1988 the debates over the asiatic mode of production in soviet russia, china, and japan

7/30/2019 1988 the Debates Over the Asiatic Mode of Production in Soviet Russia, China, And Japan

http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/1988-the-debates-over-the-asiatic-mode-of-production-in-soviet-russia-china 1/25

The Debates over the Asiatic Mode of Production in Soviet Russia, China, and JapanAuthor(s): Joshua A. Fogel

Source: The American Historical Review, Vol. 93, No. 1 (Feb., 1988), pp. 56-79Published by: The University of Chicago Press on behalf of the American Historical AssociationStable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/1865689 .

Accessed: 10/08/2011 17:27

Your use of the JSTOR archive indicates your acceptance of the Terms & Conditions of Use, available at .http://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp

JSTOR is a not-for-profit service that helps scholars, researchers, and students discover, use, and build upon a wide range of

content in a trusted digital archive. We use information technology and tools to increase productivity and facilitate new forms

of scholarship. For more information about JSTOR, please contact [email protected].

The University of Chicago Press and American Historical Association are collaborating with JSTOR to

digitize, preserve and extend access to The American Historical Review.

http://www.jstor.org

http://www.jstor.org/action/showPublisher?publisherCode=ucpress

http://www.jstor.org/action/showPublisher?publisherCode=aha

http://www.jstor.org/stable/1865689?origin=JSTOR-pdf

http://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp

http://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp

http://www.jstor.org/stable/1865689?origin=JSTOR-pdf

http://www.jstor.org/action/showPublisher?publisherCode=aha

http://www.jstor.org/action/showPublisher?publisherCode=ucpress



The Debates over the AsiaticMode of Productionin SovietRussia,China, and Japan

JOSHUA A. FOGEL

A GREAT DEAL HAS BEEN WRITTEN aboutthe Asiaticmode ofproduction,"mostofittheworkof Marxists roundtheworld, s they ried oestablishwhatKarl Marxand FriedrichEngels meant by the expression and what it signifiedfor thecontemporary Orient."Over thepast decade, several cholars ess nvolved ntheMarxist discussionshave addressed the debates thatemerged over the Asiaticmodeofproduction s topics nthe ntellectual istoryfRussia,China, andJapanof the 1920s and 1930s.1 More recently, flurry f some thirtyr more articlesappeared inthePeople's Republicof Chinaon the ssue,butthetopicdisappearedfromscholarlyournals as quickly nd mysteriouslys ithad arisen,onlyto be

revived again in 1985 and 1986. None of the writings n theAsiatic mode ofproductionhas yet ttempted n examinationof the ssues raisedinall themajorcountries n which there was debate-primarily,the Soviet Union, China, andJapan-and of the mportantnterrelationshipsetween hemfrom he ate 1920sthroughthe late 1930s. Without ppreciating he transnational ontext n whichthedebate took place at thattime,we cannotfullyunderstand t.

The idea ofa dynamic, rogressing, articipatoryolityn theWest as opposedtoa static, nchanging,despoticpolityn theEast goes back to theself-perceptionof the Greeksvis-'a-vishe Persians. When Aristotle's oliticswas translated ntoLatinin the thirteenthentury,tsnotionofOrientaldespotismwas reintroducedinto European intellectualurrency. robably nthe fourteenthentury, lackoftheright o privatepropertywas added to thisconcept.It was Montesquieuwhoreunited"despotism"with he Orient n hisattacks n Frenchabsolutism.Chinawas thenpictured as a stable,perfectly ational, nlighteneddespoticstate.2

This portrayal f China did notchangeas European conceptions f thestatedid.As progressor democracybecame elementaltothe "modern"nation-state, hina(and Asiagenerally)wasfoundwoefullywanting.Asianstagnation, ackwardness,

l Marian Sawer,Marxism ndthe uestion f heAsiatic odeof roductionThe Hague, 1977); StephenDunn, The Fall and RiseoftheAsiaticMode of ProductionLondon, 1982); ArifDirlik,Revolution ndHistory: heOrigins fMarxist istoriographyn China1919-193 7 (Berkeley,Calif., 1978); and GermaineA. Hoston, Marxism nd theCrisis f Developmentn PrewarJapan (Princeton,N.J., 1986), especiallychapter 6.

2 Basil Guy, The Frenchmage of China beforend afterVoltaire,ol. 21 of Studies nVoltaire nd theEighteenthenturyGeneva, 1963); E. Rose, "China as a Symbolof Reaction nGermany,1830-1880,"Comparativeiterature, (1951): 57-76; and LawrenceKrader,The AsiaticModeofProduction:ources,Developmentnd Critiquen theWritingsfKarl Marx (Assen, 1975), 62-67.

56



The Debates ver heAsiaticMode ofProduction 57

and despotism were seen as the diametrical opposites of Europe's own self-congratulatorymage as modern,developing,progressive, nd free.ForGeorg W.F. Hegel, by way of example, China and India lay "outside theworld's history";

forLeopold von Ranke,theChinesewere one of the "races of eternal standstill";and, for Johann Herder, "in China and India, . . there is no true historicalprogress utonly static nchanging ivilization."3Jamesill ndJohn StuartMillregarded the Orient s fixed o tsunchangingvillage nd unableto oin the courseof historywithout jolt from outside. In none of these cases did this blanketportrayal f Asia or China emerge from research or even personal travel andobservation. "Asia" (and its adjectival form, "Asiatic") had become terms ofderogation.

Despite Marx's precocious visionof the Taiping Rebellion,he shared the mage

ofChina as socially tagnant.He characterized Asiatic"or "Oriental"societybythe"absence f rivate ropertynland,"thepresenceof arge-scale rrigationworks,an omnipotent state ruling in a uniformly espotic manner, and communallandownership:a complete lack of social dynamism.4 ecause the state monop-olized all economic nitiativentheOrient,Marxargued,Oriental ociety emainedstagnant,unable to rechannelsurplus profit r to produce class differentiation,class consciousness, nd finally lass struggle,he essence ofall historynthe wordsof the Communistanifesto.5

Engels, through his works Anti-Diihringnd TheOriginoftheFamily, rivateProperty,nd the tate, ublishedafterMarx'sdeath, attempted ointegrateMarx'sideas on Oriental despotism and Asiatic societyinto the two men's largertheoreticalystem. or example, inAnti-Diihring,ngels seemed to be saying hattheruling lass n theOrient was a political-administrativelite,while ntheWest,itwasan economicclass.He also emphasizedthe solated, egmentedvillagenatureofOrientalsociety, aying ittle r nothing bout large irrigationworks.6

As the debatesunfolded nthe twentiethentury, o one definition f an Asiaticmode of production emerged. Certainqualitieson which most debaterstacitlyagreed, however, anbe identified. he Asiaticmode was characteristicf a societyinthe"East"ruledbyan all-powerful espotwhoheldfinal ontrol verall matterssecular and religious:Orientaldespotism.This societywas agrarian and highlydependent on massiveirrigationprojectsthatany given localitywas unable toprovidefor tself; hus, very ocal communitywasdependentfor ts ifebloodonthe center that provided these hydraulicworks. Private propertywas notrecognized, nasmuch as thedespot owned all the land. And thevillage was theprimaryunit of society.Thus, the social order based on the Asiatic mode of

production acked so much as the suggestionof dynamism.

As cited nJoshua A. Fogel, Politicsnd Sinology: heCase ofNaitoKonan 1866-1934) (Cambridge,Mass., 1984), 3-5.

' Karl Marx to Friedrich Engels, 2 June 1853, Karl Marx and Friedrich Engels, SelectedCorrespondence846-1895, Dona Torr, trans. 1942; rpt. edn., Westport,Conn., 1975), 64-66.

5In a similar ein,George Lichteimnoted that theOrienthad notevolved anything orrespondingto private property n land: unquestionablyone of the preconditions f feudalism";Marxism:AnHistorical nd Critical tudy New York, 1961), 158.

6Sawer, Marxism nd theQuestion,3-52, 69-71, 75.




dynamic bourgeoisie, and the nature of Chinese social organization), Vargaclaimed thatChina's ruling lass was a scholar-elite,hat he"tyrannyf the clan"in villagesprevented he rise of domestic apitalism, nd thatpower n Chinawas

a consequence of control ver massivepublicworks

ystems-inother

words,he

Asiaticmode of productionhad existed.The following ear,others, ncludingyoung Karl A. Wittfogel, xpressed essentiallyimilarpointsof view n print.7

Another source often cited by Varga and byothersupportersof theAsiaticmode wasthework f Russian ocialistGeorgiiPlekhanovthoughnota Bolshevik,a mentor fVladimirLenin's). Plekhanov,who was also popular amongChineseand Japanese advocatesof the Asiaticmode ofproduction,had studiedRussiancommunal property nd geography s factors hat ed Russia along a differenthistorical ath fromWesternEurope. Like Marx,he hoped thatpeasants acting

withinthe primitive ommunalform known as the mirwould propel Russiansociety astthecapitalist tage.His influence mongthe various advocatesof theAsiaticmode of production ay n this mphasison geographicfactors hatwouldlead to distinct astern and Westernroutes of social evolution.8

The most prolific ovietadvocate of an Asiaticmode was anotherHungarianrefugee,best knownby his Russified ameofLiudvig . Mad'iar. He served ntheSovietdiplomatic orps in China in themid-1920s nd therecollected materialsfor his firstmajor work,Ekonomikael'skogo hoziaistva Kitae (China's rural

economy 1928]),a volumethat ecame one of thecentral ocumentsnthedebateoverthe next fewyears.Mad'iarthenwent o workfor he OrientalSecretariat ftheComintern rom1929 to 1934,theyear nwhichhe waspurged. In 1930,hepublisheda second book supportinghis deas on Asiatic ocietynChina, Ocherkipo ekonomikeitaia (Essays on the Chinese economy), nd a lengthy ntroductionto another volume,"Tszin'-Tian":Agrarnyitroi revnogo itaia (Ching-t'ien: heAgrarianstructure f ancient China) byM. D. Kokin and G. Papaian.9

In essence, Mad'iar asserted that the Asiaticmode ofproductionhad charac-

terized Chinese society nd its economy until the beginningof the twentiethcentury, hennotions fprivate roperty ame to China from heWest.RemnantsoftheAsiaticmode ofproductionnChina were till mportantn determining hestrategy f theChinese revolution.He and the other "Aziatchiki," s supportersof a distinctive Asiatic"mode of productionwere dubbed by theiropponents,agreed thatMarx had intended to describe not a single historicalpath for all

7 V. N. Nikiforov, ovetskiestoriki problemakhitaia (Moscow, 1970), 202-08. See also Sawer,Marrxismnd theQuestion,1-82. On Wittfogel's ritingsnd activitiesn the ate1920sand early 1930s,

see G. L. Ulmen,The cience f ociety:oward nUnderstandingofheLifend WorkfKarlAugustWittfogel(The Hague, 1978), especially128-41.8 Hoston,Marxism nd the risis fDevelopment,35-38. On Plekhanov's deas in this onnection,ee

S. H. Baron, "Plekhanov'sRussia: The Impactof theWestupon an 'Oriental'Society," ournal ftheHistory f deas, 19 (June 1958): 388-404.

