Marxism and the dynasties

[Karl Marx's Camel]

What is the marxist view of the Chinese dynasties?

Do marxists believe there was a connection between for example change in the mode of production, and the change of dynasties?

[Morpheus]

Chinese history doesn't really fit with the Marxist theory of history very well, IMO. Usually Marxists view confuscianism as either a form of feudalism or "despotism."

[redstar2000]

I've never run across a "Marxist history" of China...though one would imagine that there must have been at least a few attempts to do this during the 1949-76 period. Possibly none of them have ever been translated into English or other western languages...since not even an academic publisher could see any way to make any money doing that.

We certainly know that there was considerable change in the means of production during the dynastic periods and many peasant rebellions leading to the establishment of new dynasties with new "reforming emperors".

And we also know that China had its own "age of exploration and colonization" which might well have led to the rise of capitalism there but for the premature death of a "reforming emperor" and the calculated re-establishment of isolation.

Such a history "could" be written, I think, but would require enormous expertise in the details of Chinese history and technology.

http://www.websmileys.com/sm/cool/123.gif

[ComradeOm]

Originally posted by [email protected] 23 2006, 12:23 AM
Chinese history doesn't really fit with the Marxist theory of history very well, IMO. Usually Marxists view confuscianism as either a form of feudalism or "despotism."
I think the term they use is "bureaucratic feudalism" but that's as far as my knowledge on the matter goes. The PRC spent a lot of time trying to shoehorn Chinese history into Marx's take on historical materialism.

[Hit The North]

It falls under the anaslysis of the Asiatic Mode of Production (AMP) which is characterised by strong State domination over all aspects of social and economic life. Typically, all the various dynasties organised themselves similarly: all land was owned by the State and administered by appointed officials. This absence of private property led Marx and Engels to argue that periodic changes in the political organisation of Asiatic society from dynastic struggles and military conquest had not brought about radical changes in economic organisation because ownership of the land and organisation of agricultural activities remained with the State as the real landlord.

[Janus]

We certainly know that there was considerable change in the means of production during the dynastic periods
When? There were changes but they weren't significant between many dynasties.


all land was owned by the State
Not really. In certain periods of certain dynasties, maybe.


Dynasties didn't change due to changes in the modes of production and they weren't like Marx's stages. However, they did change due to material conditions particularly the state of the government and the living conditions of the people. Basically, when conditions collapse to a point then there will be some type of peasant revolt such as the Yellow Turbans or the Taiping rebels and some form of change will take place. This is pretty much how all the dynasties were established such asthe Han, Jin, Sui, Song, Ming, and Qing. Officially, these changes occured due to divine intervention since the Chinese had to justify a change in government unlike the Japanese who had the same dynasty rule.