Thank you for having me back. It's nice to be here in person to give this.
So I guess I'm going to let you touch in some places that inspired you to page the book.
It's based on the slide. It's not made of a slide.
Annotations that haven't been published. I'm not going to run into sort of the full breadth of the arguments in the book,
because what I wanted to focus on was that element, the aspects of narrative sort, the kind of association.
So we'll be looking quite a lot as well.
But is not just catalyst in India, is experiences, media,
the phrases that hold the reading I wanted to look at and how does that actually
get picked up to 37 states to suggest that you get closer to the U.S. as well.
But the book itself does deal with how it was employed in Asia as well.
Well, I thought it was confusing, quite original. Was this South Asia thing actually to make universal from the perspective the
global state is kind of this old school translation of the silver lining.
So this idea that, you know, in parts of Asia, they've missed out.
This is a swing in a specific to South Asia which is also about these statistics are read those in the early 2000 so that works.
So for those of you who don't necessarily go there, which is background, that was that to you,
kind of a very quick whistle stop tour of the chronology and why this kind of biography,
what was quite important to be speaking so proud of you being born in 1835 to those in 1917,
Korea goes through just very interesting factory where he is very fortunate enough to go to these great funded schools,
the kind of South Asian side kind of place.
So that kind of stuff ends up at Elphinstone College in Mumbai, ends up then actually becoming one of the best in the business.
Something else is in college, so eventually he gets involved in Parsi social reforms that the Zoroastrian community in Bombay is kind
of going through such a terrible time to talk about mostly aesthetic things like education for women,
ideals is kind of getting just generally passes it. So it's a mixed education.
So being actually designed in English and that kind of thing, interested in reforming local municipal councils,
that sort of thing that's connected to the civic aspect of how they discuss policies.
But it sounds like classmates very you see them sort of pivot to to business.
He is a business, but he also knows he's working with Parsi colleagues to set up a branch of the company based in Bombay in the UK,
eventually just as business.
So we'll see how he ends up becoming bankrupt and then shifting its focus more exclusively this economy rather than social reform.
So you can see it as a sort of liberal brand working with consumers in ways we might consider typical.
But he's trying to find what he thinks the ultimate way should be.
So social reform is that sort of classic liberal institutions of education.
Education is sort of like gentrify people, create change with estates, contracts, that kind of thing eventually gets dissolution.
But this changes with the economy.
Eventually you get disillusioned with the way you, the country, some of the British Empire because of this bankruptcy and financial crises and so on.
Then it becomes a much, much more politically engaged sort of not only kind of just reform, but taking on the premiership of the prince,
but where he starts to look, it's not enough to just run a kind of business in a sort of laissez faire economy situation.
Clearly, there is state involvement in some way in setting up businesses, rather.
And we'll see how this this kind of effects his idea of the type of social contract that exists between entities, how it affects issues of that.
But I think most interesting so maybe how about you said last month in the UK and so this is what he was
trying to do by saying we all know about cycle theory and what he decided to imply was sucking wealth out,
maybe rusticated self-hate, except preventing it from becoming a kind of modern liberal democracy.
But actually I think really thinking about RTC Scotland is to say, look, empire doesn't just rust to face South Asia in the face as well.
And it's only through our experience that you can understand why, one,
why it was across all these due to the same sort of predicament as opposed to that extent.
And I think it's really the only thing to us from within the liberal frame of.
It's doing this at the time and it's very, very radical.
So if you compare other anti-imperial factors closely at the time, it helps us keep going back to the early 20th century that is very attainable.
And so he really doesn't have much space of this sort of power of speaking the South.
I mean, he sees it as a cultural place under consumption in the U.K. that's affecting across living conditions and so on.
It's it's potentially reducing the responsibility of the states.
He wants to reign in empires.
He sees it as a place where chocolate profits will not pay attention to the white working classes in their own communities.
He has nothing to say about the normative education of blackness.
So now what is really the first liberal crisis and the serious mistake?
It's a single political spectacles of South Asia.
So you can see this kind of, you know, a kind of progressive involvement in more than politics and political reform.
You see things again. But if anybody is getting involved in enfranchised women in the U.K. and that kind of stuff, again,
these are left out of official accounts in the sense that this is a sort of a sideshow to his main concern, which is a great wealth for media.
But what this book is trying to do is say, well, look, why is he engaging in radical British politics aside time?
Why is he not just in the south of the country repeatedly lobbying issues of Indian interests?
So why kind of universal suffrage?
Why go to the quarters to say stuff that wasn't really ingratiating itself to mainstream media?
So you can't really say it's a stretch.
It's not an attempt to analyse its policies that sought to change Britain by as much as one exchange traded yet.
So you can see,
but I think excerpts that have many details that in great detail appear to be right on the cusp of being elected to the House of Commons.
As to which is about British Labour, it's got nothing to do with the unions, it's also about the courts.
He's talking about forms of arbitration between labour force, wage cuts, no rules,
no alternative state talk, but coming to a fair kind of tough decision between two means of production.
How does that feature in his dismissal? And why is why is it that it's injured experiences allowance?
It's not necessarily just suffered in Question Time.
And we know that most people obviously focusing on crucial in India.
That book really is a compendium of documents.
It's not sort of traditional political treatises, a compendium of letters, speeches that he's really done over the previous 40 years.
