THEME SECTION Introduction Marxian resurgent

Patrick Neveling and Luisa Steur

Abstract: Th is introduction, coming out during the two hundredth anniversary of Karl Marx’s birth, discusses the distinctiveness of Marxian anthropology and what it has to off er to our eff orts at understanding, and confronting, the complexities of the social contradictions constituted by—and constitutive of—twenty-fi rst cen- tury capitalism. Th e article points out common denominators of Marxian anthro- pology going back to Marx’s insights, but also off ers a cursory social history of the diverse lineages of enquiry within Marxian anthropology, shaped by the relations and inequalities of the context in which they emerged. Finally, we discuss certain crucial fi elds of engagement in contemporary Marxian anthropology as refl ected in this theme section’s contributions. Keywords: capitalism, Karl Marx, glo bal and relational analysis, Marxian anthropology

Something is rotten in the state of the capitalist American “pink tide” response to yet another world-system. As we fi nalize this introduction wave of structural adjustment programs enabled in mid-2018, the world economy is still in the electoral gains for left ist movements (Kalb and grip of a crisis that began around 10 years ago in Mollona 2018; Kasmir and Carbonella 2014; the fi nancial centers of advanced capitalist na- Lem and Barber 2010). tions and spread out from there across the Eu- Yet, successful resistance was oft en short ropean Union and into much of Latin America, lived. Syriza budged in the face of German-led Africa, and Asia (Carrier 2016; Friedman 2015; European Union threats, the pink tide now Kalb 2012; Narotzky and Besnier 2014). Global faces violent backlashes in Brazil and Argentina, uprisings emerged soon aft er the 2008 fi nancial Hong Kong’s Umbrella Movement was starved meltdowns. Th e Spanish Indignados and the out by Beijing, and the largest workers’ uprising Greek Syntagma Square movements, for exam- in recent Indonesian history, around the Bekasi ple, led to the rise of new political parties such Special Economic Zone that employs around as Podemos and Syriza, much like the Latin one million workers, was beaten down by riot

Focaal—Journal of Global and Historical Anthropology 82 (2018): 1–15 © Stichting Focaal and Berghahn Books doi:10.3167/fcl.2018.820101 2 | Patrick Neveling and Luisa Steur police forces (Panimbang and Mufakhir 2018). aware—inquiries into the forces that drive the Beyond this, the so-called Arab Spring upris- current global condition and how they may be ings across North Africa and the Middle East overcome. At the core of this analytical and em- were either quashed in similar ways—in Bah- pirical paradigm is a refusal to romanticize, and rain, for example—or otherwise instrumental- thereby fi ctionalize, political economies at any ized by various “holy” alliances that either used scale. Marxian do not conjure armored vehicles and machine guns to spread secure, radically diff erent safe spaces outside of clerical fascist Islam or used aerial bombing capitalism but rather focus on analyzing peo- raids, proxy armies, and mercenaries to spread ple’s various struggles within and against his- Western capitalist democracy. tories dominated by global capitalism—a force Anthropologists have been vigilant partic- that structures not just people’s economic lives ipant observers and oft en activists in many of but also, for instance, their political possibilities these moments of crisis, resistance, and back- and intimate relationships (Sider 2003). Indeed, lash. Yet, their empirical accounts and analyzes one strength of Marxian anthropology is its of what happened, why, and what is to be done analysis of how capitalist logics seep into peo- diff er with regard to their choice of paradigm, ple’s struggles at all scales to the extent that even the way they frame their research, and the the most intimate terrains, which tend to feel themes they emphasize. On the one hand, there the most “authentic,” or “our own,” are already is a strong focus on hope, on care and morality, implicated, usurped, and enclosed by capitalist and on possibilities for a better future—“anthro- logics. pologies of the good,” as Sherry Ortner (2016) One central task for any political movement— calls them. Th ey oft en engage in meta-descrip- and hence for a critical anthropology of the tive ethnographic theories and focus on the sub- unevenness of capitalism’s multifarious agency jective positioning of individuals and sodalities in establishing, consolidating, and refi ning ex- in the present—sometimes with due attention ploitation (Gill and Kasmir 2016)—is thus an to their unwitting complicity with the geon- acute awareness of the successes and pitfalls of topowers that dominate social conceptions of past struggles. In recent years, faced with a world life and nonlife (Povinelli 2016; Robbins 2013; they perceive as one of dismay and decay, aca- Zigon 2018). demics, activists, and, in fact, the global public Th is special issue, on the other hand, con- have devoted signifi cant attention to several tributes to a diff erent trend in anthropology, rounds of anniversaries of historical uprisings. which emerges from and the- As we write this, conferences; features in news- ories that are critical of the papers, TV, radio, and blogs; academic special of neoliberal globalization and earlier global issues, edited volumes; and monographs revisit modes of capitalist exploitation and thus mark a and discuss the signifi cance of the works of Karl resurgence and advancement of the discipline’s Marx on his two hundredth birthday as well as long-standing, polyphonic Marxian approaches. the global uprisings of 1968. And whereas many Th eir shared focus is not only to record and an- of the 2008 anniversary refl ections of 1968 saw alyze the vicissitudes of neoliberal capitalism student uprisings and worker protests through but also to build on an active involvement in po- a Western-centric lens, there is an explicit eff ort litical and economic struggles (Lem and Leach in 2018 to understand the global character of 2002). It requires anthropologists to continue to protests across all continents. Anthropologists refl ect critically on their own relevance as intel- are making important contributions here, ad- lectuals embedded in movements for a better vancing an understanding of the sometimes co- future for the majority of humankind (Narotzky ordinated and certainly entangled and mutually 2015; G. Smith 2014). Th is requirement facili- referential anti-colonial, anti-imperial and also tates processual—future-oriented yet historically anti-fascist movements (Becker 2018). Marxian anthropology resurgent | 3

