How is the "Asiatic" mode of production different from the feudal?

[resurgence]

If someone can explains the differences to me it would be very cool. :)

[Jose Gracchus]

Land did not intrinsically remain in independent aristocratic nobility's families. Rather the landed aristocracy and its landholding rights were inexorably tied to the centralized state and monarch.

I suggest you look up Kiev Communard's posts with the "tributary mode of production" as an alternative theory to the "Asiatic".

[JazzRemington]

It's where wealth is derived. In the feudal mode of production, wealth and power came from ownership/control of arable land. In the Asiatic mode of production, it comes from direct ownership/control over communities (not necessarily individual humans).

And for future reference, there's some controversy as to whether the Asiatic mode of production is a valid construct to begin with.

[Sinister Cultural Marxist]

It's the same as the Feudal mode of production, but mixed with a bit of Hegelian Euro-centric prejudice about the despotic nature of Asian political systems.

Needless to say, Europeans from the 1800s had a fairly low opinion of Asian political and economic models.

[GPDP]

I think the term "Asiatic" is definitely a sign of Eurocentrism and prejudice, but there was a definite difference over productive relations between European and Asian feudalism (Japan nonwithstanding, as its feudal relations more closely resembled Europe's).

Whereas European feudal lords were mostly independent and exercised direct control over their land holdings (though of course officially they all served under the king), lords in, say, China were more like renters of land rather than outright owners, as all land legally belonged to the Chinese state, and could be taken away and redistributed at any time. Kings in Europe would be hard pressed to be able to do such a thing, particularly during the late Middle ages.

[Sinister Cultural Marxist]

GPDP-the economic system inChina differed from the West and was a Despotism. But there were plenty of non Despotic systems in Asia other than Japan. The production system in India was wholly different from that in China, as was the production system in the Islamic world.

The eurocentrism comes not from the concept of Despotic systems in Asia itself, but in how Hegel, Marx and others thought it could be generalized across all of Asia