So the object of the book was to say, well, look, if this sort this ideology begins in 1860,
why does it matter what the ultimate made for in that India?
And why does it always look like what maybe is the source universes of these these claims?
So that applies to, in my view, a kind of a global critique of multiculturalism.
I'm just saying. Right. So I'll do a quick overview of the ways he's been looked at.
And this is one of the reasons I want is to be on set because I remember you saying it's not correct,
that obviously the British rule in the South Asia crisis was kind of stored as the primary source of page selection.
And so the regulation at the time that actually that was in the list of some resources that historians,
very many books actually commented on what we should be looking at,
what narratives it calls lost beyond the kind of traditional nationalist framework that should be something that Congress is meeting
recite is the first person to say that in a systematic way that could be sucked up severe to deserve the Imperial Metropole,
but that's as far as you got. So he was a of books and he did find a whole general.
Okay. So I thought it's quite strange that, you know, you saw this is kind of a TV without that commentary.
On the other side I found with him is insofar as there were books often written by South Asian scholars,
they were kind of celebratory biographies so that they weren't really getting to the Marxist
thought to say it's just a case of a member of the Nationalist Party you should know about thing.
And of course they wanted to celebrate that. He was the first Indian member of the House of Commons in 1890 to see a newspaper
citation in the context and that has been a lot of the economist around.
So. Well, but also a fantastic to this place to look for him.
But to me, it's just fun to see this role.
And again, you know, newspaper articles like this, it's very much how Claudius was a source of great pride.
So what you see is that they're all from the country.
And so and so the polarisation has been is kind of multicultural.
Nice story that we've been talking about this all the time and there's a number of other figures like those sales
figures to kind of sit alongside narratives of people who try to work the systems as well to try to get elected.
Parliament position on the hospital is the new imperial history sort of sort of, you know, wants to look at how they navigated this kind of racism.
Clever about the device. So all this very strategic it's all very instrumental accounts not really getting into you know,
if they take, you know, with ideas, how did that start to face you?
Just kind of regurgitating whatever will get them elected.
Some of the other thing that that stop does is really instrumentalize these indicators of self.
So it's about how they're pretty to pieces for their own purposes.
And so which is, you know, anything in so far as it goes, but it doesn't really get to the heart of it.
These guys South are actually trying to get to, let's call it that, what is due to the core of that that, you know, we started this out quite well.
So in the out of the coalition government because there were people selected as liberal, of course,
made quite cause by the radicals, which was to kind of to help get people to come here and study.
It was very much in that mould civil society to be successful.
So it must be said that don't get appleinsider. That's I think everyone's got to step out of that sort of version of the British establishment and
probably just understand what it means to go into the site in collaboration with the government.
I suspect just before you can't say who was elected that they're probably not especially interested in my classes.
So that's a big thing. So I wanted to give a very different account to this, but you're not sort of just trying to pull comments from what was posted.
There is an analogy. I mean, he does does deal with statistics, but but perhaps it was I think some in the archival material,
it's kind of like chucking around this word a nationalist.
I don't think it makes a great deal of sense with him at such a pace in the books.
Said it from the outset. Let's just take it in this kind of dyad between colonised,
colonised the very forms that takes because I don't think it is for all great sort of cultural sovereignty and fiscal sovereignty that
you could really be called an explicit the so because we've just accepted that form of internationalism I think results in around 5:00.
Those are not orgies about the critique of Empire.
He never really saw its dissolution. He asked for a sort of something similar to an Irish rule stuck with it because
the theory is that he's not really a nationalist in a conventional sense.
So these sorts of works, that sort of thing, is that that particular suit articulated.
So I was not especially interested in replicating the most important one where I think we get typical,
you know, this is one of the best in my time of the rise of fascism,
this idea of analogy is lumped in with a whole set of other things,
like Tilak with all the social circles to come to their own conclusions about how, you know, Empire was was economically exploitative.
But I didn't really do much of the kind of individual corporations, individual accounts.
So basically said this is kind of a natural response that any country would have to come out of this.
And it has, as a former prosecutor asked you to sunny skies educated in maybe from different regions.
They all have certain backgrounds in academia or law. So of course there was an exorcist and in the book I described it kind of policy.
Yes, that is kind of cult style. There is a natural pushback against these forms of exploitation, this kind of sociological institution.
So maybe by individuals with their thoughts and ideas. And of course, the other thing is like the argument itself.
So if you're if you're calling him an economic nationalist, then you already say your response to say,
look, whatever, he's doing such a great critique of British.
Can't necessarily fit into that mould unless he got into a world of kind of a kind of business, which I don't actually think he is.
So that was a that was a kind of looking departure for something that I wanted to change the way we see it.
So at no point do I say, this is this book and you can say you have multiple versions of this story, sort of what to look for in this.
So these are both actually excited by side with them.
But also, do you think he'd give me fantastic thought that, you know, does say that there is a post-colonial masochism,
there isn't a supermodel decision, you're not just going to look in a European nation, it's sort of continuity.
But like that particular book and it's still same as these collections seem to have a
kind of natural response to various frameworks of how British set up on these railways.
In my entire system, they're all kind of acting against this,
almost about thinking sort of institution where they, up until very recently published, absolutely fantastic.
