¹ For overviews of the type of work being done see Bell, D., “Ten Theories in Search of Reality,” World Politics, X (April, 1958), 327–65CrossRefGoogle Scholar, and Inkeles, A., “Models and Issues in the Analysis of Soviet Society,” Survey no. 60 (July, 1966), 3–14.Google Scholar

² For totalitarian models see, for example, Friedrich, C.J. and Brzezinski, Z.K., Totalitarian Dictatorship and Autocracy (Cambridge, Mass., 1956Google Scholar); Friedrich, C.J., ed., Totalitarianism (New York, 1964Google Scholar). For recent adaptations of totalitarian models which attempt to deal with post-Stalin changes see Friedrich, C.J., Curtis, M., and Barber, B.J., Totalitarianism in Perspective (New York, 1969Google Scholar) and Kassof, A., “The Administered Society: Totalitarianism without Terror,” World Politics (July, 1964), 558–75.Google Scholar

³ For kremlinological models see Rush, M., The Rise of Khrushchev (Washington, D.C., 1958Google Scholar); Conquest, R., Power and Policy in the USSR (London, 1961Google Scholar); Linden, C., Khrushchev and the Soviet Leadership, 1957–1964 (Baltimore, 1966Google Scholar); Ploss, S., Conflict and Decision-Making in Soviet Russia: A Case Study of Agricultural Policy, 1953–1963 (Princeton, 1965CrossRefGoogle Scholar); Tatu, M., Power in the Kremlin (New York, 1968Google Scholar). See also a number of articles in Ploss, S., ed., The Soviet Political Process (Waltham, Massachusetts, 1971Google Scholar).

⁴ See, for example, Meyer, A., The Soviet Political System: An Interpretation (New York, 1965Google Scholar); Moore, B. Jr., Terror and Progress – USSR (Cambridge, Mass., 1954CrossRefGoogle Scholar); Brzezinski, Z., “The Soviet Political System: Transformation or Degeneration,” in Brzezinski, Z., ed., Dilemmas of Change in Soviet Politics (New York, 1969), 1–34.Google Scholar

⁵ Hough, J., The Soviet Prefects (Cambridge, Mass., 1969CrossRefGoogle Scholar).

⁸ For example, see Skilling, H.G. and Griffiths, F., eds., Interest Groups in Soviet Politics (Princeton, 1971Google Scholar); Juviler, P.H. and Morton, H.W., eds., Soviet Policy-Making (New York, 1967Google Scholar); Hough, J., “The Soviet System: Petrification or Pluralism?,” Problems of Communism (March-April, 1972), 25–45.Google Scholar

⁷ For critiques of Western approaches to Soviet politics see Perfil'ev, M.N., Kritika burzhuaznykh teorii o sovetskoi politicheskoi sisteme (Leningrad, 1968Google Scholar); Moliboshko, V.A., Protiv burzhuazhnoi fal'sifikatsii roli KPSS v kommunisticheskom stroitel'stve (Moscow, 1972Google Scholar).

⁸ See, for example, Gaidukov, D.A., ed., Vysshye predstavitel'nye organy vlasti v SSSR (Moscow, 1969Google Scholar). For an English-language treatment of Soviet politics from an institutional point of view see Churchward, L.G., Contemporary Soviet Government (London, 1968Google Scholar).

⁹ See, for example, Skilling and Griffiths, Interest Groups in Soviet Politics.

¹⁰ The question, of course, is not one which is decided on purely utilitarian grounds. Value judgments are also implicit in the choice of model to study the Soviet Union.

¹¹ For an elaboration of these points see Schwartz, D.V., “Recent Soviet Adaptations of Systems Theory to Administrative Theory,” Journal of Comparative Administration, 5, no. 2 (August, 1973), 233–64.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

¹² For example, Easton, D., A Systems Analysis of Political Life (New York, 1965Google Scholar); Etzioni, A., The Active Society (New York, 1968Google Scholar); Deutsch, K., The Nerves of Government (New York, 1966Google Scholar).

¹³ The Western theorists most often cited are Norbert Wiener, W. Ross Ashby, and Claude Shannon, all of whose works have been translated into Russian.

