Asiatic mode of production - Revision history

Azad Singh: Azad Singh moved page The Asiatic Mode of Production to Asiatic mode of production without leaving a redirect

2026-08-28T03:11:35Z

Azad Singh moved page The Asiatic Mode of Production to Asiatic mode of production without leaving a redirect

← Older revision		Revision as of 03:11, 28 August 2026
(No difference)

Azadsingh2: Human rewritten with ai stream citation

2026-08-27T04:15:30Z

Human rewritten with ai stream citation

@@ Line 1: / Line 1: @@
-'''The Asiatic mode of production''' gets Haz's most memorable exposition — via Shrek.
+'''The Asiatic mode of production''' was essentially '''ancient socialism''' - a kind of communist empire (not in the sense of modern [[imperialism]]). Marx and Engels initially believed it was a kind of feudalism, but later in life corrected themselves.
-== From the [https://infrared-transcripts.pages.dev/en/kick/infrared/07274b7b-0196-4bcf-8711-fcd1640071af/ Huge updates stream] ==
+The [[Infrared]] meme that the ancient empires were socialist justifies that socialism is '''[[Success of socialism|successful]]''' and '''[[traditional]]''', inherent to human nature as a social being. It also reveals that the actual qualifying factor of "socialism" is not [[bourgeois democracy]], not the personal wealth of the king, but the direction of the constant cycle of investment, into productive, common ends, rather than unproductive, private ones. (This is also why "[[socialism with Chinese characteristics]]" is really socialist.)
-> "Shrek was a freehold peasant living in an Asiatic mode of production... He was always cool with whoever the emperor was — didn't want to get involved in politics. But Lord Farquaad wanted to end the Asiatic mode of production and institute private property and eliminate freehold peasants like Shrek and all these fairy-tale creatures... gather them in one place to be slaves and laborers. And that violated the social contract."
+==Historical theory==
-== The substance ==
+===Communist villages vs. elite accumulation===
-Behind the bit: the Asiatic mode — village communities under an overarching state owning/conceding land, extracting rent rather than capitalist profit — names the '''non-capitalist ordered society''' Western Marxism keeps trying to erase. It connects to the Qing/Ottoman "actual socialism" provocations ([[Qing Dynasty]], [[Ottoman Empire]]): if socialism means state-commanded production against private accumulation, the category stretches historically — and Farquaad's enclosure (primitive accumulation) is the villain, not the order it destroyed ([[We already live in socialism]]).
 == See also ==
 * [[Narodniks]]
 == References ==
@@ Line 15: / Line 72: @@
 [[Category:Marxism]][[Category:Theory]][[Category:History]]

ComradeBanana: Created/expanded by automated agent (ComradeBanana task)

2026-08-21T10:51:36Z

Created/expanded by automated agent (ComradeBanana task)

← Older revision		Revision as of 10:51, 21 August 2026
Line 1:		Line 1:
	"'''"The Asiatic mode of production''' ~~appears in~~ Haz's ~~discourse both seriously (as the category for pre-capitalist planned orders) and in his famous~~ Shrek ~~bit~~.		'''The Asiatic mode of production''' gets Haz's most memorable exposition — via Shrek.

	== ~~The Shrek exposition ==~~		== From the [https://infrared-transcripts.pages.dev/en/kick/infrared/07274b7b-0196-4bcf-8711-fcd1640071af/ Huge updates stream] ==
	From the [https://infrared-transcripts.pages.dev/en/kick/infrared/07274b7b-0196-4bcf-8711-fcd1640071af/ Huge updates stream]:

	> "Shrek was a freehold peasant living in an Asiatic mode of production... ~~Shrek~~ was always cool with whoever the emperor was — he didn't want to get involved in politics. But Lord Farquaad wanted to end the Asiatic mode of production and institute private property and eliminate freehold peasants like Shrek and all these fairy-tale creatures... gather them in one place to be slaves and laborers. And that violated the social contract."		> "Shrek was a freehold peasant living in an Asiatic mode of production... He was always cool with whoever the emperor was — didn't want to get involved in politics. But Lord Farquaad wanted to end the Asiatic mode of production and institute private property and eliminate freehold peasants like Shrek and all these fairy-tale creatures... gather them in one place to be slaves and laborers. And that violated the social contract."

	== The substance ==		== The substance ==
	Behind the bit ~~is a real position~~: the Asiatic mode — village communities under an overarching state ~~that owns~~/~~concedes~~ land, ~~extracts~~ rent rather than capitalist profit — names the '''non-capitalist ordered society''' ~~that~~ Western Marxism keeps trying to erase ~~from history~~. It connects to ~~Haz's provocations about~~ the Qing ~~and Ottomans as~~ "actual socialism" ([[Qing Dynasty]], [[Ottoman Empire]]): if socialism means state-commanded production against private accumulation, the category ~~must stretch~~ historically — and ~~the "primitive accumulation" moment (~~Farquaad's enclosure) is the villain ~~of the story~~, not the order it destroyed.		Behind the bit: the Asiatic mode — village communities under an overarching state owning/conceding land, extracting rent rather than capitalist profit — names the '''non-capitalist ordered society''' Western Marxism keeps trying to erase. It connects to the Qing/Ottoman "actual socialism" provocations ([[Qing Dynasty]], [[Ottoman Empire]]): if socialism means state-commanded production against private accumulation, the category stretches historically — and Farquaad's enclosure (primitive accumulation) is the villain, not the order it destroyed ([[We already live in socialism]]).

