Uneven and Combined Development and the Role of American Imperialism

Add a subpage to this text

Read the help page for usage.

 

Minutes of a Discussion

Comrade Trotsky: I find this material excellent. It contains certain formulations which are not entirely clear to me or which appear to me not to be entirely exact. But they are of little consequence. In connection with the main thoughts presented I want only to touch upon the following questions:

The document is built upon the law of uneven development. This unevenness during certain periods offered advantages to the United States; but it has now commenced to become unfavorable for the U. S.

I believe it will be to our interest to define this law a little, especially because the Stalinists have treated it scandalously and still do so today. As a law it is rather vague; it is more of a historical reality. It represents the idea that not all countries simultaneously pass through the same development but that they pass through this development in different forms and tempo, etc. The law can have a thousand different interpretations.

One of the most important interpretations which leads to misunderstandings is the following: up until the imperialist epoch England had hegemony. (Stalin says that the law did not exist then and that Marx and Engels did not know it!) During this epoch the unevenness was much greater than today; we need only remember the contrast England — India of that time. The differences were then ten times as great as today. The development of India was an entirely different one from England, America, etc. But through uneven and different forms of development the capitalist world has become more uniform.

We do not need to deny the existence of the law but we must explain it. In one case I have attempted to do so by the formula of "combined development." Uneven development consists in the main in the fact that the different countries pass through different epochs. Advanced and backward countries — that is the most elementary expression of the law. Evolution, however, has also shown that the backward countries supplement their backwardness with the latest advances. From this emerges the combined development which I have proved for Russia as an example in the History.

In America we have another kind of combined development. We have the most advanced industrial development together with the most backward — for all classes — ideology.

The internal colonization, which is not developed in the draft material, was the basis on which the retarded consciousness of the workers existed. When we develop our theses attentively we will proceed from the law of uneven development and also arrive at the law of combined development.

It seems to me that the agrarian question does not come fully to its right in this draft, particularly in its connection with the aims and methods of American imperialism. Let us suppose that there will not be a revolution in Europe, that is, that the Social Democracy with the aid of the Stalinists so demoralizes the proletariat that fascism becomes the ruling power. It is not written anywhere that Europe must develop further forward; it can also decay. We believe that the possibilities for revolution are great. Taken abstractly, Hitler of course will not overcome the crisis. Nevertheless the decay can last for decades.

The United States displaces Europe on the world market, it becomes dominant in China and in India: as a historical perspective, as a variant, and especially as a theoretical analysis, this can be accepted just as well as other variants. China and India still offer great exploitation and expansion possibilities and represent almost half of humanity. But what will happen when capital commences its work there? These countries immediately become exporters of agricultural products. They will completely displace the American farmer. When American capital develops China and India economically, it simultaneously condemns the American farmer to death. It will produce a revolution in the agricultural world market. The cheapening of raw materials and foodstuffs will immediately increase — thanks to the great labor power within the Asiatic continent which can remain satisfied on a much lower standard of living.

England sacrificed her farmers in the interest of her capitalist development. Why should not America do the same? It cannot afford to do that. We have the example of Germany: agriculture is the barrier to finance capital. If the German bourgeoisie had left the doors wide open for the agricultural products of the world market, it would have very much increased the competitive ability of German industry and offered German capitalism immeasurable possibilities for profits. But the social balance in the country could not have been maintained. Hence the German capitalists need the farmers, not because of their products, but because of their rural idiocy.

That is also the case in America. When the revolution begins, American capitalism will be compelled to hang on to maintaining the farmers. But in order to broaden and deepen its development America will have to sacrifice its farmers. That is the great contradiction.

Must America pass through an epoch of social reformism? This question is touched on in the draft and answered in the sense that it cannot yet be definitely decided but that it to a large extent depends upon the Communist Party. By and large that is correct, but not sufficient. Here we come once more to the laws of uneven and combined development. In Russia the fact that the proletariat had not yet gone through the democratic school which could finally lead to the seizure of power was advanced in rebuttal to the permanent revolution and the proletarian seizure of power. But the Russian proletariat passed through the democratic period in the course of eight months; if we count from the time of the Duma, in a period of eleven to twelve years. In England it is centuries and in America also the dirty mess lasts quite long. The unevenness expresses itself also in the fact that different stages are not just jumped over but are experienced in very rapid tempo, as the democratic stage in Russia.

