MARX’S VIEW OF ASIAN SOCIETY AND HIS “ASIATIC MODE OF PRODUCTION” KIMIO SHIOZAWA 1s this are Mares ew of Asan society and bis “Ate mode of ‘preducdan” are aaiynd. Ie © coocleded that Mars at Set ceardad (Asan sock a+ special city which war agnat and deve of Bir, but the at length he overeame shir view condered tht the Aue mode of producon was Seaton out ofthe dioutan of primitive soelty and Preceding the ancient made of prodacon, and plaml thi mode of or (Socton Inthe srr of Biri! wage of deveoment There the ‘uthor seis out hs own views regasding the login scare of the genes, ‘orlopnent, and fall f this Atle mode of prodution 1 ‘As indicated by Charles Parsin's words, “The periodial Le Panis is at present in the midst of great controversy over the Aviatic mode of pro- ‘Suction," the question of the Asiatic. mode of production has recently come up for discussion again ona world scale In Japan, too, the subject hat been taken up by Professor Kiyoji Honda “Mares view of Asian society, in particular the question of hin “Asiatic mode of production” is topic which has long been the object of much liseunion. The presvar controversies were developed mainly’ during. the 1990's im the Soviet Union, China, Japan and eliewhere, and during this period they were directly related to the practi! tasks and questions of Strategy involved in the Chinese revolution between 1925 and 1997. Was it the society of the Asiatic mode of production that western European capital {im encountered in China, or not?” Further, was the Chinese society of this time at the stage of transition from the ‘Aslatic mode of production to ‘capitalism, or not? “After these questions had been raised, discusion took place ar 19 what wat meant by Marx's “Asiatic mode of production” The remlt of there dicusions wa that the view which beld that Chineve society jn the 9th centory wat not the society of the Adatie mode of production ‘emerged as predominant. 2 "Une éape novels dans une dicunion ondamestale La Pal, No 14 (86. + Kivo Honda, "Ajntell Sean Yea no Mondal (The Quota of the Avitc Mode of Production)” a No 196 (Oct, 1969, and “Alte! Sean YK) Saran (Second Dicom of the Adatle Mode of Producto} Shs, No.0 (Marc, 196)a0 The Developing Economies Next, in 1999 Marc's draft of Formen, die der kaptalistischon Produktion torkergrhn (hereafter abbreviated as Formm) was published for the fist time in Mescom, and when this was introduced into Japan immediately after the war discusion again developed. ‘The overwhelmingly predominant view (to Which, however, | am opposed) defined the Asiatic mode of production as 2 Variety of or stage in, the system of slavery, attorating it with the team llgentne Skaters in Foren and negated the Asitie mode of production ax f specie form of production or economic structure of society. Thus many thought that the long controversy over the Asiatic mode of production had been brought to a conclusion by the publiation of famen However, the development of world history after his time raised new question, and controversy began again. The conditions surrounding this hhew controversy were the national independence motements which developed fo fiercely after the Second World War among the Afro-Asian countries which had hitherto been colonial or semicolonia. The view of Asian focety current in the eapitalit countries of western. Europe sinee the 18th ‘century was a view of a Society which was backward, a society which hd remained sate since remote antiquity, a society in which no inherent capac ity for development could be discerned. It was thought that these Asians had no history. Since the war, however, the nations of Asia and Africa headed by China, have exhibited astonishing development and are in proces ‘of steadily building their futures, and people have been compelled to pay fttention fo the forms of development peculiar to these countries. Thus it has been forthe purposes of elucidating the specific laws af development 10 be found in the histories of these various nations that Mars's theory of the Asiatic mode of production hae come to be looked into again from 2 new fngle- Against this background the periodical La Peude put out a special hhumber on the Asiatic mede of production in Apri, 196+ (No. 11), and tiles om thi question have frequently been pried in it since that time (os. 11? and 122). A new controversy over the Asiatic mode of production has developed, expecially in France. ‘Consequently, some of them overrate the specifc historical character of Avo-Asian nations and maintain that peculiar laws of development rale the ‘Aivo-Asian histories and negate or revise the geneal principles ruling the evelopment of world history. I cannot agree with such a tendency. Such ‘tendency is inclined to coincide with the erstwhile view which regarded ‘Asian society as stagnant, deviated and isolated from the development of ‘world history. It is our duty to make clear the specific development in the histories of these various nations, relating them to the general rules governing world history, and to render thee general rules more precise and firm. My penonal interest in the Aviatie mode of production is directed frst and foremest, to the fi evtablhment of general rules of history in which the ‘Aslatic mode of production shall have been correctly incorporated Kino Shioeava, Ket Sot Halse Kes (The Syuctve of the Despoi Sate in Aig, Tokyo, Ochanominesbobo, 1957Mars's Asiatic Mode of Production 301 Marx's theory of the Asiatic mode of production was conditioned by the level of Asian studies in the mid-180h century, ard for Marx himself che theory was by no means final or complete. Sine: Marx’s death, however, advances in the riences of history, ethnology, archavology, ete, have provided te with a rich store of fource material. Agni, Marx’ was vexed by the theory of Asian stagnation, but the historical realities of the period following the Second World War have now spared us from being ensnared by this theory of stagnation. It is now the time for us, under new conditions to look into Marc theory of the Asiatic mode of production ancy, to carry through