The Rationalist Annual, 1957

[p034] Sturdy Annual The Rationalist Annual, 1957 (Watts, 5s.) AS USUAL, this year’s issue of the Rationalist Annual makes delightfully fresh reading. Margaret Knight has written a fas- cinating psychological-statistical analysis of the postal aval- anche which descended upon her after her BBC broadcast on non-Christian humanism. In a characteristically amusing but pointed essay, J. B. S. Haldane locates three ‘theorems on which we do in fact rely’ in: making up our minds what to believe. The result has been that your reviewer feels almost as intellectually guilty for past errors in inductive logic as does, so obviously, Professor Haldane himself. Benjamin Farring- ton’s essay on ‘Creative Labour in Ancient Greece’ is an im- portant addition to Marxist historiography, while A.J. Black- ham’s analysis of the ‘covenantal’ nature of Jewish and Christian theology would be an excellent starting point for a larger work designed to explain how and why Christian theo- logy has taken its present form. Royston Pike’s timely article on Mark Rutherford is delightfully written but misses_ some essential points about Rutherford’s contribution to the Bri- tish radical movement. The Annual ends with an important essay on the perennial topic of determinism by Ernest Gillner. A splendid five shillings’ worth for any rationalist socialist. J.D. Unofficial Marxism Arguments, vol. I, no. 3, April-May 1957. (Single copy 150 francs; subscription (six issues) 650 francs. Editions de Minuit, 7 rue Bernard-Palissy, Paris VIe.) DESCRIBED as ‘a bulletin of research and discussion’, this bi-monthly journal, appearing in a French and Italian edition, is a promising product of the intellectual ferment now taking place on the Left. The main feature of this number is the first chapter of Lukacs’ ‘Geschichte und Klassenbewusstsein’ (History and Class-consciousness), entitled ‘What is orthodox Marxism’. This work was severely criticized by the Comintern soon after its first appearance in 1923 and its author subsequently re- tracted certain of its ideas. The French translation should make this very significant essay (to which it may be possible to return later) available to a wider circle of readers. It is followed by two comments which try to throw light on the problem of how such a penetrating thinker—the most dis- tinguished Marxist philosopher of his time—could, on occa- sion, renounce his writings, at the bidding of Zinoviev, Zhda- nov or Stalin and yet re-emerge as a leading figure in the Nagy Government. Incidentally, it is a reflection of the state of Marxist studies in this country that, except for one volume of literary criticism, brought out by a private initiative, his works are not available in translation and that he is best known for his réle in the Hungarian Communes of 1919 and A plea on behalf of Israel as a progressive force, with a comment, and a review of a new critical work applying con- cepts derived from existentialism and Marxism to Pascal and Racine make up the rest of the issue. T.K.

[p035] A Question of Dialectics WILLIAM F. WARDE’s series ‘The Law of Uneven and Combined Development’ must have been very stimulating to British Marxists. In the complex and rapidly moving world of the twentieth century a formal notion of eternal sequences for the development of societies is as useless as the idea that there are no law-governed processes at all in social life. Warde therefore does a service in highlighting that aspect of materi- alist dialectics which explains the result of a clash between, or a combination of, phenomena at different levels of develop- ment, e.g., American technical efficiency with semi-feudal— or recently tribal—economies and the accompanying customs. The place of this law of uneven and combined develop- ment requires a systematic treatment as part of the dialectical method; meanwhile one question seems to be raised from Warde’s own material. A scientific law should outline the par- ticular sets of conditions which give rise to a typical result in the given sphere of investigation. In sociology, a law of this kind is the law that the productive forces develop to a point where they demand a change in, first, the economic structure and then the political and ideological superstructure of a society. A definite dependence of one set of facts on another set is clearly stated. Can the law of uneven and combined development be seen in the same way? It states that factors developed to an uneven extent, either between societies or within one society, combine to form single formations of a contradictory character. If this generalization is to be ac- corded the status of a law it should give clear guiding lines to the following problem, among others. Will the processes at work give rise to a dialectical leap forward in history, as in the October Revolution in Russia, or will they give rise to degenerative processes, as in the bureaucratic distortions of Stalin’s régime, or the destruction of the Tasmanian abori- gines? One does not expect of course an answer to all ques- tions which will be a substitute for analysis of each particular case, for that is the essence of the scientific method. But a law should state the characteristics of progressive as against re- gressive combinations. If this point can be cleared up, then other fruitful controversial problems can be raised later. cs I DO NOT clearly see why C.S. hesitates to accord the law of uneven and combined development the status of a law. Law- fulness is derived from ascertaining materially conditioned, necessary connections among phenomena. Laws formulate such necessary relations among the factors in a certain sector of reality