7/30/2019 1987 The Fate of Marxist Democrats in Leninist Party States China's Debate on the Asiatic Mode of Production http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/1987-the-fate-of-marxist-democrats-in-leninist-party-states-chinas 1/33 The Fate of Marxist Democrats in Leninist Party States: China's Debate on the Asiatic Mode of Production Author(s): John A. Rapp Source: Theory and Society, Vol. 16, No. 5 (Sep., 1987), pp. 709-740 Published by: Springer Stable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/657680 . Accessed: 10/08/2011 17:28 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]. Springer is collaborating with JSTOR to digitize, preserve and extend access to Theory and Society. http://www.jstor.org
33
Embed
1987 The Fate of Marxist Democrats in Leninist Party States: China's Debate on the Asiatic Mode of Production
This document is posted to help you gain knowledge. Please leave a comment to let me know what you think about it! Share it to your friends and learn new things together.
Transcript
7/30/2019 1987 The Fate of Marxist Democrats in Leninist Party States China's Debate on the Asiatic Mode of Production
The Fate of Marxist Democrats in Leninist Party States: China's Debate on the Asiatic Mode ofProductionAuthor(s): John A. RappSource: Theory and Society, Vol. 16, No. 5 (Sep., 1987), pp. 709-740Published by: SpringerStable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/657680 .
Accessed: 10/08/2011 17:28
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].
Springer is collaborating with JSTOR to digitize, preserve and extend access to Theory and Society.
The fate of Marxist democrats in Leninist party states
China's debate on the Asiatic Mode of Production
JOHN A. RAPP
Department of Government and International Relations. Beloit College
In China from 1979 to 1982, intellectuals debated a theoretical issue long
neglected or erased from Stalinist-influenced Marxist-Leninism,the ques-tion of the Asiatic Mode of Production (AMP). Though confined mostlyto the historical profession, unlike the simultaneous and more publicizeddebates on humanism and alienation, the Chinese AMP debate had im-
portant political implications. In this article I examine the thought of a
minority groupin the Chinese Communist party (CCP) who tried to justi-
fy political reform, and even democratization, by resurrectingthe AMP.
I arguethat the brief history of the contemporaryChinese debate overtheAMP reflects both the common and potentially diverging nterestsof frac-
tions of the Leninist state elite. Such a statist approach to analyzing poli-tics in a Leninist Party-stateis needed first given the failure of the justly
maligned "totalitarian" model to explain the growing change and diver-
gence within and betweenCommunist systems. A new approachis needed
second due to the failure of other models, such as "pluralist" conceptsborrowed from studies of non-Leninist states, to explain the overriding
state interest that has proven to make change in Communist systems so
painfully slow, difficult, and uneven. In the context of this article, the
totalitarian model is largelyunable to explain the past and perhaps future
rise of Chinese intellectuals, based on inner-Partysupport, who use the
AMP concept to call for political reform. At the same time, pluralist-
inspired models would be unable to explain the overriding common in-
terests of all fractions of the state elite that have led to the periodic silenc-
ing of the debate over the AMP.
In China, the presentsituation can be viewed as one in which a new coali-
tion of state elites came to dominate the mainstream of the CCP under
Deng Xiaoping. This coalition formed after an extremelack of social co-hesion had led elements to defect to Deng's side from the previous main-
Theory and Society 16: 709- 740 (1987)? Martinus Nijhoff Publishers, Dordrecht - Printed in the Netherlands
7/30/2019 1987 The Fate of Marxist Democrats in Leninist Party States China's Debate on the Asiatic Mode of Production
to denounce the excesses of the GPCR, answerpotential charges of "tak-
ing the capitalist road" by remaining Maoist critics, and defend the need
for the Four Modernizations policy within Marxist-Leninism.The attack
on "feudalism" was combined with official sanction on a largerscale for
a return to the classics of Marx, Engels, and Lenin as a basis of legitimacy
for the reform policies of the dominant coalition.
As partof this new anti-feudal line, Deng Xiaoping himself made a speechin August 1980 to an enlarged meeting of the Politburo. In his speech,
Deng referredto the "alienation" of the Party and state from the masses,
especially as reflected in problems of "bureaucracy,overconcentrationof
power, patriarchalmethods, life tenure in leading posts and privileges of
various kinds." He especially criticized officials who were "assumingthe
airs of a mandarin," "suppressing democracy,"and "being arbitraryand
despotic." The problemsof a "partriarchal"bureaucracyand overconcen-
tration of power Deng traced not only to Stalinism, but to "the influence
of feudal autocracy in China's own history." In summing up the case for
a new socialist legal system and for structuralreform, including "mass su-
pervision" of cadresthrough free criticism and evenrights of replacementand recall, Deng clearly linkedthe problems of the GPCR to a continuinginfluence of China's imperial despotism:
The appetite for personal privilege shows that there are still lingering feudal in-
fleunces. From old China we inheriteda strong tradition of feudal autocracyand
a weak tradition of democratic legality.4
In retrospect one can see that Deng's speech, not published until 1986,providedthe legitimacy for the Partydemocratswho in 1983promotedthe
Marxistconcepts of alienation and humanism as a justification for politi-cal reform. But more importantly,this speech also helped to justify a new
turn in the AMP debate arising in historical circlesin 1979.By 1981,some
intellectuals inside the Partylinked to higher Party patrons used the AMP
debate to suggest a fargreaterdegreeof despotism inherited from the pastthan the term "feudalism" alone previously implied. Though such scho-
7/30/2019 1987 The Fate of Marxist Democrats in Leninist Party States China's Debate on the Asiatic Mode of Production
seventies. As long as they limited their use of the AMP to the Soviet and
EasternEuropean approaches, i.e., viewing the AMP as a long-dead vari-ant of primitive communism, ancient "slave society," or feudalism, the
Chinese historians posed no threatto the autonomy of the Leninist Party-state. Thus at first the leading Party conservatives, such as the Politburo
ideologist Hu Qiaomu, did not respond to the AMP debate.
The latent political implications of the AMP concept, however,eventuallyrevealed a divergence of interests between the mainstream of the reform
coalition and certaindemocraticallyminded intellectuals within that coa-
lition. Individuals in the latter group, including many in the Party
democracy camp associated with the Institute of Marxist-Leninism-Mao
Zedong Thought of the ChineseAcademyof Social Sciences, extendedthe
use of the AMP concept beyondthe historical profession. Thereafter,par-
ticipants in all sides of the debate recognizedthe politically chargedaspectof the AMP, a concept that depicted a centralized state ruling over an
amalgam of independent, self-sufficient rural communes.
