• W. Peter Archibald


There are many ways to evaluate a theory. One can look for ambiguous or incomplete explanations, and those which are inconsistent or contradictory, and/or one can examine underlying assumptions and specific explanations and predictions and try to establish whether or not they are supported by evidence oneself and others can “see”, or, perhaps, at least agree seems to be “there”. I have already attempted to do the former while presenting Marx’s various theories of human nature. Here we take up the latter.


Human Nature Material Production Asian Society Classical Antiquity Communal Ownership 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.


Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.


  1. 2.
    For Marx’s versions of the AMP which stress the centrality of irrigation, see particularly “The British in India” New York Daily Tribune, June 25th, 1853, pp. 83–9Google Scholar
  2. 1.
    in Shlomo Avineri (ed.), Karl Marx on Colonialism and Modernization (Garden City, N.Y.: Doubleday, 1968) pp. 85–6.Google Scholar
  3. 1.
    Here see Robert McC. Adams’ The Evolution of Urban Society: Early Mesopotamia and Prehispanic Mexico (Chicago: Aldine/Atherton, 1966) p. 21.Google Scholar
  4. 3.
    For these various criticisms of Marx’s AMP, see Daniel Thorner, “Marx on India and the Asiatic mode of production” (Contributions to Indian Sociology, vol. 9 (December 1966), pp. 33–66);Google Scholar
  5. 1.
    S. Naqvi, “Marx on pre-British Indian society and economy” (Indian Economic and Social History Review, vol. 9 (March 1972) pp. 380–412);CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 1.
    Perry Anderson, Lineages of the Absolutist State (London: New Left Books (Verso), 1979);Google Scholar
  7. 1.
    Bryan Turner, Marx and the End of Orientalism (London: Allen and Unwin, 1978);Google Scholar
  8. 1.
    and Kate Currie, “The Asiatic mode of production: Problems of conceptualizing state and economy” (Dialectical Anthropology, vol. 8 (April 1984), pp. 251–68).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 1.
    For some primary research indicating local, private initiative for irrigation, see Robert McC. Adams’ Land Behind Baghdad (Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1965)Google Scholar
  10. 1.
    and Nirmal Sengupta’s “The indigenous irrigation organization in South Bihar” (Indian Economic and Social History Review, vol. 17 (April–June 1980), pp. 157–89);CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 1.
    for the presence of multiple modes of production in ancient Asian societies, see M. Rostovtzeff’s The Social and Economic History of the Hellenistic World (Oxford: Clarendon, 1967. vol. 1)Google Scholar
  12. 1.
    and Kwangchih Chang’s The Archaeology of Ancient China (New Haven: Yale University Press, 1974).Google Scholar
  13. 5.
    V. Gordon Childe, What Happened in History (Harmondsworth: Penguin, 1982) pp. 100–10, 135–7, 169–70;Google Scholar
  14. 1.
    Social Evolution (New York: Meridian, 1963) pp. 140–5, 160); Adams, 1966, op. cit., pp. 45, 63–76, 90–4.Google Scholar
  15. 7.
    D. D. Kosambi, Ancient India (New York: Pantheon, 1965) pp. 50–1;Google Scholar
  16. 1.
    Lawrence Krader (The Asiatic Mode of Production (Assen: Van Gorcum, 1972) p. 172 claims that Marx himself was ambivalent on the whole question of interference.Google Scholar
  17. 9.
    Moses Finley, Early Greece (New York: Norton, 1970) pp. 38–43, 54–6;Google Scholar
  18. 1.
    Economy and Society in Ancient Greece (Harmondsworth: Penguin, 1983) p. 211.Google Scholar
  19. 10.
    E. A. Thompson, The Early Germans (Oxford: Clarendon, 1965) pp. 60–3, 71–2, 92.Google Scholar
  20. 12.
    For example, see Eleanor Leacock and Richard Lee (eds), Politics and History in Band Societies (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1982), pp. 8–9, 85–108, 466, and 475–6 versus pp. 180, 191.Google Scholar
  21. 13.
    See especially Orlando Patterson, “Slavery”, Annual Review of Sociology, vol. 3, 1977, pp. 407–49;CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. 1.
    Slavery and Social Death: A comparative study (Cambridge: Harvard University Press, 1982).Google Scholar
  23. 14.
