Combined and Unequal Development (review)

136 the minnesota review an interpretative frame. In spite of thdr density, many of these mini-analyses are powerful, enhancing general understanding by formulating some aspects of current politics in terms of the structural relations they entail or by showing how conventional explanations function ideologically in support of capitalism. Earlier, Aronowitz suggested that we think of Marxism as "a way of sedng." As a way of sedng, Marxism makes certain kinds of interpretation possible. There is room to quibble here. Women are not "divested of" natural qualities in modern society, as he says. They are constituted conventionally as certain kinds of subjects, similar to nature, and thereby excluded from certain valorized (productive) relations. The reason for continuing to operate as a Marxist, after disqualifying it as a science of revolution, is because it retains force as a hermeneutic of capitalism. When Foucault is not going to great lengths to disassociate himself from Marxism, he has replied to the famous question (is he a Marxist?) as follows: Does a physicist feel it necessary to quote Newton and Einstein when he writes a work of physics? ... It is impossible at the present time to write history without using a whole series concepts directly or indirectly related to Marx's thought and situating oneself within a horizon of thought which has been defined and described by Marx. One might even wonder what difference there could ultimately be between bdng a historian and bdng a Marxist. A major strength of The Crisis in Historical Materialism, from the reviewer's standpoint, is that while treating Marxism's fallacies, Aronowitz also illustrates its indispensability—a service to those both inside and outside the club. HELEN LIGGETT Michael Lò'wy. Combinedand Unequal Development. London: New Left Books, 1981 Pp. 256. fclO.OO (cloth);L4.00 (paper). Despite the oblivion to which Leon Trotsky has been consigned by Soviet historians, his immense achievements as a revolutionary politician cannot be denied. After the February revolution his spellbinding oratory rallied the Petrograd soviet to the Bolshevik cause; in October his Military Revolutionary Committee plotted the party's seizure of state power; and the new regime might never have survived without his inspired leadership of the Red Army. Michael Lòwy, however, insists that Trotsky's greatness lies not simply in these heroic deeds, but also in the enduring validity of his theoretical insights. The doctrine of permanent revolution, we are told, identified the universal law of our age— the law of combined and unequal development. Among western intellictuals the revival of neglected or maligned Marxist theorists has become something of a cottage industry. Disillusionment with Soviet orthodoxy has inspired numerous exegeses on the writings of Lukács, Korsch, Luxembourg and Gramsci. This rebellion against Soviet tradition has given rise to its own traditions. The ceremonial rehabilitation of Marxist thinkers must follow strict protocols, and Löwy's treatment of Trotsky diligently adheres to these conventions. First it is necessary to return to Marx's original texts in order to establish a continuity between the master and his loyal disciple. This return invariably focuses upon Marx's "Hegelian" origins. Second, the prestige of the rehabilitated theorist is usually grounded in a Manichaean contrast between his interpretation of Marx and that of Joseph Stalin. While Stalin brutally suppressed the Hegelian aspects of scientific socialism, the authentic Marxist is said to have preserved or revived them. 137 reviews To reinforce this contrast it is customary to develop a series of oppositions. Stalin personifies the rigidity of dogma, whereas the authentic Marxist uses theory in a flexible and creative fashion. For example: Stalin advanced a "stagist" conception of history. The laws of history supposedly decree that all societies must pass through five stages: primitive communism , slave sodety, feudalism, capitalism and socialism. Like a well-run railroad the historical process sticks to an exacting timetable: skipping or leaping over a stage is strictly forbidden. Trapped within this dogmatic schema, Stalin initially opposed Lenin's call for an insurrection. The Russian train was still stalled in the feudal stage. Since its capitalist relationships were not yet fully developed, it was not ripe for a socialist revolution. Trotsky's vision, however, pierced these dogmatic blinders. By carrying...