I mean, the first book reads kind of get properly into kinds of Italian and that that's
what 20,000 that there's a lot to kind of look at that most closely people were
coming to the toilet and mostly to is printed stuff so it's a great great book
for doing a kind of detailed biographical overview of what narratives about.
But again, as you can see from this, if you still have that, that sort of book that I described that I could not do no video.
Totally. So what was a solid jumping off place?
Well, the first interest ladies love to become an intimacy.
So I started my Casey the year or the year before Chris published this book By the Stage.
So he was my supervisor as well. So I was having quite these discussions with him about, you know, what he made about marriage.
I think he made for me a lot of critical kind of interventions about marriage now at the outset.
Right. So a serious kind of theoretical individual,
what he was trying to do something with the weight of his life in India and had his own kind of conception.
So one of the ones Chris mentions is is benign sociology decided to innovate lots of kind of statistical methods,
quantitative methods, questionnaires and so on to get at the heart of what liberalism, liberal capitalism is doing.
And then from that speculating, a kind of duplicitous theory, but obviously that is Christmas dealing with a range of things across 20 years.
Now what he's going to be sort of a section of in attendance was a part of this was kind of doing a bit a secular
study and Chris doesn't get into the detail of the British side of things that much it's it's mostly isolated.
So it's this basis because the book was was conservative. Yes.
And the other one is perhaps a bit less expected. It's an homage to slave trade.
So this has been published several times, well before Chris's before before I saw some other studies on graduate studies, etc.
But one of the I think this is more the implicit argument of this book is that a lot of
18th century political thought in Europe was essentially dealing with this tension,
may not resolved it, but was addressing the tensions that once he moved from the age of communism into the age of free trade,
almost counterintuitively, you go to a more potentially international tensions between countries rather than less.
So you would think that economic independence or interdependence between countries in an age of free trade ought to create less tension.
And that's almost conventional wisdom today. Some of the biggest trading partner going to go to war in the Middle East.
I suggest the sultry sixties question, which is what is content?
There's a lot of these thinkers who Adam Smith, you themselves say, no, actually, it's that interdependence creates its own forms of inequalities.
And if you have a country that's a major manufacturer that's interdependent with a country that's really a producer of primary goods,
nobody groups in those countries have to rely on each other,
but they will actually proliferate throughout sides that will have political and social impacts and will potentially,
if you allocate tickets out of political parties to talk about dispensations, we'll see that as a way to see that as a whole.
So it could be about places, policies, whatever is no substitute about assistance to resolve these issues.
But they are issues that continue to play so and so the 21st century.
So what I want us to do is position ourselves to recognise this.
I was dealing with it is these are way so all those see it.
Yes in your part of the empire. But they borrowed their own money on their own accounts.
There is actually economic problem between, say, billionaires and Indian billionaires or lexical owners in India to call.
GROSS And they do because the souls of all Iranians actually, you know, see, this is what I see.
Look, we need to come up with a new way politically of approaching global capitalism, that sort of socially social cleavages.
In some ways, yes, they need to sort of either a collapse of the empire or even the other kind of, you know, violence on the streets of India.
We're looking at a lot of violence between is community at the local level is actually caused by a commercial sort of religious conflict.
So those are probably the two major sort of influences as I was thinking about this from sort of physical therapy.
So why look and how much you get kind of touched on some of the reasons that I think I mean,
I always like discussing because I think it sort of sums up my my attitude towards this is
what does it mean to create a politics between these two regions isn't just the politics.
I mean, what does a truly kind of Anglo-Indian radical liberal politics look like?
And I think, you know what, she's the only one doing this.
So even he's kind of liberals in India at a time, I'm not especially interested in what goes on.
So you might think about the classes that matter in Bombay.
Even people like Rochelle all is another great theorist of the training, you know?
He says that it's breeding, but he's exclusively interested in the kind of the level of rent extraction in Bengal.
He just wants the latter to produce that, if that's not his fault.
There's an interesting correspondence between him and Morarji Banerjee says, Look, this is more like it.
I mean, I'm not against the peasants, but the drain is a much bigger thing, has much wider implications to what you're implying.
So I think this idea of kind of destroying a kind of global political economy of
empire and kind of coming out with the politics of it from the Global South,
rather being Western theorists of it is the thing that he was kind of really contributing.
And he gets labelled with this voice of India, the members of India saying when he's a member of the House of Commons,
but there's interesting letters, he's upper class and Sue Gladstone basically says,
I know you guys communists, but I see myself as a representative of labour as much as the peasants or,
you know, the the ratepayer in Bombay and this kind of thing.
So he's very actively seeking self as a kind of global politician, as much as that kind of exclusively in the trade show.
So what really allows them to do this? And I think one of the things I wanted to say about NIMBYism is that, you know,
that's clearly a common sort of with the literature that says that liberalism is one of the kind of foundations of British imperialism it allows.
The colonisation took place in South Asia because you hold up a set of sociological characteristics that people assume to me you encounter prejudices,
etc. People have, as you say, sociological characteristics.
So that's the essence of us approach.
But I also want to say, but that's the kind of cultural sociological approach to to represent I mean,
the appearance of what kinds of apologists you see.
