Advertisement

Analyses in the Marxist Tradition

  • Robert Desjardins
Part of the St Antony’s/Macmillan Series book series

Abstract

This chapter examines certain general analyses of the Soviet Union which belong, broadly speaking, to the Marxist tradition, as well as some of the specific issues raised by hommes de gauche. It also looks briefly at the work of the economist Marie Lavigne. It seems entirely fitting to conclude this chapter with a discussion of Lavigne, since she has generally found fault with the basic line pursued by various Marxist economists in search of a conceptualisation revealing the ‘true’ nature of the Soviet system.

Keywords

Dominant Class Social Regime Soviet Regime Soviet Economy Soviet System 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Notes and References

  1. 1.
    Brown, Soviet Politics and Political Science, p. 22.Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    Paying tribute to Laurat who died in 1973, Souvarine recalls the circumstances of their meeting and how they became friends. See Boris Souvarine, ‘Un demi-siècle d’amitié’, Est et Ouest, vol. 25, no. 515 (16– 30 September 1973) pp. 1–4.Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    Boris Souvarine, ‘Octobre noir’, Le Bulletin communiste, nos. 22–3 (1927) p. 346.Google Scholar
  4. On this point, see Jeannine Verdès-Leroux, ‘Souvarine le premier’, Esprit, no. 89 (May 1984) p. 27.Google Scholar
  5. 4.
    L. Laurat, L’économie soviétique. Sa dynamique. Son mécanisme (Paris: Librairie Valois, 1931) p. 163.Google Scholar
  6. Laurat loathed the Soviet regime. In a later book published in 1955, he depicted the regime as a slavemaster vis-à-vis its employees and as a feudal lord vis-à-vis the peasants working on collective farms. See L. Laurat, Problèmes actuels du Socialisme (Paris: Les Iles d’Or, 1955) p. 97.Google Scholar
  7. Interestingly, Emmanuel Todd, more than 20 years later, propounded a theoretical viewpoint which strangely resembles that of Laurat. See E. Todd, La chute finale — Essai sur la décomposition de la sphère soviétique (Paris: Robert Laffont, 1976) p. 116.Google Scholar
  8. 5.
    Frank died in 1984. For a brief biographical profile of Frank see Peter Burnett, ‘Pierre Frank’, The Journal of Communist Studies, vol. 1, no. 1 (March 1985) p. 90.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 6.
    P. Frank, ‘“Novateurs” et “Conservateurs” dans la question de l’U.R.S.S.’, Supplément-Bulletin intérieur du Secrétariat international, juillet 1947, reprinted in P. Frank, Le stalinisme (Paris: Maspéro, 1977) pp. 171–219.Google Scholar
  10. 7.
    P. Frank, ‘La nature de classe de l’Union soviétique à la lumière de ses crises’, in Entstalinisierung (Frankfurt a.M.: Editions Suhrkamp, 1977) reprinted in Frank, ibid., p. 73.Google Scholar
  11. 8.
    P. Frank, ‘La théorie du stalinisme de Trotsky’, in Sowjet Gesellschaft und stalinistiche Diktatur (oeuvres choisies de Trotsky, tome II) (Cologne: Europaische Verlagsanstalt, 1974) reprinted in Frank, ibid., p. 53.Google Scholar
  12. 9.
    The idea that the revolutionary process, interrupted many decades ago, may be reactivated or, as it were, picked up again is rather simplistic. It totally leaves out numerous political features which have accumulated throughout 65 years of ‘victorious socialism’. On this point, see more particularly J.-M. Vincent, ‘Trotsky et l’analyse de l’URSS’, in L. Marcou (ed.), L’U.R.S.S. vue de gauche (Paris: Presses Universitaires de France, 1982) pp. 58–9.Google Scholar
  13. 10.
    Frank, ‘La théorie du stalinisme de Trotsky’, (in Le stalinisme) p. 55.Google Scholar
  14. 11.
    J. Elleinstein, L’U.R.S.S. contemporaine — histoire de l’U.R.S.S. (tome IV) (Paris: Editions Sociales, 1975)Google Scholar
  15. and Histoire du phénomène stalinien (Paris: Grasset, 1975)Google Scholar
  16. , published in English translation as The Stalin phenomenon (London: Lawrence and Wishart, 1976).Google Scholar
  17. 12.
    G. Lavau, ‘L’URSS et eux … (le Parti communiste français et le socialisme existant, 1964–1981)’, in L. Marcou (ed.), L’U.R.S.S. vue de gauche, p. 196.Google Scholar
  18. 13.
    J. Elleinstein, The Stalin phenomenon, p. 93 note 9.Google Scholar
  19. 14.
    J. Elleinstein’s foreword to M. Voslensky, La Nomenklatura — Les privilégiés en URSS (Paris: Belfond, 1980) p. 21.Google Scholar
  20. 15.
    Ibid., p. 18.Google Scholar
  21. 16.
    Ibid., p. 17.Google Scholar
  22. 17.