What is more, current anthropology, and es- thought and links these to the present genera- pecially so a Marxian anthropology, in its active tion of Marxian anthropologists, of which we contribution is critical about relegating debates are part. about 1968 to an ill-defi ned nostalgia (Baca Our introduction and the contributions to 2018). Instead, there is a serious engagement this special issue are part of a larger project, car- with the many actors searching for new pathways ried by dozens of scholars who contributed to toward agency and effi ciency in overcoming cap- panels at the American Anthropological Associ- italist exploitation and its various manifestations ation meetings in Montreal (2011) and Chicago in global warring and escalating inequalities (2013) and at the International Union for An- (Carrier and Kalb 2015; Narotzky 2016; Reyna thropological and Ethnological Sciences world 2016). Another anniversary, the 2017 centenary conference in Manchester in 2012. In preparing of the Russian Revolution, has received far too and running these events, we were fortunate to little attention. Yet, an extended review article have the support from leading Marxian anthro- by (forthcoming) establishes the rele- pologists and their networks, such as the An- vance of that revolution and of related uprisings thropology and Political Economy Seminar and for anthropological theory. In a juxtaposition the colleagues involved in the editorial board of the political activities and analytical writings of Focaal, Dialectical Anthropology, Identities, of Leon Trotsky and , Kalb con- and Anthropological Th eory. Th e next section trasts Trotsky’s class position and active “being seeks to position these contemporary initiatives there,” which were crucial for his monumental within the long history of Marxian anthropol- critical assessment of the successes and failures ogy and the diversity of lineages of thought of 1917, with Mauss’s privileged upbringing un- and enquiry. Th e second section extends this to der the wings of his anti-revolutionary, republi- the four articles in this special issue and points can uncle Émile Durkheim and his Eurocentric toward further crucial fi elds of engagement in armchair anthropology comparison of Roman contemporary Marxian anthropology. and Sanskrit law with contemporary in Melanesia and the Northwestern United States. With this in mind, this special issue seeks Common denominators and to contribute to emerging refl ections on the multifarious lineages in role of Marx’s writings for anthropology on the Marxian anthropology two hundredth anniversary of his birth. In tak- ing some foundational principles of Marxian For obvious reasons, lineages of Marxian an- thought in his writings as a starting point, the thropological thought have a common denom- following also broaches the works of Trotsky, inator, an ancestry in the works of Karl Marx Lenin, Rosa Luxemburg, and other contem- and his coauthor and comrade Friedrich Engels. poraries of the interwar period in Europe that A fairly recent, detailed introduction into their have been foundational texts for leading anthro- works, Karl Marx, by Th omas pologists of the twentieth century such as Peter Patterson, highlights their two-pronged tack- Worsley (1964, 1970), (1969, [1982] ling of the analysis of contemporary conditions 2010, 1999), (1974, 1985), Kath- of capitalism in the second half of the nine- leen Gough (1968, 1990), and Jonathan Fried- teenth century. man (1994, [1979] 1998). In light of the fact that First, Marx and Engel’s early works emerged these texts remain fundamental inspirations from a keen interest in the localized everyday for twenty-fi rst century anthropology, this in- life challenges of their contemporaries. Th ose troduction revisits and seeks to shed new light were the German and even more so the English on the many and diverse engagements of earlier working class, with Engel’s Th e Condition of the generations of anthropologists with Marxian English Working Class, fi rst published in 1845, 4 | Patrick Neveling and Luisa Steur based on a two-year stint in the then center of Marx’s magnum opus, Das Kapital, opens English industrial capitalism, Manchester, and with a detailed study of the industrial labor “a legitimate claim at being the fi rst urban eth- process, on the basis of which Marx identifi es nography” (Patterson 2009: 2). Beyond Europe, and defi nes how capital is accumulated by the Marx did his best to draw critical attention, owners of the means of production; capitalists in the pieces he wrote for the New York Daily (Marx and Engels 1965). Th e topics and themes Tribune, to the ambiguities of British colonial covered in those volumes are too numerous to rule in India: whereas he harbored no roman- list in this introduction, but suffi ce it to note ticism for India’s caste system and thought the that an explicit and lively dialogue with Marx development of India’s railways might shake up and the Marxian thinkers that succeeded him feudal inequalities (the Indian railways indeed continues today in anthropological work on grew into a major historical bastion of labor fi nance, divisions of labor and labor struggles, unionism), he also analyzed colonialism’s de- ideologies of dispossession, identity politics, structive impact on the Indian textile industry. migration, social movements, and the incorpo- Second, besides these works dealing with the ration of kinship structures into social processes transformations of social life under capitalism, (Aiyer 2008; Friedman and Friedman 2008, Marx and Engels researched and analyzed the 2013; Glick-Schiller and Çağlar 2016; Goddard historical emergence of capitalism as a global and Narotzky 2015; Kalb 1997; Kasmir and systemic force. In the process, Marx put for- Carbonella 2014; Neveling 2015: Nilsen 2010; ward a theory of world historical change that Strümpell 2014; Steur 2017; Trapido 2016a; identifi es antagonistic classes and their political Weiss 2015). movements as the major actors. Marx’s focus One of several contemporary currents that was thus actor-centered and in explicit opposi- emerge from Marx and stand out in anthro- tion to other nineteenth century scholars, whose pological debates is the notion of primitive rather mechanistic modeling of change revered accumulation and the related concept of accu- a Weltgeist (Hegel) or an early version of Super- mulation by dispossession (Franquesa 2016; man (Nietzsche) as the engines of progress and Hirslund 2016; Kaminer 2015; Narotzky 2016; regress. Marx developed a critique of the former Nonini 2015; Glick Schiller and Çağlar 2016; in his famous Th eses on Feuerbach and then in Salemink and Rasmussen 2016). In this regard, Th e German Ideology, which both attacked the it is paramount to note that Marx’s chapter on so-called Young Hegelians for their essentialist “Th e Original Accumulation of Capital” in the view of the history of humankind as isolated fi rst volume of Das Kapital presents this as a from political economic processes. Marx and multilinear evolution from the end of the four- Engels (1998: 571, their italics) insisted that teenth century onward, a combined and uneven “philosophers have only interpreted the world development driven in part by the growing in various ways; the point is to change it.” Th ey demand for wool on international markets lived this ambition as leading fi gures in the that increased wool prices and thus motivated communist and socialist movement throughout the British gentry to expropriate dependent much of their lifetime (Neveling forthcoming). smallholder farmers from their lands and turn Yet, Marx also set out to criticize and rewrite these into pastures. Whereas some members of “political economy,” the name given in the that same gentry would fall prey to the seven- nineteenth century to the social-cum-humanist teenth-century uprisings led by Oliver Crom- science that, in the legacy of thinkers such as well and his army of levelers that succeeded in Adam Smith and David Riccardo, informed decapitating the English king, the expropriated much of the national and imperial policies re- smallholders would be forced into the industri- sponsible for the poverty and abject exploitation alizing urban centers. By the eighteenth century, of the