In fact, a leading party democrat in a conversation with me claimed that
Chinese authorities eventually quashed the debate out of their fear that
intellectuals favoring the AMP held a hidden anti-communal and anti-
collectivization agenda. A keytenet of Marx's own definition of the AMP
(see below) was the state as supreme landowner, with the right to grantand remove ndividual possession and control over the agriculturalsurplus
product. Such a state would seem highly reminiscent of the policy empha-sis of the waveringmainstream of "conservative"elements in China'scon-
temporary state elite. They favor the state's monopoly of the surplus ofcollectivized agricultural production through the purchase of grain.
The Party democrats denounced "malicious" use of the AMP by anti-
communists like KarlWittfogel. Nevertheless they made the existence ofa centralized, despotic state central to their definition of the AMP. Theythenutilized theirversion of the AMP in expandeddefinitions of the "feu-dal" (fengjian) mode to imply the continuing negative influence of the
despotic state tradition on contemporary Chinese society.
That is, if the problem of China'sfengjian past was the problem of direct
oppression by a centralized, despotic state rather than simply the oppres-sion of a landlord or patriarchalexploiting class, then the already legiti-mated condemnation of fengjian survivals in the socialist epoch would
include, indeed focus on, structuralproblemswith the socialist state itself.
Thus, individuals in the AMP debate who pointed out the existence of a
7/30/2019 1987 The Fate of Marxist Democrats in Leninist Party States China's Debate on the Asiatic Mode of Production
This, in brief, was the course of the AMP debate in China from 1978 to
1987. Before examiningin more detail the latent theory of the state of theChinese "Aziatchiki"(to use the Soviet label), we should briefly examine
the development of the AMP concept in Marxist theory.
The history of the AMP in Marxist thought
The AMP in the original works of Marx and Engels
In the orthodox view of Marxist-Leninism n the Soviet Union and China,
Marx and Engels supposedly believed that only threepre-capitalistmodes
of production existed in all societies. These were the primitivecommunal,
ancient (slave), and feudal modes. Yet Marx explicitly listed the Asiatic
Mode of Production as one of four pre-capitalistmodes in the "Preface"
to his Critique of Political Economy:
In broad outlines Asiatic, ancient, feudal, and modern bourgeois modes of
production can be designated as progressive epochs in the economic formation
of society.7
With the publication of the Grundrisse,8 t became nearly impossible for
Marxist intellectuals to ignore or downplay Marx'sconcept of the AMP,9
although where and when the AMP applies is still subject to debate. The
characteristicsof the AMP mentioned by Marx in the Grundrisse (with
possible contradictory elements in parentheses) include:
1. Lack of private ownership of land
2. Isolated, self-sufficient village communities in which agriculture is mixed
with handicraft and commodity production
3. A centralized, despotic state as sole landowner based on combining groundrent and tax (or alternatively,stateas masking realcommunal ownershipof land)and as unifier of isolated communities (whether necessary and real or mythicaland parasitical). Thus, the stateappearing as a directinstrumentof exploitation,
or a ruling class in itself
4. The state carrying out large-scale irrigation and other hydraulicand publicworks projects (again, whethernecessary or only taking credit for work of lower
communities)
5. The stagnation of essentially administrative, rentier cities
6. A cyclical, stagnant development of AMP societies10
7/30/2019 1987 The Fate of Marxist Democrats in Leninist Party States China's Debate on the Asiatic Mode of Production
fogel's later anti-communist writings led the way in making use of the
AMP. Most famously in his OrientalDespotism (1957), Wittfogel claimedto have found a basic similaritybetween ancient "hydraulic"societies, es-
pecially in Russia and China, and modern communist "totalitarianism."
Such similarity was mostly based on both systems' use of "total terror"
as a means to support the domination of a bureaucraticruling class over
a society with little or no interveningprivate propertiedclasses or institu-
tions. The centralized state in both systems was based on huge irrigationand other public works projects.16He charged that Marx, Engels, Lenin,and Stalin deliberately dropped the AMP wheneverthey found that the
concept could be used against them by adversaries who suggested the
despotic tendencies of Marxist socialism.17
From the late 1950s to the early 1970s, a "second" debate on the AMP
began in Marxist intellectual circles in Europe and later in the Soviet Un-
ion.18Five factors were instrumental in the revival of the AMP debate.
First, even among those clinging to a Stalinist unilinear scheme denyingthe AMP, after Wittfogel's work and Marx's Grundrisse werewidely dis-
seminated it became difficult to ignore Marx's own views on the subject.
Second, after Khrushchev's secret 1956anti-Stalin speech became known
in the West, Marxist intellectuals also revived the AMP concept as partof a largerMarxistargumentfor political liberalization. Third,some scho-
lars have also seen a possible anti-Chinese bias in the debate, at least
among EasternEuropeanadvocates of the AMP. By emphasizingthe stag-nation of "Asiatic"societies, these advocates could support the U.S.S.R.
in the Sino-Soviet split.19Ironically, this is similar to the factor often cit-
ed for the rejection of the AMP by Stalin and leading CCP figures in thetwenties and thirties - their fear that the AMP would help justify the
"progressive"qualities of Westernimperialism in leading Asia out of its
"stagnation," and thus tend to delegitimize the progressivepotential of
Asian revolutions.20
A fourth factor in the rise of the second AMP debatewas the need of Third
World intellectuals to justify the revolutionary potential of underdevel-
oped countries in terms outside of the Soviet version of Marxist-Leninistorthodoxy. The desire to avoid Stalinist orthodoxy seems to havebeen the
goal of the Italian Marxist Umberto Melotti's Marx and the Third World
(1972). Melotti uses the AMP to criticize modern "bureaucraticcollectiv-ism."
A final factor suggests that the AMP debate could have arisen in part asa wayfor Marxists to explain away Stalin'styranny.If the AMP emanatedfrom
uniqueelements of
Russian political culture, then Stalin's crimes
7/30/2019 1987 The Fate of Marxist Democrats in Leninist Party States China's Debate on the Asiatic Mode of Production
Most Chinese historians thereforerejectedor avoided Melotti's use of the
AMP as an overtdescription
of China.Nevertheless,
the reformminorityof Chinese scholars did follow Melotti to suggest that the AMP was useful
in some waysto explainthe centralizationof political authority in the mod-
ern era in China. Regardlessof the differences among Chinese historians,
the questions raised in the second debate,especially as re-shapedby Melot-
ti, became the core of the Chinese discussions.
