Introduction
Asiatic Mode of Production (AMP) was conceptualized by Marx mainly in his writings on Asia, more specifically India, during the 1850s. Through AMP, Marx pointed out the incompatibility of European mode of production (social formation) and class analysis in the case of non-Western/non-European societies like India. To be specific, the theory of AMP suggested how India is run by an ‘elite’, ‘despotic’ ruling clique that directly expropriates surplus from village communities. Marx also tried to explain the absence of European model of feudalism or land ownership in India, and instead pointed out how an elite state class always runs the regime or the ruling system with specific linkage between agriculture and manufacturing based on socio-cultural relations whose “solid basis” being the Indian Caste system.
Of course, the theory of AMP has been one of the most controversial and hotly debated Marxist conceptualizations. Academic and scholarly debates on AMP among a whole set of Leftist scholars and Marxist historians, and a large body of writings on the concept are there in the public domain. However, and very revealingly, the Communist parties in India, ranging from the revisionists to the sectarians, including their entire cadres, are totally insulated or immune from this discussions and debates regarding AMP, as they are often taking place in the form an intellectual discourse. As such, this note is not for adding any new information to the theory of AMP, rather it intends to point out two inter-related issues, viz., a) the context for the altogether abandoning of AMP by International Communist Movement (ICM) and Indian Communists, and b) the consequent failure on the part of Communists in accomplishing the revolutionary tasks according to the concrete conditions of caste-ridden Indian society.
Marx and Engels’ observation on Indian Caste system and conceptualization of AMP, are spread across German Ideology (1845-46), Articles on India in New York Daily Tribune (1853-61), Marx-Engels Correspondence (1852-62), Economic Manuscripts (1857-1859), Contribution to the Critique of Political Economy (1859), Capital Vol.1 (1867), and even in the 454-page Ethnological Notebooks (which Marx compiled during 1880-82, edited by Lawrence Krader and printed by International Institute of Social History, Amsterdam in 1974). In the theory of AMP, Marx and Engels distinguished Asiatic production from all other pre-capitalist production forms. In fact, in the beginning, Marx was also using the generally accepted term “Oriental Despotism” popularized by French philosopher Montesquieu, to refer to the ruling system in Asia. However, it was in conformity with his historical-materialistic interpretation of society that Marx later modified Oriental Despotism as the theory of AMP. This was based on his understanding and analysis of production/class relations (or Oriental Despotism) with respect to the unique Indian caste system that acted as their “solid foundation”. Accordingly, surplus labor always belongs to the despotic class or the ruling class (often identified with the elite, upper, Brahmin caste in India) which has exclusive rights to extract surplus from peasants and toiling people in the form of a “tribute”, and irrespective of the changes in regime or political power, “the structure of the fundamental economic elements of society remains untouched…”
The AMP that did not fit in with the ‘European feudal model’ was also in conformity with Marx’s rejection of a “unilinear” theory of history, as Marx never suggested a “master-key” or “general path of development” applicable to all societies. After Marx and Engels, the Second International (1889-1916), on account of its Eurocentric and unilinear orientation, and inability to grasp the concrete social relations in non-European societies like India and China, often collapsed into a European model of slavery and feudalism, and tended to ignore or sideline AMP. However, while acknowledging Marx’s AMP in most of his analyses including in “What the ‘Friends of the People’ Are”, Lenin used it according to the concrete Russian situation through such terms as “semi-Asiatic” to characterize Russian monarchy and bureaucratic structure. Of course, till the completion of October Revolution, Lenin had little time to go into the details of Indian caste system and its link with Marx’s AMP. Other Russian leaders like Plekhanov had also embraced AMP, more or less in a way applicable to Russia. On the other hand, after the October Revolution, Lenin’s pre-occupation was with global anti-imperialist tasks in the epoch of imperialism. At the same time, Lenin’s modification of the earlier slogan, “Workers of the World, Unite” that was applicable to industrial capitalism (pre-monopoly capitalism) to “Workers and Oppressed Peoples of all Countries, Unite” at the Second Congress of the Communist International (Comintern) in 1920, was sufficient enough to include other oppressions including that from Indian caste system. For instance, Lenin’s emphasis that “labor in the white skin can never free itself as long as labor in the black skin is branded” in general highlighted the strategic significance of the struggle against caste, race, nationality, etc.