9LiudvigMad'iar,Ekonomikael'skogo hoziaistvaKitae Moscow and Leningrad,1928); OcherkioekonomikeKitaiaMoscow, 1930);M. D. Kokin nd G. Papaian,"Tszin'-Tian":AgrarnyistroidrevnogoKitaia(Leningrad, 1930), introduction yMad'iar, 1-75; and "Lajos Magyar Liudvig Ignat'evichMad'iar,1891-1940)," Great oviet ncyclopediaMoscow, 1974), 15: 321. Liudvig I. Mad'iar's name has beenvariouslymistranscribed y virtually veryonewho has mentionedhis work:"Ludwig Madyar"byWittfogel, irlik,Ulmen,and others; LudwigS. Mad'iar"byHoston. There is no reasonwhatsoevertoGermanicizehis first ame.



60 JoshuaA. Fogel

societiesthroughout he worldbut two. Thus for Mad'iar the Asiatic element nthe Asiaticmode of production was not a geographically pecific oncept but a

universal,pre-capitalist tage throughwhichall peoples necessarilywould pass.

In theirwork n thechiug-t'ienr "well-field"ystem, okin and Papaian actuallymade use ofthe standardChinese sourceson ancientsociety such as theChou-lior RitesofChou) in an efforto demonstrate hat he Asiaticmode of productionhad characterizedthe Chou era (twelfth hroughthird centuries B.C.). The"well-field" ystem,whose existence has never been proven,was allegedly anancient nstitution or dividing and along the lines of the Chinesecharacter for"well,"whichresembles tic-tac-toe oard. Eightfamiliesweresaidto have workedtheeightplotsof and surrounding hecenterfor hemselves,nd thecentralninth

plot theyworked ointly forthe state. n theirbook (translated nto Chinese in1933), Kokinand Papaian portrayed he "well-field"tructure s a local communeused bytheadministrativefficers f the tate.Because the tate wned allthe and,rent nd tax in this ystemwereunited another mportant lementof theAsiaticmode of production).However, the authorsnever argued, as theiropponentsclaimedtheydid, that the Asiatic mode continued ntomodern times.'0

The Asiaticmode of productionthesiswas alternately ssaulted and explainedaway byitsopponents,such as Sergei Dubrovskii,who attacked t n 1929 in his

work,K voprosu sushchnostiaziatskogo"posoba roizvodstva,eodalizma, repost-nichestvatorgovoo kapitala On thequestionofthe essenceof the "Asiatic"modeofproduction, eudalism,erfdom, nd tradecapital), oon translatedntoChineseandJapanese.He positedtenmodes ofproduction hroughworldhistory,uttheAsiatic was not one of them."IMany others claimed thatthe Asiaticmode ofproductionwas merely n Asiaticvariant ffeudalismor slavery utcertainly omode of productionunto itself.

The debatereachedsuch ntensityhat everal onferences-in Tbilisiand Bakuin 1930 and inLeningrad n 1931--wereconvenedto resolvethe ssue.The Baku

papers were never published,and littlehas ever been reportedon the Tbilisimeeting a conference olumeexists, ut t sextremely are)exceptthat hedebaterevolved around theviewsofT. D. Berinin favorofan Asiatic mode. The views

against, s representedbyDubrovskii nd MikhailGodes, prevailed.'2Despitetheanti-Aziatchikenorof thesemeetings nd ofthepress n 1930,views upportiveof an Asiatic mode of productionhad yetto be silenced.

"' Kokin and Papaian, "Tszin'-Tian"; and Disku.ssiia b aziatskom posobe roizvodstvahereafter,

Diskussiia)Moscow and Leningrad, 1931), 57. One anti-Aziatchikttacked he oint work f KokinandPapaian for"claiming . . that n the Han era inChina privatepropertyn land did not exist and wasall governmentand, and that and was neitherbought nor sold." Hearing this,Kokin shoutedfromhis eat: "I didn't laimthat.MaybePapaian did." When the aughter ubsided, ccording othe minutes(Diskussiia,7), Papaian said: "I neverclaimed it."

" Sergei M. Dubrovskii, K voprosu o sushchnosti aziatskogo" posobaproizvodstva,eodalizma,krepostnichestvatorgovogokapitala Moscow, 1929), 17-19; and see E. Varga, "Ob aziatskom sposobeproizvodstva,"n Varga, Ocherki o problemamolitekonomiiapitalizmaMoscow, 1965), 366-67.

2 Nikiforov, ovetskiestoriki,17; and Ulmen,Science fSociety,38. The Tbilisi reportwas entitledOb aziatskomposobe roizvodstva:tenograficheskiitchetiskussiiodokladu . Berina On theAsiaticmodeof production:Stenographic ccountof the discussion urrounding he report of T. Berin].



The Debates ver heAsiaticModeofProduction 61

The LeningradConferenceof February, 931 wasmuch more famous. NeitherVarga nor Mad'iar were invited to represent Aziatchik views, but Kokin andPapaian bothattended and were thoroughly ambastedby their pponents. Both

sides came heavily armed withquotationsfromMarx, Engels, and Lenin andbrandished them in warlike fashion. The most outspoken critics f the Asiaticmode of production,Evgenii olk and Godes inparticular, ejected the Aziatchiknotionof a bureaucratic uling litedefinedby tsfunction, ot ts conomic class.Politically, hey penly claimed, the Asiaticmode of productionwas dangerous tothe Comintern'sefforts o spur revolutionarymovements among the world'scolonial peoples, because a geographicallydistinctmode of production couldarguably enderCominterneadershipunnecessary.Godes attacked heAziatchikiforfailing o explain the transition rom heAsiaticmode ofproduction o the next

stageofhistory ithin hecategories fclass struggle nd Oriental ociety.n short,opponents oftheAsiaticmode denounced its upportersfordistortinghe wordsof Marx and Engels and exaggerating what was simplyan Asian variantoffeudalismor slavery.'3

While theexpression Asiaticmode ofproduction"began todisappear from heSovietpressthatyear, tsprevious supportersdid not.The Aziatchikipublishedoverthenextfewyears nrespectablepublications ut notdirectly n thesubjectofthe Asiaticmode ofproduction.4AfewAziatchiki ven survived talin'spurges,

although most perished.Wittfogelater wroteof theSovietAziatchiki hat"theirheresy was a minorone, and itdid not deprive themof theirgood Communiststanding."'5He also claimed that the Asiaticmode ofproductionwas notwidelydebated inCommunistparties utside theSovietUnion.This statementwasclearlyuntrue for bothChina and Japan.

THE CURRENT NOTION THAT THE ASIATIC MODE OF PRODUCTION attracted ittleinterestn China would be difficult o substantiate.'6 upposedly,because of its

geographicalspecificitynd its nherent uality fstagnation,he Asiaticmode ofproduction had condescending (perhaps even racist) overtones for Chineseradicals.This argument sbased moreon abstract ogic thanon sources. One couldequally hypothesizean approach, similarto that of the Soviet Aziatchiki, hatpositedtheunique character fthe Asiaticmode ofproductionforChina and the

1 Diskussija, 14, 34,66. See also Ozaki Sh6taro, Ajia teki eisan y6shiki onso," nAjiatekieisanyoshikiron Tokyo, 1949), 65-82; Goi Naohiro, KindaiNihon oTy6 shigakuTokyo, 1976), 194-95; KobayashiRyosei, Ajia teki eisan yoshiki enkyuTokyo, 1970), 155-62; and Jan Pecirka, "Die SowjetischenDiskussionen uber die AsiatischenProduktionsweise nd uber die Sklavenhalterformation,"irene,

(1964): 147-69.14 Kokin, for xample, contributed wo ong essayson recent vents nChina forvolumes edited by

Godes: M. D. Kokin, "Revoliutsiia 1911 goda v Kitae," n Probuzhdeniiezii: 1905 goda i revoliutsiiavostoke, . S. Godes, ed. (Leningrad, 1935), 131-227; and M. Kokin,"Kitai," n Ocherki o istorii ostokav epokhemperializma,. Alimov and M. Godes, eds. (Moscow and Leningrad, 1934), 259-363. It wasalso recently iscovered bya Chinese scholar that Kokin was one ofthe earliestRussian translators fLu Hsiin's "The True Story f Ah Q." He published the translationn 1929 but did so anonymously.See Ko Pao-ch'iian, "AhQ cheng huan"tsaikuo-waiPeking, 1981), 52.

5 KarlAugust Wittfogel, riental espotism: StudynTotalPower New Haven, Conn., 1957), 404.lb Benjamin I. Schwartz, A MarxistControversyn China," Far EasternQuarterly,3 (February

1954): 143-54; and Dirlik grees with chwartz n thispoint, n Revolutionnd History, 9 1-92, passim.



62 JoshuaA. Fogel

necessity f a socialistrevolution,ed by workers nd peasants,because China's

bourgeoisiewas too neffectiveo guide a bourgeois-democraticevolution.n fact,

the Asiaticmode of productionwas as widelydiscussed as any other ssue in the

debates on the history fsociety hen raging nChina,and the debates continuedas long in China as anywhere lse in the world.

