1-

 Marx's Objective:
 Marx's primary goal was to uncover the economic laws governing modern
society, particularly the law of motion of capitalism, which he accomplished
through his extensive body of work.
 Thread of Exploration:
 Marx's exploration of pre-capitalist societies was integral to understanding the
transition to capitalism and is evident throughout his writings from early texts to
later works.
 This exploration includes various works such as The Economic and Philosophical
Manuscripts, The German Ideology, The Communist Manifesto, Capital,
Grundrisse, and his extensive correspondence.
 Strengths and Limitations of Marx's Analysis:
 Marx's insights on pre-capitalist societies are brief, fragmented, and occasionally
based on incomplete or defective knowledge, especially regarding non-European
societies.
 Despite this, these writings contain brilliantly original and illuminating ideas, yet
they are often tantalizingly brief and incomplete.
 Toward the end of his life, Marx speculated on post-capitalist societies and
socialism, including the possibility of achieving socialism without an intervening
epoch of capitalism, especially in his correspondence regarding Russia.
 Relevance to Contemporary Concerns:
 Marx's writings on pre-capitalist societies and socialism have been invoked in
analyzing contemporary Third World countries and their complex issues,
especially in understanding the character of current social formations and
transitions underway.
 Unresolved Questions in Marxist Analysis:
 The categorization and placement of pre-colonial, non-European societies
present a significant intellectual challenge.
 Key questions include the necessity of accepting all modes of production
identified by Marx, the replication of European historical modes in non-European
societies, and whether Marx's modes exhaust the relevant possibilities.
 The question of the Asiatic mode of production's acceptability remains
contentious and unresolved within contemporary knowledge.
 The applicability of feudalism in pre-colonial, non-European societies is a central
concern addressed in the text, raising the question of what other modes of
production might be applicable within a Marxist analysis if not feudalism or the
Asiatic mode.
 Implications for Marxist Agenda:
 The inadequacy of analyzing non-European societies solely through the lens of
European historical experiences becomes evident, demanding a more nuanced
approach within Marxist analysis.
 The text introduces crucial inquiries that have yet to be fully explored within
Marxist scholarship, especially regarding alternative modes of production in non-
European contexts.
 Critique of Mukhia's Approach:
  The text criticizes Harbans Mukhia's paper for not addressing the essential
question of alternative modes of production in non-European societies within the
Marxist framework, highlighting it as a potential weakness.
2-

 Background and Debate Initiation:

 Mukhia's article in the Journal of Peasant Studies titled 'Was There
Feudalism in Indian History?' sparked responses from several historians,
including Dirlik, Habib, Perlin, Sharma, Stein, and Wickham, forming the
basis for a lively and crucial debate.
 Mukhia's stance was that pre-colonial India couldn't be categorized as
feudal, challenging the model of West European feudalism by
emphasizing the self-dependent nature of Indian peasant production.
 Responses to Mukhia's Article:
 Varied critical responses critiqued Mukhia's categorization of feudalism,
interpretation of West European evidence, rendering of Indian history,
and his proposition of free peasant production in India.
 Scope and Relevance of the Debate:
 All contributing historians in the volume are either Marxists or
sympathetic to Marxist approaches, highlighting the significance of
Marxist historical analysis in categorizing pre-colonial, non-European
societies.
 The central question revolves around how Marxist terms should
categorize non-European societies before colonization, extending
beyond India to all non-European countries.
 Contributors' Perspectives:
 Habib, Sharma, and Stein focus on India, with differing viewpoints—
Habib and Stein deny feudalism categorization for India, Sharma
vehemently defends it in orthodox Marxist terms.
 Perlin, while exploring India, criticizes Sharma's viewpoint, hinting at an
alternative interpretation without explicitly defining it.
 Dirlik discusses China's categorization from a Marxist perspective, while
Wickham, an expert in European history, examines China, Iran, and
Turkey's historical periods regarding feudalism.
 Geographic Focus and Future Perspectives:
 The debate primarily concerns non-European societies, expanding
beyond India to China, Iran, Turkey, and potentially Africa, Latin
America, and Japan.
 Japan is a significant case, often acknowledged as an archetypal
example of developed feudalism, albeit with some controversy.
 Purpose and Implications:
 The text refrains from summarizing contributors' arguments or offering
critiques, leaving readers to evaluate these perspectives independently.
  Mukhia responds to his critics provisionally, leaving the debate open
for further exploration and analysis of individual non-European
societies in the pre-colonial era.
 Significance and Focus of the Debate:
 Emphasizes the importance of Marxist categories in understanding
non-European societies, highlighting major issues, and connecting past
and present for comprehensive comprehension.
 Underlines the significance of the debate in shaping our understanding
of the past and its relevance in interpreting contemporary societies in
light of historical contexts.
3-