¹⁴ The details of Afanas'ev's model are presented in Schwartz, “Recent Soviet Adaptations of Systems Theory.” In the present paper I have continued to employ the same translation rules for the concept “control.” I have translated upravlenie as control when it is used in the general, systemic sense (for example, the control process). When it is used to refer to specific policy areas or sets of relations, I have translated upravlenie as management or administration. The English direction, leadership, or guidance, has been reserved for the Russian rukovodstvo. Finally, the Russian kontrol’, referring to an administrative process of inspection and verification, has been translated into the English supervision. For a detailed account of difficulties which Soviet theorists, especially Afanas'ev, have had in employing these terms see ibid.

¹⁵ Afanas'ev, V.G., Nauchnoe upravlenie obshchestvom (Moscow, 1968), 29–32.Google Scholar Afanas'ev's distinction between goals and the control process appears similar to Max Weber's distinction between “politics” and “bureaucracy.” According to Weber, bureaucracy is a precision instrument which can put itself at the disposal of varied political interests. According to Afanas'ev, the control process is to be used to achieve politically determined goals. In fact, Afanas'ev uses a term for control (upravlenie) which is translated in many contexts as administration. For Weber's, view see From Max Weber: Essays in Sociology, ed. and trans. Gerth, H.H. and Mills, C.W. (New York, 1958), 231.Google Scholar

¹⁶ Afanas'ev, Nauchnoe upravlenie obshchestvom, 195–7.

¹⁷ Ibid., 196.

¹⁸ Ibid., 197.

¹⁹ Ibid., 198.

²⁰ Ibid., 210–11.

²¹ Ibid., 229–41.

²² See Easton, A Systems Analysis of Political Life, 17.

²³ See Etzioni, The Active Society.

²⁴ Afanas'ev, Nauchnoe upravlenie obshchestvom, 230. Interestingly enough, the term “scientific” used by Afanas'ev in this context to refer to goal determination can be equated with the term “political.”

²⁵ 27–149. Etzioni devotes somewhat less space proportionately and reverses the order, discussing control factors before he discusses “societal consensus and responsiveness.” See Etzioni, The Active Society, 430–548.

²⁶ A Systems Analysis of Political Life, 48.

²⁷ Ibid., 57–8.

²⁸ Nauchnoe upravlenie obshchestvom, chap. 7. Of these seven other aspects, he identifies democratic centralism, a principle which stresses the centralizing and control aspects of politics, rather than responsiveness, as the most important operating rule in the political process.

²⁹ Afanas'ev distinguishes between needs and interests in the following manner. An interest is defined as a recognized need, the conscious effort of an individual to satisfy a need. Interest is identified as activity aimed at achieving a goal or gaining satisfaction of a given need. He does not use the term “demand” (trebovanie or zapros). However, his definition of interest comes very close. See ibid., 306–318.

³⁰ Ibid., 309.

³¹ Ibid., 310.

³² Ibid.

³³ Ibid.

³⁴ For a Western approach which provides an affirmative answer to this question, see Kassof, “The Administered Society.”

³⁵ “Interesy i upravlenie obshchestvennymi protsessami,” in Nauchnoe upravlenie obshchestvom, ed. Afanas'ev, , vypusk 1 (Moscow, 1967), 173–217.Google Scholar

³⁶ Ibid., 182.

³⁷ Ibid., 183.

³⁸ Ibid., 197.

³⁹ Ibid., 216.

⁴⁰ Ibid., 208–10.

⁴¹ Ibid., 216. Note the use here of the term proper rather than the traditional, and more conservative, optimal.

⁴² Nauchnoe upravlenie obshchestvom, 274. Lenin is quoted at length to support this approach to data generation, indicating that Afanas'ev is making a contentious or exploratory point which must be supported and legitimized by reference to the formal ideology. However, the legitimizing reference is not uniquely “Leninist” in any sense of the word. It may well have been drawn from any introductory text on social statistics! The Leninist injunction is to beware of someone digging out isolated minor facts and juggling with examples to support a decision.

⁴³ In the context of this discussion Afanas'ev's use of the terms “control” and “control relations” (upravlenie and upravlencheskie otnosheniia) can be translated into the English “politics” and “political process” without distorting his meaning.