    A. Adler, F. Cohen, M. Decaillot, C. Frioux and L. Robel, L’URSS et Nous (Paris: Editions Sociales, 1978) p. 25.Google Scholar
  23. 18.
    Lavau, A quoi sert le parti communiste français?, p. 390.Google Scholar
  24. 19.
    For instance, in a review of the book, a member of the PCF’s Bureau politique had nothing but praise and concluded by writing: ‘Each page invites us to reflect, to research and to discuss. The book deserves, within our ranks, and far beyond, the attention of numerous readers.’ See Guy Besse, ‘“L’URSS et Nous”’, Cahiers du Communisme, 54 ème Année, no. 10 (October 1978) p. 101.Google Scholar
  25. This critical book has to be considered in the context of what V. Wright has described as the PCF’s ‘policy of de-Sovietization’. See V. Wright, ‘The French Communist Party during the Fifth Republic: the troubled path’, in H. Machin (ed.), National Communism in Western Europe: a third way to socialism? (London and New York: Methuen, 1983) p. 95.Google Scholar
  26. See also Jean Baudouin, ‘Le P.C.F.: retour à l’archaïsme?’, Revue politique et parlementaire, 82e Année, no. 889 (November-December 1980) pp. 30–40Google Scholar
  27. and Julius W. Friend, ‘Soviet Behavior and National Responses: The Puzzling Case of the French Communist Party’, Studies in Comparative Communism, vol. XV, no. 3 (Autumn 1982) pp. 212–35.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. 20.
    E. Ambartsumov, F. Burlatsky, Y. Krasin and E. Pletnyov, ‘Against distortion of the experience of real, existing socialism’, New Times, 52 (December 1978) p. 18.Google Scholar
  29. As mentioned, the same condemnation was also published in the December 1978 issue of Kommunist.Google Scholar
  30. Some French writers have seen, not without irony, a link between the condemnation in Moscow and the subsequent curbs put by the PCF leadership on the circulation of the book. See J. Kéhayan, Le tabouret de Piotr (Paris: Seuil, 1980) p. 141.Google Scholar
  31. 21.
    Ibid., p. 21.Google Scholar
  32. 22.
    Ibid., p. 19.Google Scholar
  33. 23.
    In an interview given to us in Paris on 5 November 1983, Cohen, while discussing his work, came up at one point with the expression ‘Communist Sovietology’.Google Scholar
  34. 24.
    By ‘worshipping’ Stalin (whom he once called ‘the greatest scientist of our times’ — Francis Cohen, ‘La supériorité de la civilisation socialiste’, Cahiers du Communisme, 26ème Année, no. 11 (November 1949) p. 1361),Google Scholar
  35. Cohen was indeed just reflecting the attitude prevalent within Communist intellectual circles. In this connection, see ‘Les intellectuels communistes et le culte de Staline’, Est-Ouest (Supplément), 273 (16–28 February 1962) pp. 1–57.Google Scholar
  36. As the authors point out, this supplement is not ‘an anthology of the Stalinist cult — in its French version — …’ but rather ‘a mere sampling of a delirious literature’ (p. 3) (my emphasis).Google Scholar
  37. 25.
    Ibid., p. 1366.Google Scholar
  38. 26.
    F. Cohen, L’U.R.S.S. en mouvement (Paris: Editions Sociales, 1963) p. 161.Google Scholar
  39. 27.
    Ibid., p. 157.Google Scholar
  40. 28.
    Ibid., p. 160.Google Scholar
  41. 29.
    Francis Cohen, ‘L’URSS et le monde — Réflexions’, Cahiers du Communisme, 41ème Année, no. 12 (December 1965) p. 57.Google Scholar
  42. 30.
    F. Cohen, Les Soviétiques — Classes et société en U.R.S.S. (Paris: Editions Sociales, 1974) p. 289.Google Scholar
  43. 31.
    Francis Cohen, ‘Démocratie et réalités sociales dans l’Europe socialiste’, La Pensée, 217–18 (January-February 1981) p. 112.Google Scholar
  44. 32.
    Francis Cohen, ‘Mutations sociales et contradictions’, Recherches internationales, no. 9 (July–August-September 1983) p. 84.Google Scholar
  45. 33.
    Francis Cohen, ‘La révolution socialiste d’octobre soixante ans après’, Cahiers du Communisme, 53ème Année, no. 10 (October 1977) p. 89.Google Scholar
  46. 34.
    Adler, Cohen, Decaillot, Frioux and Robel, L’URSS et Nous, p. 216.Google Scholar
  47. 35.
    Francis Cohen, ‘Connaissance des pays socialistes’, Cahiers du Communisme, 59ème Année, no. 7–8 (July–August 1983) p. 94.Google Scholar
  48. 36.
    Cohen, ‘Mutations sociales et contradictions’, p. 85.Google Scholar
  49. 37.
    Cohen, ‘Connaissance des pays socialistes’, p. 94.Google Scholar
  50. 38.
