¹ In the first of a noteworthy series of bibliographical essays, the editors of Voprosy filosofii identify what they consider to be the most important recent Soviet studies of the NTR: “Sotsial'no-filosofskie problemy nauchno-tekhnicheskoi revoliutsii (issledovaniia 1971–1975 gg.)” [Social-Philosophical Problems of the Scientific-Technological Revolution (Research 1971–1975)], No. 2 (1976), 37–53. I examine, in the present and another review article, all of the books cited by the editors of Voprosy filosofii on two major topics: (1) the essential characteristics and significance of the contemporary NTR; and (2) current Soviet thinking on the NUO—that is, leadership and administration from Politburo-level societal guidance to the “rationalization” of economic planning and decision making, and to the stimulation of production and technical innovation in ministries, state committees, factories, and farms. See Hoffmann, , “The ‘Scientific Management’ of Soviet Society,” Problems of Communism, XXVI (May-June 1977), 59–67.Google Scholar

Unfortunately, few of the Soviet studies of the NTR and NUO have been translated into English. And in most of the translated works (especially Man, Science, Technology: A Marxist Analysis of the Scientific and Technological Revolution), there are intermittent deletions, additions, or free translations for the original Russian. All translations in this article are my own. Where English texts exist, I have double-checked the translations against the original wherever possible, and made any corrections necessary.

² Cooper, , “The Scientific and Technical Revolution in Soviet Theory,” in Fleron, Frederic Jr., ed., Technology and Communist Culture: The Socio-Cultural Impact of Technology under Socialism (New York: Praeger 1977), 167.Google Scholar Despite important general areas of intellectual agreement among Soviet writers and fluctuating political constraints, Cooper's conclusion is even more pertinent when one considers the views of East European scholars. They often take issue with one another—and sometimes with their Soviet counterparts-on conceptual, as well as substantive, questions concerning the NTR. Most notably, see Rkhta, Radovan and others, Civilization at the Crossroads: Social and Human Implications of the Scientific and Technological Revolution (White Plains, N.Y.: International Arts and Sciences Press 1969).Google ScholarNauchno-tekhnicheskaia revoliutsiia i sotsializm is a revised Soviet-Czech version of this work.

The Soviet authors of Partiia present a rather clearly formulated theoretical point of view—one that has been developing for about two decades in the Institute of the History of the Natural Sciences and Technique (IIEiT). But the important Soviet-Czech collaborative works, Chelovek—nauka—tekhnika and Nauchno-tekhnicheskaia revoliutsiia i sotsializm, do not put forward fully consistent interpretations. Rather, each study is an amalgam, or juxtaposition of different viewpoints—at times offering creative synthesis, at others presenting what appears to be the lowest common denominator of agreement among the participating institutes (the Institute of Philosophy and IIEiT of the U.S.S.R. Academy of Sciences, and the Institute of Philosophy and Sociology of the Czech Academy of Sciences).

³ On the historical development of Marxist and Soviet theories of scientific-technical and social change, and on the differences between the NTR and previous “technical” and “production revolutions” (e.g., the Industrial Revolution of the 18th and 19th centuries), see Sovremennaia Nauchno-tekhnicheskaia revoliutsiia—lstoricheskoe issledovanie (2d ed., Moscow: Nauka 1970); also Cooper, (fn. 2).Google Scholar

⁴ See Hoffmann, “Technology, Values, and Political Power in the Soviet Union: Do Computers Matter?” in Fleron (fn. 2), 397–436.

⁵ Kosolapov, V. I., Mankind and the Year 2000 (Moscow: Progress Publishers 1976), 21Google Scholar; emphasis added.

⁶ lbid., 27; emphasis added.

⁷ “The System of Power and Democratic Institutions,” Social Sciences (Moscow), VI, No. 3 (1975), 122.Google Scholar

⁸ Volkov, G. N., Man and the Challenge of Technology (Moscow: Novosti 1972), 11.Google Scholar

⁹ See USSR: Scientific and Technical Revolution (Moscow: Novosti 1973), 36–40 (chapter by Volkov, G. N.).Google Scholar

¹⁰ Ibid, 37.

¹¹ “See Hoffmann (fn. I).

¹² For elaboration of these themes, see Fleron (fn. 2), esp. the editor's introductory and concluding chapters.

¹³ Volkov (fn. 8), 37–38.

¹⁴ Materialy XXIV s'ezda KPSS (Moscow: Politizdat 1971), 57Google Scholar; emphasis in original.

¹⁵ See, for instance, the above quote from Chelovek—nauka—tekhnika; also Akhiezer, A. S., Nauchno-tekhnicheskaia revoliutsiia i nekotorye sotsial 'nye problemy proizvodstva i upravleniia [The Scientific-Technological Revolution and Some Social Problems of Production and Management] (Moscow; Nauka 1974).Google Scholar

¹⁶ See fn. I.

¹⁷ On the role of ideology in politics—especially communist politics—see, for instance, Seliger, Martin, Ideology and Politics (New York: Free Press 1976)Google Scholar; Schurmann, Franz, Ideology and Organization in Communist China (2d ed., Berkeley: University of California Press 1971)Google Scholar; Meyer, Alfred, “The Functions of Ideology in the Soviet Political System,” Soviet Studies, XVII (January 1966), 273–85CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Joravsky, David, “Soviet Ideology,” Soviet Studies, XVIII (July 1966), 2–19.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

¹⁸ See Moore, Barrington Jr., Soviet Politics—The Dilemma of Power: The Role of Ideas in Social Change (New York: Harper & Row 1965).Google Scholar

¹⁹ For a major dissident view, see Medvedev, Roy, On Socialist Democracy (New York: Knopf 1975)Google Scholar, esp. chap. 16.

²⁰ I shall not discuss here the question of legitimacy, and the potentially significant interconnections between the NTR and the changing bases of legitimacy and legitimation claims of the Soviet leadership. These issues are analyzed in Laird, Robbin, “‘Developed’ Socialist Society and the Dialectics of Development and Legitimation in the Sov. Union,” Soviet Union, IV, No. 1 (1977), 130–49Google Scholar. See also Laird, , “Post-Industrial Society: East and West,” Survey, XXI, No. 4 (Autumn 1975), 1–17.Google Scholar

²¹ Brezhnev noted that at the behest of top Party and government organs, “academic institutes, working together with ministries and departments,” had prepared the draft of a “comprehensive program for scientific and technical progress and its social and economic effects for 1976–1990.” He went on to say, “It is necessary to continue work on this program for it is an organic part of the current and long-term planning, providing the orientations (orientiry) without a knowledge of which the economy cannot be directed (rukovodit') successfully.” Pravda, February 25, 1976, p. 6.

²² Gvishiani, , Organizatsiia i upravlenie [Organization and Management] (2d ed., Moscow: Nauka 1972), 127–28.Google Scholar

²³ “The revolution in science and technique requires fundamental changes in the style and methods of economic work, a determined struggle against sluggishness (kosnost') and red tape (rutinerstvo); it requires true respect for science and the ability and desire to take advice from and reckon with science.” Pravda (fn. 21), 6; emphasis added.

²⁴ See Lubrano, Linda, Soviet Sociology of Science (Columbus, Ohio: American Association for the Advancement of Slavic Studies, 1976).Google Scholar

²⁵ Voprosy filosofii, No. 2 (1976), 38, 48, 51, 53; “Marksistsko-leninskaia teorii nauchno-tekhnicheskoi revoliutsii,” Voprosy filosofii, No. 2 (1974), 9–10. The fact that the present composition of the editorial board of Voprosy filosofii is more “conservative” than it has been in the recent past would seem to strengthen my contention that the NTR literature should be taken seriously. When the present editors repeatedly stress “the great practical significance” of the “social-philosophical” studies of the NTR, it is more likely to reflect the official or predominant national Party position than it would have in, say, the early 1970's. Also, Gvishiani has pointedly asserted that the purpose of research on the NTR is “not only to publish monographs and articles, but to work out concrete suggestions, recommendations, and methods which planning organs, ministries, and departments can use.” “Nauchno-tekhnicheskaia revoliutsiia i sotsial'nyi progress,” Voprosy filosofii, No. 4 (1974), 8.

²⁶ See, for instance, Leiss, William, “The Social Consequences of Technological Progress: Critical Comments on Recent Theories,” Canadian Public Administration, XIII, No. 3 (1970), 252, 260 ff.Google Scholar

²⁷ This term is central to the analysis in Bell, Wendell and Mau, James, eds., The Sociology of the Future: Theory, Cases, and Annoted Bibliography (New York: Russell Sage Foundation 1971).Google Scholar For a discussion of Soviet views of the future during the Khrushchev years, see Gilison, Jerome, The Soviet Image of Utopia (Baltimore: The Johns Hopkins Press 1975).Google Scholar