⁴⁴ “Upravlenie obshchestvom kak sotsiologicheskaia problema,” in Nauchnoe upravlenie obshchestvom, ed. Afanas'ev, , vypusk 2 (Moscow, 1968), 203.Google Scholar

⁴⁵ Metodologicheskie voprosy analiza obshchestvennykh iavlenii (iz opyta konkretnykh sotsial'nykh issledovanii) (Novosibirsk, 1966) (doctoral dissertation), 41.

⁴⁶ Ibid., 43.

⁴⁷ Ibid., 20.

⁴⁸ Ibid., 44–53.

⁴⁹ Ibid., 52–3.

⁵⁰ The Active Society, 22–36.

⁵¹ Ibid., 172.

⁵² Ibid., 173–7.

⁵³ Ibid. 68–70.

⁵⁴ “Rol’ ekspertov v vyrabotke upravlencheskikh reshenii,” in Nauchnoe upravtenie obshchestvom, ed. Afanas'ev, , vypusk 6 (Moscow, 1972), 332–56.Google Scholar

⁵⁵ Ibid., 351, 355.

⁵⁶ I have translated the word rukovoditel’ as decision-maker and I am equating decision-maker with line role. Similarly, the expert role is equated to the staff role. Grigorov himself does not use the terms line or staff. He uses rukovoditel’ and ekspert.

⁵⁷ Ibid., 355.

⁵⁸ Ibid., 356.

⁵⁹ The Active Society, 177–80.

⁶⁰ Ibid., 180–90.

⁶¹ Perhaps I should stress that in both cases, Western and Soviet, I consider the descriptions of the political processes dealt with in this paper to be evaluative and prescriptive. They focus on the way the political process should operate and relate to other processes. In both cases the reality of each situation probably lies somewhat closer to the other than the images would imply. That is, the Soviet system is probably more responsive and control is less perfect than Afanas'ev's image implies. Similarly, empirical studies suggest that Western liberal or pluralist democracies are much less responsive than is implied in the Easton and Etzioni models.

⁶² This information comes from the Bol'shaia Sovetskaia Entsiklopediia (Moscow, 3rd ed., 1970), vol. i, 323.

⁶³ Afanas'ev's major work (see footnote 15) was published in a relatively large edition of 50,000 copies. However, the series of more specialized works published under his editorship (see footnotes 35, 44, and 54) have been published in editions averaging under 12,000 copies.

⁶⁴ Harasymiw, Bohdan, “The Role of the Higher Party School in the Development of Political Leadership in the USSR,” a paper presented to the 14th Annual Meeting of the Western Slavic Association, San Francisco, California, 25 October, 1973.Google Scholar

⁶⁵ This is also suggested in the fact that some of Afanas'ev's work has been condensed into a handbook for lecturers. See Afanas'ev, V.G., Nauchnoe upravlenie sotialisticheskim obshchestvom (v pomoshch’ lektoru), (Moscow, 1966Google Scholar).

⁶⁶ This network encompased as many as 36 million people at one time under Khrushchev. In the post-Khrushchev period the enrolment has been cut back sharply to 12 million, 75 per cent of whom are party members. See Mickiewicz, E.P., Soviet Political Schools (New Haven, 1967), 10–13.Google Scholar

⁶⁷ Nauchnoe upravlenie obshchestvom, 3. The first sentence of this quotation was taken by Afanas'ev directly from Brezhnev's major address to the Twenty-third Congress of the cpsu. See XXIII S”ezd Kommunisticheskoi Partii Sovetskogo Soiuza: Stenograficheskii otchel (Moscow, 1966), vol. i, 101. The second sentence appears to be Afanas'ev's interpretation of Brezhnev's remark. Later at the same Congress Kosygin expressed exactly the same idea as Brezhnev with specific reference to sociology when he stated that “Sociological researches, based on a materialist conception of history and generalizing the concrete facts of the life of socialist society, every day play a more important role in solving practical tasks – political, production, and socialization [tasks].” See ibid., vol. ii, 56.

⁶⁸ See for example the extensive report on a national seminar held in June 1966 under the auspices of the Academy of Social Sciences contained in Problemy nauchnogo kommunizma, vol. 2 (Moscow, 1968Google Scholar). The seminar, entitled “Applied Sociological Research and Ideological Work,” consisted of a number of reports from Academics and Party officials on problems and results stemming from the use of applied sociological research techniques in the study of ideological work, mass communications, propaganda, and political socialization.