Asiatic mode of production

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Asiatic_mode_of_production
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]