Political sensitivity of the AMP
Because the AMP dispute was linkedto Cold Waranti-communism in the
writings of KarlWittfogel, it retainedpowerful political implications for
Marxist intellectuals. Marx and Engels in their polemics with the anar-
chists of the nineteenth century, Wittfogel claimed, "sinned againstscience" when they dropped the AMP and "Oriental Despotism." Theydid so, he charged,to evade the the criticism of the anarchists that a Marx-
ist "managerial state" would lead to a bureaucraticdespotism. Likewise,
Wittfogel contended, Lenin vacillated in his opinions on the concept.
Although Lenin utilized the AMP when it suggested the corruption and
oppression of Russia's past, he ignored or rejected the AMP when his
rivals used the concept to warn of dangers of a new despotism based on
a new bureaucratic state apparatus. Increasingly,many democratic Marx-
ist intellectuals on their own saw an obvious resemblance between the
AMP and Marxist-Leninistregimes,evenas they attemptedto "recapture"the AMP concept from Wittfogel's anti-communist use of it.26
Even more fundamentally, as Alvin Gouldner pointed out, the AMP maydemonstrate a basic contradiction or anomaly in Marx's theory of the
state. In the AMP, "far from being dependent on classes controlling the
dominant means of production, the state itself controls these and other
classes are dependent on it."27 Thus, Marxist historians who use the
AMP implicitly raise the possibility that the rulers of a LeninistPartystate
could dominate and exploit directly as a bureaucratic class.
On a more general level, as Ernest Gellner recently described, the AMP
weakens the idea of a universal and inevitable progress toward com-munism:
[TheAMP] impairs,perhaps destroys,the unity of human history by postulatinga sideline of historical development that perhaps leads nowhere and ends in stag-nation ... more subtly and significantly, it undermines the univocal economic
theory of evil, which makes political domination a consequence of exploitation
and class antagonism.
7/30/2019 1987 The Fate of Marxist Democrats in Leninist Party States China's Debate on the Asiatic Mode of Production
tioned the legacy of the AMP forthe despotism of the Maoist era,a legacy
that she suggested may have survived into the contemporary period.33Wangand Lin perhaps based their referencesto the AMP on articles first
appearing in Chinese university journals in 1978 and 1979 and reflected
in articles in national journals in 1979 and 1980.34
As the debate intensified among Party-connected intellectuals, a majorconference was called in Tianjin in April of 1981to discuss the AMP. As
reflected in the summary of the conference in the third issue of Zhong-
guoshiyanjiu (Studiesin Chinese
History)in
1981,the
meetingwas domi-
natedbythose who favoredusing the AMP, although the majorityof scho-
lars would limit its use to a unilinear framework. Though at one pointlabeled the "comrades in opposition," the minority of reform-minded
scholars, i.e.,those who viewedthe AMP as a separatemode of productionwithin a multilinear schema, seemed more than able to hold their own.
These "opposition" figures were well representedin the summary of the
views expressedat the conference and in the speeches printed in the jour-nal.35The authors of the summary expressedthe hope for a second con-
ference on the AMP in the near future, as well as for an "Association of
AMP Studies," hopes that to date have nevermaterialized. Some of their
other wishes, for the incorporation of the AMP into Marxist studies, for
a non-politicized academic discussion of the AMP, and for a study of for-
eign scholarship on the AMP, were dashed shortly after the conference
itself, although they were briefly revived in 1985-1986.
The national journal Lishi yanjiu (Historical Studies) printed articles in
1980 and 1982 that represented only traditional Stalinist-inspired view-
points on the AMP. The only political reformer or academic "opposition"
figure representedin the journal was Wu Dakun in 1982. Even then, his
article did not justify the Marxist use of the AMP, except by hints and
implications, but rather,denounced KarlWitfogel's concept of "Oriental
Despotism."36 For the most part, from 1982to 1986, the AMP was onlymentioned in its Stalinist or neo-Stalinist guise. The debate as a whole
came to a halt with the beginning of the conservative intellectual tide
linked to Hu Qiaomu ana Deng Liqun that culminated in the Anti-Spiritual Pollution Campaign of 1983.
In the Chinese AMP debate,the major schools of thought arethe majorityconservatives and minority reformers.The majority conservativesincludeall those intellectualsrelatedto anti-mainstream and waveringmainstreamelite fractions. These intellectuals have tried to remain loyal to a Stalinistuniversalunilinearpath of developmentin all societies. Although the con-
7/30/2019 1987 The Fate of Marxist Democrats in Leninist Party States China's Debate on the Asiatic Mode of Production
servatives hold diverse views, they all tend to agree either that the AMP
at most representsa variation of an earlierprecapitalistmode of produc-tion beyond which China long ago progressed, or that Marx and Engelsabandoned the AMP concept in the 1870s after they readLewisMorgan'swork on primitive society.
The minority reformers include the genuine multilinear advocates, the
"opposition" figuresrelated to the Partydemocratsamong the intellectual
allies of the remunerative raction of the mainstream coalition. Also with-
in theminority, however,
are intellectuals who believe that the AMP
representsa unique variant of a unilinear path of development, i.e., that
not all societies must pass through the exact Western European path.These latterfigures,whom we will label "unilinearnon-universalists," are
cautious intellectuals who attemptedto legitimize the AMP while protect-
ing themselves against a future backlash.37
Lin Ganquan has offered one of the most skillful analyses of the majorityconservative camp. His article in the journal issue of speeches from the
Tianjinconference was chiefly a denunciation of Melotti. Similarto other
conservative arguments, Lin claims that Marx and Engels in their early
writingsonly intendedthe AMP to representan economic category within
the primitive communal mode, and that they changed their views after
reading Morgan in the 1870s and after studying the survival of primitivecommunal forms in Russia.38After that time they supposedly only spokeof "Asiatic forms" as a transitional category of class society between the
primitive and slave modes of production. Though Lin recognizes that
primitive communal features linked to "Asiatic forms" did survive for a
longer period in China and Russiathan in the West,he insists that any link
of the AMP to China ended with the rise of private landlords at the end
of the WesternZhou dynasty and the beginning of the centralized Qin
both societies' basic "feudal" nature. Though Lin recognizes that state
ownership of land was a minor component of landownership
in China's
feudal period, he claims that it was heavily outweighed by feudal landlord
and independent small peasant ownership. No matter how enlarged the
centralizeddespotic state and its "armyof bureaucrats"became from the
Qin and Han to the Ming and Qing dynasties, for Lin "everyrankingoffi-
cial of the court in everydynasty was only a tool of landlord class regard-less of his backgroundor nature."Thus, there was no despotic staterulingin its own interests. If certain individual officials occasionally seemed to
act against particular local landlords, they did so to preservethe overall
social orderand did not change the officials' nature as a "tool of the ruling
landlord class." No matter whether it was early Chinese dynasties under
slavesociety or later "feudal"dynasties, "none of them existedas a 'collec-
tive bureaucracy"'rulingas a class in itself, as Melotti mistakenlysuggest-
ed. Although Melotti correctly noted the highly centralizednature of po-
litical power in Chinese feudal society of the late imperial period, Lin
asserts, "there was no necessary relationship between despotic centraliza-
tion of power as a political system and the AMP. [Despotism] could be
built on a slave mode of production. It could also be built on a feudal modeof production."39
Lin recognizesthat different societies with common modes of productioncontained important and major variations worth investigatingin orderto
overcome the "dogmatism" of simple categories. Nevertheless, Lin be-
lieves that any new,less dogmatic analysis should not lead Marxist histori-
ans to underestimate the weight of landlord exploitation versus state ex-
ploitation in Chinese history, nor to challenge the universality of theunilinear scheme of history and the five basic modes of production as
clearly intended by Marx and Engels.