Relevance of Feudalism and Mode of Production:
 The debate on feudalism is integral to understanding the dominant mode of
production within a particular society, employing the Marxist notion of a social
formation.
 Despite Cohen's suggestion to discard the mode of production concept, the author
emphasizes its centrality and clarity, citing Marx's consistent use of the term with
varying yet related meanings.
 Definition of Mode of Production:
 Hindess and Hirst's definition considers a mode of production as an articulated
combination of relations and forces of production, necessitating careful treatment of
both elements.
 The articulation between forces and relations of production is crucial, emphasizing the
need for a demonstrated and determined correspondence without implying rigidity or
mechanical correspondence.
 Articulation and Dominance in Mode of Production:
 The interplay between forces and relations of production is crucial, but some
contributions in the debate lack a balanced treatment of both aspects.
 Dominance within a mode of production is debated—some argue for the primacy of
relations, while others highlight the forces of production as dominant. Marx argued
for both at different times.
 Understanding Social Formation:
 A social formation signifies a combination of various modes of production under the
dominance of one.
 The concept highlights the plurality and heterogeneity of possible modes within a
historical and social totality.
 While some contributors abandon or inadequately use the social formation concept,
others employ it effectively, acknowledging the need to encompass regional diversity
in analyses.
 Challenges in Articulation and Dominance Concepts:
 Articulation and dominance within a social formation pose challenges in theoretical
and practical application, lacking rigorous formulations and criteria for identification.
 Dominance needs empirical demonstration rather than mere assertion, urging for
rigorous formal statement and further elaboration of Marxian categories instead of
discarding them.
 Conclusion:
  Despite complexities in articulation and dominance concepts, acknowledging
difficulties doesn't warrant abandoning Marxian categories but signals the need for
deeper exploration and refinement in understanding mode of production and social
formations.
4-

The Significance of Identifying the Dominant Mode of Production:

 Influence on Society and Development:

 Dobb's observation emphasizes that identifying the dominant mode of
production is crucial as it shapes the entire society and influences its
developmental trajectory.
 Understanding the dominant mode of production helps in
comprehending a society's structure, dynamics, and its "law of motion".
 Marx's Argument on Dominant Mode of Production:
 Marx underscores the criticality of the predominant mode of
production, illustrating its impact across different societies and
historical periods.
 The dominant mode of production influences property, industry, and
the societal organization, dictating the economic power within a given
society.
 Purpose of Categorizing History in Marxist Terms:
 The objective is not just to acquire knowledge but to understand and
change the world, per Marx's assertion. It involves interpreting the past
to change the present and future.
 Political Significance in Historical Context:
 Dirlik emphasizes the immediate political implications of categorizing
historical stages, citing examples from pre-1949 and post-Liberation
China.
 The categorization determines revolutionary strategy and shapes the
perception of socialism, linking the nature of the dominant mode of
production at the moment of revolution to socialism's prospects.
 Implications for Third World Countries:
 The nature of the dominant mode of production at revolution holds
significance for contemporary Third World countries attempting
capitalism or socialism.
 Understanding the antecedents and contradictions of prior dominant
modes influences the development strategy and the nature of socialism
in these countries.
 Application and Limitations:
 Dirlik highlights that while principles behind categorization are sound,
caution is necessary regarding their application, citing potential
dogmatism in Chinese Marxist historiography.
  The relevance of the debate extends to contemporary political
economies like India, especially concerning the nature of its mode of
production in agriculture.
 Relevance to Contemporary India:
 The debate on contemporary Indian agriculture reflects the need for
historical grounding.
 Absence of historical mooring leads to interpretations lacking adequate
historical context, indicating a necessity to trace India's historical
evolution for a more robust understanding.

The text underscores the criticality of identifying and understanding the dominant
mode of production in societies, linking it not only to historical interpretation but
also to political and economic implications in shaping future trajectories.

5-

 Questioning Alternative Modes Beyond Marx:

 The text delves into the necessity of identifying alternative modes of
production besides those proposed by Marx to encompass the
structural characteristics of pre-colonial non-European societies.
 Contest between Feudalism and Asiatic Mode:
 Feudalism and the Asiatic mode have been disputed as inadequate for
understanding non-European societies.
 Contributors mostly dismiss the Asiatic mode, some labeling it as
theoretically incoherent or empirically inaccurate, yet it remains present
in contemporary Marxist discourse.
 Uncharted Territory Beyond Feudalism and Asiatic Mode:
 When both feudalism and the Asiatic mode are rejected for non-
European societies, the discussion leads to uncharted territories.
 Some contributors offer glimpses into this unknown area. Habib
tentatively suggests a 'medieval Indian system,' while Wickham
proposes a 'tributary mode of production,' reminiscent of the Asiatic
mode in a modified form.
 Insufficiency of Current Classifications:
 Existing attempts to classify modes of production beyond feudalism
and the Asiatic mode remain limited or hesitant.
 Habib's proposition seems more descriptive, lacking in capturing the
dynamic of the entire epoch. Wickham's tributary mode is criticized for
resembling the Asiatic mode in diluted form.
 Awaiting a Comprehensive Approach:
  While some contributors challenge existing categorizations, none
successfully venture beyond them.
 The text highlights the analytical obligation to rigorously define
alternative modes of production for those rejecting feudalism and the
Asiatic mode in non-European societies.
 Rodinson's Proposed Solution:
 Rodinson rejects Marx's views on medieval Islam and proposes an
"infinite variety" of modes of production, terming them 'pre-capitalist
systems of exploitation,' a proposition seen as insufficient for rigorous
analysis.
 The Need for Rigor in Classifying Modes of Production:
 The concept of an 'infinite variety' of modes of production is
considered casual and contradictory to Marx's approach, which aimed
to identify epochal modes of production with theoretical coherence
and analytical depth.
 Analytical Obligation for Comprehensive Understanding:
 The rejection of existing modes of production in non-European
societies demands a rigorous and coherent formulation of alternative
modes, considering their essential 'laws of motion.'
 Final Contention:
 The text emphasizes the daunting task and the analytical obligation
incumbent upon those disputing feudalism or the Asiatic mode in
understanding non-European societies.