in a generalized way. In natural science, for ex- ample, the early physicists Boyle, Charles, Gay-Lussac and Avagadro established simple relationships connecting the volume, temperature and pressure of gases which they for- mulated in elementary, empirical laws. Since different aspects of reality have their own laws, different laws do not operate on the same level of generality nor do they have the same degree of necessity. The broadest laws are formulated in the materialist dialectic of being and becoming, which embraces universal processes and modes of development. The law of the interpenetration of opposites belongs in this class. On the other hand there are particular laws which apply only within the limits of specific social- economic formations—as, for instance, the law of the growing concentration of capital which pertains exclusively to the capitalist system. The law of uneven and combined development stands midway between these two types in its scope of operation. It belongs not to philosophy or to political economy, but primarily to the science of sociology which seeks to discover the general laws of human evolution. It formulates certain im- portant aspects of the historical tendencies of social develop- ment. It is more concrete than the law of the interpenetration of opposites, of which it is a specific expression, and less limited than the law of the concentration of capital. 1) Historical materialism starts from the factual premise that men cannot exist without eating, drinking, etc. This is the supreme law of life. 2) This inescapable, physical contradiction between eating 127 and living which animals overcome by direct appropriation of and consumption of food, is solved by mankind through labour activities. 3) The development of society is determined by the de- velopment of the productive forces at men’s command. 4) These productive forces give rise to certain definite social relations of production which shape the rest of the social structure. 5) The further development of the productive forces eventually comes into conflict with the existing relations of production, initiating a revolutionary period which, if pro- gressively resolved, results in the establishment of a higher social-economic order. These are the main links in the chain of necessity which governs social development and in the logical reasoning of the scientific socialism which explains them. The law of un- even and combined development enters this chain at the fol- lowing point: the productive forces which are the mainspring of the entire social movement developed unevenly from one time and place to another, from one people to another, and from one social formation to the next. These differences in the degree of development, in turn produce disproportion not only between different segments of society but also among the various elements in any given social structure. The fundamental lawfulness of the phenomena, theoretic- ally expressed in the law of uneven development comes from the observed, verifiable fact, running throughout history, that disproportions of various types emerge from the different rates of economic development. Given these disparities, cer- tain consequences inescapably follow in the subsequent un- folding of the social process. To prove the contrary, i.e., the lack of historical neces- sity in this law, it would have to be demonstrated that society proceeds in a different way; that the productive forces develop evenly and that the resultant social organizations and cultural superstructures consist of harmonious elements perfectly pro- portioned to one another. From this basic starting point, the process goes on to a second stage formulated in the law of combined development, which is the essential supplement of the first. The diversely developed elements are united, not in simple homogeneous structures, but in complex, heterogeneous and sometimes highly contradictory ways. . The contradictory characteristics of the combinations do not depend only on the fact that the various formations and factors have evolved independently ef: one another and co-exist on different levels of social development. The manner and consequences of the merger also depends upon the historical period in which they come together. It can make considerable difference whether the elements are united in precapitalist times, during the capitalist period, or under post-capitalist conditions. After such combinations are brought into being, the pro- cess passes over to a still higher stage in which the emergence of new unevenesses in the situation leads to the conflict and dissociation of the previously synthesized, contradictory fac- tors. This sociological law, whose operations and effects can be observed throughout the course of history, has attained its maximum strength and scope under capitalism and during the period of transition to socialism because all the accumulated disproportions of historical development inherited from past ages come to a head and are entangled in the most acute con- tradictions at this juncture. The single difficulty raised in the remarks of CS. is that the law of uneven and combined development ought to indi- cate without ambiguity what the specific outcome of its opera- tion is going to be. It should enable us to foretell what the combination of factors at different levels of development will culminate in; a leap forward or retrogression. The law cannot do that because its action and results do not depend upon itself alone as a theoretical formulation of general tendencies, but even more upon the total situation in which it functions. The latter is decisive. What determines the