Unlike many scholars in the conservative camp who ignore most of the
argumentsof the second debate in the West(thus remainingloyal to Stalin
and his elimination of the concept in the late 1930s) Lin argues againstother conservatives that the AMP could not be equated with any one pre-
capitalist mode of production. Instead, Lin claims, the AMP representedan early economic, as opposed to historical, category of Marx. Lin likely
argues in such a manner to take into account the inadequacy of pre-Grundrisse conservative arguments. In other words, he probably recog-nizes the need to makethe conservativeposition as a whole moreinternally
consistent, as well as the need to take congnizance of the political realityof the centralized bureaucracyof imperial China.
7/30/2019 1987 The Fate of Marxist Democrats in Leninist Party States China's Debate on the Asiatic Mode of Production
incorporate the AMP as a way to explain the tension in Chinese history
between the central government and the landlords, a situation difficult ifnot impossible to understandby use of the unilinearcategory of the feudal
mode of production. Wu's work is important as a piece of historical
scholarshipin addition to its contributions to Marxisttheory. Throughout
Chinese history, in the progressionof many dynasties, small peasants were
periodically squeezed to the point of rebellion as taxes increased on both
their land and the land of non-official gentry,while the bureaucraticoffi-
cials' lands became increasingly tax exempt.47Yet as Chinese history un-
folded, privateand
ownershipincreased at the
expenseof state
ownership,a change Wu claims was in the direction of capitalism. This change in land
ownership, combined with peasant rebellions and changes in the state tax
system, demonstratethat Chinese society was far from static or unchang-
ing, directly refuting Wittfogel's analysis.
Wu asks for further study of China'sAMP aspects in order to aid in Chi-
na's modernization. He leaveslargelyunstated, however,what the remain-
ing vestiges of the AMP were,other than vestiges of the village commune
among some minority nationalities. In light of his application of the AMP
to the history of Han Chinese Wu clearly has other despotic vestiges in
mind. Though he would not spell out the nature of that continuing
despotism under socialism, Wu does suggest that the AMP had relevance
to "the study of contemporary world economy," but he claims that that
study would be more appropriateto "another subject" which he "would
not talk about here." As the leading exponent of the multilinear view of
the AMP, Wu Dakun is perhaps more restrainedthan other reformersin
utilizing the AMP concept to warn of the continuing despotic features of
the socialist state.48
The boldest exponent of the "opposition" view of th AMP is Hu Zhongdaof the University of Inner Mongolia. Perhaps not coincidentally, this re-
gion was hard hit by the extreme state oppression of the GPCR.49Hu spe-
cifically criticizesthe unilinear scheme of five modes of production, argu-
ing for the AMP as a separate "social existence." He arguesthat not only
did the AMP diverge from WesternEuropean-style feudalism, but that
slaveryand feudalism themselves were not chronological stages but sepa-ratepaths out of primitive society. Thus there was no single,universalpathof development, but rather many unique paths, though all followed the
formula of pre-class - class - classless society.
All pre-capitalist class societies shared the characteristics of simplemechanical development (i.e., ironage hand labor), agricultureas the chief
7/30/2019 1987 The Fate of Marxist Democrats in Leninist Party States China's Debate on the Asiatic Mode of Production
production form combined with family handicraft industry,and land tax-
ation as the major form of oppression. Ancient, feudal, andAsiatic modeswere all different forms of "slavery"defined in the large sense, that is,methods of direct expropriationof surplus labor by the oppressing class.
Although Hu recognizes the fact that Engels may havedropped the AMP
in later writings and Lenin at times defined Russia and China as fallingunder an enlargeddefinition of "feudalism," he believes that Marxists in
the contemporary era do not have to deny the unique qualities of an
Asiatic path to development. Hu recognizes that Chinese society in theWesternZhou Dynasty and Spring and Autumn Period contained quali-ties resembling WesternEuropean feudalism and had aspects of a slave
system in parts of the Han Dynasty. Nevertheless,beginning with the Qinand Han dynasties, Hu claims that China had a different, and for the most
part far more developed, system than WesternEuropean feudalism. In
stressingthe unique nature of the Chinese state from the Qin to the Qing,he not only gives a much-needed counterweight to long-standing Marxist
orthodoxyon ancient Chinese
history,but
surpasses manyWestern
Sinologists, such as Tokei and Melotti, who failed to distinguish properlybetween pre- and post-Qin history.
For Hu the differences between the Chinese imperial period and Western
feudalism center on the existence in China of a large, centralized state
standing as the "higher unity" above a system of peasant ownership of
land. Landlords existedat the local level, but the centralizedcollective rul-
ing powertook the place of serfdom perse, presumablythrough state taxes
and corvee labor. China's self-sufficient agriculturalsystem retained fea-
tures of the primitivecommunes throughsuchunique entities as the single-
surname clan villages. Thus, like Wu Dakun, Hu tries to finesse the point
that the conservatives used against the reformers and that WesternSinolo-
gists raisedagainst Wittfogel - the private ownership of land in imperial
China and the existence of a landlord class50 - by implying the identity
of landlords and patriarchal clan leaders. Hu claims that in China state
interests dominate private class interests. He suggests that clan leaders
acted as agents of the state on the local level rather than as independent
exploiters. But downplaying the significance of privatepropertymore ex-
plicitly than Wu, Hu Zhongda highlights directexploitation by a central-
ized despotic state. Hu's work offers an extremelycreative attempt to ex-
amine the destructive autonomy of the socialist state using Marxist tools
and principles.
