Hostname: page-component-78c5997874-xbtfd Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-17T17:59:52.023Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Social Science, Communism, and the Dynamics of Political Change

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  13 June 2011

Andrew C. Janos
Andrew C. Janos
Affiliation:
University of California, Berkeley
Get access

Abstract

In the past thirty years the comparative study of communism as conducted in the United States has rested on two conceptual pillars: Weber's theory of routinization and Spencer's notion of progress through industrialism. This article points out some of the limitations of these theories and then develops a more comprehensive framework for comparisons. One of the keys to the understanding of communist politics is the model of a “military society,” also formulated by Spencer but generally ignored by contemporary social science. In terms of this model, communism is presented as a militant geopolitical response to international inequalities, the initial logic of which has been undermined by technological developments in the period following World War II.

Type
Liberalization and Democratization in the Soviet Union and Eastern Europe
Information
World Politics , Volume 44 , Issue 1 , October 1991 , pp. 81 - 112
Copyright
Copyright © Trustees of Princeton University 1991

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

1 See Bell, Daniel, “Ten Theories in Search of Reality: The Prediction of Soviet Behavior in the Social Sciences,” World Politics 10 (April 1958), 327CrossRefGoogle Scholar–65, reprinted in Bell, , The End of Ideology: On the Exhaustion of Political Ideas in the Fifties (New York:Collier, 1961), 315Google Scholar–54.

2 Arendt, , The Origins of Totalitarianism (New York:Harcourt-Brace, 1951Google Scholar).

3 Wittfogel, , Oriental Despotism: A Comparative Study of Total Power (New Haven:Yale University Press, 1957Google Scholar).

4 See, e.g., Bendix, Reinhard, Nation-building and Citizenship (New York:John Wiley, 1964Google Scholar).

5 Weber, , Economy and Society: An Outline of Interpretive Sociology, ed. Roth, Guenther and Wittich, Claus (Berkeley:University of California Press, 1978Google Scholar), 1:214–15; or Weber, , The Theory of Social and Economic Organization, ed. Parsons, Talcott (1947; reprint, New York:Free Press, 1964), 145Google Scholar–46.

6 Rigby, , “Crypto-Politics,” Survey 50 (January 1964), 183Google Scholar–94. For more about politics in organizations, see Bendix, Reinhard, Work and Authority in Industry (Berkeley:University of California Press, 1974), xl-xlviGoogle Scholar.

7 More generally, Weber distinguishes between substantive and institutional-instrumental aspects of authority. The former refer to the material versus the “higher” interests of an actor (the prototype of which is interest in one's salvation), the latter to the familiar trio of charisma, tradition, and contract. Although Weber does not say so and in general is of little help in further elaborating the relationship, these two aspects of politics may be drawn into a single scheme. Certain types of legitimacy are well suited to articulating some purposes and not others. Charisma is most appropriate for articulating Salvationist purposes.

8 Weber (fn. 5, 1978), l:xc, 212–13; or Weber (fn. 5, 1964), 120–23, 324–25.

9 Lenin, V. I., “The State and Revolution,” in Lenin, , Selected Worlds (Moscow:Progress Publishers, 1970Google Scholar), 2:283–376.

10 Trotsky, Leon, quoted in “Kommunismus,” in Kernig, C. D., ed., Sowjetsystem und de-mokratische Gesellschaft (Soviet system and democratic society) (Freiburg:Herder, 1969Google Scholar), 3:746.

11 For this view of totalitarianism and revolutionary chiliasm, see Cohn, Norman, The Pursuit of the Millennium, 2d ed. (New York:Harper, 1961), esp. 307Google Scholar–19; and Moore, Barrington Jr., “Totalitarian Elements in Pre-Industrial Societies,” in Moore, , Political Power and Social Theory (New York:Harper and Row, 1962), 30–89Google Scholar.

12 Weber (fn. 5, 1978), 1:246.

13 Djilas, , The New Class: An Analysis of the Communist System (New York:Praeger, 1957Google Scholar).

14 Weber (fn. 5, 1978), 1:246.

15 Mao Zedong, “On Dialectics,” U.S.D.C. Joint Publication Research Service, February 20, 1974; idem, “On Krushchev's Phoney Communism,” Peking Review, July 17, 1964, pp. 7 -28.

16 Lifton, Robert J., Revolutionary Immortality: Mao Tse-tung and the Chinese Cultural Revolution (New York:Random House, 1968Google Scholar).

17 Weber (fn. 5, 1978), 1:246.

18 Trotsky, Leon, The Revolution Betrayed (New York:Pathfinder, 1970), esp. 86–114Google Scholar, 248–52.

19 See especially Meyer, Alfred, “The Comparative Study of Communist Political Systems,” Slavic Review 26 (March 1967), 3–12CrossRefGoogle Scholar. For a critical view and a comprehensive survey ofthis literature on “bureaucratism,” see Pakulski, Jan, “Bureaucracy and the Soviet System,” Studies in Comparative Communism 19 (Spring 1986), 3–24CrossRefGoogle Scholar, esp. 6–8.

20 Weber (fn. 5, 1964), 363–66.

21 Bauman, Zygmunt, “The Party in the System-Management Phase: Change and Continuity,” in Janos, Andrew C., ed., Authoritarian Politics in Communist Europe (Berkeley:Institute of International Studies, University of California, 1976), 81–108Google Scholar; Jowitt, Kenneth, “Soviet Neo-Traditionalism: The Political Concept of a Leninist Regime,” Soviet Studies 35 (July 1983), 275CrossRefGoogle Scholar–97; Walder, Andrew, Communist Neo-Traditionalism: Work and Authority in Chinese Industry (Berkeley:University of California Press, 1986Google Scholar).

22 For communist studies, see Huntington, Samuel P., “Social and Institutional Dynamics ofOne Party Regimes,” in Huntington, Samuel P. and Moore, Clement H., eds., Authoritarian Politics in Modern Society (New York:Basic Books, 1971), 3–48Google Scholar; Tucker, Robert C., The Marx ian Revolutionary Idea (New York:W. W. Norton, 1970), 172–214Google Scholar; Bialer, Seweryn, Stalin's Successors: Leadership, Stability and Change in the Soviet Union (Cambridge:Cambridge versity Press, 1980Google Scholar); Dittmer, Lowell, China's Continuous Revolution (Berkeley:University of California Press, 1987Google Scholar). For the institutionalization of other postrevolutionary regimes, see Waterbury, John, The Egypt of Nasser and Sadat: The Political Economy of Two Regimes (Princeton:Princeton University Press, 1983CrossRefGoogle Scholar); and Hinnebusch, Raymond A. Jr., Egyptian Politics under Sadat: The Post-populist Development of an Authoritarian-Modernizing State (Cambridge:Cambridge University Press, 1985Google Scholar; rev. ed., Boulder, Colo.: Lynne Rienner,

23 “Introduction” to Weber (fn. 5, 1964), 71.

24 Weber (fn. 5, 1978), 2:1121.

25 Weber (fn. 5, 1964), 71.

26 Cohn(fn. 11), 107–19.

27 Weber (fn. 5, 1964), 386–92; Weber (fn. 5, 1978), 1:266–71 and 2:956–1002.

28 Bendix (fn. 4), 6–7.

29 See Janos, Andrew C., Politics and Paradigms: Changing Theories of Change in Social Science (Stanford, Calif.:Stanford University Press, 1986), 31–64Google Scholar.

