Class Relations, Material Conditions, and Spaces of Class Struggle in Rural India
Bibliographic record
Abstract
For historical-geographical materialists, making history and geography means that existing conditions of life are not acceptable because they are exploitative and oppressive, and that new and better conditions of life can, and must, be created through political struggles against the class/classes responsible for the existing conditions. The act of making history (and geography) in a class-society is class struggle. This paper is about class and class struggle in the historical-geographical context of post-colonial India. It discusses how relations of class as well as caste- and gender-based social oppression have created extremely difficult conditions of living for workers and peasants in rural and tribal areas, which the post-colonial capitalist-landlord state has, more or less, failed to significantly mitigate. The conjunctural combination of unjust conditions of living and state failure has created a historical-geographical situation ripe for class struggle, one instance of which is the Naxalite movement, a part of the worldwide Maoist movement. Its growth and spatial spread are examined. Also discussed is the extent to which the Naxalites provide some immediate relief to poor people. Although this is a movement which has much appeal among the rural poor in many areas, it is not without some serious problems. The paper, therefore, discusses some of the major limitations of the Naxalite movement that partly grow out of (a specific interpretation of) the same historical-geographical conditions that have prompted it in the first place. In particular, the paper is critical of the Maoists underplaying society's capitalist character and of the use of violent method by some Naxalite groups as a means of class struggle.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.008 | 0.013 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.008 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.006 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".