    Francis Cohen, ‘Structure sociale, classes et différenciations dans le socialisme existant (notes préliminaires)’, La Pensée, 225 (January–February 1982) p. 99.Google Scholar
  51. 39.
    Cohen, ‘Connaissance des pays socialistes’, p. 94. See also Dominique Vidal, ‘Les pays socialistes et nous — 1976/1984 — Entretien avec Francis Cohen’, Révolution, no. 246 (16 November 1984) p. 58.Google Scholar
  52. 40.
    Cohen, ‘Démocratie et réalités sociales dans l’Europe socialiste’, p. 104.Google Scholar
  53. 41.
    Ibid., p. 105.Google Scholar
  54. 42.
    Dick Howard, ‘Introduction to Castoriadis’, Telos, no. 23 (Spring 1975) p. 118.Google Scholar
  55. 43.
  56. 44.
    Anti-mythes, ‘An interview with Claude Lefort’, Telos, no. 30 (Winter 1976–7) p. 175.Google Scholar
  57. 45.
    Christian Descamps, ‘Claude Lefort le peuple et le pouvoir’ (interview with C. Lefort), Le Monde Dimanche (7 November 1982) p. IX.Google Scholar
  58. 46.
    Anti-mythes, ‘An interview with Claude Lefort’, p. 174.Google Scholar
  59. 47.
    C. Castoriadis, ‘Sur le régime et contre la défense de l’U.R.S.S.’, Bulletin Intérieur du P. C.I, no. 31 (August 1946)Google Scholar
  60. and ‘Sur la question de l’URSS et du stalinisme mondial’, Bulletin Intérieur du P.C.I., no. 41 (August 1947)Google Scholar
  61. , reprinted in C. Castoriadis, La société bureaucratique I: Les rapports de production en Russie (Paris: Union Générale d’Editions, 1973).Google Scholar
  62. Numerous pertinent articles by Castoriadis in Socialisme ou Barbarie have also been reprinted in La société bureaucratique 2: La révolution contre la bureaucratie (Paris: Union Générale d’Editions, 1973).Google Scholar
  63. 48.
    Brian Singer, ‘The early Castoriadis: Socialism, Barbarism and the bureaucratic thread’, Canadian Journal of Political and Social Theory, vol. 3, no. 3 (Fall 1979) p. 35.Google Scholar
  64. Singer completed his examination of Castoriadis’s thought in a second article dealing with the recent and more philosophical reflections: ‘The later Castoriadis: Institution under interrogation’, Canadian Journal of Political and Social Theory, vol. 4, no. 1 (Winter 1980) pp. 75–101.Google Scholar
  65. 49.
    Cornelius Castoriadis, ‘The social regime in Russia’, trans. by David J. Parent, Telos, no. 38 (Winter 1978–9) pp. 32–47. This article originally appeared in Esprit, no. 7–8 (July–August 1978) pp. 6–23.Google Scholar
  66. 50.
    C. Castoriadis, Devant la guerre — Les réalités (Paris: Fayard, 1981).Google Scholar
  67. 51.
    Marcel Gauchet, ‘La logique du politique’, Critique, vol. 30, no. 329 (October 1974) p. 908 note 2. A similar comment was expressed by Olivier Mongin in 1977: ‘just a few years ago … only a small minority sensed the importance and the originality of your articles in Socialisme ou Barbarie’.Google Scholar
  68. See Olivier Mongin, Paul Thibaud and Pierre Rosanvallon, ‘L’exigence révolutionnaire — Entretien avec Cornelius Castoriadis’, Esprit no. 2 (February 1977) p. 201.Google Scholar
  69. 52.
    As Socialisme ou Barbarie began advocating a revolution aiming at transforming the totality of everyday life in the 1960s, its message was being carefully studied by young universitaries at Nanterre. In this respect, Socialisme ou Barbarie cannot be denied an influence on the events of May 1968. See D. Cohn-Bendit and G. Cohn-Bendit, Obsolete Communism. The Left-Wing Alternative (London: André Deutsch, 1968) p. 18.Google Scholar
  70. 53.
    Lefort, Eléments d’une critique de la bureaucratie, p. 9.Google Scholar
  71. 54.
    René Lourau, ‘La bureaucratie comme classe dominante’, L’Homme et la Société, no. 21 (July–August–September 1971) p. 261.Google Scholar
  72. 55.
    Poster, Existential Marxism in Postwar France — From Sartre to Althusser, p. 205.Google Scholar
  73. 56.
    Castoriadis once admitted that the notion of a ‘degenerate workers’ state’ could have been, at one point in time, a possibly valid interpretation, as long as the economic foundations of the bureaucratic domination remained limited to the nationalised segment of the industry and as long as some capitalist tendencies survived. That interpretation, in his opinion, suffered a powerful blow as the ‘Grand tournant’ was being planned and imposed upon the Soviet economy and society.Google Scholar
  74. 57.
    Castoriadis, La société bureaucratique 7, p. 17.Google Scholar
  75. 58.
    Paul Cardan, ‘Socialisme ou Barbarie’, The Review, vol. 2, no. 6 (October 1960) p. 97.Google Scholar
  76. 59.
