Combined and Uneven Development of Capitalism - 2
most advanced capitalist countries" (Waters 1970,
p.203). Developments in Russia appeared to refute
the Marxian idea that revolution would first
break out in the most advanced rather than the
most backward capitalist countries. While Luxemburg
intuited the solution to this anomaly, it
was Trotsky who, as early as 1906 in Results and
Prospects ([1906], 1969), developed his theories
of the combined and uneven development of
capitalism and of permanent revolution to explain
and anticipate the October Revolution and its
aftermath. The prophetic power of Results and
Prospects is supported by the fact that Trotsky's
celebrated History of the Russian Revolution
written in 1930 (1977) was based on the same
theory.
Orthodox Marxism, represented in Russia by
the towering figure of Plekhanov, argued that
Russia had to undergo a bourgeois revolution
before it could advance to socialism. It was
therefore at a loss to exploit the growing militancy
and radicalism of the working class. By contrast,
Trotsky argued that the only class that could
carry out a bourgeois revolution in Russia was
the working class, and by virtue of that fact the
bourgeois revolution had to proceed unintermptedly
to a socialist revolutionwhich could only be
successful if it also triggered a revolution in the
West. This was Trotsky's theory of permanent
revolution.
But why was the working class the only possible
agent of a bourgeois revolution? Capitalism
in Russia developed very late under the sponsorship
of the state and of foreign (particularly
French) investment. Being weak and dependent,
the Russian bourgeoisie was continually plundered
by a Czarist regime that was threatened
militarily by states built on much more advanced
(capitalist) economic foundations. At the same
time that absolutism stifled the growth of the
forces of production, the establishment of the
most (technically) advanced capitalism in the
major Russian cities created a new and militant
working class. The majority of Russian workers
had been recently uprooted from their land. It did
not embrace the conservative traditions of
Western proletariats which had evolved with
capitalism. So, when brought together in huge
factories the Russian working class displayed all
the features of a revolutionary class.
The novelty of Trotsky's theory of combined
and uneven development lay in its treatment of
the international character of capitalist development
and its political implications. According to
Trotsky, capitalism did not develop unilinearly
in parallel fashion within each country as Marx
had assumed, but rather jumped from one country
to another. Uneven development led to the
combination of the most advanced and the most
backward forms of production, creating in countries
of the "second rank" a weak bourgeoisie
and an explosive working class. While the peasantry
was crucial in destabilizing absolutism, it
could not lead a revolution. That role would have
to be adopted by the working class, which would
not be able to stop at the overthrow of absolutism.
Precisely because it was a working class
and its interests were therefore at odds with capitalism,
it would have to move forward to socialism.
By spreading back from East to West the
revolution would be permanent in the international
arena after it had been made permanent
within Russia.
most advanced capitalist countries" (Waters 1970,
p.203). Developments in Russia appeared to refute
the Marxian idea that revolution would first
break out in the most advanced rather than the
most backward capitalist countries. While Luxemburg
intuited the solution to this anomaly, it
was Trotsky who, as early as 1906 in Results and
Prospects ([1906], 1969), developed his theories
of the combined and uneven development of
capitalism and of permanent revolution to explain
and anticipate the October Revolution and its
aftermath. The prophetic power of Results and
Prospects is supported by the fact that Trotsky's
celebrated History of the Russian Revolution
written in 1930 (1977) was based on the same
theory.
Orthodox Marxism, represented in Russia by
the towering figure of Plekhanov, argued that
Russia had to undergo a bourgeois revolution
before it could advance to socialism. It was
therefore at a loss to exploit the growing militancy
and radicalism of the working class. By contrast,
Trotsky argued that the only class that could
carry out a bourgeois revolution in Russia was
the working class, and by virtue of that fact the
bourgeois revolution had to proceed unintermptedly
to a socialist revolutionwhich could only be
successful if it also triggered a revolution in the
West. This was Trotsky's theory of permanent
revolution.
But why was the working class the only possible
agent of a bourgeois revolution? Capitalism
in Russia developed very late under the sponsorship
of the state and of foreign (particularly
French) investment. Being weak and dependent,
the Russian bourgeoisie was continually plundered
by a Czarist regime that was threatened
militarily by states built on much more advanced
(capitalist) economic foundations. At the same
time that absolutism stifled the growth of the
forces of production, the establishment of the
most (technically) advanced capitalism in the
major Russian cities created a new and militant
working class. The majority of Russian workers
had been recently uprooted from their land. It did
not embrace the conservative traditions of
Western proletariats which had evolved with
capitalism. So, when brought together in huge
factories the Russian working class displayed all
the features of a revolutionary class.
The novelty of Trotsky's theory of combined
and uneven development lay in its treatment of
the international character of capitalist development
and its political implications. According to
Trotsky, capitalism did not develop unilinearly
in parallel fashion within each country as Marx
had assumed, but rather jumped from one country
to another. Uneven development led to the
combination of the most advanced and the most
backward forms of production, creating in countries
of the "second rank" a weak bourgeoisie
and an explosive working class. While the peasantry
was crucial in destabilizing absolutism, it
could not lead a revolution. That role would have
to be adopted by the working class, which would
not be able to stop at the overthrow of absolutism.
Precisely because it was a working class
and its interests were therefore at odds with capitalism,
it would have to move forward to socialism.
By spreading back from East to West the
revolution would be permanent in the international
arena after it had been made permanent
within Russia.
No comments:
Post a Comment