The Asiatic Mode of Production and the Marxist Theory of History

Abstract

Is the AMP compatible with the Marxist theory of history? Many scholars believe that the concept contradicts the claim of an overall social progress in historical materialism (O’Leary, 1989: 152–202). However, in this chapter I shall examine two claims which are said to have prevented the AMP from being a scientific concept. The first claim asserts that societies dominated by the AMP are permanently stagnant, while the second maintains that the concept of the AMP has a derogative connotation. Moreover, this so-called derogative connotation is said to be a reflection of Marx’s Eurocentrism. In the first section I shall seek to demonstrate that both social and economic relations in the AMP are in constant movement. The so-called stagnant character of the AMP should be understood in the context of a comparative study between different economic structures in history. Therefore, it is arbitrary to presume that an endogenous development of capitalism is a priori impossible from societies once dominated by the AMP. In the second section I shall contend that the charge of Eurocentrism against Marx is at best misleading. It derives from scholars’ failure to understand Marx’s methodological approach towards historical research between different societies. A brief review of Marx’s sophisticated attitude towards colonialism is an attempt to indicate that Marx’s remarks on nonEuropean societies are nothing but a logical extension of his critique of capitalism.