global working class. these former smallholders had formed into an Marxian anthropology resurgent | 5 army of cheap laborers, welcomed by a new of injustice that requires synchronic and dia- breed of industrialists, whose super-exploitative chronic analysis is certainly and necessarily factory regimes thrived not least because they incomplete. Still, it underlines the foundations enjoyed the state’s backing in vagrancy laws that of Marxism, socialism, and communism in its forced those unwilling to dwell in urban mis- initial design: an impetus for changing a world ery into workhouses and coerced labor. Yet, characterized by the exploitative rule of the few Marx’s focus went beyond the usual suspects over the many, which mobilizes a certain dose that feature in ordinary histories of the making of skepticism toward all too immediate or ha- of industrial Britain. He also analyzed global bituated, oft en religiously inspired, moral sen- processes, such as the problem of creating a suf- timents and instead seeks to align our sense of fi cient number of dependent wage laborers in justice with an analysis of historical processes the vast British settler colonies where land was profoundly rooted in the lived realities and inti- available in abundance as long as one was ready macies of human agency. Th e complex, situated, to kill local populations. Marx was also explicit and dialectical nature of this endeavor—in both about the complicity, if not active involvement, the activist and the academic spheres of Marx- of Scottish highland clan chiefs in the making of ism—is refl ected in the historical diversity of English capitalism, as they used a combination socialist and communist movements that have of privileged market access, kinship hierarchies, always come in plurals and disagreed on the and authority to appropriate clan lands and thus analysis of contemporary and historical social turned their clanspeople into dependent wage process and struggles as much as on the ways laborers (Marx and Engels 1965 1: 507–547). and means needed for changing the world. Th is Th is global emphasis—where “global” is not diversity, logically, is also refl ected in the lin- simply about “international connections” or eages of Marxian anthropology, which we will “transnational fl ows” but rather about keeping go deeper into now. a constant eye out for the relational totality that In starting our short social history of Marx- shapes the more seemingly concrete realities of ian anthropology, it should be noted, however, local social life—remains a unique strongpoint that despite the anthropological tendency in of Marxian analysis and one that continually Marx and Engels’ writings, academia was void challenges established facts and fi ctions of yet of Marxian anthropology until well aft er World unenclosed outsides to capitalism (e.g., Turner War II (Kalb forthcoming). In Europe, where 2009). Don Kalb’s forthcoming “Trotsky over and anthropology as the institutional Mauss,” mentioned in our opening section, for disciplines we recognize as such today devel- instance, demonstrates that despite the intense oped, canonical thinkers other than Marx worked synchronic and diachronic analysis of the con- with very diff erent political-intellectual aims. In ditions of the Russian working class and peas- France, Durkheim was a staunch supporter of antry that was central to the projects of both the republican counterrevolution that cracked Lenin and Trotsky before, during, and aft er down on the Paris Commune uprising in 1871 the revolutionary years, these same revolution- (Hobsbawm 1983). In Germany, Max Weber’s ary leaders were unprepared for the food and idea-centric, spirited analysis of the origins of trading embargo from Western advanced capi- capitalism in a Protestant Ethics off ered a similar talist. If anything, Kalb’s analysis of key publica- antidote to Marxian critiques of capitalism’s po- tions from 2017 and of the works of Lenin and litical economy (Allen [2004] 2017; Frank 1975; Trotsky thus points to a relative neglect, even by Wolf 1999). Likewise, anthropology’s canoni- these revolutionaries, of global relations over cal studies before 1945—the writings of Frantz local data. Boas, Marcel Mauss, Bronisław Malinowski, and Th is overview of the two-pronged tackling Richard Th urnwald, as well as Edward Evans- of capitalism as both a local and a global force Pritchard, Meyer Fortes, and , to 6 | Patrick Neveling and Luisa Steur name but a few—were all published in an aca- cess that would later be brought to perfection in demic environment that knew little debate and the cotton mills of Lancashire. certainly no interventions from established left - In taking forward Marx’s work on the global ist academics. entangledness of capitalist transformations, Marx, Engels, and their empirical and an- Mintz (1966, 1985, 1996) identifi ed the crucial alytical project, to large extent, were ghosts in role that refi ned cane sugar had as a commod- anthropology until the gradual opening of uni- ity that provided cheap calories for the British versity education to working-class students in working classes throughout the eighteenth and Western Europe and the United States in the nineteenth centuries and how, vice versa, the years aft er 1945. From then on, demobilized enslaved and indentured populations of the Ca- soldiers from the US Army had access to grants ribbean were modern-day consumers of British for university education. One of these was the industrial produce. Mintz’s close engagement late Sidney Mintz, who worked with other Marx- with political organizations and activists in ian anthropologists, among them Eric Wolf and Puerto Rico—and other fi eld sites—was more- , on a project at Columbia over evident in his monograph about the life of University. Headed by Julian Stewart, a cultural Don Taso, his close friend in the Puerto Rican ecologist with a keen interest in the impact of cane fi elds. In this he captured how the shift material conditions on human sociality, these of the once radical, socialist, and anti-colonial graduate students engaged in the People of Puerto Rican Partido Popular Democratico to- Puerto Rico project that pioneered the compre- ward embracing US rule and abandoning New hensive and comparative study of non-Western Deal economic policies had turned his friend societies as contemporary, modern societies in from one of the leading party and trade union a capitalist global economy that impacts all hu- organizers in his community to a devout, oth- mans in comparable, albeit uneven and unequal erworldly Pentecostal Christian (Mintz 1974). ways (Baca 2016; Palmié et al. 2009; Silverman In similar ways to Mintz, yet from a more 2011). global angle, Wolf engaged anthropology in cen- Mintz’s contribution to Marxian anthropol- tral conversations among critical social sciences ogy emerged from his lifetime engagement with and humanities scholars of the era of the Cold the Caribbean, which from early on he under- War and decolonization. Where Mintz inserted stood as a sociocultural arena in its own right, an emphasis on the agency of supposedly pe- shaped by the vicious impact of colonial slavery ripheral locations into the paradigm of depen- and imperial indenture, plantation cultures, and dency theory and world systems analysis, Wolf transcolonial capital. In this he oft en referred developed an anthropologically grounded global to—and was directly inspired by—radical Ca- history of capitalism in his seminal monograph