He argues for the existence of direct state exploitation in imperial China
7/30/2019 1987 The Fate of Marxist Democrats in Leninist Party States China's Debate on the Asiatic Mode of Production
by pointing out that China's monarchical systemallowed for the monopo-
ly of the surplus products and surplus labor by an "autocraticcollective
ruling class" (zhuanzhi junzhu weishoude tongzhi jituan he boxue jieji- literally "ruling clique and exploiting class headed by an autocratic
monarchl')51Ratherthan follow the orthodox Marxist-Leninisttheory of
the state, i.e., the state as protectingand disguising exploitation by a domi-
nant economic class, Hu suggests that the Chinese imperialstate itself had
a dominant position in a collective ruling class of landlords, administra-
tors, and the monarchy. So the state did not just protect and disguise ex-
ploitation, but rather,exploited its subjects directly.
Despite some vacillations on retainingthe label of feudalism, Hu acceptsthe AMP as a useful concept in explaining the real differences between
China's centralized absolutist monarchy and the decentralized politics of
Westernfeudalism. He specifically notes that Marx neverapplied the con-
cept of feudalism in the strict senseto ancient or nineteenth-centuryorien-
tal society. Hu vacillates on whether to call this unique oriental variant
a "separatesocial existence" or a separatemode of production. Neverthe-
less in his article he does issue a clear rejection of the unilinear five modesof production schema and expressthe hope for continuing free academic
debate on the AMP issue.52
By 1982-1983, such hopes were quietly repressed by high Party leaders.
Unlike the contemporaneous debate over humanism and alienation, the
AMP disputes never surfaced in the popular press. The AMP debate was
ended by higher echelon leaders such as Hu Qiaomu shortly after the
Zhongguoshi yanjiu issue was published.
In the first conservative backlash, lasting until late 1984, the multilinear
AMP advocates were largely silenced. At the same time, the "unilinear
non-universalists" retreated o a viewprepared n advance by theirvacilla-
tions on multilinearity, a view positing a distinctive Chinese variation of
feudalism.
The last stage of the AMP debate, 1985-1987
In 1982the small advantagesthe mainstreamrulingelite got fromallowingthe AMP debate wereoutweighed by perceivedthreats to state autonomyfrom other partsof the elite, and the AMP debate was forcibly ended. One
might be tempted to speculate that revived use of the AMP in Leninist
Party-states may be too esoteric to appeal in the short run to more than
7/30/2019 1987 The Fate of Marxist Democrats in Leninist Party States China's Debate on the Asiatic Mode of Production
ing reachedthe Chinese historical profession in mid-1985. In that year,the
editors of Lishi yanjiu convened a conference on Academic Freedom inBeijing. There, leading conservatives, including Lin Ganquan (probably
under pressurefrom reform leaders at the top of the CCP hierarchy),ex-
pressed support for a new expansion of freedom and equality in academic
debate. In fact, one author of the summary of the conference suggested
that Lishiyanjiu should not strivefor unity on every ssue and should loos-
en its editorial restrictionsto allow for more purelyacademic discussions,
which would include heterodox views.55
Parhapsin response,articlesappearedin late 1985that analyzedthe nature
of the centralized bureaucracy of imperial China, highlighted the in-
fluence of "feudalism" on Nazi Germany,and questioned the universalityof slave society both in historical fact and Marxist theory.56
In February1986 an article on Plekhanov by SamuelBaron, who had visit-
ed China in April of 1985, and an analysis of Baron's studies of Plek-
hanov by Chen Qineng, also appeared.57Partydemocrats began to resur-
rect Plekhanov's legacy (the idea of an "Asiatic"heritage) as preparationfor political reform of the LeninistParty-state.They also began to reexam-
ine the ideas of Nikolai Bukarin and Rosa Luxemburg.
The AMP reappearedin the first 1986 issue of Lishi yanjiu, ending that
journal's conservative ideological monopoly. The individual responsiblefor this breakthroughwas none other than Hu Zhongda, the most daringof the AMP advocates at the 1981Tianjin conference, who returnedwith
an article criticizing the orthodox five mode view. In this article, Hu doesnot emphasize the AMP, but instead echoes the late 1970sview of certain
Soviet Aziatchiki who advocated the existence of a single precapitalist
Leninism-Mao Zedong Thought. Wang clearly views the AMP as a fun-
damental unabandoned tenet of Marx and as a real historicalentity.
Though he views the AMP as a survival of primitive communal forms into
class society, Wang emphasizes development and change within this mode.
He explicitly denies the stagnation or backwardness of former AMP socie-
ties that underwent socialist revolution. Most important, he finds the
"most outstanding characteristic" of the AMP to include:
... a state representedby individual rulers at the highest levels [who carry out]
a supereconomic concentrated rule over every individual in society. [Thus] the
major revelation [of the AMP] is the [characteristicof] absolute inherited special
ownership privileges of the state over the basic productive means and the state's
control over the majority of surplus profits [including]the utilization and distri-
bution of these profits. [Thestateunderthe AMP also possesses] a near-mythicalabsolute control of the thought of its members and equally absolute blind loyalty
from all members of society towards its highest ruler....
Wang specifically uses the term "Oriental Despotism" to refer to the state
under the AMP, though he denies that the AMP had a geographical limita-
tion to Asia either inactuality
orin the thought of Marx. Although he
denies the backwardness of former AMP societies now under socialist rule,
Wang stresses the impossibility of skipping or leaping stages in the revolu-
tionary process. He also denies that the AMP and Oriental Despotism can
be equated with state socialism either in Marx's eyes or in reality. Yet, in
the boldest Chinese statement on the AMP to date, Wang clearly suggests
the continuing legacy of the AMP for countries that passed through such
a stage on the route to socialism:
From whichever point of view we examine this [question], we can accept with
confidence thatMarxnevertreated his studyof theAMP asananalysisof socialist
revolution, [but] in treating the AMP this way we cannot deny the implication
of Marx's AMP toward the understandingof some very important phenomenain socialism. Quitethe contrary,this concept has a verysignificant realistic mean-
ing, and on this point we must have a specific detailed explanation... Here I only
want to point out that because the construction of socialist revolution has been
realized in some countries of Europe and Asia which have similar legacies of
Oriental Despotism, the AMP discussed by Marx, and the AMP characteristics
more or less reflectedin those countries in their effort to build socialism, are notstrange phenomena. We cannot overlook this important point .. this is a very
important task in order to secure a socialism defined by Marx [as leading] to a
higher social stage....60
From December 1986 to 1987, however, political reform came to a crashing
halt following student demonstrations at major Chinese universities. In
the conservative backlash, the ultimate protector and patron of the party
democrats, CCP general secretary Hu Yaobang, was forced to resign from
7/30/2019 1987 The Fate of Marxist Democrats in Leninist Party States China's Debate on the Asiatic Mode of Production
1965):363 399. Herein I superimposea statistparadigmon a simple version of Etzioni's
model, an approach with which none of these scholars would necessarily agree. The
"mainstream"and "anti-mainstream" abels areborrowedfrom analyses of Japan'srul-
ing Liberal Democratic Party.