[p036] specific outcome of its operation are the material factors in their totality: the living structure of a society. the dynamics of its inner forces, and their historical and international con- nections. One and the same law can give different results at differ- ent stages in the development of the same economic system. as the objective conditions of its operations change. The law of value, which is the supreme regulator of the capitalist system, energetically promotes the productive forces in its progressive period—and then in its further operation leads to the con- .Striction of the productive forces in its declining monopolist- imperialist stage. The law of uneven and combined development likewise leads to different results according to the specific circumstances of its operation. Under certain conditions the introduction of higher elements and their amalgamation with lower ones ac- celerates social progress; under other conditions, the synthesis ‘can retard progress and even push it back for a time. Which trend will be dominant, whether progress ro reaction will be favoured, depends upon the specific weight of all the factors in the given situation and the depth of the penetration of the higher ones. Advanced elements cannot, in and of themselves, guarantee a comprehensive and uninterrupted forward movement unless and until they reach down into the foundations of the social system, revolutionize and reconstruct them. Otherwise their efficacy can be restricted and distorted. Consider in this light the evolution of the Soviet Union since 1917, as Trotsky explained it in “The Revolution Be- trayed’ with the aid of the law of uneven and combined de- velopment. On pages 229-230 Trotsky pointed out how, in the first place, ‘the law of uneven development brought it about that the contradiction between the technique and property re- lations of capitalism (a universal feature in its death agony) shattered the weakest link in the world chain’. The Russian Revolution was, as he stated elsewhere, a national avalanche in a universal social formation. ‘Backward Russian capitalism was the first to pay for the bankruptcy of world capitalism.’ Trotsky then observes that in general ‘the law of uneven development is supplemented throughout the whole course of history by the law of combined development.’ What was its specific result in Russia? ‘The collapse of the bourgeoisie in Russia led to the proletarian dictatorship —that is, to a backward country’s: leaping ahead of the ad- vanced countries.’ As we know, this caused a lot of grief to the schematic theorists in Russia and Western Europe who insisted that the workers could not and should not take power until capitalism had elevated the national economy to an advanced height. . But it also brought much genuine grief to the Russian people, as Trotsky goes on to explain. ‘However, the estab- lishment of socialist forms of proverty in a backward country came up against the inadequate level of technique and cul- ture.’ That is, new types of unevenness emerged on the basis of the preceding achievements and on a higher historical level. ‘Itself born of the contradictions between high world produc- tive forces and capitalist form of property, the October Re- volution produced in its turn a contradiction between low national productive forces and socialist forms of property.’ ; While the achievements of the revolution—the national- ized property and planned economy—exercised a highly pro- gressive action upon the Soviet Union, they were themselves subjected to the degrading influence of the low level of pro- duction in the isolated workers’ State. From this fundamental condition, flowed all the. degenerative effects witnessed in the Soviet state under the Stalinist régime, including that régime itself. The most advanced ideas and progressive productive relations could not prevail against the inadequacy of their economic sub-structure and suffered debasement as a result. Thus unevenness prevents any simple, single straight line of direction in social development, and what we have instead is a complex, devious and contradictory route. The theoretical task is to analyze the dialectical interplay of action and re- action of the contending forces in their connection with the historical environment. _In this now the progressive tendencies and now the re- actionary counter-forces assert themselves and come to the fore. __ This dialectical interplay can be observed in the contra- dictory consequences brought about by the same historical factors in the neighbouring countries of China and Japan. 12 ? 0 Both of these formerly isolated and backward countries felt . the impact of capitalist forces upon them in the 19th century. Western capitalism invaded China, penetrated its economy, and established political and military control over its main centres. Only the rivalry of the contending imperialisms saved China from outright division amongst them. Although the intrusion of capitalism with the latest tech- niques in production, transport, commerce, finance and know- ledge mangled and shook up China, these instruments of mod- ern capitalism did not, on the whole. modernize Chinese life or emancipate it. On the contrary, entrenched imperialism propped up the most archaic institutions. the feudal landhold- ing system, and helped the compradore bourgeoisie, landlords, officials and militarists prolong pre-capitalist forms of social organization. Its grip prevented China from passing through a genuine bourgeois democratic renovation or having any in- dependent capitalist development. In the same period that these capitalist influences were stunting Chinese development, they were stimulating Japan. There the introduction