    Pierre Chaulieu, ‘Les rapports de production en Russie’, Socialisme ou Barbarie, lère Année, no. 2 (May–June 1949) pp. 1–66.Google Scholar
  77. 60.
    Cardan, ‘Socialisme ou Barbarie’, p. 97. (my emphasis)Google Scholar
  78. 61.
    Chaulieu, ‘Les rapports de production en Russie’, p. 17.Google Scholar
  79. 62.
    Ibid., p. 10.Google Scholar
  80. 63.
    Ibid., p. 26.Google Scholar
  81. 64.
    In the 1978 article published in Telos, Castoriadis uses the notion of ‘producers’ (defined as ‘workers, peasants and “service” employees’) rather than the term proletariat. His early persistent use of the latter may well be related to his Marxist background. However, this emphasis did not mean that he overlooked the Russian peasantry. In the October 1949 issue of Socialisme ou Barbarie he considered the extensive exploitation of the peasantry by an agricultural bureaucracy. See Pierre Chaulieu, ‘L’exploitation des paysans sous le capitalisme bureaucratique’, Socialisme ou Barbarie, 1ère Année, no. 4 (October–November 1949) pp. 19–44.Google Scholar
  82. 65.
    Castoriadis, ‘The social regime in Russia’, p. 32.Google Scholar
  83. 66.
    Claude Lefort, ‘What is Bureaucracy?’, trans, by Jean L. Cohen, Telos, no. 22 (Winter 1974–5) p. 49. This article originally appeared in Arguments, no. 17 (1960).Google Scholar
  84. 67.
    ‘Socialisme ou Barbarie’, Socialisme ou Barbarie, 1ère Année, no. 1 (March–April 1949) p. 11.Google Scholar
  85. 68.
    Lefort, ‘What is Bureaucracy?’, pp. 53–4.Google Scholar
  86. 69.
    Castoriadis, ‘The social regime in Russia’, p. 33.Google Scholar
  87. 70.
  88. 71.
    Castoriadis, La société bureaucratique 7, p. 21.Google Scholar
  89. 72.
    Castoriadis, ‘The social regime in Russia’, p. 32.Google Scholar
  90. 73.
    Ibid., p. 38.Google Scholar
  91. 74.
    ‘Let us give the name of social regime to a given type of institution of society that applies to more than one individual society’. Ibid.Google Scholar
  92. 75.
    Singer, ‘The early Castoriadis: Socialism, Barbarism and the bureaucratic thread’, p. 37.Google Scholar
  93. 76.
    ‘La vie de notre Groupe’, Socialisme ou Barbarie, 1ère Année, no. 4 (October–November 1949) p. 61.Google Scholar
  94. 77.
    In elaborating his conception of a revolutionary theory, Castoriadis stressed that the sine qua non objective of a socialist revolution should consist in abolishing this antagonistic division. See ‘Socialisme ou Barbarie’, Socialisme ou Barbarie, p. 42.Google Scholar
  95. 78.
    Singer, ‘The early Castoriadis’, p. 38.Google Scholar
  96. 79.
    Castoriadis, ‘The social regime in Russia’, p. 35.Google Scholar
  97. 80.
  98. 81.
    Lefort, ‘What is Bureaucracy?’, p. 51.Google Scholar
  99. 82.
    Pierre Chaulieu, ‘La voie polonaise de la bureaucratisation’, Socialisme ou Barbarie, vol. IV, no. 21 (March–May 1957) p. 73.Google Scholar
  100. 83.
    Castoriadis, ‘The social regime in Russia’, p. 36.Google Scholar
  101. 84.
    Ibid., p. 38.Google Scholar
  102. 85.
    Paul Cardan, ‘Le mouvement révolutionnaire sous le capitalisme moderne (suite)’, Socialisme ou Barbarie, vol. VI, no. 32 (April-June 1961) p. 105.Google Scholar
  103. 86.
    Castoriadis, ‘The social regime in Russia’, p. 37.Google Scholar
  104. 87.
    Ibid., p. 36.Google Scholar
  105. 88.
  106. 89.
  107. 90.
    Zdenek Strmiska, ‘Programme socialiste et rapports sociaux en U.R.S.S. et dans les pays socialistes’, Revue d’études comparatives Est-Ouest, vol. VII, no. 3 (September 1976), p. 167.Google Scholar
  108. Writing recently about what he calls ‘the fundamental divisions in power relationships’ in Soviet-type regimes, Strmiska seems to have introduced nuances in his theoretical position. Thus, paying attention to the phenomenon of the divisions existing within the party, Strmiska has noted that ‘certain divisions within the Party have become as important, or more important, than those existing between the Party and society’. See Z. Strmiska, ‘Pouvoir politique et inégalités sociales’, in P. Kende and Z. Strmiska (eds), Egalité et inégalités en Europe de l’Est (Paris: Presses de la Fondation Nationale des Sciences Politiques, 1984) p. 380.Google Scholar
  109. 91.
