Re: Dialectics-Maoism-"Feudalism"

["Carl Davidson" <cdavidson@xxxxxxxxxxx>]

I found some of the most interesting ideas on this topic in
Wittfogel's 'Oriental Despotism.' He develops Marx's idea of the
Asiatic mode of production and the importance of early class society
developing around the ability of an elite to control river systems.
These "Hydraulic" societies were ruled by an absolutist state served
by a knowlege elite in the form of a priesthood. He says these were
the dominant forms of society in the world for a long time, since
they were strong and relatively stable. There would be a regular
cycle of uprisings and incursions, but the despots almost always
regained the upper hand.

In this paradigm, class society's evolution in Europe is the
exception, rather than the rule. Unlike its counterparts elsewhere,
the Roman empire never recovered from its breakup. The result was the
relative anarchy of tiny fiefdoms and their loose alliances, rather
than a centralized despotic authority. The papacy and the "Holy Roman
Empire" tried for a comeback, but never quite made it. This same
looseness, in turn, allowed for an accelerated growth of the market
and, later, science.  Previously, science and culture were much more
advanced in the ancient hydralic despotisms, while Europe was quite
backward.

I think Blaut is right in stressing the exploitation of the New
World as the basis for the growth of capitalism in Europe, but what
gave the explorers from Europe a drive that the sea roving
merchants and pirates from the  hydralic societies lacked?

Wittfogel got interested in the suject as a Comitern rep in the Far
East, but ran afoul of Stalin who felt, quite correctly, that
Wittfogel was digging up the roots of his own modern-day despotism.
Wittfogel managed to get out from under Stalin's terror and wound up
at the Hoover Institute.

I'd be interested in any other views on his work.

Carl Davidson, Chicago
Keep On Keepin' On


     --- from list marxism@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx ---