I do not subscribe to your understanding of Marxism here. To say that such points are strictly meaningless beyond a point in Marxist analysis is a crudest distortion of Marxian method. The point may be meaningless for your Dalit Marxist analysis but not for Marxism. By this, do you mean there is no difference between what is called political and what is known as economic? Do you even claim that Marxism thinks so?
"I am not clear what do you mean by “specificity or uniformity of labor form or labor process,” Comrade, trust me, I am really not at all clear what do you mean by this phrase? Please explain! In this connection (neither clarification nor explanation) you said: 1. “Labour form specific to each mode of production” 1. That you referred to Engels’ text “Principles of Communism.” Still, I don’t know what you mean. Could you please explain? You are free, of course, to heap any number of insults while doing it, but please explain!
By highlighting the work of Engels (Principles of Communism) in my post I have made it clear what I mean by labour form specific to each mode of production. To say that you are not clear about my expression only underlines your theoretical ignorance of Marx and Engels.
"At a different level, one is surprised that you think Dalits should embody a uniform labor process in India." I still ask this question. It is not enough for you to assert that I was wrong and misrepresenting when I asked you the meaning of a line you wrote and switch over to some other issue. It is not useful to avoid the responsibility to explain your own words when asked to.
This is not true. It is your wrong inference/ interpretation of my writing. My conflict with your use of 'Dalit' prefixing Marxism is fundamentally related to the specificity of labour form associated with each mode of production. The category you are prefixing Marxism does not necessarily embody a specific labour form typical of the capitalist mode of production. Tell us, why a prefix has to do with “a specific labour form typical of capitalist mode of production”? And, why should it ‘embody’ it? This business of embodying is another curiosity. Are you sure you are the word correctly? Please confirm. To equate 'Dalit' with the form of labour that capitalist production entail in India is a crudest distortion of Marxism/Marxian politics. What do you mean by “equating ‘Dalit’ with the form of labour that capitalist production entail in India.”? It is clear that this attempted sentence doesn’t mean anything as it is. But, it is not important if you explain what did you try to say? The category you are prefixing Marxism is totally insufficient and in fact has a regressive impact on the understanding of Marxian theory, method and politics.
You say that I am a comrade from Mars who is totally alienated from earth (and by extension Indian reality). I believe that you are sunken in the distorted understanding of Indian reality and seem to extend your decayed understanding (spreading the disease) to Marxism too.
My fundamental conflict with you still remains on the prefixing of 'Dalit' to Marxism. I am happy comrade that you can write clearly when you want to. I hope you extend this healthiness to other things. If your fundamental problem is with Dalit prefix, what is your point in trying to explain which you used various phrases with the word ‘labour’ in them? Again, please explain. We don’t have to know everything in advance. Find out if you have to, but explain.
Understand that when Marx/Engels theorized the labour form specific to each mode of production, they also implicitly underlined the 'mentality' associated with each labour forms specific to each mode of production. Their theorization of labour has implication for politics as well. Propaganda and mobilization of labour, central to Marxian politics, bases itself on the theorization of labour by Marx/Engels.
There can be no innocence in your prefixing of 'Dalit' to Marxism albeit a deliberate one aimed at poisoning and distorting the Marxian politics.
Unless you keep the emotions away and engage in the central theme that I try to explain in my understanding of Marxian method and politics there can be no meaningful consensus between us.