Leningrad Conference of 1931 and Banning of AMP from Comintern Documents
However, the 1920s witnessed intense debates within the Comintern about the nature of Asian societies, mainly regarding the course of Chinese Revolution, though the trend was firmly toward belittling relevance of the concept of the AMP. Soviet scholars have rejected AMP on the ground that the socio-economic formations of pre-capitalist Asia did not differ enough from those of feudal Europe to warrant special designation. Still the concept of AMP was there in the official documents, and during the 6th Congress of the Comintern held in 1928, following the adoption of its “class against class” policy, the entire orientation was towards a disapproval of AMP as the Asian societies could be interpreted in class terms as “feudal” or “semi-feudal”. The understanding was that Eastern societies like China (and India) were essentially feudal and hence were amenable to the unilinear stage theory of Marxism as applicable to Europe. As such, everything began to be included in the broad framework of anti-colonial/anti-imperialist, anti-feudal struggles without any emphasis on AMP, though the concept still prevailed in the deliberations.
Meanwhile, the Soviet Academic Conference held in Leningrad or the so-called Leningrad Discussions in 1931 which focused on AMP, took a qualitative turn in this regard. In a way, it culminated in standardizing ‘Soviet historical materialism’. Amid differences from minority sections, the strong Soviet-backed anti-AMP faction that got majority in the Conference argued that the use of AMP as a separate category is a deviation from ‘official’ Marxist class approach, and a negation of the 5-stage theory – primitive communism, slave society, feudalism, capitalism, and socialism/communism – of historical development. This was contrary to Marx’s unequivocal position as stated by him in 1877 that there is “no general path of development prescribed for all nations”. Differing with self-professed Marxists who stood for a “general path”, which is European path in essence, in his Letter to Vera Zasulich in 1871 itself, Marx had clearly stated that his analysis of capitalist mode of production was limited to the countries of Western Europe. It was against this perspective of Marx himself that, the Leningrad Conference rejected AMP interpreting it as a non-Marxist artificial category in direct opposition to standardized European/Soviet framework. This Soviet intervention to remove AMP has prompted critics to allege the close similarity between AMP and “despotic”/bureaucratic nature of USSR, and anti-Soviet theorists of the time also used AMP against Soviet Union itself.
Following this, the Comintern which came under the control of Soviet Union completely rejected AMP and depicting it as obsolete, expunged the entire concept of AMP from official Marxism altogether, and superimposed European feudal/semi-feudal model on Asiatic societies since 1931. To put it differently, according to Comintern, the ‘specific features’ of “feudalism” attributed to Asian countries were secondary or unimportant and hence did not fundamentally change the basic mode of production in them. At that time when almost all parties upheld the rejection of AMP by Comintern, Mao Zedong, while accepting the general framework of Comintern, diverged from the 5-stage European-model unilinear orthodoxy and began focusing on formulating Marxist praxis according to Chinese conditions. For instance, while Comintern insisted on focusing the urban working class, led by Mao, the Communist Party of China (CPC) after rejecting the Eurocentric 5-stage model, mobilized the peasantry in rural base areas as the primary force of Revolution in tune with the concrete Chinese situation. Interestingly, questioning this Chinese line, the “Soviet Marxists” had even labelled Mao’s strategy as “oriental” error. Thus, bypassing the traditional standardised capitalist development that has to precede socialism as put forward by the then Comintern, the CPC led by Mao proposed “New Democratic Revolution” for moving towards socialism.
Discarding AMP as Tragic Failure of the Indian Communists
Obviously, unlike the stance taken by CPC under the leadership of Mao, which enabled China to successfully complete revolution in 1949, the Communist leadership in India being tied to Soviet policies, and often depending on the advice from British Communist Party, miserably failed in applying Marxism-Leninism as suited to caste-ridden Indian society. Of course, despite these limitations and while facing severe colonial repression through a series of conspiracy cases during the 1920s, the Indian Communists, in general, were pursuing the Comintern line, and based on the Leninist slogan “Workers and Oppressed peoples, Unite”, moved forward building up class and mass organisations uniting both workers and the oppressed. After all, the solid ideological-material basis of Marx’s AMP being caste, the theory was more specific to India. However, as noted above, influenced by the main orientation of Soviet-led Comintern in the 1920s, there was no ideological-political intervention on the part of CPI to apply the concept of AMP in India. At the same time, even without reference to AMP, the CPI was seeking to mobilize the toiling masses including the oppressed “outcastes” (pariahs) into a united front against British imperialism and feudalism.