What if you bring political economy back here in a big way and we understand the 19th and early 20th century as a society
which capital is not global and the Indian thinkers realised Scotland when I'm using this kind of stuff about you know,
entering a debate about different tells this stuff about potentially radical critique so long as it's coming from a kind of South Asian point of view,
it stuff so other scholars and historians sort of novices as well, I suspect more effectively the moral kind of grassroots response to this as well.
It's difficult to engaging with this kind of radical liberalism because they recognise that I'll be talking to.
But it also does it from a slightly more, you know, talk with you so in a classic history.
So he recognises that colonialism is not only tactful as a sort of become synonymous with that extent.
So if the working classes in Britain are kind of trodden underfoot by a type of monopoly,
capitalism is alright with companies in general might be beside himself and so on.
But there's, there's been a kind of, you know, a negative externality in the way it was played out.
Whatever colonialism is is just the extension of this kind of consensus.
So that ends up becoming a kind of Republican, say, to the supermodel, because basically you go through the processes, which is the pattern,
and says, well, this is what the problem with it is a form of arbitrary nomination for dress to get back to, you know, genuine opportunities.
When it produces itself, contract with each other on multiple equal basis.
So yes, see that he's coming up with this critique from within the Liberals.
But it is a radical in the sense that I think if someone was making these arguments, it's a political report as to why it's not under the system.
But it's it's an appreciation of monopoly, rent extraction, you know, excess investment in kind of fixed goods rather than that sort of profits.
So it is leading to increasing inequality and that is needed to secession, political opportunities as well.
And this is a failure, really, of the countries.
Companies all know that, you know, he's he's he's looking at what's going on in his community, communities.
It's starting to spread and eventually come to a conclusion that this is more a result of this than, say, kind of social or religious issue.
We'll touch on that in a second. But I thought we're going, what do you think about this,
that if we had to make the claim that this is a kind of universal form of liberalism from the south to the north,
that it comes from possibly useful to fight off the forces that are overseas, to control their way to course.
These are highly educated mobile, very well represented in the National Congress and so on, quite well beyond their actual demographic numbers.
But nonetheless, it's fascinating that it's you know, it's one of these tiny minority that how to reach for this particular topic.
And that was extinction of the universe.
Was this so, you know, through this kind of recognition, not that you can arrest the seeds of monopoly capitalism,
but the thinking is that even the British perceived is very dependent upon an Indian viewpoint,
to the point that I don't think I thought a British thinker would necessarily constantly be supporting this particular type.
And so looking at what is life, you know, what is the kind of policy will be that allows it to make all of these sorts of arguments?
So I think one of the most important ones is just the sense in which the parties are starting to have a kind of the faithful,
less about the less standard British.
That's not a good idea. So one of the major things that the policy is all about in the 1830, closer to the text.
I think that's one of the more commercially successful they themselves, the Anglo selling for the British recognises the voices of a minority.
To some extent it serves the sort of gentrification of the nuclear family.
So certain arguments from side sex about all the rationalisations and all that kind of stuff.
I mean, needless to say, there are people who still do that, stylish to say,
but they're certainly more with in British circles than most of the other side of the problem.
A lot of at least by analogy or educated passages,
but not having the punch which is associated with so those that you can you see courts regulate social mores.
So of course, if you want to see the marriage inheritance,
that stuff starts to come under a lot of critique because the policy elites who sit on it while they're presiding over cases of bigamy,
inheritance, adultery, all this kind of stuff, there's a series of scandals with the politics themselves.
So there's all sorts of allegations of that is one of the key things, all the court itself accused that said.
So there's a reaction amongst sort of the greater good of society that, look, we want to retain our religious kind of vanguard people,
but how can we possibly do so if you want to do so, because clearly you're up to the task.
And so there is a point where you can see this as positive press on a discussion about what does a non-institutional social regulation look like?
How do we get the prosecution to regulate itself without having to constantly go back to these guys, be somehow the keepers of all conscience?
And the original thing is social reform.
So this is the way in which he and his colleagues involved in educating women on setting up milestones for young boys,
getting more voices, civil service, all this kind of stuff that's about medium sizing,
individualism, rational choices in life, you know, well, within that kind of distribution policy policy,
it's a self-worth, just a subset except your classification towards these things.
So I think that's one of the initial tipping points of the scale of think about, okay, well how is that possible?
Is it? We do the job, but especially not least because the border state is not getting older.
It's not really like 60. But they start to be a big sensitive to things like divorce and community repetition and whisky.
But it might not be as close to do this as a kind of sense of a general state.
Talk you talk in terms of terrorism, but actually doing not very much like to bring it back.
This, I think, is much more, more, more serious.
So political riots that start crop up in the 1850s and seventies is mostly between Parsis and the city's Muslim community.
The initial one is official records all speculate this is mostly between parties and the control Muslim community on the one hand,
but also a lot of Shia groups doing what are untestable and this kind of thing.
I think you take the records with a pinch of salt because a lot of it the British like
to deflect blame for their actions because it's not they have to deal with it so often.
The reason they want to cut focus of the countries is because they say, Oh,
well, there's a new group of culture, but there are a new elements in Bombay.
So it's a bit unclear sometimes who these are, but nonetheless, I mean,
there is a series of these events which then sort of proliferate beyond Bombay as well, even if you could drop the place,
which really puts the policy community on the back foot,
because previously they enjoyed quite good relations with political parties, with their neighbours or whatever.