    Brown, Soviet politics and political science, p. 26.Google Scholar
  110. 92.
    Z. Strmiska, ‘Pouvoir politique et inégalités sociales’, in P. Kende and Z. Strmiska (eds), Egalité et inégalités en Europe de l’Est, p. 384.Google Scholar
  111. 93.
    E. Zaleski, La planification stalinienne — croissance et fluctuations économiques en U.R.S.S. 1933–1952 (Paris: Economica, 1984) p. 615.Google Scholar
  112. 94.
    Pierre Chaulieu, ‘La révolution prolétarienne contre la bureaucratie’, Socialisme ou Barbarie, vol. IV, no. 20 (December 1956–February 1957) pp. 140–1.Google Scholar
  113. Almost at the same time when Castoriadis was propounding views of this nature in Socialisme ou Barbarie, the then Stalinist scholar Pierre George could write with serene assurance that Soviet central planning was able to ensure the full use of all productive forces and reduce ‘to an infinitesimal rate’ the wastes of raw materials, time and financial credits! See Pierre George, ‘L’U.R.S.S. au seuil du VIe Plan quinquennal’, Cahiers internationaux, 8ème année, no. 73 (February 1956), p. 64.Google Scholar
  114. 95.
    Castoriadis, ‘The social regime in Russia’, p. 46.Google Scholar
  115. 96.
    Pierre de Fouquet, ‘Marxisme et socialisme étatique’, Revue d’études comparatives Est-Ouest, vol. XII, no. 1 (March 1981) pp. 114–15.Google Scholar
  116. 97.
    P. Kende, Logique de l’économie centralisée — Un exemple: La Hongrie (Paris: Société d’Edition d’Enseignement Supérieur, 1964) p. 497.Google Scholar
  117. 98.
    Gérard Duchêne, ‘Le poids du militaire’, Le Débat, no. 24 (March 1983) p. 189.Google Scholar
  118. 99.
    On this point, see M. Nadeau, The History of Surrealism (New York: Macmillan, 1965), esp. Chapter 9 entitled ‘The Naville crisis’.Google Scholar
  119. 100.
    P. Naville, La révolution et les intellectuels (Paris: Gallimard, 1975) p. 41. The pamphlet was originally published in 1928 by the same publishing house.Google Scholar
  120. 101.
    See the Prologue of L. Trotsky, The Crisis of the French Section (1935–1936) (New York: Pathfinder Press, 1977) p. 19.Google Scholar
  121. 102.
    Poster, Existential Marxism in Postwar France — from Sartre to Althusser, pp. 180–2.Google Scholar
  122. 103.
    Pierre Naville, ‘Le parti nécessaire’, Critique socialiste, no. 38–9 (1980) pp. 21–9.Google Scholar
  123. 104.
    Pierre Broué, ‘Trotsky et les grands débats du Monde communiste’, Annales, vol. 20, no. 3 (May-June 1965) p. 617.Google Scholar
  124. 105.
    P. Naville, Le Nouveau Léviathan, vol. 1. De l’aliénation à la jouissance (Paris: Anthropos, 1967); vol. 2. Le salaire socialiste, premier volume: les rapports de production; vol. 3. Le salaire socialiste, deuxième volume: sur l’histoire moderne des théories de la valeur et de la plus-value (Paris: Anthropos, 1970); vol. 4. Les échanges socialistes (Paris: Anthropos, 1974); vol. 5. La bureaucratie et la révolution (Paris: Anthropos, 1972).Google Scholar
  125. 106.
    Naville, La révolution et les intellectuels, p. 97.Google Scholar
  126. 107.
    Naville, Le Nouveau Léviathan, vol. 2. Le salaire socialiste, premier volume: les rapports de production, p. 63. (my emphasis)Google Scholar
  127. 108.
    Ibid., p. 184.Google Scholar
  128. 109.
    Naville, Le Nouveau Léviathan, vol. 5. La bureaucratie et la révolution, p. 281.Google Scholar
  129. 110.
    Ibid., p. 257. (my emphasis)Google Scholar
  130. 111.
    Ibid., p. 266.Google Scholar
  131. 112.
    Ibid., p. 11.Google Scholar
  132. 113.
    Ibid., p. 15.Google Scholar
  133. 114.
    Ibid., p. 96.Google Scholar
  134. 115.
    Ibid., p. 222.Google Scholar
  135. 116.
    Ibid., p. 296.Google Scholar
  136. 117.
    Ibid., p. 231.Google Scholar
  137. 118.
    Ibid., p. 296.Google Scholar
  138. 119.
    Ibid., p. 314.Google Scholar
  139. 120.
    Ibid., p. 294.Google Scholar
  140. 121.
    Naville, Le Nouveau Léviathan, vol. 2. Le salaire socialiste, premier volume: les rapports de production, p. 44.Google Scholar
  141. 122.
    Naville, Le Nouveau Léviathan, vol. 5. La bureaucratie et la révolution, p. 290.Google Scholar
  142. 123.
    Ibid., p. 348.Google Scholar
  143. 124.