An examinationof ournals and books of the late 1920sand 1930s reveals that

many worksof theAziatchiki nd theiropponentsweretranslated nto Chinese

soon after heir nitialpublication, ncludingthoseof Varga, Wittfogel,Mad'iar,

Kokin, and Papaian. Mad'iar's first ook was actually ranslated everaltimes by

different ublishers.Given the contoursof the Sovietdebate, the Chinese had

accesstoall oftherelevant ovietmaterials nd much of theearlierworks f Marx,

Engels, and others.'7As was thecase inRussia,the Chinese debate on thehistoryfsocietywas closely

entwinedwith revolutionary trategy.Most of the participants n the Chinese

discussionswere political ctivists irst nd historians econd,and theirhistorical

analysesreflected primary oncernwith ecounting hedevelopmentof Chinese

society n a waythatpointeddirectly o revolution.Unlike theirSovietcounter-

parts, however,the Chinese debaters soon proposed elaborate schemes and

periodizationsforChinese history, ccasionallywiththe use of recent archaeo-

logical materials oracle bones and inscriptionsn bronze artifacts).The highlyerratic Kuo Mo-jo, who had translatedMarx's Critiquen 1925,

opened the theoretical ebateover the Asiaticmode ofproduction nChina with

hisbook Chung-kuo u-taihe-hui en-chi(A study f ancientChinese society), irst

published in 1930 and reissuedmanytimes thereafter.n it,he associated the

Asiaticmode of productionwith he primitive-communalocialorder.Confronted

by severe criticism,Kuo changed his views (somethingforwhich he became

famous),arguingin an essayof 1936 that theAsiatic mode was in fact distinct

class societypredating lavery.18

Li Chi, a scholarof considerable erudition n ancienthistory, eld viewsmost

closely orresponding oMad'iar'son thenatureof theAsiaticmodeofproduction.

Li repeatedly tressed hesimple fact hatMarx had listed he Asiaticmode as one

of the normalstagesofsocialdevelopment.A Marxist herefore ad no choice, n

Li's opinion,but to find t in history. hus, Kuo Mo-jo was wrongin 1930, Li

claimed, to identify heAsiaticmode of productionwitha pre-classsociety.Li

arguedthat heAsiaticmodebestdescribed he ateShangera (through he twelfth

" For example, there were the following ranslations f Mad'iar's first ook: Chung-kuo ung-ts'ulching-chzhili t'e-hsing,Tsung Hua, trans. Shanghai, 1930), a partialtranslation;Chung-kuo ung-yehching-chi,i Min-ch7ang,rans., tenographic opy of translation f chapter 12 (Moscow, 1929); andChung-kuo tung-ts'unhiing-chieit-chiu,h'en Tai-ch'ingand P'eng Kuei-ch'iu, rans. 1930; rpt. edn.,Shanghai,1934), complete ranslationwith dditionalmaterial.Also,of Mad'iar's second bookof 1930:Chung-kuo hing-chia-kang, su Kung-ta, rans. Shanghai, 1933), completetranslation.

IxKuo Mo-jo, C/huntg-kuou-tai he-hui en-chiuShanghai, 1930), 176-77. Kuo's essayin 1936 was"Chung-kuo fa-chan hieh-tuan hih tsaijen-shih:Chu yu lun-chiu o-wei Ya-hsi-ya e sheng-ch'anf-ang-shih,"'n Mo-o wen-chi, 7 vols. (rpt.edn., Peking,1959), 11: 21-27.




centuryB.C.). Relyingon a handful of citationsfromCapital,'9the work of

Plekhanov, nd especiallyLewis Henry Morgan'sAncient istorya majorsource

for Marx and Engels),Li also leveled criticismt Mad'iar for mplying hat the

existenceof the Asiaticmode of production n China's past meant China had

bypassedfeudalism.20The historianHu Ch'iu-yuan rgued in severalessayspublished n 1932 that f

the Asiaticmode ofproductionwas anything,twasdespotism,nddespotismwas

groundedin feudalism.He thusclaimed that n fact combination f the village

commune nd feudal erfdomnChinahad produced"Asiatic" espotism,ndthe

AziatchikiparticularlyMad'iar) had failed to see thisbecause they oncentrated

theirgaze on the scholar-officiallass. Hu wasmuch mpressedby the treatment

ofthe issueof the overwhelminguthorityf thesovereign n East Asia given n1928 bythe Japanese Communisthistorian,HattoriShiso.21

Two other participants n the debate who arrived at altogetherdifferent

conclusionsabout the Asiatic mode of productionwere Wang I-ch'angand Liu

Hsing-t'ang.Wang criticizedMad'iarforhis gnorance f Chinesehistory,heonly

possible reason he could imaginefor positing self-sufficientsiatic mode in

China. The Asiaticmode of productiontself, e claimed,wasnot a complete tageinhistorical evelopment ut merely variant fanother feudalism).Wang'smost

interestingnsight not an originalone, but the first n China) was that Indiaformed the basis of Marx's understandingof Asian social forms, and only

occasionallywas Marx referring ofeudal East Asia.22

19This was before Kuo Ta-li'scomplete ranslationfMarx's textwas available. Li often ranslateddirectly romGerman.Others made itclearwhenreferringoDas KapitalthattheywereusingtheJapanese edition translated yTakabatake Motoyuki).

? Li Chi, "Tui-yiiChung-kuoshe-hui hih un-chante kung-hsien ii p'i-p'ing,"Tu-shu sa-chih,(March 1932): 9-11, 12-13, 28,47-51, 114; 2 (August1932): 9, 60; and Li Chi, "Kuan-yui hung-kuoshe-hui hih un-chan ekung-hsien iip'i-p'ing," u-shusa-chih,(April1933): 1-86. AsoneJapanese

critic,Ozaki Shotaro,noted at the time,Li failed to clarify he links between the Asiatic mode ofproduction nd either lavery r feudalism;hejustmechanically osited t ome timebeforefeudalismand in place of slavery. See Ozaki, "Ajia teki eisanyoshiki onso,"105-06.) In fairness, hough,noone before World War II devised a satisfyingheoreticalframework or the developmentfrompre-class oclass ociety, r from heAsiaticmode of production o thenextmode ofproduction,xceptfor he ntrusion fWesternmperialism ntoAsia, whichwas said to havedestroyed heself-sufficienteconomy.

21 Hu Ch'iu-yuian, Luieh-fu un Cho-changchun ping lueh-lunChung-kuo she-hui chih hsing-chih," Tu-shutsa-chih, (March 1932): 18-19, 21, 22-23; Hu Ch'iu-yiian, Ya-hsi-ya heng-ch'anfang-shih iu huan-chih-chu-i," u-shu sa-chih,(August1932): 1-4, 6, 8-9, 20-21; Hu Ch'iu-yuian,"Chuan-chih-chu-iun," Tu-shu sa-chih, (December 1932): 3-4, 22. Hu cited the work of lolk tosubstantiate is notion of "Orientaldespotism."

22 Wang 1-ch'ang, Chung-kuoshe-huishih-lun hih,"Tu-shu sa-chih, (March 1932): 46, 48-49,52. Another uthor,Wang Li-hsi, ejected he dea thatChina had experienced qualitativelyistincthistory equiring special mode ofproduction o describe.The implication, s Wang read Mad'iar,wasthat, riorto the mperialist enetration, hina was dominatedbytheAsiaticmodeofproduction;after he ntrusion, hina's modeofproduction egan tochange,but mportantemnants f theAsiaticmode remained.Ultimately,Wang agreed withDubrovskii nd condemned as anti-Marxist xcessivestress n irrigations a factornsocialhistory.ee Wang Li-hsi, Chung-kuo he-huihsing-t'ai a-chanshih chung chih mi te shih-tai,"Tu-shu sa-chih, (August 1932): 2-6. Ch'en Pang-kuo,anothercontributoro thedebates,was Li Chi's mostrelentless,arcastic, nd dogged critic.He repeatedlydenounced the notionof the Asiatic mode of production, eserving pecialvenom for Li. See, forexample, Ch'en Pang-kuo,"'Kuan-yui he-hui fa-chanfen-ch'i' ingp'ing Li Chi," Tu-shu sa-chih,(August 1932): 4, passim.



64 JoshuaA. Fogel

Liu Hsing-t'angmade it clearthathe was a follower either f Mad'iar'snorof

Li Chi's notionof theAsiaticmode of production,yethe had to agree withboth

that the lack of privateproperty nd the importanceof irrigationhad greatly

influenced astAsiansociety.Although ssentiallyepeatingDubrovskii's ritique

of Mad'iar, Liu conceded thatMad'iar had offeredmuchof value to scholarship

on Chinesesociety.n fact,he argued,thevillagecommune the central lement

of the Asiatic mode of production) had retarded China's developmentand

preventeda substantial ndigenous growthof commerce. In its original and

remnantforms, heorganization f thisvillagecommune nung-ts'unung-sher

nung-ts'unung-t'ung-t'i)as the sourceof China's social retardation.23 lthough

Liu claimedno intellectual iliation ithMad'iarandtheSovietAziatchikiperhaps

forpoliticalreasons),he ultimately id adopt some of theirmain ideas.One of the fascinating lementsof the debates over the Asiatic mode of

production nChinawasthe attributionf mportance o certain inesof thought

importedfrom he SovietUnion.For example,weknowthat hepositions f lolk

and Godes attheLeningradConference gainst heAsiaticmodewere studiedby

interested hinesealmost mmediately, ut twasclear to all concernedthat olk

and Godes knewnothingof Chinese history.But, if loyalty o the movement

requiredChineseMarxisthistorianso pay ipservice o thevictorsnLeningrad,

an all-powerfulparty in China could not as yet preventthem fromoftenentertainingeven iftheywere ultimatelynable to accept)theideas ofMad'iar

and otherAziatchiki,whose viewson theAsiaticmode ofproductionhad simply

disappearedfromprintedSovietworks fter1931.No Sovietwriter n this ssue

was translated s oftenand as extensively s Mad'iar. A close examinationof

Chinese writingsn theAsiaticmode makesclearthat heviews fmen ikeGodes

and Iolkweredutifullynvoked n China but never ited s expert.Their positions

simply epresented hecorrectComintern ine.

