Asiatic mode of production
Oxford Dictionary of Politics:
Top
Asiatic mode of production
Referred to in Marxist texts as a specific mode of production prevalent in pre-capitalist Asia. It was used to explain the difference between the Asiatic and Occidental social relations, in particular the nature and role of the state in the two systems. Two chief characteristics were highlighted by Marx and Engels in 1853. First, there was the absence of private property, which led, according to Marx and Engels, to stagnant social and economic relations. In particular they criticized the self-sufficient nature of the village life in Asiatic societies that was supported by this absence of private property, and did not allow for the transformation of social and economic relations in the countryside. In this context Marx wrote of the ‘regenerative role of imperialism’ which would pierce this shell of self-sufficiency and introduce capitalist relations into these stagnant economies. Second, there was the geographical and climatic feature of Asiatic societies that made them dependent on irrigation and which in turn required centralized planning and administration, thus increasing the role of the central state in these societies, which in turn led to an ‘oriental despotism’. This ethnocentric view assumes that the way forward for Asiatic societies is to tread the well-beaten path of capitalist development that Europe had walked down. The Asiatic mode of production (AMP) became the focus of debate in the 1960s and 1970s among Third World development theorists, who were concerned in particular to understand the role of the state in the post-colonial context. They looked to AMP to understand the traditions of state intervention in Asiatic social and economic relations which might allow the post-colonial states to continue to be involved in developing the economic infrastructure of Asiatic societies.
— Shirin Rai
Wikipedia on Answers.com:
Top
Asiatic mode of production
 |
This article is written like a personal reflection or essay rather than an encyclopedic description of the subject. Please help improve it by rewriting it in an encyclopedic style. (August 2009) |
 |
This article needs attention from an expert on the subject. See the talk page for details. WikiProject Philosophy or the Philosophy Portal may be able to help recruit an expert. (August 2009) |
The theory of the Asiatic mode of production (AMP) was devised by Karl Marx around the early 1850s. The essence of the theory has been described as "[the] suggestion ... that Asiatic societies were held in thrall by a despotic ruling clique, residing in central cities and directly expropriating surplus from largely autarkic and generally undifferentiated village communities."[1]
The theory continues to arouse heated discussion among contemporary Marxists and non-Marxists alike. Some have rejected the whole concept on the grounds that the socio-economic formations of pre-capitalist Asia did not differ enough from those of feudal Europe to warrant special designation.[2] Aside from Marx, Friedrich Engels was also an enthusiastic commentator on the AMP. They both focussed on the socio-economic base of AMP society.[3]
Principles
Marx's theory focuses on the organisation of labour and depends on his distinction between the following:
- The means or forces of production; things such as land, natural resources, necessary for the production of material goods; and
- The relations of production; the social relationships people enter into as they acquire and use the means of production.
Together these compose the mode of production and Marx distinguished historical eras in terms of distinct modes of production (Asiatic).[4] Marx and Engels highlighted and emphasised that the role the state played in Asiatic societies was incredibly dominant and this was accounted to either the state's monopoly of land ownership, its sheer political and military power or its control over irrigation systems.[5] They accounted this state domination to the communal nature of landholding; this isolated the inhabitants of different villages from one another.
Reception
The Asiatic mode of production is a notion that has been the subject of much deliberation on the part of Marxist and non-Marxist commentators alike. The AMP has endured much controversy and contest from many scholars and is the most disputed mode of production outlined in the works of Marx and Engels.[6] Questions regarding the validity of the concept of the AMP were raised in terms of whether or not it corresponds to the reality of certain given societies.[7] Historians have questioned the value of the notion of the AMP as an interpretation of the "facts" of Indian or Chinese history.[8]
The subsequent status of the AMP concept has varied with changes in the political environment. The theory was very unpopular in the Soviet Union in the period between the two world wars. Wittfogel suggested in his concept of Oriental despotism that this may have been because of the uncomfortable similarity between the AMP and the reality of Stalin's Russia.[9]
References
- ^ Lewis, Martin; Wigen, Kären (1997), The Myth of Continents: A Critique of Metageography, Berkeley: University of California Press, p. 94, ISBN 978-0-520-20743-1.
- ^ Krader, Lawrence (1975), The Asiatic mode of production: sources, development and critique in the writings of Karl Marx, Assen: Van Gorcum, ISBN 978-90-232-1289-8.
- ^ McFarlane, Bruce; Cooper, Steve; Jaksic, Miomir (2005), "The Asiatic Mode of Production – A New Phoenix (part 2)", Journal of Contemporary Asia 35 (4): 499–536, doi:10.1080/00472330580000291., p. 499
- ^ Marx, Karl (1875), "Critique of the Gotha Programme", Marx & Engels Selected Works, 3, Moscow: Progress Publishers, pp. 13–30.
- ^ Marshall, Gordon (1998), "Asiatic mode of production", A Dictionary of Sociology, http://www.encyclopedia.com/doc/1O88-Asiaticmodeofproduction.html, retrieved 22 August 2010.
- ^ Hindess, Barry; Hirst, Paul (1975), Pre-capitalist Modes of Production, London: Routledge & Kegan Paul, p. 178, ISBN 978-0-7100-8168-1.
- ^ Offner, Jerome (1981), "On the Inapplicability of 'Oriental Despotism' and the 'Asiatic Mode of Production' to the Aztecs of Texcoco", American Antiquity 46 (1): 43–61, doi:10.2307/279985.
- ^ Legros, Dominique (1977), "Chance, Necessity and Mode of Production: A Marxist Critique of Cultural Evolutionism", American Anthropologist 79 (1): 26–41, doi:10.1525/aa.1977.79.1.02a00030, p.38.
- ^ Wittfogel, Karl (1957), Oriental despotism; a comparative study of total power, New Haven: Yale University Press.
This entry is from Wikipedia, the leading user-contributed encyclopedia. It may not have been reviewed by professional editors (see full disclaimer)
Post a question - any question - to the WikiAnswers community:
Copyrights:
Oxford Dictionary of Politics
The Concise Oxford Dictionary of Politics. Copyright © 1996, 2003 by Oxford University Press. All rights reserved.
Read more