of Western. capitalist civilization pro- moted a reorganization of the country’s pre-capitalist structure from on top without revolutionary convulsions from below. Along with the Meiji Restoration, the capitalist agencies of change strengthened new classes of industrialists, merchants, financiers, who developed large-scale industry, trusts, banks and military power after the most advanced Western models. Instead of being a victim of Western imperialism, Japan be- came the supreme embodiment of Eastern imperialism, avidly flinging itself upon China for its share of the spoils. Thus, in the first stage. under the given historical condi- tions, the law of uneven and combined development led to the degradation and subjugation of China, while Japan experi- enced a tremendous surge of national energy and achievement under capitalist auspices. Little wonder that in Japan nation- alism poured into imperialist channels, while across the China Bea nationalism had to seek other outlets along anti-imperialist lines. However, as we know, the world historical process swung in a different direction following the First World War and the Russian Revolution. and this affected the trend of develop- ment in the Far East. Even during the first period of the merger of Western capi- talism with Far Eastern life, tendencies emerged that ran counter to the dominant direction of development in both countries. In Japan. the imperialist régime—product of the highest stage of world and national evolution—was headed by an Emperor cult carried over from pre-feudal times. Its capi- talist structure bulged with bizarre combinations and extreme disproportions. Modern factories and workshops sprang up in the cities while feudal relations in the countryside remained unaltered. Light industry was over-developed, while the heavy industry from which contemporary mastery is derived re- mained under-developed. The military, equipped with the latest weapons. remained animated by feudal traditions. Be- cause of its reformation from above instead of revolutioniza- tion from below. democracy was feeble and parliamentary life flimsy. This incomplete modernization of Japan’s social struc- ture culminated in a supreme disproportion: the imperialist programme imposed upon that late-comer by the needs of national capitalist expansion and world competition were be- yond the capacities of its forces and resources. The result was the debacle suffered by Japanese militarism in the Second World War. . Meanwhile, China’s backwardness under imperialism built up the impetus for its forward leap at the next stage. Along with the venal and weak compradore bourgeoisie, represented by Chiang Kai-shek, the Westernization process. created a modern proletariat. The unsolved but pressing problems of national unification and independence, agratian revolution, in- dustrialization, etc.. which imperialism blocked and Chiang’s régime could not tackle, gave an explosive force to the popular movements for their solution. _ After the Russian Revolution, world historical factors of a higher order intervened in the Far East and with special force in China. The influences emanating from the October Revolu- tion and the Soviet Union permeated China more effectively than the capitalist ideas and forces of Western imperialism had penetrated Japan. Thanks to the power of these influences on an interna- tional and national scale. China. so long dragged down by imperialism and its servitors, rose up after the Second World

[p037] War. In the process of tackling the long-postponed historical task, the movements of the proletarian and peasant masses lifted the country over native capitalism into the first stage of a workers’ State. This mighty leap reversed the relations between China and Japan. Under the pressures of world capitalism, Japan had climbed from feudalism to imperialism in a couple of generations, while China was held down by the same forces. Then, at the next stage, under the combined pressures of re- actionary imperialism and progressive socialism (intermixed with Stalinism) China vaulted beyond capitalism and took the lead from Japan. Today revolutionary China is better equipped to take Japan in tow than vice versa, since the defeated nation has still to pass beyond the confines of capitalism. Thus each of the two series of historical influences, the first issuing from capitalism in the nineteenth century, the sec- ond from post-capitalist movements in the Twentieth century, had very different impacts upon the development of the two neighbouring countries. This demonstrates how the conse- quences of the law of uneven and combined development de- pend upon the action and reaction of the new forces upon the old; the concrete reality at any given stage is a resultant of the dynamic interplay between them. These can acquire the most divergent forms. A sociological generalization like the law of uneven and combined development can serve only as a guide to the in- vestigation and analysis of the processes at work in a given social environment. It can help us understand the peculiarities of past history and orient us in respect to the peculiarities of unfolding social processes. But it cannot categorically tell us in advance what will issue from its further operation. These are determined by the struggle of living forces on the national and international arenas. The law of uneven and combined development expresses certain features of the dialectics of history. The dialectic is ‘the algebra of revolution’ and evolution. That is to say, it formulates certain necessary aspects, relations or tendencies of reality in a general form, extracted from specific conditions. Before its abstract