The two Sovietscholarswhoseviewsmost nfluenced ubsequentChinese (andJapanese)discussions f theAsiaticmodeofproductionwere V. V. Reikhardt nd,

particularly,ergeiI. Kovalev.This influencesespeciallynteresting,onsidering

thatReikhardt nd Kovalevare scarcelymentioned n the definitiveovietwork

on thehistoryf SovietSinology. n a volumepublished n 1934 on pre-capitalist

economic formations,Reikhardt discussed at length the Soviet debate of

1929-1931 as theconfrontationf viewsfor nd againstthe Asiaticmode.While

Reikhardt dutifully laimed to agree with the anti-Aziatchik ositionthat the

Asiaticmode of productionnever existedas a distinctmode of production,henevertheless evotedconsiderable pace tospelling utwhat thad meanttoMarx

and Engels. Having done this,Reikhardtconcluded that the Asiatic mode of

productioncould not constitute variety f feudalismbut had to be an Asiatic

23 Liu Hsing-t'ang,"T'ang-tai chih kao-li-tai hih-yeh," hih-huo, (April 1935): 5, 15; LiuHsing-t'ang,Chung-kuoching-chi a-chan epen-chih,"Wen-hua 'i-p'an, (1935): 206-07; and LiuHsing-t'ang, Chung-kuo she-huifa-chan hsing-shih hih t'an-hsien,"Hsin sheng-ming, (October1935): 7, 10, 16, 24, 26-27.




variantof slavery.24Even more widely ead, analyzed, nd influential asthework fKovalev.From

his comments t the Leningrad Conference, ne can see thatKovalevin 1931 had

in fact been a defender of the Asiatic mode. He strictly ifferentiatedt fromslavery nd feudalism nd argued that twas a class societywith ruling litethatexploited agrarian aborers.25 y 1934, however,Kovalev had changed his views.He nowargued thatthe Asiaticmode of productionwasnot a distinctive tage ofsocial developmentbut an Oriental variety f the slaveholding ocial orderin theWest.26

A brilliant oung historian u Chen-yubegan to cometotermswith heconceptof the Asiatic mode of production afterreading Kovalev (probably nJapanesetranslation) n 1934. Although he had earlier been more influenced by the

anti-Aziatchik osition,Lu changed his views and began to approach Marx'sdesignationof "Asiatic" n the empirical materials vailableon Shang and Chouslavery.He concluded in the mid- 930s, n harmonywithKovalev's ater position,that he Asiaticmode of productionwas essentially variant fancientEast Asianslavery.27

Lu published twobooks on ancientChina in 1934,bothbeginningwith n essayaddressingthe ssueof periodization nd the Asiaticmode. In both,he raised thevarious viewsthen current on the nature of the Asiaticmode, quoted Marx's

preface to the Critique, nd noted Plekhanov's well-known aveat that Marxprobablywould have changed his ideas on the Asiaticmode and antiquity ad heread Morgan earlier. In one of these books, Lu claimed thatPlekhanov was"absolutely orrect" nd in line with he critical spirit fMarxism." n the otherbook, he noted that Plekhanov was "wrong," revisionist, nd had influencedMad'iar, Wittfogel, nd others.28Both essays proceeded to exactlythe samesummary f Mad'iar's viewson China and the Asiaticmode ofproduction nd hisexaggerated emphasison water as an explanatoryfactor n history.29

In 1937,Ho Kan-chihsummarizedtheentireChinese debateon the history fsocietyto that point. While he criticized "Comrade Mad'iar" and the whole"Asiatic"notion s unsound,hesawfit odo soonly fter escribingMad'iar'sviewsingreatdetail. He argued that, lthough he Asiaticmode of productionmayhave

21 V. V. Reikhardt,Ocherki o ekonomikeokapitalisticheskikhformatsiiMoscow and Leningrad, 1934),54-58; and Nikiforov, ovetskiestoriki,50-54. Hou Wai-lu briefly iscussed Reikhardt'sviewsinChung-kuo u-tai he-hui hih un (Peking, 1955), 14-15.

>, S. I. Kovalev, nDiskussfia,8-80; and MoritaniKatsunmi,jia teki eisanyoshikion Tokyo, 1941),97-108. Kovalev's influencewas entirely heoretical.He was notan East Asian specialist nd offered

nothing f'direct mport o the discussions oncerningChina orJapan. He was, though,wellknownand influential n the Soviet Union. See Dunn, Fall and Rise, 52-53.

26 This viewwasapparently ncorporated nto hefirst dition f his textbook 1934), but twasliftedin its ntirety 'rom he second edition: S. 1. Kovalev, storiia revnogo ira, d edn. (Moscow, 1955). Seealso Nikiforov, ovetskiestoriki,50-52.

27 Ozaki, "Ajia teki seisan yoshiki onso," 108-11.28 Lii Chen-yiu, hihch'ien-ch'ihung-kuohe-hui en-chiuPeiping, 1934), 12, 14; and LuiChen-yii,

Chung-kuo iian-shihhe-hui hih 1934; rev.edn., Shanghai, 1942).29'The volume with hepositive ssessment fPlekhanovhas been reprinted everaltimes nChina,

mostrecentlyn 1980: Lui Chen-yu, hih h'ien-ch'ihung-knohe-hui en-chiu1961; rpt. edn., Peking,198().



66 JoshuaA. Fogel

long ceased to exist, tsremnants ontinued toretardthe normal developmentofChinese society.He noted thatthe Chinese had been disturbedby Mad'iar's ideathat he Asiaticmode continuedto influenceChinesesocial organizationuntilthe

intrusion of the West in the nineteenth century,but he generouslyforgaveMad'iar,who had by then "corrected"hisviews.Ho then ntroducedthe debatesamong Japanesehistorians, early decade old at thispoint,on the Asiaticmodeof production.30n fact,he devotedconsiderablymore space todevelopments nJapan than to the Chinese side.Ho's evenhanded and extendedtreatment f thedebate overthe Asiaticmode of production sstriking,specially onsidering hathe claimed to oppose the idea in principle.

Throughout the 1930s, a large number of Japanese writings n Marxism,history, nd Chinese society nd historywere translatednto Chinese.This trendcontinued ven after1937,whenfull-fledged areruptedwithJapan.One volumethatsurvivedthe war and has been cited n writings rom he People's Republicwas a translationf HayakawaJiros Kodai shakai hi A history fancient society),published in Kweilin in 1942.31 Hayakawa did not see the Asiatic mode ofproduction as a distinct poch in social developmentbutratheras a transitionalphase betweenthedissolutionof the primitive ommune and the emergenceofslaveholding n antiquity.

Lu Chen-yti ontinued towrite n the Asiaticmode ofproduction hrough he

early 1940s,when twas no longerwidely iscussedelsewhere.His extraordinarilybroad reading ntherelevantJapanesematerials nd in the Marxist lassicsmadehis work of theearly1940s the fullestChinese statement n thesubjectto date.He locatedfiveperspectives n theAsiaticmode thathad bythen been advancedin the internationaldebate: that it was a special Oriental path of historicaldevelopment; that it was not slaverybut a mode of productionparallel to it,namely, n Asiaticvariant fslavery; hat t formed distinctlyrientalfeudalismwhich otherwisefollowed the universal laws of development; that it was apre-slaveholding ocietyor a transitionalmode of production inking primitivesocietyand slavery; and that the view of Godes and othershad "liquidated"Mad'iar's "watertheory" nd denied theAsiatic mode of productionaltogether.Lu found faultwith ll five, or nhisopiniononly Kovalev'ssolutionopened thewayto resolve the issue once and for all.32- By the early 1940s, Lu had another difficulthurdle to leap. Stalin hadannounced that all world historypassed througha formulaic equence of fivehistoricalmodesofproduction, nd the Asiaticmode ofproductionhad not madethe list. n a brilliant ct of scholarly egerdemain,Lu simply rgued that, ince

Marx and Engels wrote of the Asiaticmode, itcould not lie outsideStalin's five(even though tclearlywasnotthere).No contradiction ere,forMarxist-Leninisttheoristswere to blame forthe confusion.Marxism-Leninism, e warilynoted,

30 Ho Kan-chih,Chung-kuohe-hui hihwen-t'iun-chanShanghai, 1937), 2-3, 10-16, 29-58.3' Hayakawa Jiro,Ku-tai he-huihih,Hsieh Ai-ch'unand Yang Mu-p'ing,trans. Kweilin,1942).32 Lu Chen-yii, Kuan-yiiChung-kuoshe-hui hihte chu-wen-t'i,"n Lui Chen-yti, hung-kuohe-hui

shih hu-wen-t'i,thedn. (Shanghai,1950; originally ublished n 1942),2,4. This volume of essayshasbeen reprinted at least) twice: Shanghai, 1954 and 1961.




offered undoubtedlycorrect theory,but it could never replace the historicalevidence.

Kovalev's ater nterpretationrovidedthe key o a solutionof this onundrum.

Kovalev claimed that the Asiatic mode of productionexisted as a "variant ofslavery"n ancientEast Asia.WhereStalinhad writtenslavery," u argued thatone should read "Asiaticmode of production s a variantof slavery" n thecaseof China. Li's own work on the Shang period seemed to demonstrate aslaveholding ocietywith ertain Asiatic" lements, o Kovalev's deasworkedthisfar. Kovalev went on to suggest,however,that in medieval East Asia certainelementsof the Asiaticmode of productionremainedand forgeda distinctivevariantof feudalism, nd here Lu had to part companywithhim.33

In 1943, the eminenthistorianHou Wai-lu included a long discussionof the

Asiatic mode of production n a workon ancientChinese society.Again,he didnot openly advocate theAsiatic mode, but, by pointing o theAsiaticqualitiesofancientChinese slavery, e was adoptinga position kinto Kovalev's.34n a newbook in 1948, Hou devoted considerable space to an analysisof the issue in theearlier Soviet,Chinese, and Japanese debates.35 n 1955, Hou republishedthisbook under a newtitle nd with new introduction ecause of reneweddebatesin China on the natureof ancient Chinese society.36

Although ittlewas writtennChinaon the Asiaticmode ofproductionbetween

1955 and the nternational evival f the ssue n theearly 1960s, t houldbe clearthat, ontraryothegeneral mpression,tneverdisappeared,notevenduringthewar years,which was theonly hiatus n theJapanesedebate. By the same token,no Chinese historian fterthe mid-1930ssupportedthe conceptof a mode ofproductiondistinct oAsian or Chinese society.Yet therepeatedefforts o cometo terms ritically ith his dea of a mode ofproductionnamed withgeographicspecificityn the context of otherwiseuniverally scending stages of historicaldevelopmentcontinued through he 1940s and into the 1950s. It surfacedagainin the early1960s and again in the early 1980s, but,while discussed at lengthbymanyand sundry, t has nevergained a sustainedfollowing.

