The Concept of the Asiatic Mode of Production

Abstract

In the Preface to A Contribution to the Critique of Political Economy Marx wrote: ‘In broad lines Asiatic, ancient, feudal, and modern bourgeois modes of production can be designated as progressive epochs in the economic formation of society’ (Marx, 1970: 21). This crucial sentence formally introduced the concept of the Asiatic Mode of Production. This is the only place where Marx succinctly listed it as one of the modes of production. Both before and after he penned this passage, Marx wrote many comments about different forms of religion, history, economy and so on in non-European societies, without clearly defining which of these countries were dominated by the AMP. Therefore, two related questions arise: first, how significant was this mode of production in Marx’s conceptualization of the world? Second, to what extent can such a conceptualization explain different developments of world history? These two questions have been discussed in great detail by O’Leary in his recent book, The Asiatic Mode of Production (1989). He has argued rigorously that neither Marx nor Engels ever abandoned the substantive conceptual commitment suggested by the AMP (O’Leary, 1989: 146).1 However, O’Leary sought to use his knowledge of Indian history to dismiss the explanatory value of the concept. Without rehearsing detailed arguments suggested by O’Leary, we can conclude that Marx never denied his famous account in the Preface in any of his writings.