the tsk which he was unable to accomplsh—the completion of the theory of the Asiatic mode of production-—and to place it eorectly in relation to the general rules governing world history Mare’s view of Asian society and his theory of the Asiatic mode of production developed gradually over time, and hs early views are not the fame as thote of his Inter years. This is because they were conditioned by the level of studies of Asia and antiquity in the mid-ISth century. Con- sequently, ia onder to undertand Marr's view of Asin society or his theary of the Avie’ mode of production we must make a systematic analysis of hie ‘writings from his easiest compositions to those of his later years, and must grasp them developmentally. Ferene Toke’s recent article in La Pane fanalyscs the writings of Marx and Engels with extreme aasduity (without, however, touching on Femmm), but in doing 40 the theories of Marx and Engels are not grasped along with the line of theeretial development, and carly writings are treated in the same manner at thowe produced in later years, We would seem to be obliged to say that together with the non- Inclusion of Formen this constitutes a great defect. "Now, ia order to grasp Mares theory along with the line of theoretical development, we lat the principal works closely related to his view of Asian society and his theory of the Asiatic mode of production together with the Yverious writings and. put them in chronological order in four periods ae following: PERIOD 1 166 Fe Bein Voie cost! le rin re Grand Map, IaiT TS. Raley The Hy of Jove 1B JM Hay of Bra I 31 —R.Jooty, dw Buy onthe Dain of the Wath and oe Se of Tassie MST W.P. Hoge Votenge her de PM or Ga 1845 Mare and Bagel, Die Datel Higa st G. Gampbely Moon ln Sb Mare, The Bs Rae Ini and other communications on odin PE10D 2m ‘The Developing Economies 1857-98 Mars, Fomor Lpisichn Prin errs 1880 Mare) Zor Kehr Plan Oownie PeRiop 9 1957 Marx, Dv apa, BA. 1. (So efion) {oat Mars; Later to Bagel (orn which i appear that a thee Marx read the wos of GL. won Mauter forthe Sit tne) ‘Mar, Der Kapil, Ba. 1. cand eiton) 173 Engels, Sir ow Ree 107 Engels Hm ge Dilring, Umesong der Wisc (An Dring PaRiop 4 arr Morgan, Ait Sty BL Mary, Later to Zale. (raf) TanL-82 Engel, Pinto Za Nts2 Engel, Aer Tio Engel, Der Union dr Fan et Pitiguunsa der St (tein) TW86 Rage, Der Urano de Pains and dr Ste (ena een) Let us look at the developing of Marx's theory in thee four succesive eva Povod 1, This period is cented on the year 1853, the year in which Marx first conceived a strong interes. in the question of Asian society. This was the last year in which Uhe charter of the East India Company was renewed in the British Parliament, and ie was the year in which Marx published a teries of eight articles on Tn in the Naw York Daly Trib. Let us now Took at Marx's earliest view of Asian society, centrirg our attention on theve communications on India @ “English interference... dioted thor small semitabara,semcliied commun Sieg ty owing up thelr cosa Bas and thor produc the grata and to speak {he tut the oly ssl reveuin ever beard of in Aa Now sikeing it tse be to uta Tosing to wiv thee myriads of indutous inechal and inefsive social onpniatons orgie! and dialed oto thei wie, ‘Grown ino'asen of ory aod their loliviuat member ning atthe ame tne thet Selon fo of ciation, nad het hereditary tems of beac, we must not oret {BN ther iylie village communi, folie ough they may apps, had aye fees the voll foundation of Orinal detin, tht they Teained the human mind thin the walt poate compan, making the unten tool of mpetiton, eal Tog i beneath teadonal rake desing kof all grandest and. hiercalenerpes"s (inca ae i the oii) ( “Todian society has no iny at all a leet no knows try. What we cll [tory but the bor af he mcenive lruders who Tanded thee empires onthe pov bi of hat unresing and unchanging 0c Togind ba to all dee inion by Indias one Seszacive and the other repe0- 4K. Mans "The Bit Role in nla" Noe You Daly Tne, Jane 28,1853. Mare ‘ig Wor, Ba. Brin, te Vera, 195, 5 122. Merete ced ax Werke)Mars's Asiatic Mode of Production 203 rtng—te eniiain of ol Asati sock, and the Iya the material foundations of Purthe, in a letter to Engels dated 2nd Jone, 188, after praising Bernie's Voyoges des tats de Grand Mogo, ez. as beings dear and. pertinent work, Marx speaks as follows (© "Borie rightly considers thatthe bc form ofall photon i the Este refers to Turiey, Pera, Hndutan—i to be found lathe fet thie fre fropry in land (sit Thi the cel, vento the Ores eve" aie a in the original) From these quotations the following points emerge clearly. At this period Marx says, "Indian society hat no history at al, a: least no known bitory” land takes notice of the sagnation and unchangingnest of Asian society Further, he holds that the basis of this stagnant Oriental despotism is con- stituted by the village community and the absence of private ownership of land. This communal social structure has within it no point from which development might take place, and it ean evolve only by being destroyed From without. Further, he olds that Britsh vule was this destructive force, that it had *diswlved the temicivilsed community” and had accomplished “the only ena! revolution" in the history of Asia, a social revalution whieh “laid the material foundations of Western society in Asia.” Consequently, ‘we have grounds for thinking that at this period Marx approved of the policy of eimolving the Indian village community by means of the East India Company. A despotism bazed on the old village community, a society devoid of private ownership of land, a society devoid of history, a stagnant society, tnd one whose stagnation could be broken only by British imperialism dis ‘was Man's view of Asian society at this time, Such a society could be Understood only a8 @ special form of society or mode of production differing ‘completely from the form of western Europe and found only in the geo sraphical region of Asia. Consequently, Marx was unable to place this fociety in relation to the stages of development repented by primitive, lancient,fendal, and modern society, and. furthermore it probable that hie Yiews were not far removed fom those of Engels? who sought the casecs of ‘Asian stagnation in the geographical conditions in “climate and the nature of the sal” and in particular in “the great desert areas” where “artificial Insgation is che firs condition of agriculture” “The above are the earliest views of Marx in regard to the Asan society of the 1th century. Perad 2. Tn this period Mares view of Asian society developed greatly. (© “leis idles prejlie which is recntly apread bros hat the form of primi {re cammuaal owzenip bs parclay Slavic and mut expecially © Ruslan form, + K. Marg "The Future Rens ofthe Bits Ral fm Tdin” Nw Yor Daly Tras, ‘Avg 8 16S Wor Ba 9, 8, 220-22 + Wes, 18 2,185, §.25. The English taatin atowe KMart aud F, Bags Ou oii, Mow, Foreign Languages Publhing Hou (a. "Teter from Engl to Mars, Jone 6158. Wen, Bd. 28,8. 