I guess the other thing in terms of, you know, in the context of the policy, countries look respectable,
but there's violence amongst the forces or reprisal in some cases of communities as well.
I'll see you kind of hypocrisy.
So that really makes analogy and is kind of people with such backgrounds say, okay, this is not how we want our community to look.
So again, he's he and colleagues say this is about what is it?
It can't just be religious because we say sorry, but that's such a long time, so that can't be it.
And he starts to think along sort of the lines of it's a failure.
The British policy is potentially a failure of kind of suppress the economy to some extent,
because I think what he does realise as some of the papers do at the time as well,
is that a lot of the tensions of emerging emerging between these communities are between traders.
So particularly the opium trade with China became a bit of a cleavage point between
Muslims and the Palestinians as they were kind of fighting for control of that trade.
It is so proliferated through the community. So it is slightly politically.
But I think Ravi, anyway, when he's interviewed about these riots, maybe he says, look, I know, I know it's useful to stop these differences.
You know, all Muslims are people. He says, no, it's got nothing to do with that.
There is a deep a cause. And he doesn't specifically say what the deeper causes for India.
But the rest of the article very interesting about working class politics in Britain.
So there seems to be this kind of understanding in his head that there is a political economy over this and in the early stages in the fifties.
But that doesn't quite work. That is it. But it's a very interesting evidence of that.
But he's also looking at this. So I think the initial section of the book has tried to make this between these these major events.
It's always expected. So this is the first thing you get leaves away from that seminal kind of setting of schools.
But he managed not to take it moving away from those sort of things, but he doesn't think it's the silver bullet.
It's a special meditation and socialisation between the ethnic groups that he used to think it was.
And it's very interesting that it's dominated by, say, fifties and sixties, and then it's just after 50 posts.
So I wanted to look at these events to kind of be a major shift in the staging.
And as I suggested, early, immediately so called me now would be the best of these these problems are so this I would say this is kind of scary at the
other major point so interesting around about say time so initial to be lost in the 1850s and 1950s by the early 1860s,
not just his commercial fortunes, but the commercial politics that we saw as a member of kind of a leading quasi this is really, really undermined.
And I mean, so many variables across the 70 seconds in the 1960s because it was cool to share.
So this just to give a very brief.
A massive increase in PRC borrowing by two executive member states because the American Civil War meant the
clock from the South was so complex to so a lot of the makeup of the Southeast much itself to invest very,
very heavily in completely speculative enterprises don't have any kind of concrete basis.
Just just kind of some of the futures market speculation in commodity prices that kind of say that all the things that go along with
that that are so serious that people borrow massively because the cost of borrowing is going up to just by the second by half,
even by things like land reclamation proceeds, something that's potentially be able to create solid gold in mind.
And the land has never claimed some stuff. But what happens when the war comes to a close?
Because, of course, cotton prices collapse and yet companies, they fly back to the United States again,
the banks that have lent all these forces money, even side loans, and they have to pay back.
So you get lots of people losses, including after you declared bankruptcy.
And this becomes a real sort of, you know, psychological, psychological kind of way to maximise policies,
profits, only because they've gone for almost unimpeachable economists in the fifties.
So there'll be a group that to some extent showed sort of the rationality that go with that sort of British of traditional policies.
So again, as a slight qualification, this is what saying there's plenty of evidence.
If you start to show that the British government in Bombay warned why investors woke up not to see the way the slow it could help to stop this stuff.
And then of course told us something. So it's slightly racist, certainly.
But nonetheless, the are going to struggle with this sort of shift from there.
Now, you get this almost like we do here today, just this very stark contrast between Wall Street and a kind of real space,
because finance is not data, which is in the form of kind of business practices and then the consequences of that.
So this kind of intellectual analysis to figure out what does that mean for us community,
how are we going to get more and more good trades and less in the sort of sectors is part of it.
And you can see from these two quotations this has a slightly larger relevance as well in terms of what we're talking about from social relations.
So because the British government never really did much to create anything
by way of public sales insights into the creation of the communities itself.
So if it was a hospital or a school or some sort of intellectual social class,
it was the wealthy members of the Muslim community, wealthy, Parsi particular who were subsidising all this stuff.
When it's time for a better economy, what happens after the disco mania is what all that money is is not quite as valuable as it used to be.
So these institutions that you saw this kind of cosmopolitan where different ethnic and religious groups were mixing,
getting along even if it wasn't as a complete set, are starting over.
This was the right place. And this idea that, okay, well,
these are all people still contributing towards this they're doing in a much smaller way if they're doing in a similar way,
which is the significance of this kind of policy.
Well, what we tried to do before, but so all of a sudden, this this kind of lack of wealth or this temporary wealth has raised all sorts
of questions about are we going to be able to continue to have a harmonious,
almost public ceremony like we did before? So you can see that the gaze is shifting to how do you socialise people if you can't get it,
if we can't get some strategy works, is that awful or is it all British?
You've kind of the current system doesn't actually work so that's where you have this kind of jumping off.
Point is pretty close to the call as I suggested.
So so how does this, you know, turn this is to a theory what relates to this really upset so Britain as much as is India.
Well, the thing that really gets them out there in terms of looking at the social impact of this,
these are all these these series of quite horrendous data from the 1860s where there are millions made, millions of deaths.
The British you know, I do a kind of Irish summit approach where they say nothing could possibly say the markets.