    Pierre Naville, ‘Grèves et revendications ouvrières en U.R.S.S.’, Critique socialiste, no. 40 (1980) p. 96.Google Scholar
  144. Twenty-five years before his contribution to Critique socialiste, Naville had already shown his awareness about the ‘new working class’ potential as being determinative in bringing about essential changes in the Soviet society. See Pierre Naville, ‘Les Sociétés soviétiques’, La Nef, vol. 13, no. 12 (March 1956) p. 22.Google Scholar
  145. 125.
    Naville, Le Nouveau Léviathan, vol. 5. La bureaucratie et la révolution, p. 324.Google Scholar
  146. 126.
    Ibid., p. 314.Google Scholar
  147. 127.
    S. White, Political Culture and Soviet Politics (London: Macmillan, 1979) p. 111.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  148. 128.
    Strmiska, ‘Programme socialiste et rapports sociaux en U.R.S.S. et dans les pays socialistes’, p. 127.Google Scholar
  149. 129.
    Ibid., p. 146.Google Scholar
  150. 130.
    Explicit reference to Naville’s theory of mutual exploitation can be found in the writings of Naville’s old acquaintance Gilles Martinet. See G. Martinet, Les cinq communismes (Paris: Seuil, 1971) esp. pp. 73– 7.Google Scholar
  151. 131.
    Thierry Paquot, ‘Charles Bettelheim et la “révolution capitaliste” d’Octobre’ (interview with C. Bettelheim), Le Monde Dimanche (3 October 1982) p. x.Google Scholar
  152. 132.
    C. Bettelheim, La planification soviétique (Paris: Librairie Marcel Rivière, 1939).Google Scholar
  153. 133.
    Paquot, interview with C. Bettelheim, p. x.Google Scholar
  154. 134.
    Charles Bettelheim, ‘La pensée marxienne à l’épreuve de l’histoire’, Les Temps Modernes, 41ème Année, no. 472 (November 1985) p. 628.Google Scholar
  155. 135.
    E. Morin, ‘L’avenir dans la société française’, in J.-D. Reynaud (ed.), Tendances et volontés de la société française (Paris: S.é.d.é.i.s., 1966) p. 418.Google Scholar
  156. 136.
    C. Bettelheim, Cultural Revolution and Industrial Organization in China — Changes in Management and the Division of Labor, trans. by A. Ehrenfeld (New York and London: Monthly Review Press, 1975) p. 10.Google Scholar
  157. 137.
    Castoriadis, La société bureaucratique 1 — Les rapports de production en Russie, p. 283.Google Scholar
  158. 138.
    Cornelius Castoriadis, ‘Les divertisseurs’, Le Nouvel Observateur, no. 658 (20 June 1977) p. 51.Google Scholar
  159. 139.
    C. Bettelheim, Les luttes de classes en URSS — lère période 1917–1923 (Paris: Seuil/Maspéro, 1974)Google Scholar
  160. , Les luttes de classes en URSS — 2ème période 1923–1930 (Paris: Seuil/Maspéro, 1977)Google Scholar
  161. , Les luttes de classes en URSS — 3ème période 1930–1941 — Les Dominés (Paris: Seuil/Maspéro, 1982)Google Scholar
  162. , Les luttes de classes en URSS — 3ème période 1930–1941 — Les Dominants (Paris: Seuil/Maspéro, 1983).Google Scholar
  163. 140.
    A number of French writers have employed the theory of state capitalism in their conceptualisation of the Soviet regime. In particular, see the book of an ardent anti-Communist, S. Labin, Stalin’s Russia (London: Victor Gollancz Ltd, 1949) esp. pp. 420–8;Google Scholar
  164. Serge Mallet, ‘Bureaucratie et technocratie dans les pays socialistes’, L’Homme et la Société, 10 (October–November–December 1968) pp. 147–71, in which he distinguishes two phases of state capitalism: ‘State capitalism of the bureaucratic phase and the one of the technocratic phase’ (p. 160);CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  165. D. Rousset, La Société éclatée — De la première à la seconde révolution mondiale (Paris: Grasset, 1973)Google Scholar
  166. ; Danièle Leborgne and Alain Lipietz, ‘Est, Ouest: deux modes de régulation du capitalisme’, Reflets et Perspectives de la vie économique, vol. XXII, nos 4/5 (1981) pp. 369–76.Google Scholar
  167. Finally, Bernard Chavance, ‘Sur les rapports de production en URSS (A propos d’un article de Paul Sweezy)’, Les Temps Modernes, vol. 33, no. 375 (October 1977) pp. 513–26.Google Scholar
  168. This writer has developed a new theoretical viewpoint. He now writes of etatist capitalism. See Bernard Chavance, ‘La nature du système soviétique, questions et enjeux’, Les Temps Modernes, vol. 37, no. 419 (June 1981) pp. 2198–213Google Scholar
  169. and Bernard Chavance, ‘Pourquoi le capitalisme étatique? Réponse à: “Marxisme en crise cherche sociétés socialistes”’, Babylone, no. 2/3 (Winter 1983–4) pp. 126–42.Google Scholar
  170. A. Nove has recently underlined the distinction now being made by the French economist: ‘Among our own contemporaries it is … necessary to mention the interesting ideas of … Chavance, who, in seeing the USSR as a class society, distinguishes between “state capitalism” (capitalisme d’Etat) and “etatist capitalism” (capitalisme étatique). The point of the distinction is that in the former version the state plays the role of the capitalist, but in the latter (which he supports), the role is played by specific individuals (officials, managers) within a system in which ownership is formally vested in the state and in which these “concrete persons” act as “capitalists” …’.Google Scholar
  171. See Alec Nove, ‘The Class Nature of the Soviet Union Revisited’, Soviet Studies, vol. XXXV, no. 3 (July 1983) p. 306. Against the new viewpoint developed by Chavance, see Wladimir Andreff, ‘Marxisme en crise cherche sociétés socialistes. A propos des thèses de P. M. Sweezy et de B. Chavance’, Babylone, no. 2/3 (Winter 1983–4) pp. 100– 25.Google Scholar
  172. 141.
