ABSTRACT
There is a great deal of literature about Marx's approach to Oriental societies. Indeed, his arguments were realized in the framework of historical phases of transition to socialism. From the 1980s on, the debates on Marx's theory of Oriental societies and the AMP arguments have gradually been extinguished. In the work they wrote together, Barry Hindess and Paul Q. Hirst, who enter the discussion from a similar perspective as Turner, deal with Marx's AMP analysis from the view of economics and conceptualizing modes of production. Jean Chesnaux, who wrote about AMP in a special issue of the journal La Pensee with Godelier and Ferenc Tokei in 1964, brought forward an idea that was in opposition to the entire argument, that the Western type was accidental/causal, while the Asiatic type was universal. With his examination of Oriental societies, Marx presents a contrasting model to modern society, thus trying to ensure methodological unity for his own theoretical model.
