1983
DOI: 10.2307/2054618
|View full text |Cite
|
Sign up to set email alerts
|

Marxism in Thai Historical Studies

Abstract: Analyses of Thai political economy since World War II have sought to define the stages of Thai social evolution from earliest times to the present and to determine whether or not the Bowring Treaty of 1855 and the 1932 coup mark changes in the social formation and/or the mode of production. Over the past decade, as a consequence of political change in the mid-1970s, a new generation of historians has rejuvenated Marxist methodology, using it to pry the chronicles and archives away from royalist and nationalist… Show more

Help me understand this report

Search citation statements

Order By: Relevance

Paper Sections

Select...
1
1
1
1

Citation Types

0
6
0

Year Published

1993
1993
2020
2020

Publication Types

Select...
9
1

Relationship

0
10

Authors

Journals

citations
Cited by 32 publications
(6 citation statements)
references
References 11 publications
0
6
0
Order By: Relevance
“…He does his best to assess the extent of coercion and violence in the treatment of slaves, and he gives the reader his judgement on whether or not a distinctive socio-economic class of slaves existed in Thai society. He pays his respect to the British Marxist historian, Perry Anderson, and he is familiar with Jit Poumisak, one of the two most astute Marxist historians of Thailand, who wrote 'The Real Face of Thai Feudalism Today' (Reynolds & Hong 1983). At the time Turton was writing, Marxist vocabulary and frameworks of analysis were second nature to many academic authors, similar to the way the vocabulary and frameworks of analysis of Michel Foucault have inflected academic discourse today.…”
Section: Turton's 'Thai Institutions Of Slavery'mentioning
confidence: 99%
“…He does his best to assess the extent of coercion and violence in the treatment of slaves, and he gives the reader his judgement on whether or not a distinctive socio-economic class of slaves existed in Thai society. He pays his respect to the British Marxist historian, Perry Anderson, and he is familiar with Jit Poumisak, one of the two most astute Marxist historians of Thailand, who wrote 'The Real Face of Thai Feudalism Today' (Reynolds & Hong 1983). At the time Turton was writing, Marxist vocabulary and frameworks of analysis were second nature to many academic authors, similar to the way the vocabulary and frameworks of analysis of Michel Foucault have inflected academic discourse today.…”
Section: Turton's 'Thai Institutions Of Slavery'mentioning
confidence: 99%
“…Indeed, it often seems that the value of Thai culture, itself, is being held up to scrutiny and evaluated in comparison to western traditions. And if one goes a step further and considers the radical newspapers which have circulated among Thai students overseasindividuals who should in the future form an important sector of the Thai elitethen it seems that the consensual nature of official Thai culture is in some danger (see Anderson 1978, Reynolds and Hong 1983, Turton 1984.…”
Section: ('Khun Khid Waa Khon MI Amnaad Pen Khon Mi 'Bun' Maj')mentioning
confidence: 99%
“…13. Thai Marxist interpretations have further emphasised the serfdom of the phrai class by such dynastic elites in the form of a feudal sakdina aristocracy with an Asiatic mode of production which prevented an indigenous capitalist middle-class emerging as a source of the Siamese nation-state, see Srisuwan (1950), Phumisak (1957), Samudavanija (1976), Nartsupha et al (1981), Praparpun (1976), Sakkriangkrai (1980); for an overview, see Reynolds and Hong (1983); Winichakul 1995).…”
Section: Notesmentioning
confidence: 99%