The Asian mode of production according to Marx is a separate mode of production and a social formation corresponding to it, which was identified on the basis of a study of relations in the societies of Egypt, Turkey and China, as well as in other eastern states at a certain stage of development. Interestingly, many researchers pointed to the similarity of the TSA with the political systems of the Soviet Union and Nazi Germany. In Soviet times, the theory was practically deleted from scientific discussion, but the works of modern historians (especially foreign ones) give the right to believe that the discussion is not over.
The appearance of the term in correspondence and some articles
The concept of the Asian mode of production is found in the correspondence of Marx, in some articles. The defining feature of this formation, Karl Marx indicated the absence of property (private) in relation to land. Later studies of the authors, who adhered to the formation approach (development through several successive socio-economic formations), confirm that many primitive societies in different parts of the world went through this stage. It was Marx and Engels who laid the foundation for the TSA.
Some Russian researchers have proposed alternative names for the concept. For example, Yuri Semenov, a Soviet and Russian philosopher, historian, ethnologist, specialist in the history of primitive society, the theory of knowledge and the creator of his own concept of world history, uses the term “political” in his works; Leonid Vasiliev, religious scholar, orientalist, head of the laboratory for historical studies at the Higher School of Economics, is the “state method of production”.
Marx and Engels on the Asian mode of production
According to the interpretation of the teachings of Friedrich Engels and Karl Marx adopted in the Soviet Union under Joseph Stalin, society gradually goes through the first classical antique formation, then the feudal and bourgeois one with the prospect of a transition to socialism. In Karl Marx's work “Forms Prior to Capitalist Production” (section of the study “Economic Manuscripts of 1857-1859”), the scientist separately distinguished production relations in Asia, which made it possible to discuss the Asian formation that preceded the slaveholding of the ancient Eastern peoples.
The very concept of TSA was first used in 1853 in the article “British Dominion in India”. In the preface to the work of Marx on political economy and philosophy, which was written in 1958-1859, the scientist claims that these methods of production can be defined as progressive eras of economic development. A characteristic of the Asian mode of production is found in the following works and writings of other founders of Marxism.
New studies, which generalized the idea of the socio-economic system in ancient society and antiquity in general, provoked further development of the theory. The largest role was played by Lewis Henry Morgan, one of the founders of evolutionism in the social sciences, the creator of the theory of primitive society, which is recognized by the scientific community. However, over time, the views of Karl Marx have changed, and in the late period of his work, he completely ceased to mention the term.
Fundamental study "Oriental despotism ..."
In 1957, a century after the fundamental works of Karl Marx, the study "Oriental despotism: a comparative study of totalitarian power" was published. The author of the theory was a German-American historian, formerly an active communist and Marxist Carl August Wittfogel. Back in the twenties, he dealt with issues of the connection of the natural environment and social development. He spent a year in a concentration camp, which subsequently greatly influenced the views of the scientist. After he began to study the history of China.
Communication with the social system in the USSR and Germany
Based on the concept introduced by Marx into science, Wittfogel analyzed well-known oriental despots and pointed to one common feature - the importance of irrigation for agricultural activities. The researcher called such social systems “irrigation empires,” and the entire system of his views took shape in irrigation theory. Such a social system, according to Wittfogel, has characteristic features:
- lack of land ownership by private individuals;
- abolition of private property and market competition;
- the absolute power of the state, everything is controlled from the center;
- lack of division into social classes;
- absolute power of the ruler who heads the bureaucratic system.
The researcher in separate lines connects “irrigation empires” with political systems in Nazi Germany and the Soviet Union. Wittfogel concluded that in the Soviet Union it was not socialism at all that was built, but modern eastern despotism, which was based precisely on the Asian mode of production. This provoked several discussions in the scientific community of the USSR.
Features of the social system of eastern countries
Each society is characterized by its own specificity, determined by ethnic, geographical, historical and other conditions that have changed from society to another in time and space. General features can be distinguished in large areas that include several countries. One of these covered most of the states of the Middle East, North Africa, Central and Southeast Asia, individual states of other regions of the world.
Most researchers distinguish the following features of the Asian method of production:
- The tendency to preserve public structures. This applies to communities of medieval artisans and peasants, which developed at an extremely slow pace, remaining stagnant for several centuries until the nineteenth and twentieth centuries. Communities owned land, but it belonged to state power or to a private exploiter. As a rule, small (family) farming was conducted in communities, not collective.
- An important economic function of the state. Effective agriculture in many eastern states could not develop without irrigation artificially. Irrigation work had to be carried out on a large scale in large areas. It turns out that adverse environmental conditions required the intervention of the central government. All governments in the region had the function of organizing public works.