    Bettelheim, Les luttes de classes en URSS — 3ème période 1930–1941 — Les Dominés, p. 13.Google Scholar
  173. 142.
    Strmiska, ‘Programme socialiste et rapports sociaux en U.R.S.S. et dans les pays socialistes’, p. 179. In the first volume, Bettelheim dwelt on the party’s lack of control and political guidance over the state. He saw the party’s line continually thwarted by a growing number of important functionaries in the administrative system hostile to the dictatorship of the proletariat. Bettelheim asserted that the bourgeois forces present in the state apparatus influenced party leaders and fostered orientations favourable to their own interests, namely the restoration of capitalism.Google Scholar
  174. 143.
    Bettelheim rejects any ‘juridisme’: ‘Life has made it its business to show … that changes in legal forms of ownership do not suffice to cause the conditions for the existence of classes and for class struggle to disappear. These conditions are rooted … not in legal forms of ownership but in production relations …’. C. Bettelheim, Class Struggles in the USSR. First period: 1917–1923, trans. by Brian Pearce (New York and London: Monthly Review Press, 1976) p. 21.Google Scholar
  175. 144.
    Ibid., p. 139.Google Scholar
  176. 145.
    Ibid., p. 97. In an article published in 1970, Bettelheim was in no doubt about the ‘political domination of the proletariat resulting from the October Revolution’ and about the ‘political control possessed by the working class and its vanguard’. See Charles Bettelheim, ‘Remarques théoriques’, Problèmes de planification, 14 (1970) pp. 190–1.Google Scholar
  177. 146.
    Bettelheim, Les luttes de classes en URSS — 3eme période 1930–1941 — Les Dominés, p. 9.Google Scholar
  178. 147.
    C. Bettelheim, ‘La pertinence des concepts marxiens de classe et de lutte de classes pour analyser la société soviétique’, in B. Chavance (ed.), Marx en perspective — Actes du colloque organisé par l’Ecole des Hautes Etudes en Sciences Sociales, Paris, décembre 1983 (Paris: Editions de l’Ecole des Hautes Etudes en Sciences Sociales, 1985) p. 286.Google Scholar
  179. 148.
    Bettelheim, Les luttes de classes en URSS — 3ème période 1930–1941 — Les Dominés, p. 10.Google Scholar
  180. 149.
    It is worth comparing this recent viewpoint with what Bettelheim had to say in the first volume about the disappearance of political pluralism. In 1974 Bettelheim had little difficulty in explaining the unsuccessful attempt of the party to give other political formations a place in the political relations emerging under the dictatorship of the proletariat. This failure arose from the illusions of these groups which believed in the possibility of toppling the new proletarian regime by subversive means. Bettelheim, Class Struggles in the USSR. First Period. 1917– 1923, p. 269.Google Scholar
  181. 150.
    Bettelheim, Les luttes de classes en URSS — 3ème période 1930–1941 — Les Dominés, p. 14.Google Scholar
  182. 151.
    Bettelheim, ‘La pertinence des concepts marxiens de classe et de lutte de classes pour analyser la société soviétique’, in B. Chavance (ed.), Marx en perspective — Actes du colloque organisé par l’Ecole des Hautes Etudes en Sciences Sociales, Paris, décembre 1983, p. 287.Google Scholar
  183. 152.
    Ibid., p. 290. Indeed, such a change in interpretation renders obsolete Bettelheim’s previous idea of a ‘Stalinist counter-revolution’. On this idea, see Charles Bettelheim, ‘La “Crise du marxisme” et l’idéologie stalinienne’, Critique socialiste, no. 40 (1980) pp. 69–73.Google Scholar
  184. 153.
    Paquot, interview with C. Bettelheim, p. IX.Google Scholar
  185. 154.
    Bettelheim, Les luttes de classes en URSS — 3ème période 1930–1941 — Les Dominants, p. 221.Google Scholar
  186. 155.