ribbean scholars like Eric R. Williams (1942, Europe and the People without History. Central 1944) and C. L. R. James (1938), who thereby to Wolf’s global historical anthropology was infl uenced Marxian anthropology, despite an- “to challenge those who think that Europeans thropology lacking an institutional presence as were the only ones who made history” and at a discipline in the Caribbean, as in most of the the same time remain wary of the dangers of ig- Global South.1 An important intervention in noring the signifi cant power imbalance in any Marxian thought that Mintz’s engagement with era of world history by adhering to the Marxian Caribbean realities—and thinkers—produced paradigm that people “make their own history was the argument that rather than originating but not under conditions of their own choosing. in England, the capitalist mode of production Th ey do so under the constraints of relation- in its factory-based format in fact developed ships and forces that direct their will and their in these Caribbean plantation societies, which desire” (2010 [1982]: xx, 386). In this, Wolf of were laboratories for the industrial labor pro- course addressed the long-standing practice of Marxian anthropology resurgent | 7 supremacist Western historiography that had capitalism from feudalism and yet do not see relegated the study of non-Western societies to the emergence of a bourgeoisie to challenge the anthropology and the study of European so- feudalist state (e.g., Banaji 1977; Foster-Carter cieties to sociology. Yet, Wolf also rejected a 1978). Th e debate began with French Marxian primitivist strand in anthropology that had anthropologists’ eff orts—from Pierre-Philippe embraced such a division of labor—in Claude Rey, Claude Meillassoux, and , Lévi-Strauss’s notion of societies “whose histo- for example—to systematically expand the no- ries have remained ‘cold’” and in the otherwise tion of class and class struggle (or its absence) widespread understanding that non-European to societies in former French colonies in Africa societies could be regarded as “contemporary (for recent summaries and advances, see Kalb ancestors” in whom anthropologists of Mauss- 2013; Trapido 2016b). As those societies were ian and Malinowskian inclination could fi nd considered precapitalist, there was a strong evidence of the prehistory of Europe. structuralist element in early French analyzes, In insisting that working classes as much which was successfully shoved aside in Samir as non-Western societies are contemporaries, Amin’s 1973 book on Le Développement inégal Wolf engaged with the Marxist notion of the about the uneven articulation of capitalism on “mode of production” in an emphatically an- African peripheries. Wolf extended Amin’s ap- thropological manner, rejecting its usage as a proach, which rubricated numerous competing way of distinguishing—let alone teleological categories of modes of production in precapi- ordering—societies in favor of using the con- talist, complex, centralized political systems cept as a means to base any analysis of “cultural” and early empires under the heading “tributary phenomena in “a specifi c, historically occurring mode of production,” toward an understanding set of social relations through which labor is de- of the articulation of such modes, thus captur- ployed to wrest energy from nature by means ing the interaction of a plurality of organized of tools, skills, organization, and knowledge.” ways of labor exploitation within an overall cap- Marx’s axiomatic binary of humans as active italist world economy ( [1982] 2010: 81–85). agents in their evolution and of the sociality of French Marxian anthropology certainly did humans—their existence in “organised plurali- not stop at the somewhat failed eff orts to explain ties,” which circumscribe such agency—was thus precapitalist class diff erentiation in Western brought into anthropology (74–75). Africa. If Emmanuel Terray (1969) and others An equally important—and rarer—achieve- initially identifi ed age-group related class strug- ment of Marxian anthropology was however gles with younger men unhappily subject to the to turn empirical and theoretical work from fi nancial power and authority of elders and de- anthropology into a focal point of attention of pendent on bride-price fi nancing, they did so a major debate in the social sciences and hu- from a position of committed engagement in the manities around the concept of the mode of French communist movement and in the 1968 production. Th roughout the 1970s, major ac- uprisings in Paris, which they sought to steer ademic journals and numerous monographs toward explicit solidarity not only with the Viet- debated the modes of production approach as namese liberation movement but also with com- a paramount pathway for understanding what munist and socialist struggles in Cote d’Ivoire Trotsky had termed the uneven and combined and other African fi eld sites. Crucially, Terray development of global, imperial capitalism and and other French Marxian anthropologists were its coexistence and articulation with non-cap- among the few in the discipline to develop an italist political economic relations—also with explicit taste for Maoism in the 1970s, which, reference to Marx’s concept of an Asiatic mode in concert with their training in Lévi-Straussian of production as a historical condition of polit- structuralist thought and the huge infl uence of ical economies that could take the pathway to Louis Althusser in left ist French academia, led 8 | Patrick Neveling and Luisa Steur them to develop their own variant of an ad- United States tackled present-day exploitations, vanced modes of production research agenda. produced several important reviews and rectifi - Most studies of the late 1970s and 1980s cations of canonical studies from the Kwakiutl moved toward detailed analyzes of household to Edmund Leach’s work on highland budgets and hierarchies and inequalities driven Burma, and took on the nascent culturalist turn by kinship structures and beyond. In this sense, and Cliff ord Geertz as the leading fi gure of the French Marxian anthropology was equipped Reaganite backlash in anthropology (Cannizzo with possibly the wrong tools and foci in or- 1983; Friedman [1979] 1998; Kobrinsky 1975; der to take on the Foucauldian hype and other Roseberry 1982). manifestations of the post-structuralist anti-hu- In fact, British anthropology had actively manism of the late 1980s. Yet, a work such as rid itself of a potentially world-leading fi gure in Maidens, Meals and Money by Claude Meillas- Marxian anthropology. Peter Worsley, who was soux (1981) stands out until today as a formida- from a working-class background, like Mintz, ble empirical and analytical fusion of the major and managed to enter university as a demobi- strengths and unique calling points of classical lized soldier of World War II, had published anthropology—research on kinship, myths, and forceful critiques of the work of Margaret Mead domestic economies—with major manifesta- in the 1950s already and won prestigious prices tions of late twentieth-century capitalism—the as a PhD student. Yet, his membership of the rise of multinational corporations and the super- British communist party meant he was banned exploitation of a new international division of from entering the then Australian territory of labor in global sweatshops. Likewise, Maurice for fi eld research and had Godelier’s (1999) work on how the mythopraxis to write his