30 Von Laue, , Why Lenin? Why Stalin? (New York:Lippincott, 1971), 3Google Scholar, 208.

31 Kautsky, , The Political Consequences of Modernization (New York:John Wiley, 1972), 196Google Scholar.

32 Deutscher, , Russia: What Next? (London:Hamish Hamilton, 1953), 123Google Scholar–25.

33 See, e.g., Leo Labedz, “Ideology: The Fourth Stage,” Problems of Communism 7 (November-December 1959), 1–10; and Lowenthal, Richard, “The Ruling Party in a Mature Society,” in Field, Mark G., ed., The Social Consequences of Modernization in Communist Societies (Baltimore:Johns Hopkins University Press, 1974), 81–120Google Scholar. For a review of the entire literature, see T. Anthony Jones, “Modernization Theory and Socialist Development,” in Field (pp. 19–49).

34 See Lewin, Moshe, The Gorbachev Phenomenon: A Historical Interpretation (Berkeley:University of California Press, 1988), esp. 146Google Scholar; Pye, Lucian W., “Political Science and the Crisis of Authoritarianism”, American Political Science Review 84 (March 1990), 3–19CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

35 Inkeles, Alex and Smith, David, Becoming Modem: Individual Change in Six Developing Countries (Cambridge:Harvard University Press, 1976Google Scholar),

36 Alex Inkeles, “The Modernization of Man id Socialist and Non-Socialist Countries,” in Field (fn.33), 55–54.

37 Lenin, , The Development of Capitalism in Russia (Moscow:Progress Publishers, 1964Google Scholar).

38 Moore, , Soviet Politics: The Dilemma of Power (Cambridge:Harvard University Press, 1950Google Scholar).

39 Brzezinski, , Ideology and Power in Soviet Politics (New York:Praeger, 1964Google Scholar).

40 Johnson, , “Change in Communist Nations,” in Johnson, , ed., Change in Communist Systems (Stanford, Calif.:Stanford University Press, 1970), 1–33Google Scholar.

41 Lowenthal, “Development vs. Utopia in Communist Policy,” in Johnson (fn. 40), 33–117.

42 Tucker (fn. 22).

43 Black, , The Dynamics of Modernization: A Study in Comparative History (New York Harper and Row, 1966Google Scholar).

44 Huntington, , Political Order in Changing Societies (New Haven:Yale University Pres: 1968Google Scholar).

45 See especially Jowitt, , Revolutionary Breakthroughs and National Development: The Cos of Romania, 1945–66 (Berkeley:University of California Press, 1971Google Scholar); and idem, The Leninii Response to National Dependency, Research Monograph no. 37 (Berkeley: Institute of Inter national Studies, University of California, 1978).

46 Jowitt(fn. 21), 275–97.

47 Spencer, , On Social Evolution, ed. Peel, J. D. Y. (Chicago:University of Chicago Press, 1972), 41Google Scholar.

48 Ibid., 152.

49 As a functionalist, Spencer is more concerned with society than with elites. Yet it is important to bear in mind that such orientations may sometimes reflect the interest—material or ideal—of only the elites, who may treat their own society as the means and not as the tod of their policies. The modern world is full of such examples, from Hitler to Saddam Hussein, including many communist elites. Thus, what may appear to be “imperial altruism” to the functionalist will in reality only conceal the supreme selfishness of an elite.

50 Spencer (fn. 47), 154.

51 Among them, Seton-Watson, Hugh, The Imperialist Revolutionaries (Stanford, Calif.:Hoover Institution Press, 1978Google Scholar); Ulam, Adam, Expansionism and Coexistence: Soviet Foreign Policy, 1917–73, 2d ed. (New York:Praeger, 1974Google Scholar); Pipes, Richard, Survival Is Not Enough (New York:Simon and Schuster, 1984Google Scholar); and “Z” [Martin Malia], “To the Stalin Mausoleum,” Daedalus 119 (Winter 1990), 295–344.

52 Lange, , The Political Economy of Socialism (The Hague:Van Keulen, 1967), 18Google Scholar; or idem, Papers in Economics and Society (New York:Pergamon, 1970), 102Google Scholar–3.

