本文对学术界关于马克思在《资本主义生产以前的各种形式》这部手稿中论述的亚细亚的、古代的、日耳曼的三种所有制有本质差别的观点提出质疑。并认为：一、三种所有制虽然形式不同，但本质相同，都是与原始公社所有制有密切关系的残余形式；二、三种所有制既不是奴隶制，也不是农奴制，但在奴隶社会和封建社会中，三种所有制与奴隶制和农奴制同时并存着；三、原始社会的残余有惊人的坚韧性和耐久性，亚细亚的所有制中无奴隶制和农奴制，也无专制政府和以专制君主为代表的国有制，但亚细亚生产方式或东方社会中有专制政府及其国有制，同时也有亚细亚的所有制，因此，亚细亚所有制不等于亚细亚生产方式。 This article challenges academics about the fundamental difference between the three kinds of ownership of Asia, the ancient and the Germanic, as discussed in the manuscript by Marx in The Various Forms of Capitalist Production. And holds that although the first and third ownership systems are of the same form and different in nature, they are all residual forms that are closely related to the ownership of the original commune. The second and third ownership systems are neither slavery nor serfdom, but in slave society and feudalism In society, the three kinds of ownership co-existed with slavery and serfdom. Third, the remnants of the primitive society were astoundingly tenacious and durable. There were no slavery and serfdom in the ownership of Asia. There was also no autocratic government and a monarchy As the representative of the state-owned system, but Asian mode of production or the Eastern society has an autocratic government and state ownership, but also Asian ownership, therefore, Asian ownership does not mean Asian mode of production.