book on Melanesian cargo cults as of the Baruja in Papua New Guinea is a pillar of anti-colonial movements, Th e Trumpet Shall gendered exploitation and, at the same time, a Sound, based on a collection of accounts of oth- deliberate fabrication that the Baruja men anx- ers (Worsley 1970). Certainly, his forceful call iously guard from the knowledge base of women, for anthropologists to show solidarity with the and his 1990s masterful materialist overview of Kenyan Mau Mau rebellion and protest the vi- Th e Enigma of is as timely as ever in an olent British colonial repression in Kenya and anthropology debate that increasingly revives an elsewhere did little to improve his standing in outdated and widely falsifi ed canon ritually cen- a British anthropology dependent on funding tered on Marcel Mauss’s (1954) Essay sur le don. from late British imperial institutions (Worsley Whereas US and French Marxian anthro- 1957a). When it was made clear to him that he pology made genuine and widely recognized would have no place in a British anthropology contributions to wider debates in the social department, Worsley went on to become one sciences and humanities, especially so in the of the best-selling authors in British sociology 1960s, 1970s, and 1980s, British anthropology and was one of the fi rst authors to write a com- kept a critical, if appreciative, distance to Marx- prehensive, fi eld-research-based monograph on ian thought. Th is is possibly best evidenced in the People’s Republic of China—which he vis- Maurice Bloch’s introduction to an otherwise ited in 1973, the year of US President Richard important edited volume on Marxist Analysis Nixon’s world-changing visit to China. His 1964 and (1975) and in his short publication Th e Th ree Worlds, which rewrote book on Marxism and Anthropology: Th e History the canon of anthropology from an early world- of a Relationship (1983). Th e latter is overly con- system’s angle, is possibly the most underrated cerned with Marx’s Ethnographic Notebooks and book in anthropology to this day (Worsley 1957b, thus with the Marxian analysis of precapitalist 1964, 1975). societies, which is remarkable at a time when If this introduction remains cursory, and contemporary anthropology in France and the overly focused on the trajectories of Marxian Marxian anthropology resurgent | 9 anthropology in a few Western countries—by tries like India where, until recently, few bridged necessity as most anthropological knowledge the gap between the encyclopedic, govern- production throughout the twentieth century ment-commissioned ethnographies of various took place in these nation-states—it was in- “tribes” and “castes” and the highbrow, usually tended to highlight common features. Th ese are, Brahmin-dominated Marxian scholarship of in the legacy of Karl Marx and Friedrich Engels, the subaltern studies school where the written a lasting commitment to the critique of capi- word (in literary or archival form) took central talist and other political economies and to the stage and eventually spelled a marked “decline uneven and combined development of capitalist of the subaltern in subaltern studies” (Sarkar accumulation and exploitation across the globe. 1996). Further, Marxian anthropology is an anthropol- Th at said, the above overview of Marxian ogy of the contemporary as a necessary product is certainly incomplete. Anthro- of multidimensional and interlinked historical pologists in Brazil and Portugal, for example, processes, with the synchronic and the dia- have published important critiques of national chronic as two sides of one coin that is chiefl y elites, developmentalism, and migration politics rooted in ethnographic research in both the (de Lima 2003; Feldman-Bianco 1992; Ribeiro centers and on the margins of capitalist accu- 1994), and we would hope that our overview is mulation. Also, Marxian anthropology was and an invitation to others to insert an explicit focus is subject to historical processes in academia: as on Marxian anthropology into the world an- David Nugent (2002) so clearly demonstrates, thropologies movement. What is more, younger anthropological knowledge, including Marx- generations of radical scholars in various coun- ian anthropology, cannot be analyzed as a lin- tries where anthropology is an institutional ear process of growth but in fact gets produced latecomer or has been actively suppressed, are under the same conditions of inequality and attracted to the discipline precisely for its abil- struggle that characterize the social worlds that ity to facilitate the kind of empirically curious anthropologists research. yet globally theorizing research that Marxian, Decades of backlash against progressive anti-imperialist analysis foregrounds and are thinkers not only aff ected the career of Peter fi nding creative ways of entering the disci- Worsley but also forced many Marxian anthro- pline. Meanwhile, there is a revival of interest pologists in the United States to tone down the in Marxian anthropology in the older centers of historical materialist foundations of their re- anthropological knowledge production where search and analysis in order to maintain a ca- the 2008 crisis and its gradually intensifying ef- reer (Price 2016). Nazism and fascism as global fects has instilled the awareness that the logic of ideologies, the Cold War, and other eras of anti- capital may well, aft er all, be “the real that lurks Marxist witch hunts certainly also shaped the in the background” (G. Smith 2006, quoting trajectory of German anthropology and, more Zizek). Th e contributions to this special issue profoundly, the massacres of alleged commu- showcase some of the themes and currents de- nists in Indonesia, Kenya, and elsewhere across bated within Marxian anthropology today. the decolonizing Th ird World may have stopped Marxian anthropology very early in its tracks. At the same time, communist and socialist na- Contemporary engagements tions under Stalinism—and aft er—reduced an- with Marxian anthropology thropology to ethnology and folklore studies that were not allowed access to contemporary Each contribution to this theme section engages issues in their own societies and were extremely overlapping research fi elds; socialist and post- nationally-oriented (Hann et al. 2005). Th is was socialist infrastructures, property regimes, and even the case in democratically socialist coun- vertical urbanism in Michal Murawski’s arti- 10 | Patrick Neveling and Luisa Steur cle; tourism, heritage, gentrifi cation, and urban ban politics of dispossession. Th e act of dispos- planning in the case of Marc Morell; pastoral session is not a standardized pattern, however. nomadism, boundary making, and uneven his- What happens in Palma is a contemporary ex- torical incorporation into global capitalism in tension of “the original accumulation of cap- Riccardo Ciavollela’s article; and human-envi- ital” that Marx analyzed with a focus on land ronmental relations and materiality from Penny grabbing, turning farmland into pastures for McCall Howard. Each contribution moreover sheep, and supplying the English wool industry seeks to show a way beyond mainstream anthro- (1965 1: 507–547). In Palma, the tourism indus- pology’s “idealist refusal to even recognize cap- try consumes the products of past and present italism as a coherent category” (N. Smith 2010: human sociability, and the democratic state is 241). If anthropology is threatening to become a a leading facilitator of this, as