53 Odom, , “The ‘Militarization’ of Soviet Societyo,” Problems of Communism 25 (September-October 1976), 34–51Google Scholar.

54 Spielmann, , “Defense Industrialists in the USSR,” Problems of Communism 25 (September-October 1976), 52–69Google Scholar.

55 See especially Zaslavsky, , “Soviet Transition to a Market Economy: State Dependent Workers, Populism and Nationalism,” in Gomulka, Stanislaw and Lin, Cyril, eds., Limits to the Transformation of Soviet-type Systems (New York:Oxford University Press, 1991Google Scholar).

56 I thank my colleagues Gregory Grossman and George Breslauer for calling my attention to these. For a reference to these references, see Kotkin, Stephen, “Perestroika in the Soviet Rustbelt,” Harriman Institute Forum 4 (February 1991), 1–16Google Scholar, at 5.

57 Niebuhr, , The Children of Light and the Children of Darkness: A Vindication of Democracy Hid a Critique of Its Traditional Defense (New York:Scribner's, 1944Google Scholar).

58 Gregor, A. James, Italian Fascism and Developmental Dictatorship (Princeton:Princeton University Press, 1974Google Scholar).

59 Moore, Barrington Jr., The Social Origins of Dictatorship and Democracy (Boston:Beacon Press, 1966), 433Google Scholar–52.

60 Kautsky (fn. 31), 208–17.

61 Parsons, Talcott, “Some Sociological Aspects of Fascist Movements,” in Parsons, , Essays m Sociological Theory (Glencoe, Ill.:Free Press, 1954), 124Google Scholar–41.

62 Tilly, Charles, Big Structures, Large Processes, Huge Comparisons (New York:Russell Sage Foundation, 1984), 11–12Google Scholar.

63 Lenin, , “Imperialism as the Highest Stage of Capitalism,” in Lenin, , Selected Works (Moscow:Progress Publishers, 1976), 1Google Scholar: 667–768; Trotsky, , The Permanent Revolution: Results and, Prospects, trans. Wright, J. G. and Pierce, B. (New York:Merit, 1969Google Scholar), esp. 31, 133; Stalin, I. V., “The Foundations of Leninism” (1924), in Franklin, Bruce, ed., The Essential Stalin: Major Theoretical Writings, 1905–1952 (New York:Doubleday, 1972), esp. 90–98Google Scholar. For Bukharin's views on the struggle between the “world city and the world countryside,” with an emphasis on the future role of the peasantry in the world revolution, see Cohen, Stephen E., Bukharin and the Bolshevik Revolution: A Political Biography, 1888–1938 (New York:Random House, 1973), 168Google Scholar.

64 See Stalin, “Report to the Seventeenth Congress” (1934) and “Report to the Eighteenth Congress” (1939), in Stalin (fn. 63), 281, 387.

65 Anderson, Perry, “The Trotskyist Interpretation of Stalin,” in Ali, Tariq, ed., The Stalin-ist Legacy: Its Impact on Twentieth-Century World Politics (Middlesex, England:Penguin Books, 1984), 120Google Scholar.

66 Deutscher, “Socialism in One Country,” in Ali (fn. 65), 104. On the same theme, see Jowitt, Ken, “Moscow Centre,” in Eastern European Politics and Societies 1 (Fall 1987), 296–348CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

67 Spencer (fn. 47), 154.

68 See interview with Edward Ochab in Toranska, Teresa, “Them”: Stalin's Polish Puppets, trans. Kolakowska, A. (New York:Harper and Row, 1988), 37Google Scholar.

69 Bialer, Seweryn, The Soviet Paradox (New York:Alfred A. Knopf, 1986), 54Google Scholar.

70 Ibid., 191.

71 Ibid., 46.

72 Eckhaus, John, “Ho w Life in the USSR Compares with the U.S.” San Francisco Chronicle, June 18, 1990, p. A6Google Scholar.