I mean, this is just natural assumes the outcome of what happens in overpopulated countries all they do these these.
It seems that, you know, those kind of labour camps where you kind of get sort of money to buy food shortages because of this sort of sale.
But you have to walk 20 miles to reach to say it was a day's labour, either buy a car or that kind of stuff.
So, you know, forestalling losses is pretty, you know, pretty extreme as far as a sort of a policy measure.
So what prompted him and his colleagues emerging from DG go out basically to drive the countryside is to actually look at,
you know, what the conditions of some peasants are and the West and the British claims about them sort of,
you know, like this is kind of a massively successful type monster to prove that kind of worth as as genuine so that people are starving.
Whether that's true or whether the whole British revenue system is faulty from the very beginning, which not only so Simon in the first place,
but it's also prevents these people having resources they need when it's time to pay to buy food.
So we're touching on kind of an artisan style social entitlements.
It's not what does the food that cause the site is market conditions and the fact that you
so exploitative these people have been saying for quite some time and it's precisely sort
of this quest doesn't touch on it really involves the kind of statistical methods they come
up with a series of complicated questions to ask an individual because it sounds like,
well, you know, when the British collector comes to they just ask for you actually supposed to owe if you can't pay at that time,
does he gives you a month to pay or to see his methods, etc., etc.
So, you know, all the kind of official statistics, official claims about collecting,
is it just as or is there a monopoly countries of the states extracting surplus from the peasantry?
It's perhaps not surprising that that's exactly what's going on.
So this is not legitimate in unusual.
And so you can see that's what some of the questions he asks.
Does the assessment generally serve the public role after satisfying involves the government in paying the costs to solve this?
So it's basically saying you do you have a surplus left to feed yourself to a temporary school and so on.
And the thinking, I think that is to some extent you see that to the charitable endeavours of his own community.
You can only do that with stuff as well.
So there is a link being made between the very material conditions of kindness, respect for society, all those things kind of hand.
Harris It's sort of like duty labour to create fiscal space.
It's not something that just happens to be cool or good policy, but it's a product process itself.
So, you know, trying to figure out, okay, well,
if that's not how it works and how can we achieve that through to kind of social reform in places like India and becomes increasingly global?
He kind of looks at these ideas.
The conclusion in a sort of luxury come Marxist way that whatever wealth society,
whatever we charge to be accumulated wealth of the scientific community,
wealth of the city is primarily a product of that initial leg production,
but it's primarily a product of someone with natural capacities, but not necessarily the whole mixing by labour with the land.
And that is what creates the additional capital, in which case, you know,
that is to make the argument that the labour has a greater right to that share of capital.
But say banks is not doing anything to acquire it is not.
And that's the thing that would that allows extends to what is in the UK throughout the fifties and sixties and seventies is
that in looking around the sort of British public institutions itself of the plight of the Indian cultivators saying look,
I mean, is it capital is sort of stored up in banks?
What rights does a bank have to sort of at the very least, it will be reinvesting, capitalised as it was because they had created that.
So it is kind of preoccupation with capitalistic media, financial institutions and objects like livery commons,
which is acceptable to rent or somehow illegitimate because they don't play a role.
Producing is actually the first test. And again, this is really something, you know, it is, as you know this that you dream of at home.
But it seems that the company institutions by itself raises questions.
So the idea is, was like it's like that you get a lot with what he taught in college, but it wasn't a secondary discussion class.
It was this other stuff about cars with drugs and so forth. So, you know, sort of, you know, borrowing this from the West.
So it's about what kind of needs during those times,
that type of crisis where it gets very kind of immediate and perhaps from Massachusetts to ideas of kind of social contract.
Where do individuals use that production and consumption problems with each other?
He's actually in prison, so there's a whole prison fold movement going on.
So I mostly headed by sort of the middle class, stupid, as I say, that very complex and the best I could say to be.
Right. And also trying to do something about not only to actually kind of piggyback on this,
but then I guess squeezes a lot more information out of endoscopic capsule theory where he notices that a lot of prisoners that basically are engaged,
it looks like they need better statistics on what a campus economy should look like than what the official statistics say.
So that's the kind of, say, the statistics. Certainly Bombay all finished production or even production by regions.
Great. It's all very aggregate.
And then Orgy says, well, how do how do you ever get to kind of understand the sorts of kind of economic relationships you need to make,
the kind of individual assumption when all you do constantly, you're producing all these kind of ethnic categories or data customs,
what the present statistics have, all individualistic kind of information,
all of the prisoner wrecks produce this number of kind of tips under these conditions that he was this productive and so on.
And he seems to take note of the fact, for whatever reason in the President,
caste and religion is not as much of a sort of socially defining test as sort of just individual relationships.
So he then uses that some kind of, you know, the basic level of subsistence for an individual in using prison systems.
And then how what surplus labour is not real levels to form a meaningful kind of cycle of production, consumption or subject.
So it's a very strange place to extract that data from. And he's certainly not unsympathetic to the fact the conditions in his prison.
Also, he does get involved in writing letters to say that these things should be changed.
But as a sort of data set,
it's interesting if he's going to these sort of typical institutions to kind of extract this type of information because these other species doesn't.
So to get any relevance in the same house or to become, like I said, those members eight years ago,
I mean, you guys said saying this is not a standard representation of the White House.