It was in consonance with this orientation that the “Draft Platform of Action” prepared by CPI in 1930, resolutely put forward the complete abolition of the Indian caste system with special relevance to Indian social structure. For instance, the Draft Platform of Action, in its Part 2, Subsection D, says: “Emancipation of the Pariahs and the Slaves: As a result of the rule of British imperialism in our country there are still in existence millions of slaves and tens of millions of socially outcast working pariahs, who are deprived of all rights. British rule, the system of landlordism, the reactionary caste system, religious deceptions and all the slave and serf conditions of the past throttle the Indian people and stand in the way of its emancipation. They have led to the result that in India, in the twentieth century, there are still pariahs who have no right to meet with all their fellow men, drink from common wells, study in common schools, etc… The CP of India calls upon all the pariahs to join in the united revolutionary front with all the workers of the country against British rule and landlordism. The CP of India calls upon all the pariahs not to give way to the tricks of the British and reactionary agents who try to split and set one against the other the toilers of our country. The CP of India fights for the complete abolition of slavery, the caste system and the caste inequality in all its forms (social, cultural, etc.).”
It was this Draft Platform of Action with its clear-cut perspective on “complete abolition of … caste system” that served as the foundational ideological framework for CPI’s alliance with Dr. B R Ambedkar in the 1930s. This was based on a shared focus on bringing together workers and India’s oppressed castes (“depressed classes”) in a “united revolutionary front” against colonial oppression and Indian caste system. Though Ambedkar was not a Communist, his Independent Labour Party formed in 1936 (the same year when Ambedkar released “Annihilation of Caste”) became a left force working together with CPI. For instance, the CPI-affiliated All India Trade Union Congress (AITUC) and Ambedkar’s Independent Labour Party jointly called a massive strike of over 100,000 workers in Bombay in 1938 to oppose the Trade Disputes Act of 1929. This merger of the politics of “caste and class” jointly addressed the demands of the workers and the need for abolition caste practices in factories. However, towards the end of the 1930s, the upper-caste orientation of the Communist leadership became pronounced, leading to serious ideological differences and accusations between Ambedkar and Indian Communists, the details (for instance, Communist leaders labelled Ambedkar a “stooge of imperialism” while Ambedkar branded Communists as ‘Brahmin boys”) of which are already available in the public domain.
In fact, the roots of this ideological difference between Indian Communists and Ambedkar lay deep in CPI’s withdrawal from its stand on “abolition of caste” as laid down in Draft Platform of Action in the context of the rejection of AMP by Comintern following 1931 Leningrad Conference. While the Comintern leadership was busy with the Anti-Fascist Struggle of the 1930s, there was a time-lag for the conclusions of the Leningrad Discussion, especially its ‘sectarian class approach’ to reach India and take on a dominant position among the Indian Communist leadership. To be precise, the worsening of CPI’s relation with Ambedkar was coterminous with the abandonment of the approach to “abolition of caste”, as laid down in the 1930 Draft Platform of Action. As already pointed out, following Comintern’s rejection of AMP and embrace of sectarian, unilinear “class only approach”, CPC led by Mao Zedong differed from it and took an independent position based on the concrete analysis of Chinese society. On the other hand, the CPI, on account of its heavy dependence on Comintern and Soviet advice, was unable to take an independent position on AMP, though the concept was of strategic importance and more suited to caste-ridden India than China. While this operational independence enabled CPC to correct the mistakes made by Comintern and adapt Marxism-Leninism to Chinese conditions, due to CPI’s dependence on the then British communist leaders who interpreted Comintern guidelines, it failed to apply Marxism-Leninism according to the ground realities of caste-ridden India.
Conceptualization of Caste as Superstructural Phenomenon
As already stated, the context of the cordial relation between CPI and Ambedkar (symbolizing the strategic unity between workers and oppressed in the Indian context) during the 1930s was in accordance with the position in the 1930 Draft Platform of Action that unequivocally upheld “abolition of caste” as an integral part of the anti-imperialist People’s Democratic Revolution (PDR) in India. Conversely, this unity ended when the CPI embraced sectarian ‘caste-only’ approach following Comintern’s rejection of AMP, and the consequent freezing of the Draft Platform of Action by CPI. Thus, in gross disregard of India’s historical caste-class integration or inseparable link between caste and class, the mechanical and reductionist approach to caste as a superstructural phenomenon started dominating the Indian Communist movement since the early 1940s. Of course, though the usual condemnation of caste-oppression, caste-discrimination and caste atrocities had been there, the CPI documents kept a revealing silence on annihilation or abolition of the caste system. No doubt, this was a serious mistake that did immense damage to the cause of Indian revolution.
