中国“理论东方学”与“亚细亚生产方式”七十年定位定性之争

On Seventy-year Argument of the Nature and Position of Chinese “Theoretical Orientalism” and “Asian Mode of Production”

对于“亚细亚生产方式”及“东方社会”不同于西欧社会的性质与特点,马克思、恩格斯有着明确的界定与清晰的表述,但是由于受到苏联理论思潮的影响,1920—1980年间关于“亚细亚生产方式”的讨论,未能从东方学的学科学术层面上理解马克思的相关论述,把“亚细亚生产方式”作为人类社会共同发展进程中的一个环节或阶段,使用社会发展五阶段论中的“原始社会”“奴隶社会”或“封建社会”,来对“亚细亚生产方式”加以定位与定性,争论它究竟属于其中的哪种社会阶段,从根本上取消了“亚细亚的”概念的独立性和有效性,否定了由“亚细亚生产方式”所决定的“东方社会”的独特存在,此种情况进入1990年代后才开始改变。现在有必要从中国的“东方学”史特别是“理论东方学”的角度,对这段论争史加以回顾、评述与总结。

Marx and Engels have expounded the nature and characteristics of the“Asian mode of production”and“Oriental society”compared to those of Western Europe.Nevertheless,due to the former Soviet Union’s theoretical trends,discussions of“Asian mode of production”from 1920 to 1980 failed to integrate Marx's relevant expositions with academic perspective of Orientalism.These discussions take the“Asian mode of production”as a phase or stage in the process of common development of human society,using“primitive society”,“slave society”or“feudal society”in the five-stage theory of social development,so as to define the“Asian mode of production”in such a frame.They abolish the independence and validity of the concept of“Asian mode of production”and deny the unique existence of“Oriental society”determined by“Asian mode of production”.These discussions hadn’t been changed until the 1990s.Hence,it is necessary to review,comment on and sum up the debates from the perspective of the development of“Orientalism”in China,especially from the perspective of“Theoretical Orientalism”..