“亚细亚所有制”不等于“亚细亚生产方式”

The Asiatic Ownerships Does Not Equals to the Asiatic Mode of Production

在马克思笔下,亚细亚所有制是原始公社所有制的残余形式,是古代的、日耳曼的所有制的原型,具有普遍意义。亚细亚的、古代的、日耳曼的这三种所有制在形式上不同,但本质上相同。亚细亚的、古代的、日耳曼的这三种所有制与奴隶制和农奴制有本质差别。亚细亚的、古代的、日耳曼的这三种所有制不等于亚细亚的、古代的、封建的生产方式。同时,亚细亚所有制没有被奴隶制和农奴制败坏,且长期存在,直到19世纪,这与古代的、日耳曼的所有制被奴隶制和农奴制很快败坏的那种社会形态有明显差别。因此,古代东方社会与古代西方社会在马克思笔下明显不同。

According to Karl Marx,the Asiatic ownership which is universal,is the remain of primitive communal ownership as well as the antitype of ancient and Germanic ownerships.The Asiatic,ancient and Germanic ownerships are characteristically different,but essentially the same,and the they differ from that of slavery and serfdom.The ownerships of Asia,ancient and German do not mean the same as the mode of production of them.Meanwhile the Asiatic mode of production has not been ended by the slavery and serfdom,but survives long till the 19th century A.D.which makes a distinct compare with the ancient and Germanic mode,which were destroyed by the slavery and serfdom very soon.There is a significant different between Marx＇s societies of Orient and West.