the logic of a Marxist analysis, why not just abandon the Ptolemaic system, so too all postcolonial drivel which seeks to replace it?
Good comment
Capitalism kicked out with mercantilism and laissez- faire and this led to what we call today liberalism.
... capital did not originate in Europe. I think these postmodern theorists make the mistake that somehow capitalism began with the enlightenment and colonization. Now, it depends on how you define "capitalism" but if you go by the definition of "private means of production for profit within competitive markets" then no.
The economy was utterly revolutionized during the enlightenment, and indeed this was when Europe finally got out of the Malthusian trap. Nevertheless, markets, private capital and the like date back to the classical world and in more primitive forms even back to the bronze age in the fertile crescent (sorry for not including the Far East. But unfortunately my knowledge of its history is lacking).
There were certainly historical gaps and they were far from universal in that time. Nevertheless, they existed in some form.
The mode of production was quite different in times of feudalism. The difference is that in capitalism, everything is produced for capital exchange, not for consumption.
He's not a post modern theorist.
@Joanne Oritz, I don't know whether you are familiar with Chibber's work or at least you've listened to this very lecture carefully. If anything, Chibber is the opposite of postmodern. In fact, he is categorically arguing against the logics of postmodernity (in this case, postcolonialism) in this very lecture.
Now to the origin of capitalism. As a specific "mode of production", capitalism can't be traced back further than the 16th century. Even though there have always been "markets" as you asserted, those were the places to exchange "products", not "commodities". Although you had a very small-scale commodity production in some societies, that didn't become generalized.
Also, to add what was said, capital seems to be a legal construct. If it is just a private means of production, that seems insufficient.
Why not take Vivek's take that capitalism is primarily characterized by market dependence. That is, people have no choice but to participate in the market for their subsistence.