Marx, Lubasz, and the Asiatic Mode of Production: A comment

It is argued that Heinz Lubasz (see SA 33:3/84O9189) errs grossly in his discussion of Karl Marx's concept of the Asiatic mode of production through the use of three analytically distinct levels -- mode, relations of production, & social formation -- assuming a nonexistent functional equivalence between them based on a unity of form. Such an analysis is untenable & obscures Marx's real discussion of the characteristics of the tribute-raising state. In Reply to Kate Currie, Heinz Lubasz (U of Essex, Colchester, England) asserts that his article was not, as Currie assumed, about Asia's past economic life but about Marx's ideas about that life. Therefore, the argument against his three analytically distinct levels is ill-founded, since there never was an attempt made to produce any coherent theory. His original contention, ie, that Marx's scattered pronouncements about India & Asia do not add up to a coherent enough view to justify the formulation of a concept, is maintained & defended. K. Hyatt