3. The idea of intellectuals going beyond the goals of their party sponsor is derived from
Merle Goldman (though I employ a three-line analysis of Chinese politics rather than
her two lines of liberals and radicals). See Goldman, China's Intellectuals: Advise and
Dissent, (Cambridge: Harvard University Press, 1981), passim.
4. See Deng Xiaoping, "Reforming [the] LeadershipSystem," Beijing Review 29(32) (Au-
gust 11, 1986):15-19.5. Karl Marx and Frederich Engels, Werke,41 vols., Berlin, 1956, 13: 7ff, translated in
Selected Worksof Marx and Engels, (Moscow, 1935), 1:361ff, Reprintedin Karl Marx:
Selected Writings, ed. David McLellan, (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1977),
388- 391.
6. See Edward Friedman, "Three Leninist Paths Within a Socialist Conundrum," and
Dorothy Solinger, "Commerce:The PettyPrivate Sector and the ThreeLines in the Early
1980's,"in Three Visions of Chinese Socialism, ed. Dorothy Solinger, (Boulder,Colora-
do: Westview Press, 1984), chapters two and four respectively.
7. Marx, "Preface," in McLellan, 390.
8. Marx, Karl, Grundrisse der Kritik der Politischen Okonomie (Rohenwurf) (Founda-tions of the Critique of Political Economy), (1957-58), English edition trans. Martin
Nicolaus, (New York:Vintage Books, 1973). For the first English translation of the sec-
12. Georgy Plekhanov, "The Land Question," in Dnievnik Sotsial-Demokrata (Geneva),no. 5 (March 1906):14,16-17, cited in Melotti, 136-137; 198, n. 29. Also cited in Anne
M. Baileyand J. R. Llobera, "TheAsiatic Mode of Production: An Annotated Bibliog-
raphy," Critique of anthropology 2 (Autumn 1974):95-103; 4 and 5 (Autumn
1975):165-176; and KarlWittfogel, Oriental Despotism, (New Haven: YaleUniversity
Press, 1957), 391-393.
13. For his view of Russia as failing under the capitalist mode, see V. I. Lenin, Collected
Works,(London: Lawrence& Wishart, 1960-1970),10:280, 331- 332. Cited in Melotti,
137, 198,note 30; and Bailey and Llobera, "TheAMP," 168-169. See Lenin's TWoTac-
tics of Social Democracy, (1905) in Collected Works9:56, 59, for his description of the
"Asiatic"qualitiesof Russiancapitalistdevelopment. For Lenin'sconcerns of the "Asiat-
ic" qualities of the new socialist bureaucracy n the last years of his life, see CollectedWorks32:349-351; 33:161, 463, 476, 481, 487; and 36:595-596.
14. See Melotti, 9-10; Bailey and Llobera, 174-176; and Wittfogel, 402-406.
15. For Stalin's essay, see B. Franklin, The Essential Stalin: Major Writings1905-1952,
(London: Croom Helm, 1973). See chapter two of my dissertation for a more complete
discussion of the "first" Soviet debate. Also see Marian Sawer,"The Soviet Discussion
of the AMP," Survey (London) 24(3) (Summer 1979):108-127.
16. An oft-noted problemin Wittfogel's analysis is that he combines manydifferent societies
with varyingdegrees of irrigation needs into his "hydraulic" heory. Although the need
for irrigation might be a factor leading to a highly centralizedstate, the state for its own
interests may promote centralized as opposed to local or regional irrigation projects.Other "hydraulic"works, such as China's GrandCanal, seem even more clearly to repre-
sent examples of projects needed mostly not by the ruralagricultural villages but by the
state itself - i.e., for bringing grain into the capital to support a huge administrative
class. Wittfogel's "hydraulictheory," based on a conservative, functionalist view of the
state, thus differs from the underlying statist paradigm of this essay.
17. See Wittfogel, Oriental Despotism, chapter 9, "The Rise and Fall of the Theory of the
Asiatic Mode of Production," 369-412. Also seehis "TheRulingBureaucracyof Orien-
tal Despotism: A Phenomenon that Paralzyed Marx," Review of Politics
XV(3):350- 359. Ernest Gellner ("Soviets Against Wittfogel" Theoryand Society 14(3)
(May 1985):341- 370) agrees with modern Soviet critics on the implausibility of Witt-
fogel's charge that Marx and Engels were "Stalinists-by-anticipation," though Gellner
does recognize the contradictions latent in the AMP for the orthodox Marxist theory
of the state.Other criticsof Wittfogel would neverthelessagreethat Marxistdescriptions
of universal "slave"and "feudal" epochs are inadequate at best, and at worst lead to
serious distortions.
18. From the 6th Congress of the CCP in 1928to the death of Mao, the CCP never wavered
from support for Stalin'sunilinear line. A few Chinese Marxists,however,at some points
did take tacit exception to that line, especially during the "Controversyon Social Histo-
ry" in the 1930sand among intellectuals opposed to Mao's Great Leap Forwardin the
late 1950s and early 1960s.ForChinese Marxist accounts touching upon the AMP from
the 1920s to 1949,see BenjaminSchwartz,"A MarxistControversyon China," Far East-
ern Quarterly13(2) (February 1954):143153; Arif Dirlik, Revolution and History: Ori-
gins of Marxist Historiography in China, 1919-1937, (Berkeley and Los Angeles:
University of California Press, 1979);G. L. Ulmen, The Science of Society: Towardan
Understanding of the Life and Workof KarlAugust Wittfogel, (The Hague: Mouton
Publishers, 1978):549-550; 584; and finally, Germaine Hosten, "State and Revolution
in China and Japan:MarxistPerspectiveson the Nation-State Revolution in Asia" (Har-
vard University, Ph.D. dissertation, 1985), chapter five, "The Controversy on Chinese
7/30/2019 1987 The Fate of Marxist Democrats in Leninist Party States China's Debate on the Asiatic Mode of Production
Social History." I am gratefulto Prof. Hosten for sending me this chapter.For the period
of 1949-1980, see Ulmen, 584-587; and Tian Renlong, "A Precis of the Discussions
on the ProblemsConcerningthe AMP sincethe Foundingof the PRC (with anAppendixon the List of Theses)," Zhongguoshi yanjiu (Studies in Chinese History)
1981(3):147-159.
19. See for example, Gouldner, 326, 343-344; Marian Sawer,Marxism and the Question
of the Asiatic Mode of Production, (The Hague: Martinus Nijhoff, 1977);and Stuart
R. Schram and H6elne Carrered'Encausse, Marxism and Asia: An Introduction with
Readings, (London: Allen Lane, the Penguin Press, 1969),93. The laterauthors particu-
larly criticize the Hungarian Sinologist Ferenc Tokei in this regard. However, there
perhapsis room for a kinderview of Tokeiin light of the relativelyrecentEnglishtransla-
tion of hisearly
AMPessays
in which heappears
torecognize
the lesson thatmodernsocialism must be based on democratic representation n real,not rubber-stamp,soviets.
See Tokei, Essays on the Asiatic Mode of Production, (Budapest: Akad6miai Kiad6,
1979), 61. Perhaps it would be fairer to say that Tokei uses the anti-Chinese aspects of
his version of the AMP, along with his denunciations of Wittfogel and Djilas, to provehis Leninist credentials while at the same time building an opening of legitimacy for
the AMP as part of a liberation of Marxist thought.20. This factor is emphasized particularly by many WesternMarxist observersunwilling to
grant Wittfogel's thesis that it was fear of parallelswith the socialist "managerial"state
that led Stalin to denounce the AMP. In China, Wu Dakun also claims that it was fear
of justifying imperialismin Asia that led to the Soviet and Chinese rejectionof the AMP.More interestingly, Wu also notes that some Japanese intellectuals in the 1930s made
use of the AMP to justify the "progressivenature"of the Japanese occupation of China
in the Second WorldWar.See Wu Dakun, "The AMP in History as Viewed by Political
Economy in Its Broad Sense," Zhongguoshi yanjiu 3 (1981):18-29. Translatedin Su
Shaozhi, WuDakun, Ru Xin, and Cheng Renqian(editors), Marxism in China (Nottin-gham, U.K.: Spokesman, 1983), 53-77.
21. Althusser, "Contradiction and Overdetermination:Notes for an Investigation," in For
Marx, translatedbyBen Brewster, New York:Pantheon, 1969),87-128. Forthe critique
of WesternMarxist use of the AMP as an apologia for Stalinism, see Gouldner, 344;
also see his article, "Stalinism: A Study of Internal Colonialism," Telos, Winter1977 (78:5) 48.
22. Tokei's lecture was not published until 1966. See his Sur le mode de production asia-
tique, (Budapest: Akad6miai Kiad6, 1966), translated into English in slightly revised
form in the 1979book of essays cited above. For the second debate in the Soviet Union,see for exampleSamuel H. Baron, "Marx'sGrundrisseand the Asiatic Mode of Produc-
tion," Survey (London) 21(1-2) (Winter-Spring 1975):128-147. Also see Ernest Gell-
ner,"Soviets against Wittfogel," and "ARussianMarxistPhilosophy of History," The-
ory and Society 9 (1980):757-777. For the anti-Chinese aspects of the Soviet AMP
debate, see Gilbert Rozman, "The Ch'ing and Its Legacy: Social Change," Chapter 11
of Soviet Studies of Premodern China:Assessments of Recent Scholars, ed. G. Rozman,
(Ann Arbor: Center for Chinese Studies, University of Michigan, 1984), 149-164; and
idem, "Soviet Reinterpretationsof Chinese Social History: The Search for the Originsof Maoism," Journal of Asian Studies XXXIV(l) (November 1974):49-72.
23. See Melotti, Marx and the Third World, 5-27.
24. Wureportsthat he was inspiredby the 1974English edition of Melotti's book to examine
the AMP issue, and indeed, to begin work with colleagues on the Chinese translationof Melotti. See Wu, "On SeveralQuestions in the Study of the AMP," Xueshu yanjiu
(Academic Research) 1(1980):11-18, note 2.
7/30/2019 1987 The Fate of Marxist Democrats in Leninist Party States China's Debate on the Asiatic Mode of Production
26. Wittfogel, Oriental Despotism, 387-400.27. Gouldner, "State and Class in Marxism," 327-328, chapter 11of The TwoMarxisms.
28. Ernest Gellner, "Soviets against Wittfogel," 347-348, 352, 359.
29. Even WesternMarxists had to watch their step. For example, Melotti's link of the AMP
to modern "bureaucraticcollectivism" was often criticized as "deviationist" by fellow
Marxists. See Kate Currie, "Review of Melotti, U.: Marx and the Third World," The
Journal of Peasant Studies 5(4) (1979):519;and idem, "The AMP: Problems of Concep-
tualizing State and Economy," 264. Of course, not all Marxists who defend Marx, En-
gels, and Lenin on the AMP do so for political reasons.
30. For example, though Tokei views the AMP as a transition phase from pre-class to class
society, with definite overtones of bureaucratic class domination, he denies that theAMP could be applied directly to socialist society. On the one hand, Tokei denounces
Wittfogel and Djilas (Essays on the AMP 58), yet on the other suggests the AMP as
a warning for socialism (61).
31. Although the Formen was translated into Chinese as earlyas the 1940s,it was not readilyavailable to a wider Chinese audience until the translation of the entire Grundrisse in
the late 1970s.
32. The "Marxist dissidents" Djilas, Kuronand Modzelewski, Szeleni, and Bahro all made
use of the AMP to attack the exploitative stateclass imposed on manyEasternEuropean
societies bythe Soviet Union. See Sawer,"The Soviet Discussion of the AMP," 125-126.
33. Wang Zixhe, "Mao Zedong and the Cultural Revolution," translated in On Socialist
Democracy and theLegal System: TheLi YizheDebates, ed. Anita Chan, StanleyRosen,
and Jonathan Unger, (Armonk, New York:M. E. Sharpe, 1985), 177-260, Lin Xilling,
"Letter to Deng Xiaoping" (June 1980), Guang jiaojing (Wide Angle), Hong Kong,
9-10 (September and October, 1983), translated in Chinese Law and Government
XVII(4) (Winter 1984-85): 5-91. Lin, however,pointed to the stagnation and back-
wardness of the Chinese revolution due to the AMP legacy, thus inadvertently opening
herself up to charges of aiding Soviet denunciation of the CCP. In fact, she herself
praised the "Titoist" alternative to Stalinism.