    Marc Bloch, French Rural Society (Berkeley: U. of California Press, 1966) pp. 66–7, 90;Google Scholar
  24. 1.
    Feudal Society (Chicago: U. of Chicago Press, 1961) pp. 176–80.Google Scholar
  25. 17.
    Rostovtzeff, op. cit. Jeannine Auboyer, Daily Life in Ancient India (London: Weidenfeld and Nicolson, 1965) pp. 102–6.Google Scholar
  26. 1.
    George Unwin, The Gilds and Companies of London (London: Cass, 1963).Google Scholar
  27. 1.
    Anthony Black, Guilds and Civil Society in European Political Thought from the Twelfth Century to the Present (London: Methuen, 1984) pp. 3–7.Google Scholar
  28. 18.
    Henri Pirenne, Early Democracies in the Low Countries (New York; Harper and Row, 1963) pp. 128–9;Google Scholar
  29. 1.
    Economic and Social History of Medieval Europe (London: Routledge and Kegan Paul, 1936) pp. 184–5, 200–4.Google Scholar
  30. 1.
    George Unwin, Industrial Organization in the Sixteenth and Seventeenth Centuries (London: Cass, 1957) pp. 15–19.Google Scholar
  31. 20.
    Paul Mantoux, The Industrial Revolution in the Eighteenth Century (New York: Harper and Row, 1961) pp. 89–90, 250, 365–7, 476.Google Scholar
  32. 1.
    Maurice Dobb, Studies in the Development of Capitalism (New York: International Publishers, 1963) pp. 143–4.Google Scholar
  33. 1.
    Fernand Braudel, The Wheels of Commerce, vol. 2 of Civilization and Capitalism, 15th–18th Century (New York: Harper and Row, 1982) pp. 298–303, 372–3, 404.Google Scholar
  34. 1.
    Raphael Samuel, “Workshop of the world: steam power and hand technology in mid-Victorian England”, History Workshop Journal, vol. 3 (Spring 1977), pp. 6–72.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. 21.
    Harold Perkin, The Origins of Modern English Society, 1780–1980 (London: Routledge and Kegan Paul, 1969) p. 179.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. 1.
    William H. Sewell, Work and Revolution in France (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1980) pp. 143, 266.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. 23.
    The classic statement on these changes by Marxists is Paul Baran and Paul Sweezy’s Monopoly Capitalism (New York: Monthly Review Press, 1968).Google Scholar
  38. 24.
    For the former characterization, see Alain Touraine’s The Post-Industrial Society (New York: Random House, 1971)Google Scholar
  39. 1.
    and Daniel Bell’s The Coming of Post-Industrial Society (New York: Basic Books, 1973);Google Scholar
  40. 1.
    for the latter, Robert Laxer (ed.), [Canada] Ltd (Toronto: McClelland and Stewart, 1973)Google Scholar
  41. 1.
    and Barry Bluestone and Bennett Harrison, The Deindustrialization of America (New York: Basic Books, 1982).Google Scholar
  42. 25.
    Laura C. Johnson, The Seam Allowance: Industrial home sewing in Canada (Toronto: Women’s Press, 1982).Google Scholar
  43. 1.
    Heather Menzies, Women and the Chip (Montreal: Institute for Research on Public Policy, 1984).Google Scholar
  44. 26.
    Hillel Ticktin, “Socialism, the market and the state”, Critique, vol. 3 (Autumn 1974), pp. 65–72.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  45. 27.
    E.g., Michael Burawoy, The Politics of Production (London: New Left Books (Verso), 1985).Google Scholar
  46. 31.
    Here, see especially Lawrence Krader (ed.), The Ethnographical Notebooks of Karl Marx (Assen: Van Gorcum, 1972).Google Scholar
  47. 32.
    Some of the better-known critiques of Marx’s “productivism” are Jurgen Habermas’s Knowledge and Human Interests (Boston: Beacon, 1971. Chapters 2 and 3),Google Scholar
  48. 1.
    Jean Baudrillard’s The Mirror of Production (St. Louis: Telos Press, 1975),Google Scholar
  49. 1.
    and Marshall Sahlins’ Culture and Practical Reason (Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1979).Google Scholar
  50. 33.
    See the excellent review in Allison M. Jaggar’s Feminist Politics and Human Nature (Sussex/Totowa, N.J.: Harvester/Rowan and Allanheid, 1983).Google Scholar
  51. 39.
    For the latter, see David Vincent’s Bread, Knowledge and Freedom (London: Methuen, 1981).Google Scholar

Copyright information

© W. Peter Archibald 1989

Authors and Affiliations

  • W. Peter Archibald
    • 1
  1. 1.McMaster UniversityHamiltonCanada

Personalised recommendations