- Establishment of the supreme ownership of state power on land. Here we are not talking about the dominance of such a form of ownership, but only about the tendency towards it, which manifested itself from time to time more or less clearly. The class structure of society at certain periods of development was so flattened that under pressure from the ruling elite the maximum land was concentrated in the hands of a narrow group of people.
- The tendency to feudalism without a large landowner economy.
Most of the features were found in individual societies in Western states - this is the community that owns land, in the Middle Ages, state ownership, and so on. But in the East, all these features are much more pronounced, have been observed for a long time and everywhere. In addition, a combination of several trends in Europe in the same period was not observed.
It can be concluded that in the countries of the Middle and Middle East, the northern part of the African continent, Southeast and Central Asia, variations in the feudal and slaveholding methods of production were characterized by a long-term manifestation of the complex of the above trends. In the countries of the East (as in the West) there was a change in the social system and the progressive movement of society. At the same time, the Asian mode of production is the peculiarities of production relations that have affected the development of Asian countries against the background of two formations, namely feudalism and slavery.
Discussion in the 20-30s of the twentieth century in the USSR
In the first half of the twentieth century, the first large-scale discussion broke out in the USSR regarding the Asian mode of production. Some historians sought to explain the uniqueness of this phenomenon, which characterized only the eastern communities, in contrast to the classical slavery established in ancient Rome and ancient Greece. The discussion was caused both by the intensification of the liberation movement in the countries of Africa and Asia, and by the desire of the Soviet government to spread the proletarian revolution further to the East. Interest in the topic was stimulated by the special attitude of Karl Marx to the East.
This group of researchers was opposed by historians who came to the conclusion that the mode of production existed not only among the eastern communities, but among all of humanity as a whole. This gave reason to consider the Asian mode of production universal. For example, a similar situation was observed in Rome during the early Republic, among the civilizations of the historical and cultural region, stretching from the center of Mexico to Honduras and Nicaragua, in Cretan Mycenaean society.
Other ancient societies, for example, Egypt of the New Kingdom period, the Persian Empire, approached the formation of slaveholding societies of the classical formation during the period of large-scale military campaigns. So, it turned out that the Asian mode of production is an evolutionary link between communism in primitive society and slavery.
Features of the first scientific discussion in the USSR
A feature of the discussion was that few professional orientalists participated in it. Therefore, the discussions were poor in concrete facts and were based on a very narrow basis. After that, supporters of the concept of the Asian mode of production were sharply criticized. In the official Soviet literature, the formation scheme was established, which consisted of a change of five stages: primitive society, slavery, the feudal system, the capitalist formation and the communist one, which socialism is considered to be the initial stage. According to this concept, all ancient societies (including eastern ones) were attributed to slaveholding, and all medieval ones to feudalism.
Second wide discussion on TSA in the Soviet Union
After the first discussion, the established view of the society of the ancient states of the East was refuted in 1957. A wide discussion has unfolded since 1964. The discussion was caused by the growth of the anti-colonial movement after the war, the publication of several previously unknown works by Karl Marx, the revival of cultural, social and scientific life after the Twentieth Party Congress.
Discussion of the main problems of the historical process
As a result, the discussion turned to a discussion of the urgent problems of the historical process. The works of Western authors were examined, which separately emphasized the amazing similarity of the Asian mode of production with modern socialism in the USSR. After the Prague Spring, the scientific discussion gradually curtailed, but the discussion of the most pressing issues continued. Many different points of view were expressed about the special features of the evolution of the eastern countries.
Criticism of the concept of Asian formation in theory
The problems of the Asian mode of production were repeatedly considered in the course of discussions by historians, philosophers, and economists. So, if this method of production existed in separate states in separate eras, then the following would be observed:
- the level of development of productive forces, different from the level characteristic of other intermediate social formations;
- a special system of attitude to property, which would fundamentally differ from both feudal and slaveholding;
- individual methods of exploitation, methods of appropriation of benefits by the exploiters, which would differ from slaveholding and feudal (the economic basis of the Asian mode of production consisted of exploitation with the preservation of communal clan structures);
- special class structure.
The views of Russian and foreign historians
Modern Russian historians believe that the Asian mode of production is a formation, the reality of which remains the subject of controversy. Already by the mid-nineties it was possible to talk about the final death of the formation scheme (of five stages) described above. Even its main defenders recognized the failure of the scheme. In more popular works, four formations are singled out, a single pre-capitalist one. The multilinear approach to world history is also relevant.
As for foreign scholars, the French anti-critic I. Garlan, for example, refers to slavery only society with a classical type of exploitation; he considers other forms to be evidence of the existence of the Asian mode of production. This gives the right to consider that the discussion is not over yet.