Also known as L. Madjar, it comes from the discussion of "Asian mode of production" by PNG student Wang from the perspective of China.
Hu, Wang Ganchang criticized the particularity of "Asian mode of production" represented by Mazayar.
Hu Wei and Wu Qingyou translated Du Blovsky's article The Essence of Asian Mode of Production, Feudalism, Serfdom and Commercial Capitalism as a preface, which was published in the seventh and eighth issues of the second volume of Reading magazine under the name of "Asian Mode of Production and Authoritarianism". He believes that "the most valuable part of Du's book can be said to be part of his criticism of Asian special methodology." He also said: "Translating Du Fu's books can be said to prevent and overcome the distortion of Marxism." Influenced by Dubolovsky, he denied the particularity of Asian mode of production, thinking that it was only the unity of small farmers, family industries and rural communes, that is, the combination of absolutism and the remnants of pre-capitalism. Plekhanov's revision fell into the trap of historical geography, while Madzar's affirmation of Platts' revision was meaningless.
Lixi Wang's criticism of Madzar is contradictory and absurd. Mazar-e-Yar not only saw the Asian form of China society spread all over the country, but also said that China's usury capital destroyed the Asian mode of production before the imperialist invasion. Lixi Wang said Mazar-e-Yar "blocked his spear with a shield". Madzar-Ye not only thinks that public ownership of land is the basis of Asian mode of production, but also thinks that commercial capital and usury capital decompose the eastern society and its foundation. Lixi Wang pointed out that China's commercial capital and usury capital had been very prosperous at the end of the Zhou Dynasty. According to Ma, the eastern society did not exist for two or three thousand years, and Ma "blocked his spear with another shield". Moreover, Madzar -e-Ar regards the water conservancy system as a feature of the Asian mode of production. In fact, there is no difference between Asia and Europe in water conservancy, and Marx did not regard it as a special foundation of a society. Therefore, Mazar-e-Ar's point of view is not ridiculous. On the contrary, Lixi Wang inherited Dubrovsky's view in The Essence of Production Mode, Feudal System, Serfdom and Commercial Capitalism in Asia, and thought that water conservancy and land public ownership were only two forms of superstructure, and could not be the exclusive products of Asian society [14].
Wang Ganchang thinks that the limitation of Mazar -e-Ar is that he only studied the rural economy in China. With the method of geographical conditional determinism, we only see the backwardness of China and the inseparability of historical stages; In terms of materials, it is limited to feudal society. Therefore, Marx "put the center of history and society beside him, and put the things beside him at the center of history and society." So I had to see the loess layer and water conservancy, and the whole land was supported by the history of China. " [2]
(Source: "Social History Debate" spreads historical materialism)