IN JAPAN, THE ASIATIC MODE OF PRODUCTION gained a considerable following ndwas debated-every ear n the leftist cholarly ressthroughthe late 1930s. Liketheir Chinese and Soviet counterparts, heJapanese participants n the debate

' Lu Chen-yii, Ya-hsi-yae heng-ch'anfang-fau so-wei Chung-kuo she-hui te t'ing-chih-hsing,"'in Chung-kuo he-hui hihchu-wen-t'i,0-44. He also expressed the highest regard forthe work ofReikhardt nd HayakawaJir5,both of whom were heavily nfluenced yKovalev. Lu reserved pecial

vituperation or theJapanese scholar Akizawa Shfiji.Akizawa publishedwidely n left-wingournalson the Asiaticmode ofproduction nd the natureof Oriental ociety. y theendofthe 1930s,hisviewshad clearlyevolved intopure and simplewindow dressing for the Greater East Asia Co-ProsperitySphere, the Japanese rationale for invasion and occupationof the Asian mainland, by borrowingarguments from the arsenal of theAsiaticmode of production, uch as stagnation.Only Japaneseimperialism, n his estimation, ould remedy t. Lu's labeling Akizawa a mouthpiece for "Japanesefascism"may have been excessive,but his criticism itthe mark. Lu Chen-yu, Jih-pen a-hsi-ssu-tieChung-kuo li-shih-kuan 'i-p'an," n Chung-kuohe-hui hih hu-wen-t'i,31-49.

3 Hou Wai-lu,Chung-kuou-tienhe-huihih un Chungkingand Chengtu, 1943), 61-104.35 Hou Wai-lu, Chung-kuou-tai he-hui hih Shanghai, 1948), 13-32.36 Hou Wai-lu, Chung-kuo u-tai he-huilih lun (Peking, 1955), 1.



68 JoshuaA. Fogel

were concernedwiththe fate of the Chinese revolution, s they were with thefutureof a Japanese revolution. n addition, theJapanese debaters had a morethoroughtraining n Marxism-Leninismhan theirChinese counterparts.37

The immediate ssue of the Asiatic mode ofproductionforJapanese Marxistswas tied ntothe argerdebate on thenature of thesociety hat merged inJapanafter heMeiji Restoration f 1868. The Rono faction named for their ournal)argued that the restorationwas a bourgeois-democratic evolution,while theorthodoxKoza factionnamed for famouscollection f essaystheypublished n1932) saw it as absolutist n character, s neitherthe bourgeoisienor thefeudallandlord class had led the restoration, llowingan all-powerful tate to fillthisleadershipvacuum. While theRono factionwasreadyfor proletarian evolutionin Japan, the Koza faction accepted the Cominterndetermination hatJapan

needed a two-stagerevolution, he first o topple the emperor system nd thesecond the capitalists.As a result, he debate on theAsiatic mode inJapan wasalmostentirely arriedon by Koza factionMarxists, ince twas notofimmediateimportanceto the R6n6 faction.38

The central ssue forJapanese ommentators n the Asiaticmodeofproductionwas the enormousrole playedinJapan'smodernization fforts ythe state,theimperial nstitution.he emperorsystem epresentednot a progressivehistoricaldevelopmentbut a repressive egacyfrom hepast,something o be overturned.

It lookedmuch ike an Asiatic emnantnJapan,at a timewhen suchan institutiondid not exist n China (1920s and 1930s). However,a Japanese criticrisked1esemajestefhe identified he Asiaticmode ofproduction as theobjectforrevolution)with the emperor and Japan's top-heavystate system n the post-restorationperiod, a forceof evermore oppressionand militarismn the Showa era (from1926). In fact, the Asiatic mode of production became a metaphor for theresistance fJapanese society o development.

The Japanese participants ffectivelyhared among themselvesthe tasks oftranslating he pertinentmaterialsfromRussian, German, and Chinese, thuseliminating epetition f effort. heir workhad a salutary ffect n thescholarlylevel of the controversynJapan. All the major writings f the Aziatchiki ndanti-Aziatchikippeared through hefirst alfof the 1930s,and a full ranslationby Hayakawa Jiro of the Leningrad Conference papers appeared in 1933.39

Because of the politicalcommitment o the Chinese revolution,major writingsfrom he Chinese debates, particularly ooksbyKuo Mo-jo and T'ao Hsi-sheng,rapidlyappeared in Japanese as well.40

17 On the assimilation f Marxism and Marxism-Leninism)nJapan and all theJapanese factorstherein, ee Hoston, Marxismnd theCrisis a'Development,5-54.

38 Hoston,Marxism nd theCrisis f'Development,45.39 Mad'iar's first ook,Ekonomikael'skogohoziaistvaKitae, ppeared in a Japanese translationn

1931, and his revised 2d Russian edition (minus his introductoryhapter on the Asiaticmode ofproduction) n 1934. Mad'iar's second book was translated erially n theearly 1930s, finallyn full n1936. Inoue Terumnaru,rans., hugoku oson eizai enkyu1931); 2d Russian edition:Shinangyo6 eizairon 1934); 2d book:Tanaka Tadao and Ando Hideo, trans., hinakeizai airon1936). HayakawaJiro,A ia teki eisanyoshikii tsuiteTokyo, 1933).

40 Goi, KindaiNihon,179-83. See, for xamnple,uo Mo-jo, Shinia odai hakaikenkyu,ujieda Takeo,trans. Tokyo, 1938); andT'ao Hsi-sheng, hinashakai oshitekiunsekiTokyo, 1929).Their books were




The Japanese contributorso the debateoftencombined ives as activeCommunists ith edicatedcholarship,ndthe bruptonclusion fthedebateovertheAsiaticmode n theSovietUnion had no such effectn theJapanesescholarlyress. talinistffortso nddiscussionf heAsiaticmode fproductionfailed nJapan, s theyhad inChina,becauseJapanese andChinese)Marxistscholars elt tronglyhattheyhad to fitMarx'sgeneric atternwithnativehistoricalevelopment,nd bothJapanesend Chinesewere ommittedohavinga socialrevolution.41

The earliest ttempt o explain hemeaning f theterm Asiaticmodeofproduction" ppeared n a longessaybyFukudaTokuzo in 1927. AlthoughFukuda aidout ll the vailable itationsromMarx, he est onclusionse couldsuggestwerethat Asiaticmode of production"enoted heprimitiveillage

commune,hatMarx eemed oequate Asiatic" ithIndian,"nd that he opicneededmuch urthertudy.42he firsteriousffortoplace heAsiaticmodeofproductionnJapanese istoryppearednHattori hiso'sMeji ishinhiA historyof the Meiji Restoration,1928]),the book Hu Ch'iu-yuanater cited withadmirationn China. Hattori elatedMarx's notionof theAsiaticmode ofproduction o the combinationf handicraftroductionnd small farmeragriculturenthe conomyf theEdo period 1601-1868).43he firstapanesetheoreticalreatmentftheAsiaticmodeofproductionnd itsplace nChinese

historyppeared hefollowingearnan articleyHirata oshie,who damantlyclaimedhatMarx nd Engelshad not haracterizedhinese ociety yfeudalismbutbytheAsiaticmodeandthat hisAsiaticmodewasessentiallyfeudal ormofexploitation.n otherwords, hinawasAsiaticn the urface utfundamen-tally eudal t heart. everalmonthsater, hepartyeaderNoro Eitaro imilarlyexplained heAsiaticmode of productions a form fstate eudalism.44

Through heyears 929-1931, umerousrticlesouchedntheAsiaticmodeofproduction,fferingvarietyf nterpretations.he firstrticle evotedolely

to the ssueofthe Asiaticmode tself ppeared n May,1930.45Although heauthor,Terajima Kazuo, acceptedthe recentresolution f the Sixth PartyCongressf heChinese ommunistarty hat hinawasnot haracterizedy heAsiaticmodeofproductionutwas emi-feudal,e maintainedhat his ecisionconcernednly he ealm fpractice.he theoreticalronteftmany nanswered

also reviewed nJapanese ournals, forexample: SuzukiShun,"To KishotoChugokuseijishisoshi,"Rekishigakuenkyui,(December 1933): 120-23; and Shida Fudomaro,"Saikin no Shina shakai keizaishikenkyfi," ekishigakuenkyfi,(January 934): 223-27, among manysuch essays.

41 In this, agree withHoston's recentpoint Marxism nd theCrisis fDevelopment,53): "Marxistscholars nd revolutionaryctivistsinJapan] firmly elievedthat he ntegrityfMarx'ssocialtheoryrequired a correct dentificationf the mode ofproduction hatdominatedcontemporary apanandChina."

42 Fukuda Tokuzo, "Yuibutsu hikankeizai hishuttatsuten o saigimmi,"KaizoJune 1927): 46,54;and (September 1927): 62.

43 HattoriShiso, Meyi ishin hi, nHattori hiso enshui,4 vols. Tokyo, 1973), 1: 55-56.44 Hirata Yoshie, "Shina kakumeito nogyo mondai,"Shiso,86 (July1929): 72-75, 78; and Noro

Eitaro, Nihonniokerutochi hoyui ankeinitsuite," hiso, 8 (September1929): 54. Norowasarrestedbythepolice on 28 November 1933 and murdered bythem n 1934.

4 TerajimaKazuo, "Marukusu Engerusuniokeru Ajia teki eisan hoho' no igi,"Puroretariaagaku,2 (May 1930): 47-59. See also Goi,KindaiNihon,177.



70 JoshuaA. Fogel

and debatableproblems.Terajima's view losely esembledMad'iar's,and the nextfew issues of the journal in which his essay appeared, Puroretariakhaaku(Proletarian cience),ran several articles n the Asiaticmode of production and

numerouspieces concerningChina.In 1931, Ito Zohei began his work,Nihonkokka o seiritsu atei The formativeprocessoftheJapanesestate),byquoting Marx'spreface othe Critiquend askingwhat thissequence of modes of productionmeant for the studyof Japanesehistory.Whatwas unclear forthe Asiatic while spelled out for theothermodesofproduction),he argued, were the socialand economicsystems ttached.Fromthis interesting bservation, toi concluded that in Japan the Asiatic mode ofproductionemerged in the primitiveommunalstage of history nd lingered nremnant orm hrough lavery o feudalism.46atethatyear Hani Goroessentially

concurred that the Asiatic mode of production leaned either toward theslaveholding rthe erfmode.47He continued ostrugglewith his trange onceptin a longarticle hroughthefollowing ear, ftergainingaccess toMad'iar's firstbook in translation.His conclusionsremained the same: the Asiaticmode ofproductionwas basically lavery r serfdom,was linked nitially o thedecline ofprimitive ociety, nd representedthe earliest stage of class conflictn world-historical evelopment.This lastpointwasnewand became more mportant s thedebate proceeded. The Asiatic mode of production n China, Hani argued, was

notfundamentally istinct romfeudalism.48In 1932, the papers from the Leningrad Conference began to appear in

Japanese translation. he politicalvictory f the anti-Aziatchikin Russia mighthave abortedJapanesediscussionoftheAsiaticmode,but thetemptation oworkthroughall the intellectualproblemsposed by thismysterious oncept,whichseemed tocontradict therMarxist otions, rovedstrongerhantheSoviet ffortsto strangle debate, and fewJapanese scholars were prepared to abandon theAsiaticmode of productionaltogether.49