73 Bialer (fn. 69), 46.

74 Eckhaus (fn. 72) puts Soviet per capita GNP at 34.3 percent of U.S. figures and per capita consumption at 28.2 percent of the latter. Other sources see Soviet income as either stagnant or declining in relation to the economies of the U.S. or the European Defense Community. Earlier estimates put these figures at 42 percent and 37 percent, respectively. See Block, Herbert, The Planetary Product, Special Report no. 58 (Washington, D.C.:U.S. Department of State, 1979), 6–12Google Scholar; and Marer, Paul, Dollar GNP's of the USSR and Eastern Europe (Baltimore:Johns Hopkins University Press, 1985Google Scholar).

75 Bialer (fn. 69), 191.

76 Kubalkova, Vendulka and Cruickshank, Albert Anderson, Thinking New about Soviet “New Thinking” (Berkeley:Institute of International Studies, University of California, 1989), 3Google Scholar.

77 Ibid. See also Snyder, Jack, “The Gorbachev Revolution: The Waning of Soviet Expansionism?” International Security 12 (Winter 1987–88), 93–131CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

78 See the review of Kornai, The Road to a Free Economy, in Socialist Economies in Transition 1 (June 1990), 3.

79 See Schram, Stuart, The Political Thought of Mao Tse-tung, rev. ed. (New York:Praeger, 1974), 128Google Scholar.

80 Ibid., 128–32.

81 Nisbet, Robert A., Social Change and History (London:Oxford University Press, 1969), 303Google Scholar.

82 See, e.g., Cockcroft, James D., Gunder Frank, Andre, and Johnson, Dale L., Dependence and Underdevelopment (Garden City, N.Y.:Doubleday, 1972Google Scholar); or see Wallerstein, Immanuel, The Modem World System (New York:Academic Press, 1974Google Scholar).

83 Wallerstein (fn. 82), esp. 15, 60–63.

84 For this argument, see Luke, Timothy W. and Boggs, Carl, “Soviet Subimperialism and the Crisis of Bureaucratic Centralism,” Studies in Comparative Communism 15 (Spring-Summer 1982), 95–124Google Scholar; and Luke, Timothy W., “On the Nature of Soviet Society,” Telos 63 (Spring 1985), 178Google Scholar–87. For a vigorous counterargument, see Zaslavsky, Victor, “Soviet Society and World System Analysis,” Telos 62 (Winter 1984), 155CrossRefGoogle Scholar–68; and Arato, Andrew, “Between Rcductionism and Relativism: Soviet Society as a World System,” Telos 63 (Spring 1985), 178CrossRefGoogle Scholar–87.

85 Myrdal, Gunnar, Rich Lands and Poor (New York:Harper, 1958), esp. 28–38Google Scholar; Hirschman, Albert, The Strategy of Economic Development (New Haven:Yale University Press, 1962), 183Google Scholar–98.

86 See Gurr, Ted R., Why Men Rebel (Princeton:Princeton University Press, 1972), esp. 92–122Google Scholar; and Xenos, Nicholas, Scarcity and Modernity (New York:Basic Books, 1989Google Scholar).

87 See Pye, Lucian W., Aspects of Political Development (Boston:Little, Brown, 1966), esp 188–200Google Scholar.

88 See Huntington (fn. 44), 54–56.

89 See Arendt (fn. 2); and Ulam, Adam B., The Unfinished Revolution: Marxism and Com munism in the Modem World, 2d rev. ed. (Boulder, Colo.:Westview Press, 1979Google Scholar).

90 For an excellent discussion of this crisis, see Tucker, Robert W., The Inequality of Nations (New York:Basic Books, 1977), 21–24Google Scholar.

91 See Eckhaus (fn. 72); Block (fn. 74); and Marer (fn. 74).

92 For this problem of rclativization and the “power of corruption,” see Chinese officials Shen Beijang and Wang Daohan in the San Francisco Chronicle, June 1, 1989, p. A24.