urban develop- discipline driven by keywords—“globalization,” ment and heritage policies allow only a limited “hybridity,” “trans-” and now “millennial capi- and select number of actors to extract surplus talism,” “neoliberalism,” and “crisis” (Friedman from the global economic processes that are the 2015: 185)—these articles help to overcome the tourism industry. Th is way, Morell helps address defi cit of explanatory power in the discipline. a hiatus in research and analysis that exists be- Michal Murawski’s analysis of the Palace of cause the anthropology of tourism is focused Culture and Science in Warsaw treats this Stalin- on symbolic analyses and not on the politics ist skyscraper as an emblematic structure. Mov- of (re)production, which determine, for exam- ing between the palace’s many fl oors and the ple, what may or may not become marketed as manifold historical entanglements of the palace heritage at some point. Morell’s discussion of and the city, Murawski establishes a bird’s eye the relationship between human oeuvres and view on the state of urban anthropology, as well human labor engages the fact that tourism is a as on yet another recent turn: the infrastructural world-leading industrial sector and makes this one. Warsaw’s real-world urban politics have al- central to empirical research and analysis. ways been concerned with the vertical and the Riccardo Ciavolella’s analysis of political ini- horizontal. Postmodernist scholars’ claims to tiatives of subaltern groups in the Beninese sa- “complexify” (Murawski, this issue) deny this vanna also deals with the entangled exploitation productive dichotomy and thus end up fl atten- that transnational migration facilitates. Here, ing the representation of urban sociality and several subaltern groups with diff erent geneal- political economy. Th e multifaceted inequalities ogies of immigration to the region encounter that planning the planet for capitalism’s ven- the remnants of the developmental state that tures nurtures, such as gentrifi cation, real estate the Cold War generated throughout the Th ird trading, and other stratifying and fragmenting World. Th is state is Janus-headed in that it off ers features of life in the twenty-fi rst century, city the possibility for social mobility to all while at come to light as Murawski liberates urban an- the same time nurturing the concentration of thropology, and, more generally, anthropology’s capital among a few “big hats,” who seek in var- recent rediscovery of infrastructure, from post- ious ways to incorporate the diff erent groups modernist analytical bracketing and disappear- into their entrepreneurial ventures. Ciavolella ance strategies. disassembles the romance of resistance that Mainstream anthropological analysis—this many anthropologists cling to as they maintain time of tourism—is also served a helping in Marc static, libertarian misinterpretations of Gram sci’s Morell’s analysis of the historical political econ- analysis of hegemony under capitalism. Instead, omy of Palma, the capital of Majorca and the his analysis of hegemony as an unstable project Balearic Isles. Much like Murawski’s fi ndings reveals that in the Beninese savanna there is not on capitalist “complexifi cation” in present-day an amoral capitalist economy eating up a pre- Warsaw, Morell brings to the fore a vertical ur- capitalist . Accordingly, every ef- Marxian anthropology resurgent | 11 fort to establish an alternative to a given pattern missive tendencies—vis-à-vis its subaltern inter- of exploitation in an unstable local social space- locutors and, in the inverse, vis-à-vis its neo- time is yet also a potential reifi cation for the imperialist funders—Marxian anthropology same exploitative pattern. Th is is why, contrary does cherish the (limited) power we have as to the common celebration of subaltern agency intellectuals to intervene in public debate and and the romanticist image of organic intellectu- propose emancipatory visions and strategies. als leading localized struggles, the struggle for a Indeed, in the year of Marx’s two hundredth better life among Fulani herders and others re- birthday we may fi nally, as a discipline, make quires capacities for changing global, translocal the move beyond Cold War fears and myths and confi gurations of capital. rediscover Marx as someone who combined a Th e fi nal article in this theme section, by powerful analytical and public role in confront- Penny McCall Howard, addresses the character- ing capitalism with a continuous doubt and istic of the confi guration of global capital that is restlessness about even his own analyses and perhaps most rapidly emerging in political con- strategies. Rather than seeking to escape into sciousness, namely its tendency to destroy the the search for a purer, less cumbersome outside planet’s vital systems. Fully sympathetic to the to these contradictions, doubts pushed him to concerns behind new trends in anthropology always try to go deeper in his analysis, embrac- that focus on global environmental crisis and ing the new theoretical complications and po- that have developed new methodological and litical challenges that emerge as capitalism as a theoretical approaches to do so, McCall How- relational process continues. What perhaps dis- ard’s article, however, warns that “post-human” tinguishes us most as Marxian anthropologists is or “beyond-human” anthropologies avoid en- likewise this determination to struggle intellec- gagement with the greatest rift causing environ- tually within the social and relational contradic- mental destruction, that is, the capitalist class tions of capitalism, convinced that it is only as a relations that assign the control of human rela- whole, and through class struggle, that human- tions with their environments to a tiny elite who kind can truly escape injustice. Th us, in the pres- subject these relations to capital’s endless need ent, with neoliberal capitalism’s house of divisive for accumulating surplus. Th e article backs this cards on fi re and everyone smelling smoke and argument up with detailed ethnographic in- feeling the heat, a resurgent Marxian anthropol- sights into the changing working lives and sub- ogy illuminates the particular intimate, lived re- jectivities of Scottish fi shers. At the same time, alities of turmoil and at the same time confronts however, it off ers a clear and sophisticated ex- the exploitative, exclusionary logics of the rela- posé of the diff erence between the new wave of tional process of capitalism as a whole. materialism in anthropology and the relational and historical materialism of Marxian anthro- pology, demonstrating why the latter can pro- Acknowledgments duce the kind of sharp analysis and critique that can confront the planet’s present crisis. We would like to dedicate this special issue to Th e contributions to this special issue thus the memory of our friend and comrade Ananth propose Marxian ways out of the predicament Aiyer, who passed away unexpectedly in the that capitalism has posed and continues to pose spring of 2015. Ananth provided generous and for mainstream anthropology. Th ey contribute constant support to our project, and his cha- to an anthropology that is not so intimidated risma, commitment, and insights are much by “grand narratives” that it jettisons the search missed. We also owe much to all other speakers, for coherent, unifying theories altogether. And discussants, chairs, and audience members on while continuing the eff ort to scrutinize anthro- panels at the 2011 AAA meeting in Montreal, pology’s imperialist and at the same time sub- the 2013 AAA meeting in Chicago, and the 2012 12 | Patrick Neveling and Luisa Steur