The debate mushroomed in 1933 and 1934, and three schools of thoughtemerged. In the firstwere advocates of the Asiaticmode as synonymouswithpre-class ociety;otherssaw itas a transitionalra fromtheprimitive ommuneto slavery;and stillothersregarded it as thefirst lass society. n each of theserelatedpointsof view, theAsiatic mode of productionwas not unique to Asiansociety utpartof the universalhistorical rogression.A second school ofthoughtincludedscholarswhocontinued to maintain hattheAsiaticmode wasan Asianvariantof eitherslavery r feudalism. n thesetwopositions,both derivedfromSovietviews, he Asiaticmode ofproductionwas geographically pecific. inally,

therewere scholarswhosawtheAsiaticmode less as a distinct ra bounded bytwo

"46 ItOi 6hei,Nihonkokka o seiritsu atei Tokyo, 1931), 197, 199, 207, 240.17 Hani Gori, "'Ajia teki eisan yoshiki' o mondainiyosete,"Teikokuaigakuhimbun21 December

1931), as cited in (Goi,KindaiNihon,196.1- lainiGorCi,T')y6 ni okeru shihonshugi no eisei," higaku asshi, 3 (February1932): 1-42; 43

(March 1932): 1-40; 43 (June1932): 26-58; and 43 (August1932): 48-58; especiallyparttwo ubtitled"Ajia teki seisan y6shiki o Shina shakai,"43 (March 1932): 5, 16, 22, 28, passim.

*' Ozaki, "Ajia teki eisanyoshiki ons6,"88. Akamatsu Keisuke was one of thoseready to give upon the Asiaticm(odeof production altogether.




others in the historical continuum than as a quality that distinguishedthelong-term evelopmentof pre-capitalist riental society romprimitive ommu-nism through feudalism: namely, tagnation nd despotism.

Hayakawa Jir-o as an earlyand consistent ontributoro theJapanesedebate.In 1933, he was prepared simultaneouslyo suggest hatJapanese ociety fter heTaika Reforms f645 resembled he Asiaticmode ofproduction, hatMad'iar andVarga had held incorrectpositions, nd that "of course, theAsiatic mode ofproduction s a kind offeudalism."51'He came under ferocious riticismhatyear.Some attackedhis dea thatplaced the Asiaticmode after he Taika Reforms.Oneauthor simply sked what had happened to slaveryn Japanesehistory.51

In 1934, Hayakawa began to publish work on the Asiaticmode of productionin a new vein,nowdenyingthat t had anything o do withfeudalism; twas this

incarnation of his work that was published in Chinese translation.He nowregarded the Asiaticmode of production s one socialformation hat mergedinthe processof thedissolutionof primitive ociety.He meantto offer he Asiaticmodeofproduction hedignityf ts wn place as a bona-fidemodeof production,one ofMarx'soriginalfour, nd thus classsociety,nfact, hefirst. e also linkedit, citing Capital, to a complex system of tribute-bearing assalage (konosei)establishedwhenone community onquersanother.52 he reasonthatHayakawa'sAsiatic mode of production resembledslaveholding s neithercoincidentalnor

because he viewed t s an Asian variant fslaveholding ociety.Rather,he saw theAsiaticmode as mostpotentiallyperative tthat tageof social developmentwhenone societyhas conquered a more primitive ociety nd putan unequal system fenforcedvassalage into effect. his actionwould destroy hepristine ommuneand begin a path towardslavery-and the Asiaticmode fellalong this path inHayakawa's formulation.

In theirearly contributions, attori and Hani agreed with olk's positionthatregarded the Asiaticmode ofproduction s an Asiaticvariant itheroffeudalism

or slavery.When he looked back at the debate in the immediatepostwaryears,though,Hattori hieflyemembered he confusion nd plethoraof views pawnedas textspoured intoJapan fromRussia and elsewhere. He recalled a commentmade in 1935 by one of the lesser-known articipants: It is myfeelingthatfor

5" Hayakawa ir6, "Nihon rekishi o Ajia teki eisan yoshiki,"'Rekishi agaku, (March 1933): 19-21.5

I Aikawa Haruki, Ajia teki eisan y6shiki o Nihon rekishi no tekiy6ron ni kanren hite,"Rekishikagaku, (May 1933): 41, 47; and Aikawa Haruki, "'Ajia teki seisan y6shiki' o Nihon h6kensei nikansuru ronso (1)," Rekishi agaku, (Fall 1933): 69.

52 Hayakawa Jiro, Toy6 kodai shi ni okeru seisan yoshikino mondai,"Rekishi agaku, (December

1934): 72-74, 79-80; and Shiozawa Kinmio,jia teki.seisanyoshikion Tokyo, 1970), 23-27. Hayakawa'searly critic,Aikawa Haruki, took a position n 1933 akin to Godes's viewthatthe Asiatic mode ofproduction was an Asian formof feudalism. This was Hayakawa's view in that year,but Aikawadisagreed on important etails, uchas when t was supposed to have transpired n Japan's past. Latein 1933 and early the followingyear, his views began to change in a directioncuriously imilartoHayakawa's. Now he argued that he Asiaticmode of production onstituted istory's irst lass society.By 1935, he had come in contact with Kovalev's later views,which unquestionably nfluencedhim.Aikawa stillheld to the notion thatthe Asiatic mode of production was the first lass fornmation,utheadded that twas based on a patriarchal laveholding ociety.AikawaHaruki, "Ajia teki anilen keitaie no keiko: Ajia teki ei'an yoshikio (GCdesu eki kenkai,"Shish, 39 (December 1933): 68-69, 77-86;Ozaki, "Ajia tekiseisan yoshiki onso,"91, 98-99; Shiozawa,Ajia teki eisanyoshiki on,28-29.



72 Joshua .Fogel

ustoaim oward proper nderstandingndexplanationof heAsiaticmodeofproduction],t s n ndispensablereconditionhat e learlylucidateheappropriate]documentsndmethodologyfMarxismnd n additionhat ur oncretenowledgef

historye illedutonsiderably."53n this,Hattoriwholeheartedlyoncurred.

No Japanese cholarnvolvedn thisdebatemademore prolific se of theavailabledoctrinal,s opposed to theempirical,material han did MoritaniKatsumi.n 1934,he demonstratedreat ersatilitynhandlinghewritingsfMarx ndEngels nan essay hatplaced heAsiaticmodeofproductioneforeslavery tthe final tageof the primitiveommune.54 verthenext fewyears,he

publishedeveralmore rticlesn the ubject,inallyuttinghem ogethers abook n 1937.Working ith ne basic ource hathe quoted nwhole r inpartliterallyozensof timesndusuallynboldface-thatnesentenceromMarx's

Critique-Moritanilaimed hat he Asiaticmodeof productiononstitutedfull-fledgedpoch n theuniversalocietal athway.fMarxhadnotmeantt sa genuinehistoricaltage,Moritanirgued, choing i Chi,hewouldnothavestatedt so clearlyobe one.MoritanidentifiedheAsiaticmodeof productionwith he "agriculturalommune"n5gy6y5ddtai),technicalermndicatingsocietyhatmerged rom he ower-level,rimitiveommune.he Asiaticmodeofproductionhen onstitutedgeneric ocial nd economic ormationnthelarger ransitionrom re-classo class ocietyn theway oslaverynd beyond.

As such, tcouldnothave beenmeant o be geographicallypecifico Asiabutrather o be a "categoryf worldhistory" hoseprimaryualitieshad beenreached arliestndmost learlyn Asia-hence itsname.55

OzakiHotsumi, famousournalistxecuted orhisrole n theSorge py ing,closely ollowedMoritani'sxplanationf the Asiaticmodeofproductionn aseries f ecturesiventTokyomperial niversitynearly 939, ublishedaterthatyear s Gendai hina onOn contemporaryhina).ForOzaki, hefact hatthe villageommune" asresponsibleor ocial tagnationas bvious; he eally

importantuestionwashow thad beenpreservedor olong.His answerswerelesssatisfying:he mportancefwet-fieldgriculturen addition o thegreatabilityfChina's ocial tructurebeforehe ntrusionf the apitalistowers) oassimilateonquerorsnd theirower ocial nd culturalevels.56

53 Hattorihis6,Nihon iokeruAjiateki eisan oshikionso oshtiketsu"1948), nHattorihis5zenshi,21: 14-17,19,21-22,quotationn22,emphasisnoriginal.he author f thequotationsTatsumiTsuneyo.

54 Moritani atsumi,Shinakeizai hakai hinoshomondai,"ekishiagaku, (April 934):5-6.

55 Moritani,jiatekieisan dshikion, -3,52,63-64 68,70, 72-73,82, 85,89-90.56 OzakiHotsumi, endaihina on 1939;rpt. dn.,Tokyo, 964), 1,33-34. See alsoChalmers

Johnson,An nstance fTreason:OzakiHotsumind the orge pyRing Stanford,Calif.,1964), 197. In

a letterohiswift romrison,zaki eturnedo he hemef henaturefChineseociety.issatisfiedwith is arlierreatmentf he opic, enow elt hat hinawasnot horoughlyfeudal,"ut ombinedanOrientalespotictatetructurendbureaucracyithnemergingeudalociety.hedesignation"semi-feudal"asthereforeppropriate.You'reprobablyotverynterestednthese hings,"eadmittedn oncludinghisetter,she waitednterrogationsnd ventualxecutionor ighreason,"ibut'mmaking otes owrite pon anotherccasion." isnextettertwo ays ater), eturnedothe ubject f stateOriental espotism)ndsocietyfeudal)nChina. Whilewater ontrolssurelyof mmensemportance,thinkome cholarsar xaggeratet... Tryingo xplain gypt,abylonia,India, tc. s agroupnd llwithwater' as eriousimitationsswell snumerouspatialndtemporal



TheDebates ver heAsiaticMode ofProduction 73

Watanabe Yoshimichi rrivedat similar onclusions n his book,NihonkodaishakaiAncientJapanese ociety).He arguedthatAsiatic ociety recededantiquityand was based on communal relations.The Asiaticmode ofproductionwas also,however, transitionalra,the ast tageofprimitiveommunismnd the ncubusforthe formation f a society hatrecognizedprivateproperty.n order topositsuch a transformationrom pre-class oclasssociety,Watanabe had togeneratean explanationfor theoriginof class differentiation ithin heundifferentiatedcommune.57 f all historywas thehistory f class struggle, he Asiaticmode ofproductionhad a singularrole to play nsocietaldevelopment, or tmarked thetrue beginningof world history inkingpre-class nd classsociety.