Meanwhile, rejection of AMP by Comintern and consequent CPI’s move away from its earlier approach to Caste, logically led the Communist leadership since the beginning of 1940s, to conceptualise caste as part of the superstructure, or as a remnant of pre-capitalist feudal relations, and hence secondary to class struggle. Put it differently, identification of caste with cultural superstructure rather than political-economic base also resulted in a mechanical text-copying of the European class analysis to India, which Marx himself had said in the 1870s as inapplicable to non-European societies like India. For instance, if we make a concrete analysis of the Indian society based on objective facts, it is easy to comprehend how ownership of wealth including land and means of production, division of labour, wage structure, surplus value extraction and profit accumulation together with cultural and political power, etc., are essentially caste-based. There are sections who still argue that caste solely belongs to (or a legacy of) Indian feudalism. Hence, they argue that the march of modernity and advancement of capitalism will lead to a withering away of caste altogether. Of course, then the question comes how caste is safely and comfortably sitting on the throne of modern industry, and in scientific and higher institutions of learning?
Thus, caste can easily cut across both economic base and cultural superstructure, it can cut through religions, can migrate from one socio-economic system to another or from feudalism to capitalism and even penetrate into modern science and technology, and even capable to migrate to Silicon Valley, the so-called citadel of modern technology. This inherent laws of motion of Indian Caste system, where both caste and class are inseparable and interpenetrating, point to a qualitatively different social formation (mode of production) compared to Western societies, where people belonging to the oppressed and lower castes form the real working class of India. It’s the greatness of Marx that, in spite of lacking personal and direct experience, or any first-hand information, and merely based on historical facts and secondary data from colonial documents and writings, he could clearly realise that the mode of production conceptualised by him in the context of Europe, was not applicable to India. And, it is in this context that he put forward Asiatic Mode of Production (AMP) with caste as its solid foundation. This ideological-theoretical breakthrough regarding India proposed by Marx was totally abandoned by Communists leading to grave political setbacks suffered by them in course of time.
Conclusion
As stated at the outset, instead of adding any new theoretical formulation on AMP, the scope of this note is limited to bring to the attention of all genuine Communists the immense damage inflicted on them due to the abandonment of Marx’s AMP and consequent neglect of the task of annihilating Caste, the most inhuman social institution in human history. Contrary to the perspectives of both mechanical materialists and sectarians that economic transformation coupled with scientific-technological advancement will weaken Indian caste system, untouchability and casteism in all their manifestations are flourishing without any let up. On the other hand, in continuation of the mechanical approach towards caste and ideological antagonism towards Ambedkar, the Communist parties themselves have alienated from the caste-oppressed people who comprise vast majority of the real proletarians of India. Further, if the Communists and the oppressed caste-movement led by Ambedkar that prevailed in the 1930s, had unitedly proceeded ahead as a strategic united front of working class and the oppressed in consonance with theory of Marx’s AMP, the history of India would have been different now.
Today this issue becomes all the more significant in the fascist context when RSS, world’s largest and longest-running fascist organisation, is now engaged in a maddening pace towards its ultimate goal of establishing a majoritarian Hindu Rashtra. While Muslims are its declared enemy number one (as identified by Golwalkar), the ideological basis of Indian fascism is “Casteism” as laid down in Manusmriti, according to which the most oppressed Dalits are subhuman. Regarding this, it was Ambedkar who resolutely came forward uncompromisingly resisting Hindutva and its ideological foundation. As exemplified through such historic moves and initiatives as burning of Manusmriti on 25 December 1927, publishing of “Annihilation of Caste” in 1936, drafting of Indian Constitution against which RSS proposed Manusmriti, proposing the Hindu Code Bill for which RSS burned Ambedkar’s effigy along with that of Nehru on 12 December 1949, and so on, Ambedkar stands head and shoulders above everyone as the undisputed ideological enemy of casteism and Hindutva. As such, it is high time on the part of Communists to have a self-critical evaluation of their ideological clashes with Ambedkar. At this critical juncture, and to be precise, for taking up both the strategic task of caste-class annihilation, and immediate duty of overcoming RSS fascism, it is the solemn task of Communist revolutionaries in India to have an objective evaluation on the inherent ideological-political convergence between Marx’s AMP and Ambedkar’s Annihilation of Caste, as a precursor for relentless ideological-political offensive in the days ahead.
P J James is the General Secretary of CPI-ML (Redstar)
Subscribe to Our Newsletter
Get the latest CounterCurrents updates delivered straight to your inbox.
[This Article is an Edited Version of the Speech delivered in the Seminar on “Asiatic Mode of Production” Organised by Proletarian Samaran Team, Tamil Nadu in Chennai, on 15 February 2026]