IUAES world conference in Manchester. Special Aiyer, Ananth. 2008. “Th e allure of the transna- thanks go to Nicholas de Genova for proposing tional: Notes on some aspects of the political the project title, “Marxism Resurgent”; to Don economy of water in India.” Cultural Anthropol- Kalb and Stephen Reyna, who both have been ogy 22 (4): 640–658. invaluable advisers; and to the peer reviewers Amin, Samir. 1976. Unequal development: An essay on the social formations of peripheral capitalism. for this special issue. Hassocks: Harvester Press. Baca, George. 2016. “Sidney W. Mintz: From the Mundial Upheaval to a dialectical Patrick Neveling (PhD, Social Anthropology, anthropology.” Dialectical Anthropology 40 (1): Martin Luther University of Halle-Wittenberg) 1–11. is Researcher at the Historical Institute of the Baca, George. 2018. “Class without production, University of Bern. He is also an Associate at the history without materialism, and US politics Department of Social Anthropology at the Uni- without racism.” Dialectical Anthropology 42 (1): versity of Bergen. Patrick has published widely 17–23. on the historical anthropology of capitalism and Banaji, Jairus. 1977. “Modes of production in a is an editor of FocaalBlog. He is currently fi nal- materialist conception of history. “ Capital and izing a book manuscript on the global historical Class 1 (3): 1–44. Becker, Heike. 2018. “‘Global 1968’ on the African anthropology of export processing zones and continent.” FocaalBlog, 9 February. http://www special economic zones since 1947. .focaalblog.com/2018/02/09/heike-becker- Email: [email protected] global-1968-on-the-african-continent. Bloch, Maurice. 1975. “Introduction.” In Marxist Luisa Steur (PhD, Sociology and Social Anthro- analyzes and social anthropology, ed. Maurice pology, Central European University, Budapest) Bloch, xi–xiv. London: Malaby Press. is Assistant Professor in the Department of An- Bloch, Maurice. 1983. Marxism and anthropology: thropology at the University of Amsterdam. She Th e history of a relationship. Oxford: Claredon is the author of Indigenist Mobilization: Con- Press. fronting Electoral Communism and Precarious Cannizzo, Jeanne. 1983. “George Hunt and the Livelihoods in Post-reform Kerala (Berghahn invention of Kwakiutl culture.” Canadian Review Books, 2017). She is also managing and lead of Sociology and Anthropology 20 (1): 44. Carrier, James G. 2016. Aft er the crisis: Anthropo- editor of Focaal. Her current work focuses on logical thought, neoliberalism and the aft ermath, Afro-Cuban/black activism, socialist ideology, Routledge studies in anthropology. London: and everyday politics in the context of capitalist Routledge. transformation in Havana. Carrier, James, and Don Kalb, eds. 2015. Anthro- Email: [email protected] pologies of class: Power, practice and inequality. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. de Lima, Maria Antónia Pedroso. 2003. Grandes Note famílias, grandes empresas: Ensaio antropológico sobre uma elite de Lisboa [Grand families, major companies: An anthropological study of Lisbon’s 1. For other such important cross-disciplinary elite]. Lisbon: D. Quixote. infl uences from the Global South, see Nugent Feldman-Bianco, Bela. 1992. “Multiple layers of time (2002). and space: Th e construction of class, ethnicity, and nationalism among Portuguese immigrants.” Annals of the New York Academy of Sciences 645 References (1): 145–174. Foster-Carter, Aidan. 1978. “Th e modes of pro- Allen, Kieran. (2004) 2017. Weber: Sociologist of duction controversy.” New left review 107 (1): empire. London: Pluto Press. 47–78. Marxian anthropology resurgent | 13

Frank, Andre Gunder. 1975. “Development and Hobsbawm, Eric J. 1983. “Mass-producing tradi- underdevelopment in the new world: Smith and tions: Europe, 1870–1914.” In Th e invention of Marx vs. the Weberians.” Th eory and Society 2 tradition, ed. Eric J. Hobsbawm and Terence O. (1): 431–466. Ranger, 263–308. Cambridge: Cambridge Uni- Franquesa, Jaume. 2016. “Dignity and indignation: versity Press. bridging morality and political economy in James, C. L. R. 1938. Th e black Jacobins. London: contemporary Spain.” Dialectical Anthropology Secker & Warburg. 40 (2): 69–86. Kalb, Don. 1997. Expanding class: Power and Friedman, Jonathan. 1994. Cultural identity and everyday politics in industrial communities, the global process. London: Sage. , 1850–1950. Durham, NC: Duke Friedman, Jonathan. (1979) 1998. System, structure University Press. and contradiction: Th e evolution of “Asiatic” social Kalb, Don. 2012. “Th inking about neoliberalism formations. 2nd ed. Walnut Creek, CA: AltaMira as if the crisis was actually happening.” Social Press. Anthropology 20 (3): 318–330. https://doi.org/ Friedman, Jonathan. 2015. “Global systemic crisis, 10.1111/j.1469-8676.2012.00215.x. class and its representation.” In Carrier and Kalb Kalb, Don. 2013. “Regimes of value and worth- 2015: 183–199. lessness: Two stories I know, plus a Marxian Friedman, Jonathan, and Kajsa Ekholm Friedman. refl ection.” Max Planck Institute for Social 2013. “Globalization as a discourse of hegemonic Anthropology Working Papers No. 147. crisis: A global systemic analysis.” American Kalb, Don. Forthcoming. “Trotsky over Mauss: Ethnologist 40 (2): 244–257. Anthropological theory and the October 1917 Friedman, Kajsa Ekholm, and Jonathan Friedman. commemoration.” Dialectical Anthropology. 2008. Historical transformations: Th e anthropology Kalb, Don, and Massimiliano Mollona, eds. 2018. of global systems. Lanham, MD: AltaMira Press. Worldwide mobilizations: Class struggles and Gill, Lesley, and Sharryn Kasmir. 2016. “History, urban commoning. New York: Berghahn Books. politics, space, labor: on unevenness as an Kaminer, Matan. 2015. “Markets of sorrow, labors anthropological concept.” Dialectical Anthro- of faith: New Orleans in the wake of Katrina by pology 40 (2): 87–102. https://doi.org/10.1007/ Vincanne Adams.” Anthropological Quarterly 88 s10624-016-9416-7. (1): 227–235. Glick Schiller, Nina, and Ayse Çağlar. 2016. “Dis- Kasmir, Sharryn, and August Carbonella. 2014. placement, emplacement and migrant new- Blood and fi re: Toward a global anthropology of comers: Rethinking urban sociabilities within labor. New York: Berghahn Books. multiscalar power.” Identities 23 (1): 17–34. Kobrinsky, Vernon. 1975. “Dynamics of the Fort Goddard, Victoria A., and Susana Narotzky, eds. Rupert class struggle: Fighting with property 2015. Industry and work in contemporary vertically revisited.” Papers in Honor of Harry capitalism: Global models, local lives? London: Hawthorn, ed. Vernon C. Serl and Herbert C. Routledge. Taylor Jr., 32–59. Bellingham: Western Washing- Godelier, Maurice. 1999. Th e enigma of the gift . ton State College. Cambridge: Polity Press. Lem, Winnie, and Belinda Leach. 2002. “Introduc- Gough, Kathleen. 1968. “Anthropology: Child of tion.” In Culture, economy, power: Anthropology imperialism.” Monthly Review 19 (11): 12–27. as critique/anthropology as praxis, xx–xx. Albany: Gough, Kathleen. 1990. “‘Anthropology and impe- State University of New York Press. rialism’ revisited.” Economic and Political Weekly Lem, Winnie, and Pauline Gardiner Barber. 2010. 25 (31): 1705–1708. Class, contention, and a world in motion. New Hann, Chris, Mihaly Sarkany, and Peter Skalnik York: Berghahn Books. 2005. Studying people in the people’s democracies: Marx, Karl, and Friedrich Engels. 1965. Capital. 3 Socialist era anthropology in East-Central Europe. vols. Moscow: Progress Publishers. Münster: Lit Verlag. Marx, Karl, and Friedrich Engels. 1998. Th e German Hirslund, Dan Vesalainen. 2016. “Fighting back Ideology (Including Th eses on Feuerbach and against dispossession.” Dialectical Anthropology Introduction to the Critique of Political Economy). 40 (1): 49–55. Amherst, NY: Prometheus Books.. 14 | Patrick Neveling and Luisa Steur