We can assume that when fascism in Italy expires, the first wave to follow will be a democratic one. But that condition could only last months; it will not remain for years.

Since the American proletariat as a proletariat has not made any great democratic struggles, since it has not gained or fought for social legislation, and as it remains under growing economic and political pressure, it is to be assumed that the democratic phase of the struggle will require a certain period of time. But it will not be as it was in Europe, an epoch of decades; rather, perhaps, a period only of years or, by feverish developments, of months. The question of tempo must be clarified, and we must also admit that the democratic stage is not inevitable. We cannot predict whether the new working-class stage will begin next year, within three years, five years, or perhaps not until after ten years. But we can say with certainty that the moment the American proletariat constitutes itself as an independent party, even if at first under a democratic-reformist banner, it will pass quite rapidly through this stage.

About the Communist Party: one can assert that the contradiction between the technical-economic base and the political superstructure finds its expression in the fact that we have in this country the smallest, the most foolish, and the most backward Communist Party. That is the crowning height of this contradiction. And while capitalism in America united all the advantages of world capitalism up until the very recent period, the Socialist Party has united within itself all the negative sides of reformism without having any of its advantages. (They are scoundrels without a mass base.) The American Communist Party has taken over the worst traits of Stalinism. That means that the Communist Party belongs more to the past than to the future and that the Left Opposition steps on the scene as the herald of the future. It is not precluded that the Left Opposition in America will be the first to be compelled to assume the function of the second party. We do not need to proclaim that today positively, but as a perspective we must take it into consideration.

Comrade Swabeck: The criticism will help us very much. It is not our opinion that a possibility will exist for a special development of reformism and particularly not in view of the tempo of present general developments. The perspective of European decay appears to me rather improbable, especially when we take into account that the revolution will develop in America and have its effect upon Europe simultaneously.

Comrade Otto: In Germany we have discussed this question several times in connection with the formula: advance to socialism or degenerate into barbarism. This question is still being discussed with great interest.

Comrade Trotsky: It is a question of whether we pose this perspective for centuries or for decades. If for centuries, it passes beyond historical comprehension. But if posed for decades, arguments can be found — if we assume that capitalism remains; if we further assume that fascism becomes victorious, the working class is beheaded, is demoralized, and its vanguard bleeds to death in some unsuccessful putsches; the Soviet Union falls because of economic contradictions, the crimes of the bureaucracy, and the moral effect of the victory of the German counterrevolution. We can hardly grasp what impression the breakdown of the Soviet Union would have on the proletariat. It would become frightfully demoralized. Disillusionment would possess the working class for whole generations. Anarchist putsches and terrorist acts would flare up, but the planned, organized struggles of the working class would be suppressed and disappear for decades. Large sections would famish and perish, the standard of living would be brought down to a frightfully low level. It is a decaying capitalism. We do not know how far the process can go. In this decaying capitalism there will be found forms of advancing capitalism, but reappearing in crippled fashion. The farmers become half-barbaric and masses of the unemployed are thrown on the land as agricultural laborers. However, production as a whole continues on a capitalist basis; enlarged reproduction remains, only the coefficients will not be 2, 3, or 4, but merely 1/2, 3/4, etc. In other words, negative enlarged reproduction, that is, diminished reproduction on a capitalist basis. Capitalism can return to a precapitalist basis. How long a time that would require one can, of course, not say. When Europe is thrown backward to become the continent of decay, that would naturally not mean the impossibility of socialism in America. A socialist victory in America would again have a returning effect on Europe. Combined development would, so to speak, begin a new historical chapter.

Look at Germany. In 1923 the possibility for a seizure of power existed. Since the October defeat ten years have passed by; the capitalist system experiences a terrific crisis, unemployment, agrarianization of the proletariat, pauperization of the farmers. And at the end of these ten years stands the emergence of the fascist power. This is how, so to speak, the rebound of an aborted revolutionary development appears.

Later additional remarks: The growing contradictions and difficulties of American imperialism within the world arena will not tend to weaken its power, its domination, and its economic weight as against the other rival powers. On the contrary. As in the period of growing capitalism the other nations were in a large measure dependent upon England, more so in the stage of decay will the other powers be dependent upon America.