580 The Developing Economies Thin frm pine form which we can pola out pong the Romans, the Germane fi the Cal but apart fom this aplendil caltin of einen of this form is tll, {orbs found among the Tans at the present ayy alle that sme of the specimens fxn only nt rina ‘A ll more denied say of the fora of communal ownership i ‘Som and in patel in Tein wll how bow the varow for in whie the collape of ‘he primitive commutal owerhip emerges frm i asoa ferme" ‘As we see from this quotation, Marx had picked out various forms of the community in modern India, and had discovered among, the most primi- tive communities various forms which postened the rudimentary beginnings fof private ownership, and further, he regarded these Indian communities boeing the same a8 the primitive foun of the community among the Romans and the Germans. He conceived that the analysis of 19th century India leads to an understanding of primitive and ancient society, and thereby he succeeded in categorizing Asian society in the course of the historical develop- ment of the world. The Aristc form spoken of in Forman possesses within ‘gel the rudimentary beginnings of private ownership, and is ranged together ‘with the ancient and German forms among the three forms of mixed private land communal ownership. Furthermore, these three forms are not merely fet alongside one another, but are arranged in order as historical stages of evelopment in the logial sense being divided by reference to the degree ff disolution of the primitive or tribal nexus, the degree of collapse of follective land ownership and degree of development of private land owner ‘hip into (I) collective land ownership, (2) the antithetical coexistence of private land ownership and collective land ownership, and (8) collective land ‘ownership occurring only as supplementary to. private land ownership, the basic Torm of ovmership. Further, since he desrbes the despotic states of Asia, the ety states of classical antiquity, and the states of the feudal period fs being built on the foundations of these three forms of ownership, we may fake it thet Marx lite these three forme of the state in succesve order of development. "Thus, at the tine when he wrote Firma Marx no longer regarded the Asian community or society a8 being specific form of society completely Giferent from that of western Europe, but had succeeded in placing it historically by including it among a number of succesive developmental forms. From this war begotten the following famous passage from the Tntro- duction to Zar Krist dr politcen Oekanamie. (© "To general terms, we may say tht the Ai ances, eda, and modern bourgeois ‘Roles of proton are the pede through which the eeamomie sone of eee ‘What is to be noted in this passage isthe fact chat here Marx used the ‘expression "the Asiatic mode of production far the fst time. We may be Jjstiied in assuming that when the suceseded in placing Asian society in his SK. Many, Zar Kit dr plc ono Wor, Ba. 1, 1961, 8. 2. 2 ia, 8Mars’s Asiatic Mode of Production mos series of developmental forms he gave i the name of * the Asiatic mode of production” “However, the term “Asiatic mede of production” is not used in Firmen, and the material ie brought under the term cllgenine Stas. We have ready noted how this term was used in the controversies after the war a3 a basis in the Literature with the help of which the view that this society was 4 variant of ancient slave socety of one stage in the development of ancient slave society attained a predominating postion. "The pasages in Formen which ‘provided bases inthe Htersture for tht kind of wiew were the following: © *..-Sine the individual inthe form never ete an owner but enya pote, ei at atom hime the propery, the ve of tat which embodies the unity of the (© “Savery, sro, een whee the Ibouter bimif appears amin the natural code ‘Sons of production fora third individual or communiyane here propery therlore ie b> lsnger the restchip of the idependenly labouring tail to the sbjetive lapel rent of propery founded pon te comsnuny aad pon labour in the come (Fe chances of tavery doe ot apply tte general vey alfeei Ste] af the tint, which so comer el frm the Earopenn pat af view) (a a a the rsa) In this passage Mars strencs the difference between Oriental allgemsine ‘Sklenr’ and the slave system of classical antignity on the grovnds that ia the former the worker was not one of the naturally bestowed conditions for production. Further, he says that since the individual cannot stand up Independently of the community he beeames the slave of the community lel (or of the despotic sovereign who personifies it), and he distinguishes the forms of rule or subjection which are based on this type of comms relation from the slave system of clasical antiquity. Consequently, the view ‘which regards the Asiatic mode of production as variety ofthe slave sytem fon the ast of passages @ and @ shove it a mistaken one. What is more, the term allgncine Stlaere! occurs in Forme only in thi one pawage, snd it je-not ured in any of the subvoquent writings of Mare. Again, as we shall show below, in Dar Kapital akin Zar Kritit der paso Ockommie ii spleen, fof se “the ancient