And actually, if you look at a lot of his speeches in the House, there is much to do to kind of say what they are.
I think this is a big debate. And he said he finds, you know, leaks like those let the theory value the necessity to get financed out of the question.
So with Irish nationalists, as you might imagine, and they collectively are pushing for,
you know, major kind of economic Republican reform in this regard.
What sorts of institutions do you need to bring in to into check?
And he also made distinctions again, has it be touched on because the housing estate is such an existing issue,
justifies his candidature to the working people of Central Finsbury on the grounds that he's seen the conditions and he knows that they can
seen better than people like that at a time when there was considerable xenophobia towards Irish migrants and asylum seeking to discuss.
And so he believes it to me because of the kind of, you know, triangulate as well.
I know, you know, in that chapter of the book, obviously he's a major politician.
But I mean, he gets elected by a very, very narrow margin,
so much that he's pulled down by a narrow majority of literally Seaside Heights last weekend.
So but nonetheless, he does get elected on the basis of these very, very radical arguments.
At a time when New Glasson was making similar points in the New Castle program.
Not quite saviours of its liberalism, but but you know what?
He does not leave it to the only thing that you're in the same boat as it is.
Therefore, I'm an appropriate representative for the electorate.
And you can see, you know, when he starts posting these things in the local press and it's best to he says you're pretty safe.
Everything is softcore capitalism and Christmas presents.
At the same time he's giving tools to local gentlemen's.
So on pages that say exactly the same thing about.
So he's clearly trying to make this link between his like theory of value, the use of patient wealth in multiculturalism,
and then a kind of at least of imperial politics or politics about how to get that through various Republican institutions.
So what does that Republicanism look like? I think it's worth saying that the things he suggests are tailored to the place.
So what he suggests the idea is not what a certain what he suggests is so much of it is about control of the countryside.
So he, perhaps uncharacteristically for a liberal, I think, kind of takes the newspaper as a given, except that it has overweening power.
But he accepts that he doesn't necessarily see an easy way to roll that back.
But he says if that's the case, then it must be complete, even if it's not democratic.
If you just look at his injuries, people will understand the problems will get better.
And I think he says the money that these people have, they might be justified in the process.
But I can tell you, in a gentrified middle class India, we're more inclined to spend it on the things that go back like it might be charity,
might be know civil society institutions might be set up new factory.
Then the British civil servant who uses it kind of abscond to say nothing of the kind of hugely generous pensions and personal subsidies enjoyed it.
It's the same logic that I think applies to his his British suggestions.
But of course, this is not intended for a country that's in 1867.
It has a French outside working man and is a parliamentary democracy.
So one of the things he really points out is that, you know, given the fact of the working class, the fact that you haven't achieved a grade,
so that sort of areas of this process just goes to show that the system is rigged so that it comes up with these ideas to to level the playing field.
As I mentioned, industrial rules is a very big one.
So he basically wants to bring statistical literacy from India until industrial.
Of course, he says you can have labour accessible numbers,
have capital because it's not equal numbers, but then you need a third party model is what I did.
So you can say, okay, well what did I actually get paid?
Where is that money going? Extractive, how much they supply, how much surpluses and actually actively participate.
Citizens were quite stable and that is the way that you will kind of solve the various forms of the social.
Films are actually pretty tight.
There are a lot of xenophobia towards Irish people, but also a lot of politics that's sometimes recently contained but is getting quite sort of tense.
But it's certainly not the status quo and there are other parts of the world which the engagement is not necessary.
But he said he takes an interest in, so he extended some correspondence which gives a boost to this messaging, social engineering,
working in Africa to get integration of pirates exploiting Africans as part of processes of kind of rustic excellence.
But that extended lessons about what they might do to improve access and access to the services and such a very, very easy city.
I mean, you know, both he's the kind of person that says you want to have the right type of English elites that for the most sets of people,
in the sense that, you know, you have a critical look at the structure of how the official mind works.
So boots on to do this technology wise, that they know exactly what you want to actually be educated somewhere else,
but nonetheless, they are the people who will probably understand how to, you know, be Patrick Smuts, so to speak.
So again, it's not just in India today, it's not even just the British to be a part of this.
There are a couple of senators who actually adopt his ideas very, very seriously, partly through correspondence.
So he has a number of friends in the United States with been kind of they put a radical
view of the Democrats who are in touch with people like William Jennings Bryan,
who is a major part of populism.
It's famous for the Cross of Gold speech, which was about bringing the United States back to the States because those it is logic anyway.
Those are also said to be the basis on which agricultural borrowing and debt had to be agreed.
So when America is the gold standard, as the initial kind of create the kind of voice to some extent that's present,
it is very much as extraction of wealth from the American technical side, industrial and commercial interests.
So actually very keen to use this narrative writing these speeches, particularly with regards to how this could be fixed by America.
So he says, again, using energy, thinking of British politics and he declared is too late and says,
look, if you let's mainstream American kind of use such as a run around the Philippines.
Well we'll have to see what the British and plenty about this is correspondence to show was the book he was
opening at that stage of the is meeting certain at the very least that these arguments if not completely untrue.
So I think that's much more striking Neal though, again, there's only so much you can do.
