Pat Bond posted:
>Political Implications.
> Ultimately, it is less the definitional roots of the
>concept, and more its political implications and
>contemporary intellectual applications, for which uneven
>development is known. Leon Trotsky's theory of combined and
>uneven development -- established in his book Results and
>Prospects (1905) -- served as an analytical foundation for
>"permanent revolution". Given the backward state of Russian
>society in the early twentieth century, due to structured
>unevenness, both bourgeois (plus nationalist or anti-
>colonial) and proletarian revolutions could and must be
>telescoped into a seamless process, led by the working
>class. (See Howard and King 1989.)
The problem of our time is that even though we (as in we Marxists,
minus post-Marxists) all agree on the nature of political
implications of combined & uneven development _in theory_ (whatever
disagreement exists on the question of how capitalism originated),
_in practice_ what we are (& have been) doing is very far from
telescoping "both bourgeois & proletarian revolutions" in the same
process (much less a seamless process).
Yoshie