Asiatic mode of production.” Ce Consequently we cannot agree with the opinion which would equate the Asiatic mode of production with alleneine Sklanert and consider ito be a variety of oF rage in, slave society, on the sole bass of Foren, a work of Mare which is no more than sn early sketch “Marx had now a last succeeded in placing Asian society in hit scree of 0K. Mary, Gnmésu dey Kt dr pte Otel, Rin, Diets Verlag, 188, § $88. Hereafter ced ws Gris) ‘The Hog tandation of quotations frm cis wok follows Jack Cohen tran Pre Copiatst Ente Formats, London, Lawene & Wibar, 190 "Graig 8388306 The Developing Economies developmental forms and had set it before ancient society with the name of “the Asiatic mode of production,” but in regard to the internal structure of this society he let extensive parts of the queston ica state of obscurity and imprecision. lssly, at thie period Marx did not dlstinguish precisely between the Aviat community which provided the basis forthe cass society denoted by his term “the Asiatic mode of production” (a community which postesed the rudimentary beginnings of private ownership) and the castes primitive community ‘Secondly, as regards the ovmership of land ix the Asiatic form Formen includes two forms of ownership, one the communal form of ownership in ‘which there no private ownership, the form of which itis said: “In the ‘Asiatic form (or at leatt predominantly so) there is no private property, but ‘only individual “postesion; the community is preperly speaking. the real proprietor hence property only as cimmutal propiy® and the other the ‘Ownership of land by the state or the doctrine that ‘ll land is the King’s Tandy in which a uniGed social body or despotic sovereign appears as “the sole owner.” The view embodied in the later of these two forms, namely, that the sole owner i a despot, ie a way of thinking common to the views of Asian society represented in the works of Raffles, Mill, Jones, Hegel, and fthers and we may suppose that Mane took i over fom these works; in particular, we may suppose Hegel to have exerted a strong influence. At Eny rate, the fact that the character of ownership by such despotic sole ‘owners and the connexions in theory between such despots and the collective ‘ownership by the community which formed the basis of the state are not made clear is one of the defects in Ferman. Period 9, At this time Marx had read the works of G.L. von Maurer, but svas tll unacquainted with Morgan's Aen! Sucay. “The most important lwork written during this petiod is Dar Kail, and in it Marx clearly uses the expresion “the ancient Aslatic mode of production,” and sets it before the ancient and feudal modes of production, as one of the developmental orms ina succesion of sages. For example, we may quote such passages the following: © “othe vaso orgal expr of Roman and Teton private property ae deduce ffom dierent forms of Toda commen proper" © "fe he ancient Asatie and other ancent moder of pracsin, we Sa ‘Savenion of profuce ato commeder.. ols wbowinte pce" nt the + For a deal treamont of thie poit ee Kino Shnenwn, Kal Su! Kats ih elagel lon, Toby, Ockanemissbobs 16, pp. 6-87. ss Crmiriny 8. 888 Sl Ghr tapi 1, Motou Mace-EngleLeni Init 1821, Kap 8. one ote to eond eitin 183. "The Tnglsk tramiton of the pangs from Dar Rapa! flows Cepia pubisbel bythe Foreign Languages Publishing Howe, Moo.Mars’ Asiatic Mode of Production sor © "Peasant agrclare on sal sale and he carrying cof independent hadieas, Which together frm the bau ofthe feudal mode of produce, sed afer the dieaaton ithe rem, continve tle by side with the captalie mode, sl form the economic © “Coopention, mck swe find iat the dawn of uma. development, among race ‘who lve by the chase, or oye the agree of Indian communte, bvd, om the (oe hand om vnc in cotnion ofthe mee of redaction, ad on the ober hand Suvelatcng of bi trike or community, than cach bee bar fred if fom comesion SE Sethe ie goatee of copenin os gene ct serine, principally on waver"? In passage @ itis clear that hunting races and the Indian community, the world of antiquity, and the middle ages are listed as historical stages of evelopment preceding the modern period. In this pastage both the hunting races end the agricultural Indian community are cogsidered to be communal societies in which the means of production are ovmned in common, but we ‘may suppose that these two are set side by side asthe most ancient forms of ‘communities practising hunting and agriculture, and itis not the case that Marx distinguishes the hunting races a representing the primitive community and the Indian communitia at representing the Asian form of the come munity. Consequently, the distinesion between the primitive community and the Antic commanity is sill imprecise in Des Kepl ‘Again, from the fllowing and other passages we can see that along with the ancient and feudal modes of production Marx recognized a specific mode of production called “the Asiatic mode of production” and considered the fexpropriatore of surplus Isbour andthe forms of expropriation in these modes of production to be the tributereceiving Oriental despotic state and the stem of tribute presentation (Triduverklin), the shve-owner and the slave stem, and the feudal lord and the serf system. D “Under savery, vedo aod wlutary (o fra prinive communities ae concerned) Fei the ave owners the fda lard the tebe electing state, who ate the ovaer, ee ser of the produts"8 © “sc becnue wader th ear modes of production the prtcpal owner of the ‘Arplurproduct with whom the merchant de, namely the dave-omme, the feadal rd, ed the wate(foristanc, the eet dep) tepeent the consuming wealth ae ary Des al BA 1, Kap 1, 8 88 MD Rail Ba 1, Kap 1, 8.350 3 Dur tap Ba 1, Kap 11 S850. 