Asiatic mode of production

Of all Karl Marx's conceptions of the modes of production which he considered to have provided the base for the various forms of society known to human history, this was perhaps the least developed, and is certainly the one that has given rise to the most controversy.
Marx seems to have introduced the concept mainly in deference to the early nineteenth-century view that Asia was the source of all ‘Aryan’ peoples, whose history is what his materialist conception of history was originally concerned with. He later outlined a wider conception of primitive communism , mainly under the influence of Lewis Henry Morgan's theory of the development of the human race as a whole. Sometimes the term ‘Asiatic society’ was used to refer to all non-Western social forms that were neither primitive-communist nor slave-based, whilst at others it (or its more common synonym oriental despotism ) was said to be applicable only to the cases of Japan and China. Underlying this referential variation was a conceptual variation. Sometimes, especially in their earlier work (and, aberrantly, in Capital, 1867), Marx and Engels stressed the dominant role that the state played in such societies because of either its monopoly of land ownership, its control over irrigation systems, or its sheer political and military power. At other times-and this is what allowed them to broaden the range of societies to which the term was applied in most of their later work-they suggested that it was the communal nature of landholding that isolated the inhabitants of different villages from one another and so made them prey to state domination.
The subsequent status of the concept among Marxists and non-Marxists alike has varied with changes in the political climate. Between the two world wars, the idea was disavowed by Soviet-influenced Marxists, who probably saw it as an obstacle to the Soviet Union's political ambitions in and for the Far East. In the Cold War climate of the 1950s, Karl Wittfogel disinterred the concept in his Oriental Despotism (1957), suggesting that the real reason for its unpopularity in the Soviet Union was the uncomfortable similarity between it and the reality of Stalin's Russia.
During the 1960s the concept excited some interest on the part of Western Marxists, who hoped that it might provide them with a means of avoiding a Eurocentric conception of social development. In the 1970s, however, such hopes were exposed to a barrage of criticisms, which largely explain the concept's current eclipse, and which in one way or another appear to have owed something to the rise of structuralist Marxism. For example, Perry Anderson subjected the concept to a widely accepted empirical critique in his Lineages of the Absolutist State (1974), while Barry Hindess and Paul Hirst made it the object of a (rather more controversial) theoretical critique in their Precapitalist Modes of Production (1975). Finally, Edward Said delivered what appears to have been the coup de grâce, by arguing that, in formulating the concept, Marx and Engels were the unwitting bearers of a noxious discourse that he termed ‘orientalism’ (see his 1979 book of the same name).

Dictionary of sociology. 2013.

Look at other dictionaries:

  • Asiatic Mode Of Production —    Karl Marx outlined the chief stages of historical development based on different modes of production. Initially he identified three stages of development: the ancient period based on slavery, feudal society based on serfdom, and capitalist… …   Historical dictionary of Marxism

  • Asiatic mode of production — In the theory of historical materialism, the term Asiatic mode of production describes a widespread pre Capitalist mode of production, in which irrigation agriculture plays an important role in society. Oriental despotism is considered to arise… …   Wikipedia

  • Mode of production — Part of a series on Marxism …   Wikipedia

  • Mode of production —    This term is ambiguous in Karl Marx’s writings, but can be defined as the way in which surplus is created, extracted and controlled, and acts as the basis for social and political arrangements. Incorporating the forces and relations of… …   Historical dictionary of Marxism

  • АЗИАТСКИЙ СПОСОБ ПРОИЗВОДСТВА — (ASIATIC MODE OF PRODUCTION) Марксистское понятие, используемое для объяснения стагнации, якобы характерной для восточных обществ. К.Маркс и Ф.Энгельс использовали его в 1853 г. в серии статей, опубликованных в «New York Daily Tribune» при… …   Социологический словарь

  • АЗИАТСКИЙ СПОСОБ ПРОИЗВОДСТВА И АЗИАТСКОЕ ОБЩЕСТВО — (Asiatic mode of production and Asiatic society) (марксизм) способ производства и тип общества, при которых, как подчеркивал Маркс, земля находилась в собственности государства и/или экономически замкнутых сельских общин и при которых… …   Большой толковый социологический словарь

  • Social class — Sociology …   Wikipedia

  • ASIAN MARXISMS —  China  ■ Bettelheim, Charles, and N. Burton. China Since Mao. New York: Monthly Review Press, 1978.  ■ Bianco, L. Origins of the Chinese Revolution: 1915–1949. Stanford: University of California Press, 1971.  ■ Brandt, Conrad, Benjamin Schwartz …   Historical dictionary of Marxism

  • Fall of the Ottoman Empire — issues cleanup=Sep 2008 refimprove=Sep 2008 wikify=Sep 2008 Republic of Turkey (superimposed upon modern borders). Some scholars argue the power of the Caliphate began waning by 1683, and without the acquisition of significant new wealth the… …   Wikipedia

  • Economic history of the Ottoman Empire — covers the period 1299 1923. The economic history falls into two distinctive sub periods.Fact|date=July 2008 The first is the classic era (enlargement), which comprised a closed agricultural economy, showing regional distinctions within the… …   Wikipedia

Share the article and excerpts

Direct link
Do a right-click on the link above
and select “Copy Link”

We are using cookies for the best presentation of our site. Continuing to use this site, you agree with this.