Mauss, Marcel. 1954. Th e gift : Forms and functions Palmié, Stephan, Aisha Khan, and George Baca. of exchange in archaic societies. Glencoe, IL: Free 2009. “Introduction.” In Empirical futures: Press. Anthropologists and historians engage the work of Meillassoux, Claude. 1981. Maidens, meal and Sidney W. Mintz, ed. George Baca, Aisha Khan, money: Capitalism and the domestic community. and Stephan Palmié, 1–30. Chapel Hill: Univer- Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. sity of North Carolina Press. Mintz, Sidney W. 1966. “Th e Caribbean as a socio- Panimbang, Fahmi and Abu Mufakhir. 2018. “La- cultural area.” Journal of World History 9 (1): bour Strikes in Post-Authoritarian Indonesia, 916–941. 1998-2013.” In Workers’ Movements and Strikes Mintz, Sidney W. 1974. Worker in the cane: A Puerto in the Twenty-First Century. A Global Perspective, Rican life history. Westport, CN: Greenwood ed. Jörg Nowak, Madhumita Dutta and Peter Press. Birke, 21–44. London: Rowman & Littlefi eld. Mintz, Sidney W. 1985. Sweetness and power: Th e Patterson, Th omas C. 2009. Karl Marx, anthropolo- place of sugar in modern history. New York: gist. Oxford: Berg. Sift on. Povinelli, Elizabeth A. 2016. Geontologies: A requiem Mintz, Sidney W. 1996. “Enduring substances, to late liberalism. Durham, NC: Duke University trying theories: Th e Caribbean region as Oik- Press. oumene.” Journal of the Royal Anthropological Price, David H. 2016. Cold War anthropology: Th e Institute 2 (2): 289–311. https://doi.org/ CIA, the Pentagon, and the growth of dual use an- 10.2307/3034097. thropology. Durham, NC: Duke University Press. Narotzky, Susana. 2015. “Th e organic intellectual Reyna, Stephen P. 2016. Deadly contradictions: Th e and the production of class in Spain.” In Carrier new American empire and global warring. New and Kalb 2015: 53–71. York: Berghahn Books. Narotzky, Susana. 2016. “Between inequality and Ribeiro, Gustavo Lins. 1994. Transnational capital- injustice: Dignity as a motive for mobilization ism and hydropolitics in Argentina: Th e Yacyretá during the crisis.” History and anthropology 27 high dam. Gainesville: University Press of (1): 74–92. Florida. Narotzky, Susana, and Niko Besnier. 2014. “Crisis, Robbins, Joel. 2013. “Beyond the suff ering subject: value, and hope: rethinking the economy.” Cur- toward an anthropology of the good.” Journal rent Anthropology 55 (S9): S4–S16. of the Royal Anthropological Institute 19 (3): Neveling, Patrick. 2015. “Export processing zones 447–462. and global class formation.” In Carrier and Kalb: Roseberry, William. 1982. “Balinese cockfi ghts and 164–182. the seduction of anthropology.” Social Research Neveling, Patrick. Forthcoming. “Karl Marx.” In Th e 49 (4): 1013–1028. International Encyclopedia of Anthropology, ed. Salemink, Oscar, and Mattias Borg Rasmussen. Hillary Callan. Hoboken, NJ: Wiley Blackwell. 2016. “Aft er dispossession: Ethnographic ap- Nilsen, Alf Gunvald. 2010. Dispossession and resis- proaches to neoliberalization.” Focaal—Journal tance in India: Th e river and the rage. London: of Global and Historical Anthropology 74: 3–12. Routledge. Sarkar, Sumit. 1996. “Th e decline of the subaltern Nonini, Donald M. 2015. “‘At that time we were in subaltern studies.” In Writing Social History, intimidated on all sides’: Residues of the Malayan 82–108. Delhi: Oxford University Press. emergency as a conjunctural episode of dispos- Sider, Gerald. 2003. Living Indian histories: Lumbee session.” Critical Asian Studies 47 (3): 337–358. and Tuscarora people in North Carolina. Chapel Nugent, David. 2002. “Introduction.” In Locating Hill: University of North Carolina Press. capitalism in time and space: Global restructur- Silverman, Sydel. 2011. “Introduction: Th e Puerto ings, politics, and identity, ed. David Nugent, xx– Rico Project—Refl ections Sixty Years Later.” xx. Stanford, CA: Stanford University Press. Identities 18 (3): 179–184. https://doi.org/10 Ortner, Sherry B. 2016. “Dark anthropology and its .1080/1070289X.2011.635279. others: Th eories since the eighties.” HAU: Journal Smith, Gavin. 2006. “When ‘the logic of capital is the of Ethnographic Th eory 6 (1): 47–73. real which lurks in the background’: Programme Marxian anthropology resurgent | 15

and practice in European Regional Economies.” Weiss, Hadas. 2015. “Financialization and its dis- Current Anthropology 47 (4): 621–639. contents: Israelis negotiating pensions.” Ameri- Smith, Gavin A. 2014. Intellectuals and (counter-) can Anthropologist 117 (3): 506–518. politics: Essays in historical realism. New York: Williams, Eric R. 1942. Th e negro in the Caribbean. Berghahn Books. Bronze Booklet No. 8. Washington, DC; Associ- Smith, Neil. 2010. Uneven development: Bature, ates in Negro Folk Education. capital, and the production of space. 3rd ed. with Williams, Eric R. 1944. Capitalism and slavery. a new aft erword. London: Verso Press. Chapel Hill, NC: University of North Carolina Steur, Luisa. 2017. Indigenist mobilization: Con- Press. fronting electoral communism and precarious Wolf, Eric R. 1969. Peasant wars of the twentieth livelihoods in post-reform Kerala. New York: century. New York: Harper & Row. Berghahn Books. Wolf, Eric R. 1999. Envisioning power: Ideologies Strümpell, Christian. 2014. “Th e politics of dispos- of dominance and crisis. Berkeley: University of session in an Odishan steel town.” Contributions California Press. to Indian Sociology 48 (1): 45–72. Wolf, Eric R. (1982) 2010. Europe and the people Terray, Emmanuel. 1969. Le Marxisme devant les without history. Berkeley: University of Califor- socié té s primitives, deux é tudes. Paris: F. Maspero. nia Press. Trans. Mary Klopper as Marxism and “primi- Worsley, Peter. 1957a. “Th e anatomy of Mau Mau.” tive” societies: Two studies (New York: Monthly Th e New Reasoner 1: 13–25. Review Press, 1972). Worsley, Peter. 1957b. “Margaret Mead: Science or Trapido, Joe. 2016a. Breaking rocks: Music, ideology science fi ction? Refl ections of a British anthro- and economic collapse, from Paris to Kinshasa. pologist.” Science and Society 21 (2): 122–134. New York: Berghahn Books. Worsley, Peter. 1964. Th e three worlds: Culture and Trapido, Joe. 2016b. “Potlatch and the articulation of world development. London: Weidenfeld & modes of production: Revisiting French Marxist Nicolson. Anthropology and the history of central Africa.” Worsley, Peter. 1970. Th e trumpet shall sound: A Dialectical Anthropology 40 (3): 199–220. study of ‘Cargo’ cults in Melanesia. 2nd ed. Lon- Turner, Terry S. 2009. “Th e crisis of late structural- don: Paladin. ism: Perspectivism and animism—Rethinking Worsley, Peter. 1975. Inside China. London: A. Lane. culture, nature, spirit, and bodiliness.” Tipití: Zigon, Jarrett. 2018. Disappointment: Toward a Journal of the Society for the Anthropology of critical hermeneutics of worldbuilding. New York: Lowland South America 7 (1): 3–42. Fordham University Press.