1 De Kopi, Ba. 8; Kap. 20 8.857, Tn tht quotation the author has made some eration in worn, ey sero hs boot mbit for “endlon ad etry for ‘vanalge08 ‘The Developing Economies heh the merchant sake rape In passage @, too, we conceive that the distinction between the primitive ‘community and the Asiatic community is impress, and it appears the Asiatic Glespotie sate is thought of sa being a system of rule which reigns over Drimikive communities and’ drawe of surplotlabou from them. From this fre ean perceive that at this period Marx’ understanding of the Asiatic Gepotie state, that is, of the structure of the Asiatic mode of production, ‘vas al nsulficent ‘Paiad 4 Marx's drat of the Letter to Zatulich was composed after reading Morgan's Ancient Soc, and since iti one of his last weitings on this subject ‘we ean find in it his most fully developed view. In this draft letter the Gstinction between the Asiatic community forming the bass of the Asiatic Imode of production and the primitive community was made clear for the fiat times In this letter Marx equates the Rusian community, the subject of the letter, with the Asiatic form of the community, and call it the agri- fultural community. Going on to compare this agricultural community with the primitive community, he ditinguthes the following three points: Firstly, the agricultural commutity has been emancipated from the narrow bonds of the natural Kinship, Secondly, the cultivator already owns his house and garden. Thiedly, lend i atl owned communally, but itis redistributed among the members at regular intervals and each plot & ulivated and managed on their own accounts and the produce remains in individual hands2° "Thus in Fgel's Frnkische Zi, writen jot at ths Gime, the author holds that “in places where the state has come into being ata period when the ‘community cultivates the land je common—as among the Asian races of ‘Aryan stock and among the Rusians—or where at the very most the land js given out to individual families for temporary ust, that isto say, in places uch as these in which private ownership of land has not yet been produced the state power appears in the form of a monarchical despotism") and shows that the Asiatic despotic state makes is appearance on the basis of ‘lder_ communities of the primitive or Asiatic form. In this ease, too the lations between the Asiatic or primitive communities and the’ despotic monarch who towers above them are not very cles However, from these Damages we cat learn that about IGBI-I692, immediately prior to Marx's Geatty Marx and Engels recognized the existence of a society of the Asiatic mode of production. However, in Engel? Der Ureprag der Fane, das Pristigntums und des ‘Stacs in pavticular in the largely revioed second ition of 189), which was published after Mary's death, no mention is made of the Asiatic mode of 1 Das api, 8 3, Kap. 20,5: 253 Se Mary, "Beit an Zach” Konzept, MorBugds dny Bd. ty Prafart A.M MarscBopes Aver Verloecsicbat MLB H, 19068821." The Bape easlion flows f Osben tant, Pe Capt ani Formato a Np Ragen "Feakince Zee” Wor, Ba. 19,192,875Mars’ Asiatic Mode of Production mo production or the Asiatic despotic state. We suppose that for some reason. Engels deliberately ignored the Asiatic mode of production, chat isthe world of the ancient Orient, and consequently the Bronze Age, when he weote bis ‘Der Uripnong we. His reasons is ot clea, but T with to affirn the fact that ‘until his death Marx recognized the Asintic mode of production as the earliest form of cass society By meant of the above analysis we have been sble to show that Mares view of Asian society gradually developed, that the concept of the Asiatic mode of production wat pated, and that this was placed historically as being the earliest form of clase society, a society based on the Asiatic com- munity, and ae being the specie mode of production preceding the ancient Slave-owing mode of production. Such a view is also to be found in the trices retetly publithed in the periodical La Paude For example, Ferene ‘Tokei2 defines the Asiatic mode of production as “a class society based on. tribal communal ownership,” and concludes that "Marx and Engels thought Of the Asiatic mode of production st a separate catrory resting on. the basis fof the conditions of olwnership surviving. from primitive society.” Conse- quently it sems that Toke, like nyse, regards tae Asiatic mode of ‘pro. uetion as a specific mode of production preceding the ancient mode of production, However, he docs not sufcienly develop the question of what ‘ructure was posesed by this speciic mode of pratuction m We have already seen how Marx regarded the Ariat mode of produce tion preceding the ancient mode of production 1s the first form of clas fociety, and T myself also agree with thi, but Mars let the question of the ‘content of the Ariat mode of production almost entirely undeveloped. The ‘questions of why the Asiatic mode of production is placed before the slavery Thode of production, why ie was inevitable that the earliest class society to be born out ofthe dismemberment of the primitive community should have taken the form of the Ariste mode of productioe, the questions of what Structure it poseased, what occasioned its callaps, and why the ancient Slavery mode of production was necessarily formed out of its collapse, tc— in sum, the total theoretical sructure of the genes, development, and fall fof the "Asiatic mode of prodsction—this i something which we must build tp for ourveives. T have undertaken the attempt to build up the theoretical uct of the Asiatic mode of production from thisstandpoint.29. Tn doing 2 Perene Tosh “Le mde de podusion Asasique dan Tone de K. Mare & gan" Le Prat, No.8 (Ap 1960 1 Rimio Shin, Kd! Sout Folds no Kich elged ison, 162 nd “Aja tet Sein Yohiti Sian chore Kaya Baska (Clas DSerenntion i the Secey of the Aslatie Mode of Production) in Rl w Shi Kiam (Hinasal Examinations tthe Commun) A Calecton of Paper In Honour of Profan Kichit Nakamars, ‘Folge, Nibon Herons, 1968.x0 ‘The Developing Economies 420 [followed the method employed by Marx ia Das Kapital on the capitalist fmode of production and attempted to bulld up the structure of the Asiatic fmode of ‘production by ascertaining, Gest, what was the elemental unit of Production and hove the Iabour proctss involved init was carried through, fd then in what form the clas differentiation among these elemental units fof production developed, being