algebraic qualities can be converted into definite, ‘arithmetic’ quantities, they have to be applied to the substance of a particular reality. In every new case and at every successive stage of development, specific analysis is necessary of the actual relations and tendencies in their con- nection and continual interaction. The dialectical formulas are abstract but ‘the truth is concrete’. Correspondence IN the very interesting article on ‘Hammersmith and After’ in Labour Review No. 3 the point is made that for the first time since 1932 a genuine Marxist opposition developed at Con- gress. This statement is not correct, and flows from either (a) lack of knowledge, or (b) an attempt to rewrite history in the Stalinist fashion. I hope it is a result of (a) and not (b). A genuine Marxist opposition did develop at the Nine- teenth Congress of the party held in 1947, which ultimately resulted in a number of comrades being expelled and one branch, Welwyn Garden City, being disbanded and Hertford ‘reorganized’. The fight developed around resolutions first submitted to the South-East Midlands District Congress from Welwyn Gar- den City and Hertford. The nature of the opposition can be gauged by the fol- lowing quotations (Hertford Amendment to South-East Mid- lands Fourth Congress): ‘1) This Congress of the S.E. Midlands District of the Communist Party rejects the resolution of the District Com- mittee as we feel it entirely neglects the main principles of Marxism-Leninism, and as a result the policy presented is reformist and not revolutionary.’ *5) Imperialism is not a policy preferred by the mono- poly-capitalists but a definite stage in capitalist revolution; there is no middle course; the transition from capitalism to socialism is the act of revolution. There cannot be an im- perialist policy abroad and a progressive policy at home.’ ‘7) For the British working class and the people of the British Empire, the main enemy is now British imperialism, and to turn our main attention to American imperialism is to deflect the British workers away from their main task, i.e., the destruction of British finance capital.’ The arguments were further developed in a letter which was severely emasculated by the editor in World News and Views (February 1, 1947), in which I wrote: ‘Right Oppor- tunism has now become deeply rooted in our party... . I believe we can change this position, first by fierce self-criti- cism by “consulting with Lenin” and by learning more of Leninism than that “Marxism is not a dogma”, under which phrase all sorts of revisionism and distortions are carried out by the Right opportunists in our party.’ At the Party Congress, in moving the resolution on be- half of Welwyn and Hertford, I made the point that the pol- icy of Pollitt, Campbell & Co. was a betrayal of Marxism and an acceptance of Left social-democratic theories, revisionism of the Kautskyist brand. I attacked their policy on production (they supported an all-out drive to increase production); on strikes (they opposed strikes); on conscription (which they still support); on nationalization (which we supported, but opposed the leaders who made it appear that Socialism was thereby being introduced). Above all we opposed the theory of diminishing contradictions put forward in Pollitt’s ‘How to Win the Peace’ and ‘Answers to Questions’. This opposition was composed of both intellectuals and workers. I am a joiner; other comrades were, for example, electricians and engineers, while some (a minority) were graduates from Oxford. It is interesting to note that at the time Socialist Appeal had the following to say about the opposition: ‘The outstanding feature of the Communist Party Confer- ence this year was the revolutionary opposition among sec- tions of the rank and file which succeeded in penetrating to the floor of the conference. This revolutionary opposition ten- dency was most firmly and consistently expressed by the amendment from Hertford and Welwyn Garden City which criticized the policy of the party. The amendment from Hert- ford showed a genuine attempt to return to the policy of Lenin . . . in its main essence it was a Leninist position in relation to strategy... . In conclusion, perhaps the writer used the ‘genuine’ to mean that the opposition was not centred around the ques- tion of the Soviet Union. However, one did not have to ac- cept the Trotskyist theory of the degenerated workers’ state to know that something was fundamentally wrong with the British party’s policy. It is true that the Welwyn Garden City opposition did not attack the leadership of Stalin. We had not then fully realized the connection between the de- generation here and the policies of the Soviet bureaucracy. However we did understand that the leadership in Britain was betraying the interests of the British and Colonial work- ers and we said so. We also attacked the policies of the French and Italian Communist Party leaders who disarmed the partisans and then took part in bourgeois governments. we received our answer. We were isolated and finally ex- pelled. As I see it, Marxism is a science, and not a series of pronouncements by leaders. Trotsky was correct on many things, and his works must be seriously studied with great profit to us all. Most of his analyses of the Soviet Union I accept. However I also consider that Rosa Luxemburg was a genuine Marxist, yet she had severe differences with both Lenin and Trotsky. Let us be as exact as possible in our appraisals of the past and keep the record straight. There have been other genuine Marxist oppositions in the Communist Party since 1932, and the Welwyn Garden City-Hertford opposition was one of these. Liverpool