So Marx and Marxism actually perhaps influenced by these arguments about a kind of
more universalist political this particularly from the Republican point of view,
Henry Hindman, who is sort of the social Democratic figure in Pied Piper, that's all you all sometimes pillory press.
Congress to some extent has a very extensive correspondence with he was analogy is not always terribly
public about because climate is so often so grassroots careful about how you see those associations.
Also, I think it's not just these socialists as a matter of time and often advocates of nationalisation of stuff.
What he says No, no, no. I mean, I've been an idiot. I never have.
But it doesn't it doesn't work. So, you know,
he's sort of trying to find a light behind that is appreciated by most makes me smile when he says and
specifically says there's this guy now reads what we know from you know catalogue communist manifesto.
It's all these Marxist views, a kind of surplus that structures of the best are underdeveloped.
And it might be fair to say that. So he hasn't, you know, very easy to sketches of accounts of destruction in the West.
But empire is kind of the end of the lesson between the climate and Marx is, I think, the end of 1886.
I remember correctly by February 1891, Marx has something published in the tropics where this is published.
He talks about the bleeding from India and the great wealth and so on and all this stuff.
This framework is hard to imagine, so we can't definitively say that that's where he votes, although there does seem to be a kind of narrative.
To some extent, entertainment continues.
This disperses encourages ideas they trust.
Well, some experts forecasted that basically the content of the content of British movies was published in 92.
So there is this real sort of, you know, potentially global influence of a man who, you know,
in the mid 19th century, there weren't many other things from this kind of theoretical symbology at that level.
But to be honest, I say always thought to be the next one is probably the one who has a global impact.
I think maybe you can make an argument. Some of this is another sign of some of it's not just a site.
So just to conclude very, very briefly, I mean, these are these are scattered on the way.
The book synthesis, strangely enough, given the fact this is about liberalism, even if it's a radical, that is to say,
the people who pick him up and some liberals are going that there is quite a bit is is very kind of Marxist socialist these ideas.
But I think the key animating sort of threat to all of this is the kind of Republican approach to sort of political conflict,
that there are forms of monopolistic capitalism that are forms dominate the but
there are various ways to start wars that don't necessarily involve the state.
So for Heinemann, the state is probably the best. But of course he involves submissions which are quite extensive.
Get these ideas that we don't like.
So we've sort of gone these relationships now.
Gs66 I mean, if you read against Faraci Defender.
Someone asked him a question, says, Oh, we're not the kind of the Founding Fathers of Congress think.
Your sexuality says, Well, actually, I quite agree with lots of destruction, of wealth, stuff that energy came up with.
He's the first one released. And so if you carry that a bit into sort of the lexicon, your rights and so on that are about,
say, the relationship between cities, religious difficulties.
It's not a framework that I think nobody would have expected to use it.
But if you follow the logic of what Gandhi's basically saying is that it's not necessarily that the British imperial structures are full of,
but this is modern. Commercial society in itself is a form of monopolistic, arbitrary impingement of individual but or another.
The solution is, as he sees it, is the village actually should look at lots of the tropes he uses.
They're very, very analogy. So I find it interesting that he never does it be very easy to say, look,
now he was a great leader because he sort of Congress is celebrated by saying
that's just as important stuff because it's not as useful as we think it is.
But he never does. So actually, you know, it obviously isn't. But my solution to it is different.
But those those categories of domination still seem to run through security.
And, of course, Nehru, who has that status, is a big part of what he's doing.
But that development is a substitute that's very much about tackling structures impinging on the freedoms of India,
so much so that let's say you get it for the conditions also, but it implies that testing.
So you find it again and again in their writings that, look,
you cannot really have any form of democratic socialisation if you get rid of poverty and all the ethnographic categories that you perhaps justified.
So fanaticism will go creating policy parameters that will go if you get to the cult that, you know, it's a silver bullet to these issues.
But I don't necessarily agree with it,
but it seems to me that's at least partly inheritance from how I present outside of this political economic critique is about global socialisation.
It's about how groups, societies or societies relate to one another.
And as we try to take that picture,
there is this guy sat next to me media a who becomes a major component of this because it's the same central policy,
which of course is very cleverly placed because that's so state to a that I think the
conventional wisdom around that is it's a sort of libertarian right wing economic policy.
From what I understand, it's not necessarily that straightforward.
So what is the party's minimum money Masonic likes is the Hungarian collective party in Hungary,
which was precisely not saying about smallholders keeping their profits,
working together so that financial capitalism isn't necessarily mediating anyway, that this, you know,
relating to each other and there is a disagreement with him was very clear cut straight what he prefers.
Stuxnet says something went wrong when we were thinking about.
The relationship to commerce, exploitation, collectivism,
neoplatonism because narrowly understood that the state is not nearly so what the Congress thought.
So he sees himself as kind of a yet redeemable king in some sense.
It's not that the goals never roll that he wants these kind of rules, but that the state is definitely opposition to this.
And a lot of his critique of the Nehruvian state is in the very high gloss narrative colonial, overly corporatized, classic.
The money, corruption, money isn't getting back to where it was, sort of.
So it's very interesting kind of what kind of legacy is being split between what I'm calling disparate political ideologies.
But I think existing through the mistakes,
the way the rest is like in various ways because that that kind of secular liberalism, this bastion to some extent.
So I'll leave it at that. Thank you very much. And have to say.