prescribed by the character of the elemental frit of production, and’ what mode of production was formed as « result ‘The following isa summary. |. The Elemental Unit of Production=The Asiatic Community ‘The clemental unit of production, as well as of society, is ‘the Asiatic community ill. Not the primitive community. Through the development of the various factors inherent inthis community the Asiatic mode of produc tion was built up, monarehical despot arote, and under the rule of mon- larchical despoiam the bats was stl constituted by the Asiatic community. Since the factors involved in the development of the Asiatic mode of peo- ‘duction are included in their primary forms within this community, the Asati comunity is both theoretically and historically the starting-point of th [Asiatic mode of production. T denote by the name of the * elemental tn of production” in the mode of production concerned that uait of production ‘which both theoretically and historically constitutes the starting-point from which the mode of production arises and which becomes the bass ofthat Inode of production onceit has aren (the commodity inthe care of the capitalist ‘mode of production), but 1 believe, for the reasons given below, that the basic unit in the Asiatic mode of production was the Asiatic community ieelf, and not the families contained within the community. iesly, in the Auiatic community private ownership hed arisen only in respect to the ‘headam of garden, while ownership of the most important means of produe- tion, cultivated land, forest land, and moorland, appertained to the com- ‘munity itself, and individual families had chie cultivated land alloted to them under ‘a reallotment system, and were only allowed to wie it for a specified period. Seconily, the Asiatic community was the unit in production and was an important unit of co-operative labour in the labour process. In particular the forms of work which were of deciive importance for the reproduction of the Arintic communityrver and iergation works, land reclamation, ete. “were carried out by means af communal labour with the community as the unit ‘Thindly, the Asintic community was the economic unit of reproduction, and the replacement of labourpower and of the means of production was Carried out with the community as the unit, and the was carried ov with the accompaniment of a division of Isbour within the commonity, 9 diferentia- tion of functions more or less entirely under the conditions of natural economy. Since, in this way, the basic unit of production was the community itself, the independence of individuals and families visdvis the community wasMars's Asiatic Mode of Prodvction au extremely weak 2. "The Form of Class Diferentiaton ‘The basic class diferentiation in society develops among. the elemental units of production. Since the basic unit of produeon in the Asiatic mode of production i the community itself, cla diferentition in society develops basically among cosminities, Since the minimum anit of production and of reproduction i the community itself as the elemental unit, any form of régime which splits or breaks up the community, or draws labour-pover away fiom it will make the reproduction of the community imposible. Conse- ‘quently, at thi stage the only poasble régime was form which expropriates Surplus labour of surplar products from the community as the unit and ‘without breaking up the community in any way, that to say, the special form of presentations of tribute from one community to another. Such Kind of régime is what is meant by the Asatic mode of production, con- sidered as an order in which power is exercised over other communities by means of the community. ‘Now this class dilferendation between communities is based principally fon unequal development among the communities resulting from differences in level of production due to differences in the natural conditions, but thie does not mean that we ean deduce the emergence of the Asiatic’ mode of production directly from this unequal development. Ya the lst resort the [istic mode of production, that is w aay, the rule of communities by a fcommuniy, emerges as the reult of subjugation of one sort or another, but famong communities which exit as more or let wlfeulfiient reproductive funts having no. relatione with other communities unequal development, where it exists will not be directly connected with the subjugation of other Communities For unequal development to providean advanced community Wwith a motive for subjugating other communities and forming permanent felations of political subordination under which surplus labour will be ex- Dpropristed from these communities it is necessary that the beginnings of ‘las differentiation should already have occurred in the advanced camamunity tora certain degree, and that the advanced community should have had experience of the pleasures of expropriting the labour of others and should harbour a desie to doo, ‘Thus, claw diferentiation under the Asiatic mode of production, that i t say, among communities presuppotes the beginnings fof class diferentiation developing among families within the community. However, since the familie in the Asatic community are not independent units of preduction or units of economic reproduction, it difficult to apply the concept of class diferentiation to them in the strict sense. Nevertheless, fs the family alresdy owns privately the lured and movable property, receives an allotment of cultivated land for a specified period, and consicutes {nit of cooperative labour ina number of kinds of work in the labour [proces as well, thi will be the occasion of a special form of class differen: tiation taking place among families along the following lines Fire since the object of private ownership arising within the communityaa ‘The Developing Economies are the Anion and movable property, class diferenation will appear in respect to quantitative diferences in regard to. radio and movable prop- ext a differentiation consisting on the one hand in the enlargement and concentration of private ownership, and on the other in the