Anotherwindingpath through variety f viewswastraveled yAkizawaShiuji.Initially,he was attractedto Hayakawa's depictionof the Asiatic mode as a

tribute-bearingystem. rom ate 1935,he abandonedthis pproach and rejectedtheassumption hat he Asiaticmode ofproductionwas a classsociety recedingantiquity. nstead,he pointedtoslavery s the first lasssociety,abeledMad'iar'sideas "myth," nd now dentifiedheAsiaticmode ofproductionwith he"villagecommune" noson yodotair,as he translatedt,Dorfgemeinschaft),cknowledgingthat his ocial formation ostdated heprimitiveommune.Because members fthe"villagecommune" had alreadybeguntoengage inindividual as opposed togroup) activities,hevillage ppeared to be intransitionrom ommonownership

to thesproutsof privateownership.No-netheless,ignificantommunalaspectsremained and continuedto influence ocial structure or some time. In fact,Akizawaasserted, he"village ommune"stayed nplace for n inordinatelyongstretch of time, not allowing the process of individuationand atomization,observable lsewhere nworldhistory,odevelopunfettered. he primary esultwas the kindof "Asiatic tagnation" ommonly een in China.58

In Akizawa's view, he Asiaticmode of productiondid not qualify s a distinctstage of history,nor did it necessarily pply only to Oriental society. t did

prefigure he first ocial formation n the historical rogression-slavery-andAkizawa wasrelentlessnhis criticism f anyone who had placed it elsewhere.Hethusvilifiedll those Godes, lolk, and others)who had suggested hat heAsiaticmode constituted n Asiaticvariant f feudalism, orhowcould the decline oftheprimitive ommune ead to the formation f feudalism?What had happened toslavery?Ultimately,n a flash fextreme onfusion,Akizawa concluded thattheAsiatic mode of productionwas an "Asiatic" lavery, dding, as if to underscoretheconfusion: The basic characteristicf ancient'Asiatic ociety s theunique andincomplete evelopment f slavery,onstricted y theobstinate ersistence fthe

problems," n argumentforeshadowing riticisms ears ater ofWittfogel's riental espotism.zakiHotsumi,Aijowafuru hoshi ogotoku,n OzakiHotsumihosakushfu,vols. Tokyo, 1983), 4: 43-44.

5 Notunlike xplaining he utogenesis f ife n earth.WatanabeYoshimichi,Nihon kodaishakaino sekaishi tekikeiretsu:Ajia teki eisany6shiki onso," nNihon enshi yosanseishakaiokokka okeisei,Hara Hidezaburo, ed. (Tokyo, 1973), 19-20; and Shiozawa,Ajia tekieisanyoshikion, 1-22.

58 AkizawaShu-ji,J6dainiokerushakai keizaitekikosei," n Nihonkodai hinokisomondai,WatanabeYoshimichi,t6 Kimio,HayakawaJiro, nd AkizawaShu-ji,ds. (Tokyo,1936), 314-15, 324-25; andAkizawa Shu-ji, hinashakaikoseiTokyo, 1939), vi, 5-8, 18,89-93.



74 JoshuaA. Fogel

village commune."59Akizawa was fiercely ttacked for his views, especiallyhisnotion nthe ate 1930sthat he onlyresolution o stagnation n ChinawasJapan'sinvasion.No one reserved more vitriolforhim than did Lu Chen-yu,but it is

doubtfulthat Akizawa ever saw Lu's attacks.

WHY WERE SERIOUS HISTORIANS OF ANY NATIONALITY attractedto this strangeconcept named with apparent geographic specificity,nd what explains itscontinuing ttraction?Whileefforts oeliminate he Asiatic mode of productionfromSovietdiscussionsof East Asian historywere successfulby the early1930s,thedebatesin China and Japan were ust gainingsteamat thatpoint.The issuessurroundingthe Asiatic mode of productionand itsapparent importanceas a

retardingelement, either in full-fledged ormor as a lingering remnant insubsequenthistorical tages, were ust too important o terminate iscussion.Marxisthistoriography as onlytakingrootin East Asia whenthedebates on

theAsiaticmode of productionbegan. As soon as nativeChinese and Japanesehistorians onfronted Marxism,the enigma of theAsiaticmode of productionemerged. And, Marx was no help, for a close look at his writingsrevealedconflictingignals:the entireOrientwas afflicted ith heretarding haracteristicsof theAsiatic mode of production;yettheTaiping Rebellionmight pur a socialrevolution n China and the West (as he wrotefortheNew York Tribune),nd

Japan had experienced a normal feudal stage of development as he wroteinCapital).

LeszekKolakowskihas pointedoutthat he Asiaticmode ofproduction eemedto contradict hreebasic tenets f Marxist heory,whichwasinpartthe reasonforStalin's efforts o eliminate t. First, tandard Marxism spoke of the primacyofproductive forces,whereas the Asiaticmode of production seemed to stressgeographic factors;second, Marxism ordinarily emphasized the necessityofprogress n thehistory f society,whilethe Asiatic mode was tiedup with ocial

stagnation; nd, third,Marxismunderscored theuniversality f social develop-ment,whilethe Asiaticmode bycontrastmodified hatclaim, seeingitsolely s aWesternphenomenon.6"

On thesurface, he interest f Sovietscholarsappears bothsimplerand morebewilderingthan that of scholars in China or Japan. The Aziatchikiwere thetrained inologists,whocouldread and speaktheChinese anguage,who had livedinChina, and who weresympatheticoChina.Theywereconcerned withworkingout the detailsof theAsiaticmode ofproduction nd howitfit ast Asianhistoryand society.But because the Soviet debate was so consciously onditionedbytherequirements f the Chinese revolution nd theComintern'srole therein, twashighly oliticizedfrom hestart.While Mad'iar and theother Aziatchiki eriouslyattempted oapply Marx's ideas on "Asiatic ociety" oChina and elsewhere, heresponseto them tthetimewasblatantly olitical.The attacks flolk and Godesat theLeningradConferenceclearlynever aimed at proving point by pointthat

59 Akizawa,Shina shakaikosei, 68-69, 171-76, 183, quotation on 183.' Leszek Kolakowski,Main CurrentsfMarxism, vols. (Oxford, 1978), 1: 350.




Mad'iar or Varga misunderstood Chinese history r Chinese society. n theirestimation, he AziatchikimisinterpretedMarx and Engels-a far worse error-and thereby ndangered the future fthe Chinese revolution nd presumably he

Comintern'srole in it.Whatremainsbewilderingsthe ntensityftheattack n theAziatchikin theSoviet Union. The simple answeris that Stalin sought controlover the Chinesemovement, nd so he and his proxies nsisted hat twas not ready forthe socialistphase but had to pursue themore moderate, bourgeois-democratic evolution,and alignwiththeKuomintang,designatedas theparty f thebourgeoisie.TheAziatchiki alledfor socialist evolution ecause the nfluence ftheAsiaticmodeof production had retarded China's development, China's experience withcapitalismwas extremelyyoung, and the Chinese "bourgeoisie" was too weaktolead a revolution.The Trotskyists t precisely he same time were arguing thatChinesecapitalismwas sufficientlyeveloped for tsproletariat oproceedwithsocialist revolution. Stalin and his supporters did away with both of thesebothersomegroups, often by labeling the Aziatchiki s Trotskyists.

This explanation goes some wayin elucidatingwhathappened to the Sovietdebate, but it does not explain the varietyof anti-Aziatchik erspectivesthatappeared in print n the Soviet Union throughthe early 1930s. Some said theAsiatic mode of production neverexisted;otherssaid, withoutdocumentation,

thatMarx meant tas an "Asian variant f feudalism"; till thers aid, also withoutsubstantiation,hat t replaced slaveryn the Asianhistorical ontext.WhichonewastheorthodoxStalinist escription?We simply o not know.When Stalin nthelate 1930sreleasedhis definitivetatementfthefive tagesofuniversalhistoricaldevelopment,the Asiaticmode of productionwas gone, not to reappear in theSoviet Union until de-Stalinizationn theearly1960s. A tentative xplanationofthe intensityfthe sentiment gainsttheAsiaticmode ofproductionmixed witha confusion frefutations ouldbe that hose debaters,"most f whom knew ittleof China, were striving o ally withthe side they expected would prevail, todemonstrate oncertedand vigorous supportfor Stalin'sposition,but thattheywere unable in theearly 1930s to fixon the"correct" nti-Aziatchik osition.

The Chinese case is equally baffling,lbeit for differenteasons.Althoughtheearly participantsnthedebateson thehistoryf Chinesesociety, romwhichthedebate on the Asiaticmode emerged,were notestablishedhistorians t thetime,they nd manyothers became historians s theyears progressed.How is itthatMarxism ttracted heir ttentionn such a rapid and thoroughgoingmanner? tcould be argued that hepolitical ctivism fMarxism-Leninismirstaughttheir

eyeand that heory ollowednaturally.n otherwords,Marxism-Leninismositeda revolutionn the immediatefuture, nd history,fproperly nterpreted, ouldprovethat cientifically.hus, the scientificretensions f Marxism nconjunctionwith n emphasison revolutionary racticeprovided the keyto itsappeal to theChinese.

This explanation, ccurate as far as itgoes, only lluminates partof the argerpicture.The work of Marx and Engels on the "Orient"shared all the culture-bound prejudices, misinformation,nd general gnoranceoflateeighteenth nd



76 JoshuaA. Fogel

nineteenth-centuryurope. They oftenwrote n terms f ethnic tereotypesndused data from ravelers oseventeenth-centuryndia to characterizenineteenth-centuryChina. One can easily imagine that the notionof an Asiaticmode of

productionwould nauseatenationalistichinesehistoriansn their irstncounterwith t.Chineseradical thinkers ad by then been struggling or severaldecadestohave China acceptedas a "normal"country, f coursewithdistinctive ualitiesbut fundamentallyparticipating n the same linear path to a glorious future.Historicalmaterialism ffered hemthis pathway. n fact, f theracistovertonesof theAsiaticmodeof production ouldbe ignored, tmight ffer hem n express

ticket othatdestination. hus Chinesehistorianswrestledongand hard with he

Asiaticmode of production.Some founda place for t n the"normal"historicalflow.Othersfollowed heRussian exampleand described t as an Asian variant f

feudalism n China. Few, surprisingly ew,denied its validity n the basis of itsEurocentrism.

