Marxist Ontology
In Marxist ontology, Oriental despotism is the quality of the large cities of the Middle East and Asia, which would not have been truly independent, mainly due to their geographical location.
The premise, according to Marx, is that there existed some forms of state, which were ruled by tribute-collecting despots based on the system of production-property relations, described as "Asiatic mode of production." Oriental despotism is, thus, the political superstructure that was developed in succession. It was explained to have prevented states from progressing, or, as Marx said, "Asia fell asleep in history." Dynasties might have changed, but overall the structure of the state remained the same - until an outside force (i.e. Western powers) artificially enforces "progressive" reforms.
Within such socio-economic formations, the most obvious of which being the agrarian-based empires of Ancient Egypt and China, an absolute ruler farmed out the right to collect tribute from peasant villagers to a hierarchy of provincial petty officials, who also had responsibility for organizing the construction and maintenance of extensive irrigation works, upon which agricultural production was dependent. Extorting tribute from village communities became the universal mode of enrichment by the ruling class of military-priestly nobles. The divine kings also wasted resources on useless monument-building.
Read more about this topic: Oriental Despotism
Famous quotes containing the word marxist:
“Why juggle with the term “bourgeois” in regard to Flaubert? You know quite well that in Flaubert’s sense it was not a class category. In other words, Flaubert in the eyes of Marx was a bourgeois in the Marxist sense, while Marx in Flaubert’s eyes was a bourgeois in a Flaubertian sense.”
—Vladimir Nabokov (1899–1977)