reduction and loa of private ovmership. Next, since the utilisation of cultivated land typially appears inthe form of a system of periodic land re-allotment, it is necestary to enlarge onc rights to reosive cultivated land under this system if one ie to enlarge the area of cultivated Ind under one's own management. However, since the Periodic resllotment of cultivated land is carried cut through the rights of membership of the commonity, the accumslation of rights will be necesary for the accumblation of rights to receive cultivated land, and further, this will have to be carried out by accumulating member who posses the right fof membenhip of the community, and consequent this will manifest ise {in an inereste in the numbers of fee families. In such a proces of class ferentiation, those who go. down wil, merely by losing their movable property and fired be absorbed as labour-pawer within the rising families, Dut with their rights of membership, chat i their rights to receive cultivated land, intact. Since thi is s0, the déclasé within the community will not decline to the seatus of saves, since they are not separated fom their rights of ‘membership of the community, that is, ther right) on arable land. ‘That is to say, the stratifeatory ferentiation which tales place in the Asiatic ‘comunity manifests itelf in the form of diferences in the numbers of free families, and does not take the form of a clas differentiation into slaves and slave-owners Now, when a giant family possessing notably lange numbers of members ‘and having accumulated large quantiles of haadia and movable property femerges out of this proctss of sratficatory differentiation, the headship of the community will be permanently vested in this family. Further, he, the Ihead of the community, wil concentrate into is own hands all community fanetions—the direction of communal labour, rights over cultivated land and inrgation water, rights of administration and Gispotal in regard to communal property, rights over seligiou observances, the right-of military command, exemand by doing so he will change from a civil servant carrying out functions on behalf of the community, a mere representative, into the rule, and expropriator, of the community. ‘The transformation of authority, namely the development of cas differentiation within a community, requires ‘sits prerequisite the expropriation of surplus labour based upon inequality in holdings of the means of production. FFintly, on the basis of the accumulation of aaa in the hands of pow= ‘rfl families, the land thos acquired is loaned out to other members who Ihave lost their hrdia and as & result apart of the surplus labour of the members recciving such land it expropriated by the powerful Tames, particularly the head of the community. Secondly, if, as a result of statiicatory dliferetiation, the headship ofMars’ Asiatic Mode of Production a3 ‘the community it permanently vested in a certin powerful family, the culated land which originally appertains to the ownership of the ‘com ‘unity wil come to be owned in the name of the head at representative of the community, and in the course of time it will ome to be thought of at being the land ofthe head. In this way the head of the community becomes the sole and supreme owner”. This is the archetype of the ideology of ‘the King’s land which is peculiar to the desptic states of ancient Asia. In thete cases the rights of ownership enjoyed by the despotic monarch are not private ownership, but are merely thought of as being the collective ght of ownership in respect to culvated land as posesed by the com- unity, considered as the right of ownership enjpyed by the head of the community in his capacity as representative of the community "Now, when in this way the land of the community comes to be thought of ax being the land of the head of the community the system of periodic land re-allotment operated by the community changes to the form in which the land of the head is distributed by the head, and as a result of this a part of the surplus labour of those who receive share is expropriated by the head Thiedly, expropriation of surplus labour by the head of the community also oceurs in other forma, ‘The head of the community, who held rights of ‘adminitration and disposal in regard to communal property and was in Control of exchanges with other communities, had ix his hands the communal property given in exchanges and the articles acquired by exchange, and he frequently made part of thee goods into his own private property, or pproprsted as his own property or he made a part af the produce and labour services contributed by the members for the purposes of warfare oF religious observances into his own private property and labour services. ‘Within the Asiatic community, particularly within the subjugating.com- unity, class difereatiation, that i expropriation, had begun in such forms te thew. would deaw the readers attention to the fact that this clas Aierentation is not the same as that which produced the slave system, nor does it preruppote the slave system. ‘Subjagning communities, having tasted such expropeation of the surplus labour of others within the community, direct their expropriation 9 objets external to the community, subjugate other communities, enlarge more and ‘more their ideas of grandeur, and, making the unequal development among the communities all the greater, rapidly expand their sphere of rule and form small states, or local states.” Pucher, as areul of diferentiation among this group of small stats the imposing despotic states of Asia, built on a ational eae, are formed. The Asiatic Mode of Production=The Despotic State of Ancient Asia ‘The Adiatic mode of production is an order of rule over a large number of Asiatic emall communities by a despotic monarch or sate. The basis of the rule over these small communities (and the individuals within them) by the tate or monarch resides in the mature of the Asiatic form of the com:a ‘The Developing Economies munity tel By this we refer to che fact that in the Asiatic community the individuals (and