Arif Dirlik has argued thatwe have to understandthe genuine appeal of

historical materialismfor Chinese historians n the 1920s and 1930s.61The

question swhy.Did Marxismrepresent crystallizationftheoretical ruth?Diditoffer uniformlyptimistic iewof thefuture? hinesehistorians f thisperiodwere initially aptivatedbyMarxisttheory, ince historicalmaterialism imulta-neouslymade theparametersof understanding lear,provideda plan of action,

and gave order to a chaoticworld. Historianswere thusintriguedbyhistoricalmaterialisms theory, uttheywere engrossedbyMarxism-Leninisms a politicalinstrument. o paraphrase Mao Tse-tung,politics ookcommand,even then.

Chinese historiansdid not necessarily,consciouslyor unconsciously,usehistoricalmaterialismmerely o buttress heirpoliticalplans.They had no choicebut to use the Marxistclassics as the occasion required. En part, this is whyReikhardt nd Kovalev,ofnegligiblemport ntheSoviet debateson China (andEast Asia, generally), ecame central n theChineseandJapanesedebateson the

Asiatic mode of production.These two Soviet writersenabled the Chinese

historiansokeep intact ll theelements fMarxisthistoricalheory,ncluding heAsiaticmode,whileexplaining waythe not-so-attractiveideof the Asiaticmodeof productionby seeing it as just anothername for a "normal"stage (slavery)elsewhere.Thus China retainedits integritys a historical ocietyprogressingalong regularstagesofdevelopment, lbeitwith certaindistinctivenessecauseofthe variant uality f ts laveholding eriod.Reikhardt nd Kovalevoffered he

Chinese and theJapanese the bestof bothworlds.There is somethingdeeper and psychologicallymore telling t theroot of the

appeal ofMarxisthistorical heory o the Chinese. Perhapsit s trueofeveryone,butwhatwasclearly rueofChineseMarxistsn the1920sand 1930swas theirneed

for some absolute ontologicalsecurity,ome approach to the understandingof

contemporaryociety, olitics, nd historyhatwasbeyondquestion,beyondthemundane realitiesof the contemporaryworld. No one doubted the essential

validity f Marxisttheory, nsofaras it was understood. Class struggle, ocial

"I Dirlik,Revolutionnd History,1-36, passim.




evolutionthrough tagesofdevelopment, nd all the basic trappings f historicalmaterialismwere never debated; theywere simply ccepted on faith.By compar-ison, the issue of a distinctAsiatic mode of production was insignificantn the

extreme. n fact, he debate on thehistoryfsociety, y comparison,was a majortriviality,huge intellectual xercise, s budding Chinese Marxisthistorians eganto expand theircapacities as scholars.

TheJapanese case presents ts wn setof enigmas. f the dea of theAsiaticmodeofproductionwas offensive o the Chinese, as some have argued, itshould thencertainly ave been to theJapanese as well. Marx had noted that,because of thenatureofJapanesefeudalism, apan's social developmentwould probablyfollowthat of the West, and hence Japan was, strictlypeaking, not"Asiatic."62 ut nosooner did Japanese Marxisthistoriansackle he Asiaticmode of production hantheyaunched nto n immensely ichdebate thatproduced a wide variety f views.Searchesfor ts existence nJapan's past began at once. HattoriShis6placed it nthe Edo period, while Hayakawa Jir6 found it in the mid-seventh entury,thousandyearsearlier.

The Japanese took to Marxism,much as they had to Buddhism and Neo-Confucianismin earlier times and to industrialcapitalismin our own, withextraordinary usto and intellectualnterest.Many thoughtthe revolutionwassoon tocome,but their pproachto thestudy f history oes not reveala dominant

politicalbent. One can see clearly hattheseyoungMarxist cholars,primarily fthe Koza faction,were struggling o make sense of change and the lack of it inhistory,fthe meaningof historical tagnation,nd the place of theAsiaticmodeinhistory. or theJapanese,theprincipal ssue was theoriginof an overwhelm-inglypowerfulJapanese state the emperorsystem) ince the timeof the MeijiRestoration.Here, manyJapanese critics oundthelingering ffects f "Asiatic"society, ven ifJapan had neverexperienceda pure Asiaticmode ofproductionor had done so centuriesbefore.

In China, the imperial systemhad been overthrownn the nameof

republi-canism orbourgeoisdemocracy nMarxist erminology)n 1911,but a sustainedmodernization ffort ad failed.Politicaldevolution, conomicdeprivation, ndsocial nstability ere rampant nd plain to see. China's apparent nabilityoforgenationalunity hrough olitical r social ntegration asconsistentlylamedon theself-sufficient,ndynamicnatureof theChinese village,one of the hallmarks fthe Asiatic mode of production, ven iffewChinesecritics ctually laimedthatChinamight verhave beencharacterized s "Asiatic."Mad'iar'sworkwaspopularinChina,not so much becausehe attracted ollowers, utbecause he had a deeper

understanding fthe ssues nvolved n Chinesesociety nd history.He had livedand conductedresearch here, nd evenifhis deas found ittle ertile round,thefocusof his analysis nd thatofmanyChinese scholars were similar.

62 "Japan,with tspurelyfeudalorganisation f anded propertynd itsdeveloped petiteulture, ivesa much truerpictureof the European middle ages than all our history ooks,dictated as theseare,for the most part, by bourgeoisprejudices. It is veryconvenient o be 'liberal' at the expense of themiddle ages"; Karl Marx, Capital, amuel Moore and Edward Aveling, rans., vols. NewYork, 1947),1: 741n.



78 JoshuaA. Fogel

ONE WOULDTHINKTHATTHECHINESEANDVIETNAMESEevolutions would retire heconceptoftheAsiaticmode ofproductionfrom heMarxist chema for all time,and indeed certainneo-Marxist riticsnthe Westhave so argued. Who could still

possibly ntertain he absurdnotionof Asia as stagnant?Withall theresearchofthepast twogenerations,whocould still rgue,as Wittfogel id in the ate 1950s,thatwater ontrolwasthe rootofa monolithic espotism hroughout he Orient?Wherewas the "ruralcommune"to be found? CommittedMarxisthistoriansntheWest, uch asJean Chesneaux, felt need tobridgethisgap betweenthetwoMarxes, the universalistand the Orientalist.63 his goal required ignoringquestionsthatmight oppletheentireedificeby ookingforwaysto incorporatethechangesofthe postwarworld ntoMarx's nineteenth-centurychema,muchas fundamnentalistsind sanctionsfor everythingn scripture. t also required

considerable leight f hand,fortheoverwhelmingweight fpostwar cholarshipflies n the face of mostof thebasic elementsof theAsiaticmode.

Mostrecently, owever,more essential uestionsarebeingasked. The Chinese

are beginningto examine socialism tself, uch as Chou Yang's suggestionthat

theremay n factbe alienationunder socialism nd Hu Yao-pang's subsequentlyretracted tatement hatMarxismmay have limited applicability orChina. In

Japan,therehas been considerablediscussionof the Asiaticmode ofproductionsince theconclusionofWorld War II, influenced ythedevelopmentofsociology

and the Weberian-Marxist heoryof local community kyid5tai) s well as bypostwar European work on the Asiaticmode of production,such as that of

Hungarian scholar Ferenc Tokei. Japan has also recentlywitnessed concerted

scholarly ebtuttalf thepostwardominance ofMarxismntheJapaneseacademy,takingdifferent orms n different laces.64At KyotoUniversity, here Marxist

econonmics as first aught in Japan, the theoryof historical tages has been

seriously ttacked as of littleuse for an understanding f China, and manywho

previously pplied developmental chemesto Chinese historyre in theprocess

of retractinghem.i5The attackershave leftmany questionsunanswered,manyothersunasked,and still therspoorly ddressed,but at leastbasic issues are now

on the tablefor discussion.Atthe same time, he Asiaticmode ofproductionmay reappear, as it has over

the pastfewyears, or ltogethernverted easonsandwith uriousresults.66When

something s strangeas theAsiaticmode of productionbecomes the object of

fiJean hesneaux, "Le Mode de productionasiatique: Quelques perspectivesde recherche,"LaPIensee, 14 (JanLuary-February964): 33-55; "OQ en est la discussion sur 'le mode de production

asiatique'?"La Pensee,122 (July-August1965): 40-59; 129 (September-October 1966): 33-46; 138(Marcb-April 1968): 47-55.

" (CarolGluck, The People inHistory:RecentTrends inJapaneseHistoriography,"JournalfAsianStudles,8 (November 1978): 25-5(0; FerencT okei, Sur e mode eproductionsiatique Budapest, 1966).

S e, forexample,Tanigawa Michio,MedievalChineseocietynd the ocal "Community,JoshuaA.Fogel tranis.Berkeley,, alif., 1985), especially50-59.

66See T'ien Jen-lung,Chien-kuo -laiYa-hsi-ya heng-ch'anfang-shihwen-t'i 'ao-luntsung-shu,"Churig-kuoshihyen-chiu,3 (1981): 147-59, especially 158-59. Recently, n extremely ophisticatedtreatment f Marx's ideas on thedevelopmentofnon-Westernocietieswas published n China: LinChun, "Marx's Conceptionof the Non-CapitalistRoute (1870s-1882)," SelectedWritingsnStudies fMarxism, (1985): 1-23.




debate in modernChina,a societynwhichthepress s so closely ontrolled,weare well advised to look for another message. The Asiatic mode can be animportant ehicleforAesopiancriticism.hrougha discussion f theAsiaticmode

of production,for example, one can advance a thinlyveiled criticism f thetremendousdespotic powerof the stateor itsruler forexample,Mao Tse-tung).Or, itmight e used implicitlyobuttress he notionofChinahaving distinctivepath to socialism.Or, a Chinese historianmaybe testinghow farhe or she canstretch heboundariesof accepted Marxist heory. hese purposes appear to havebeenbehind the debate n 1980-1981on theAsiaticmode ofproduction n China.It is preciselybecause of the Asiaticmode's unsolved naturewithinhistoricalmaterialism hat tcan be raised and lowered fordebate, used as a metaphorforsomethingmore important nd beyond the ken of direct, ublicdiscussion as it

was fortheemperor system npre-war apan). It seems to appear on the Marxistscholarlygenda during periods whena Marxist rthodoxy s ust takingform, sbreakingdown,or does not exist at all.

1988 the debates over the asiatic mode of production in soviet russia, china, and japan

Documents