Editing Openai/69433f02-9d08-8005-817b-0cbb41f17fde (section)

=== User: Gabriel rockhill vs Daniel Tutt's take.on Vivek Chibber? ===
Gabriel rockhill vs Daniel Tutt's take.on Vivek Chibber?  

ROCKHILL: Another sharp piece by Prince Kapone's "Capitalism Did Not Float In on the Market: Chibber, Jacobin, and the Political Function of Western Marxism" which is well worth the read: "Having narrowed capitalism to an English agrarian transition and insulated that transition from empire, Chibber makes his sharpest political turn. He tells us that the return of colonial explanations is not driven by evidence or history but by a slide into 'race reductionism,' by talk of 'global white supremacy,' by a Left that has supposedly abandoned class for identity. This move is not an aside. It is the ideological keystone of the entire argument. Once colonial analysis is recoded as racial moralism, it can be dismissed without engaging its material claims. "

TUTT: I tend to stay out of Chibber discourse because it's often highly unhinged. He wants to trigger the left and he has contempt for the left. The left then falls for it and this leads to an exaggeration about Chibbber's reactionary status. I also felt like the origins of capitalism debate and race reductionism are actually not correlated (I don't remember seeing a list of scholars mentioned that make this claim) and it was weird to meld them together. It seemed so obviously built on a straw man. And then people affirmed it so that made it no longer a straw man anymore. It's more productive to have this debate over labor aristocracy in my view because I do think there is a lot of contentious and productive debates to be had on that.