families) contained within the community cannot stand ‘up independently of the community. For this reason, “he is at bottom him- tell the property, the slave of that which embodie the unity of the com- munity." Consequently, fone has contol of the Furtions of the community fone can exercise rule over the members of the community, for whom an Indepeadent stand in relation to the community is impossible. With this character of the Asiatic commonity at it ast, the stats, by absorbing into jue the various communal fonctions posteseed by the small communities, ‘ean exerche rule over a large number ‘of iolated small commonitis, bind them to ivelf, and go on to exercise rule over the individuals within the small communities ako. Now the following two are the principal ways in ‘which the state absorbs the communal functions >esesed by the small ‘communities. The fist isthe performance on a large sale by the state itself fof the communal functions, namely, river and ierigstion works, ete, which ‘mediate in the reproduction of the Tabour process in the small community, the elemental unit of production. The second is to deprive the small com. ‘munities of their right of ownership in respect to land (this was thought of 8 being owned by the head of the community) and have the land owned by the state (by the despotic monarch), chus degrading the small communities to the postion of mere occupies. Consequently, the collective landovnership ‘which forms the basis of the community. places limitations on the establish- rent of private ownership by the members within the community, while the character of the Adatic community iell, in which the members cannot take fan independent stand in relation to the community, provides the basis for the exercise of rule by the rate over the small communities and the individ uals within them. In the Asiatic mode of production the atate uses the callective ownership of land, the communal function which checks the inde pendence of the members, ab its instrument of rule. Now in their essential nature the rights of landownership of which the Acspotie state (or monarch) deprives the small commanity, that is t0 say, the landownership enjoyed by the state (or by the desptic monarch), are not rights of private landownership. but right: of collective landownership which hhave been accumulated on s national scale. Further, the content of the hereditary rights of occupancy left in the small communities i in no wise of the nature of private rights of ownership, but i will ewentally of the nature of collective rights of ownership. By bringing the amall communities into relations of dependence under the despotic state (or monarch) the collective rights of Ind ownership have been divided into thow: of a higher order and those of a lower order. We have already pointed out that in Foren the relation between the way of thinking represented in the words “the sole and fupeeme owner” and the notion that land appears ealy a8 collective owner thip i by ao means clear, but at we have shown above, it is posible to ‘understand these kinds of land ovenership in unifed manner and without se See Note 10 aboveMarz's Asiatic Mode of Production ais any contradiction between them. ‘The form in which surplus labour was drawn off between such stater snd small communities waa the special system of preientations of tribute, a fore distinct fom the slavery of antiquity and tht serfdom of the feudal period. As we have already stated, we cannot agree to the characterization (OF this form a8 allgmeine Slaee on the basis of the text of Forman, nor t0 its being regarded as type of, or sage in, the slave sytem of antiquity. 4. The Fall of The Asiatic Mode of Production =The Establishment of « New Elemental Unit of Production ‘The Asiatic mode of production is a form of rule based on the Asiatic community. Consequently, as a result of these communities lapting into tony the power ofthe state will be readeved insecure, and ifthe communities break up the power of the sate will also breakup. Engels speaks a follows: “Where the ancient communes have continued to exist, they have for thou sends of years formed the basi of the cruclest form of sate, Oriental despotism, ffom India wo Rusia. It was only where these communities Gdisolyed that the peoples made progres of themselves and. their next economic advance consisted in the increase and development of production bby meant of save labour ‘This being the eave, in what way does the community break up? As a result of advances in the productivity of Iabour the families in the community achieve independence as units of production and. reproduction and also ovm cultivated land, 30 that in the place of Asiatic community ieell « new clemental unit of production attains an independent existence. Hereupon the Asiatic community breaks up, and the form of class dierentiation also changes. ‘The new class diferentiation develops among the families which are the new elemental unit of production, but since through the rights of membership of the community thee families enpy private ownership of fuldvated land clas differentiation among these families of necesty appears 8 a revolution into slaves and slaveowners, and thus slaves make’ their appearance within the community and the slavery mode of production of antiquity is formed, By the above analysis we have been able to build up the total theoretical structure of the genesis, development and fall of the Asiatic: mode of pro- duction, without presuppasing’ the slave system and on principles entirely Ailferent from those of the slave system. Further, I think that we have been able t0 show the neceity of the slave system of production of antiquity Coming into being out of the fall of the Asiatic mode of production. "Thus would make it my contention that the Asiatic mode of production was a specific mode of production which preceded the ancient mode of production fand came into being ab one of the succession of amades of production which includes the ancient, feudal, and moder bourgeois modes of production, yl tage av, Comet Moa oi Han Dive bun Si, ey Sacom Forti anges POSS