34. Fora bibliographyof the articles from 1978 to 1981,see Tian Renlong, "APrecis of the
Discussions on the Problems Concerning the AMP," 159.
35. Pang Zhuoheng et al., "Summaryof the Symposium on the AMP," Zhongguo shiyan-
jiu 1981(3):3-17.
36. See WuDakun, "CriticizingKarlWittfogel's OrientalDespotism," Lishiyanjiu (Histor-
ical Studies - hereafter LSYJ) 1982(4): 27-36, translated in revised form in Social
Sciences in China 1983, 4(2) (June 1983):213-225.
37. Although as we will see below, even many mutilinear advocates tried to protect them-
selves against future criticism by vacillating to some degree on the AMP issue.
38. See Teodor Shanin, Late Marx and the Russian Road: Marx and the Peripheries of
Capitalism, (NewYork:
MonthlyReview Press, 1984), for a WesternMarxist opinion
that Marx's acceptance of Russian communal survivals was completely consistent with
a multilinear view of the AMP.
39. Lin Ganquan, "TheAMP and Ancient Chinese Society: A Criticismof Umberto Melot-
ti's Distortion of Chinese History in His 'Marx and the Third World,"' Shijie lishi
42. Lin, "The AMP and the Society of Ancient China," 140, 141.Lin exaggeratedMelotti's
ethnocentrism. After all, the point of Melotti's book was to justify revolution in the
Third Worldagainst Marx'sseeming requirementfor revolutiononly in advanced indus-
trial countries.
43. See note 24. Forhis later referenceto Melotti, see "CriticizingKarlA. Wittfogel's Orien-
talDespotism, "214, 220, 225, note 8. Wuis a Professor of Political Economy at Chinese
People's University in Beijing. Interestinglyenough, Wu heard Wittfogel lecture on his
"hydraulic"theory in 1947 while studying at the University of Washington.
44. Wu Dakun, "TheAMP in History," in Marxism in China, 53- 77; citing Mao, "Report
on an Investigation of the Peasant Movement in Hunan," Selected Works of Mao'
Zedong (Beijing: Foreigh Languages Press, 1975), I, 44, 146.
45. Wu, "The AMP in History," 68-69.
46. Lin, 142.
47. For a WesternSinologist's description of the tensions between landlord and state in-
terests in imperial China, see Etienne Balazs, Chinese Civilization and Bureaucracy:
Variations on a Theme, edited by Arthur M. Wright,translatedby H. M. Wright, (New
Haven: YaleUniversityPress, 1964). As noted above, both Tokei and Melotti utilize the
AMP concept to integrateMarxist approaches with Sinologists' findings on the impor-
tance of Chinese bureaucracy.
48. Wu, "The AMP in History," 69-76. Wu's caution on the AMP is perhaps similar to
the caution of theleading party
democrats Su Shaozhi and YuGuangyuan
on the issue
of alienation compared to Wang Ruoshui.
49. Hu Zhongda, "On the Asiatic Mode of Production with a Criticism of the Theory of
Five Modes of Production," Zhongguo shi yanjiu 1981(3) (September):30-43.
50. For example, Lin Ganquan, 140-145, and Maurice Meisner, "The Despotism of Con-
cepts: Wittfogel and Marx on China," China Quarterly 16 (October-December
1963):99- 111.Hu (32) even uses Marx's same few referencesto China that Meisnercriti-
cized Wittfogel for using. The gist of Meisner'scriticism was that Marxneversaid China
lacked private property, as he also never equated China with India. Yetboth Meisner
(104) and Perry Anderson (548-549) recognized the need to go beyond the label of
feudalism in describing China. This is exactly what Hu attempted to do, while usingthe AMP concept as a cloak of legitimacy. In this he was similar to Tokei (62- 78), who
claimed that imperial China was the best example of the AMP and who used the AMP
concept to explain the strength of the central government against the local landlord
"quasi-" or "pseudo-feudal" intereststhroughout much of Chinese history. Still, as we
saw above, Hu surpassedTokei in distinguishing between preand post-Qin Chinese his-
tory.
51. Pang et al. summary of Tianjin conference, 6.
52. Hu, "On the AMP," 39, 44.
53. See for example Lo Ping, "Notes on a Northern Journey," Cheng Ming 104 (June 1,
1986), 6-10, in FBIS: China, June 12, 1986, W6-W14. For the short-lived political re-form movement of 1986, see James R. Schiffman, "China RevivesPolitical Reform De-
bate to Reinforce Gains on Economic Front," The Asian WallStreet Journal Weekly,September 8, 1986: 2.
54. Deng Xiaoping, "Reforming [the] Leadership System."
53. See "AdvocatingAcademic Freedom and Promoting Historical Science: A Forum At-
tended by Historians in Beijing," ed. Chen Wangguiand WangHe, LSYJ 1985(2):3-8.56. Wu Shouzhi, "The Essence and Important Function of Centralized State Power in the
Feudal Autocratic System of China," Shehui zhanxian (Social Science Front), 8(2)
7/30/2019 1987 The Fate of Marxist Democrats in Leninist Party States China's Debate on the Asiatic Mode of Production
(1985):117-125; Wu Youfa, "The Revivalof Feudal Influences and the Rise of German
Fascism,"SJLS 1985:9
(September):47-52;Jin
Jingfang,"Marxism on the Scientific
Concept of Slave Society and the Periodization of Ancient Chinese history," Shehui
zhanxian 8(1) (1985):112-118; and Chen Weisheng, "On SeveralProblems Concerningthe Existence of the Slave System," SJLS 1986(2) (February):49-57.
57. Baron, "Plekhanov,InternationalSocialism, and the Revolutionof 1905," SJLS 1986(2)
(February):24 36; Chen, "The famous American Plekhanov expert Professor Baron,"
SJLS 1986(2):37-39.58. The leading Soviet example of this cautious view can be seen in YuriSemenov, "The
Theory of Socio-Economic Formations and WorldHistory," in Soviet and WesternAn-
thropology, ed. Ernest Gellner, (New York:Columbia University Press, 1980):29-58.
For an analysis of Semenov'sviews, see Gellner, "ARussian Marxist Philosophy of His-tory" and Rapp, "Despotism and Leninist State Autonomy," chapter 2.
59. Hu, "FurtherCriticism of the Five Modes of Production Theory," LSYJ 1986(1):33 51.
60. WangMiandan, "An Inquiry into Marx's Concept of the AMP - Critical Comments
from a Theoretical Standpoint," Makesi zhuyiyanjiu (MarxistStudies) 3(1985):75 86.
61. Baron, "Marx's Grundrisse and the AMP," 146-147.