摘要
shows that the main purpose of Professor Wittfogel’s book is to confuse the proletarian dictatorship advocated by contemporary Marxist-Leninists with the 'Oriental despotism' which actually existed in societies that historically had the Asiatic mode of production. This essay criticizes Wittfogel on three major questions: 1) the distortion of Marx’s theory of the 'Asiatic mode of production' into his own theory of 'hydraulic society'; 2) the distortion of historical materialism and simultaneously the historical development of various countries, even to the point of creating 'hydraulic society' in societies where there were no 'hydraulics'; and 3) the transformation of the Marxist-Leninist 'dictatorship of the proletariat,' that is to say socialist democracy, into the restoration of historical 'Oriental despotism,' as well as the prettification of the bourgeois dictatorships in Europe and America today into genuinely 'democratic' and 'free' societies.
shows that the main purpose of Professor Wittfogel’s book is to confuse the proletarian dictatorship advocated by contemporary Marxist-Leninists with the "Oriental despotism" which actually existed in societies that historically had the Asiatic mode of production. This essay criticizes Wittfogel on three major questions: 1) the distortion of Marx’s theory of the "Asiatic mode of production" into his own theory of "hydraulic society"; 2) the distortion of historical materialism and simultaneously the historical development of various countries, even to the point of creating "hydraulic society" in societies where there were no "hydraulics"; and 3) the transformation of the Marxist-Leninist "dictatorship of the proletariat," that is to say socialist democracy, into the restoration of historical "Oriental despotism," as well as the prettification of the bourgeois dictatorships in Europe and America today into genuinely "democratic" and "free" societies.