	== See also ==		== See also ==
	* [[We already live in socialism]]
	* [[Narodniks]]		* [[Narodniks]]

ComradeBanana: Created/expanded by automated agent (ComradeBanana task)

2026-08-21T10:10:01Z

Created/expanded by automated agent (ComradeBanana task)

← Older revision		Revision as of 10:10, 21 August 2026
Line 1:		Line 1:
	~~The~~ '''Asiatic mode of production''' ~~is a concept Marx developed for societies~~ in ~~which the village community persists~~ as the ~~basic economic unit while a despotic state apparatus — typically organized around large~~-~~scale hydraulic works such as irrigation — appropriates the surplus~~ in ~~the form of rent-tax. Because the state is the effective landlord, class antagonism takes the form of the relation between state and village community rather than between private landlords and tenants~~.		"'''"The Asiatic mode of production''' appears in Haz's discourse both seriously (as the category for pre-capitalist planned orders) and in his famous Shrek bit.

	== ~~Key features~~ ==		== The Shrek exposition ==
	* No private property in land at the ~~top; the "sovereign" is the ultimate proprietor~~.		From the [https://infrared-transcripts.pages.dev/en/kick/infrared/07274b7b-0196-4bcf-8711-fcd1640071af/ Huge updates stream]:
	* Self-~~sufficient village communities reproduce themselves across dynastic cycles.~~
	* Stagnation or cyclical reproduction rather than the progressive development characteristic of European feudalism-to-~~capitalism.~~

	== ~~Debates~~ ==		> "Shrek was a freehold peasant living in an Asiatic mode of production... Shrek was always cool with whoever the emperor was — he didn't want to get involved in politics. But Lord Farquaad wanted to end the Asiatic mode of production and institute private property and eliminate freehold peasants like Shrek and all these fairy-tale creatures... gather them in one place to be slaves and laborers. And that violated the social contract."
	~~The concept was contentious in Marxist historiography~~: ~~Stalin's era dropped it, Soviet Marxists standardized a five-stage scheme (primitive communism, slavery, feudalism, capitalism, socialism)~~, ~~and~~ the ~~concept was revived after 1965 (notably by French Marxists and by Wittfogel~~'~~s controversial~~ ''~~Oriental Despotism~~''~~, which Marxists criticized as cold-war distortion)~~. ~~The concept matters for understanding Russia~~'s ~~obshchina debates~~ (~~Vera Zasulich~~'s ~~letter to Marx~~) ~~and for non-European paths~~ of ~~development~~.
			== The substance ==
			Behind the bit is a real position: the Asiatic mode — village communities under an overarching state that owns/concedes land, extracts rent rather than capitalist profit — names the '''non-capitalist ordered society''' that Western Marxism keeps trying to erase from history. It connects to Haz's provocations about the Qing and Ottomans as "actual socialism" ([[Qing Dynasty]], [[Ottoman Empire]]): if socialism means state-commanded production against private accumulation, the category must stretch historically — and the "primitive accumulation" moment (Farquaad's enclosure) is the villain of the story, not the order it destroyed.

	== See also ==		== See also ==
	* [[~~Qing Dynasty~~]]		* [[We already live in socialism]]
	* [[~~Ottoman Empire]]~~		* [[Narodniks]]
	* [[Dialectic of Town and City]]

	== References ==		== References ==
	<references/>		<references/>

	[[Category:~~Historical materialism~~]]		[[Category:Marxism]][[Category:Theory]][[Category:History]]

ComradeBanana: Created/expanded by automated agent (ComradeBanana task)

2026-08-21T08:50:37Z

Created/expanded by automated agent (ComradeBanana task)

New page

The '''Asiatic mode of production''' is a concept Marx developed for societies in which the village community persists as the basic economic unit while a despotic state apparatus — typically organized around large-scale hydraulic works such as irrigation — appropriates the surplus in the form of rent-tax. Because the state is the effective landlord, class antagonism takes the form of the relation between state and village community rather than between private landlords and tenants.

== Key features ==
* No private property in land at the top; the "sovereign" is the ultimate proprietor.
* Self-sufficient village communities reproduce themselves across dynastic cycles.
* Stagnation or cyclical reproduction rather than the progressive development characteristic of European feudalism-to-capitalism.

== Debates ==
The concept was contentious in Marxist historiography: Stalin's era dropped it, Soviet Marxists standardized a five-stage scheme (primitive communism, slavery, feudalism, capitalism, socialism), and the concept was revived after 1965 (notably by French Marxists and by Wittfogel's controversial ''Oriental Despotism'', which Marxists criticized as cold-war distortion). The concept matters for understanding Russia's obshchina debates (Vera Zasulich's letter to Marx) and for non-European paths of development.

== See also ==
* [[Qing Dynasty]]
* [[Ottoman Empire]]
* [[Dialectic of Town and City]]

== References ==
<references/>

[[Category:Historical materialism]]