    C. Bettelheim, ‘Le système soviétique: un capitalisme de parti’, in Chronique des petites gens d’URSS (Paris: Seuil, 1981), p. 160.Google Scholar
  187. 156.
    Bettelheim, Les luttes de classes en URSS — 3ème période 1930–1941 — Les Dominants, p. 210 note 3.Google Scholar
  188. 157.
    Ibid., p. 177.Google Scholar
  189. 158.
    Ibid., p. 213. As more recently pointed out by Bettelheim, the ‘Party is … the matrix of the dominant class; it is through it [the Party] that this class develops’. See Bettelheim, ‘La pensée marxienne à l’épreuve de l’histoire’, p. 633.Google Scholar
  190. 159.
    Bettelheim, ‘La pertinence des concepts marxiens de classe et de lutte de classes pour analyser la société soviétique’, in B. Chavance (ed.), Marx en perspective — Actes du colloque organisé par l’Ecole des Hautes Etudes en Sciences Sociales, Paris, décembre 1983, p. 290.Google Scholar
  191. 160.
  192. 161.
    Bettelheim, Les luttes de classes en URSS — 3ème période 1930–1941 — Les Dominants, p. 293.Google Scholar
  193. 162.
    Ibid., p. 174–5.Google Scholar
  194. 163.
    Ibid., p. 175.Google Scholar
  195. 164.
    Ibid., p. 221.Google Scholar
  196. 165.
  197. 166.
    Ibid., p. 304.Google Scholar
  198. 167.
    Ibid., p. 305.Google Scholar
  199. 168.
    Bettelheim, ‘Le système soviétique: un capitalisme de parti’, in Chronique des petites gens d’URSS, p. 161.Google Scholar
  200. 169.
    Ibid., p. 161–2.Google Scholar
  201. 170.
    Charles Bettelheim, ‘The specificity of Soviet capitalism’, Monthly Review, vol. 37 (September 1985) p. 53.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  202. 171.
    Bettelheim, ‘Le système soviétique: un capitalisme de parti’, in Chronique des petites gens d’URSS, p. 162.Google Scholar
  203. 172.
    Bettelheim, ‘The specificity of Soviet capitalism’, p. 51.Google Scholar
  204. 173.
    Ibid., p. 54.Google Scholar
  205. 174.
  206. 175.
    M. Lavigne, Les économies socialistes soviétique et européennes, 3ème ed. (Paris: Armand Colin, 1979) p. 16.Google Scholar
  207. 176.
    W. Andreff, ‘Capitalisme d’Etat ou monopolisme d’Etat en U.R.S.S.? — Propos d’étape’ in M. Lavigne, Economie politique de la planification en système socialiste (Paris: Economica, 1978) p. 251.Google Scholar
  208. 177.
    Strmiska, ‘Programme socialiste et rapports sociaux en U.R.S.S. et dans les pays socialistes’, p. 136.Google Scholar
  209. 178.
    Andreff, ‘Capitalisme d’Etat ou monopolisme d’Etat en U.R.S.S.?’, p. 249.Google Scholar
  210. 179.
    Ibid., pp. 249–50.Google Scholar
  211. 180.
    Nove, ‘The Class Nature of the Soviet Union Revisited’, p. 309.Google Scholar
  212. 181.
    Strmiska, ‘Programme socialiste et rapports sociaux en U.R.S.S. et dans les pays socialistes’, p. 225.Google Scholar
  213. 182.
    Nove, ‘The Class Nature of the Soviet Union Revisited’, p. 303.Google Scholar
  214. 183.
    Jean-Jacques Marie, ‘La bureaucratie et l’opposition face à la convergence’, Le Monde diplomatique (August 1975) p. 10.Google Scholar
  215. 184.
    W. Andreff, ‘Vers une théorie de la congruence des systèmes’, in M. Lavigne (ed.), Travail et monnaie en système socialiste (Paris: Economica, 1981) p. 288.Google Scholar
  216. 185.
    Favouring an analytical approach to the Soviet economy that confronts, in a dialectical fashion, the existing reality with the more abstract Marxist concepts, Andreff lays great stress on the collection and analysis of data as well as on scientific observation. For an example of Andreff’s approach, see URGENSE, ‘Un taylorisme arythmique dans les économies planifiées du centre’, Critiques de V économie politique, no. 19 (April–June 1982) pp. 99–146Google Scholar
  217. and Wladimir Andreff, ‘L’organisation du travail dans les entreprises socialistes’, Reflets et Perspectives de la vie économique, tome XXII, nos 4/5 (1983) pp. 277–87.Google Scholar
  218. 186.
    Lavigne, Les économies socialistes soviétique et européennes, p. 16.Google Scholar
  219. 187.
    Ibid., p. 423.Google Scholar
  220. 188.
    M. Lavigne, Economie internationale des pays socialistes (Paris : Armand Colin, 1985) p. 96.Google Scholar
  221. 189.
    Lavigne, Les économies socialistes soviétique et européennes, p. 277.Google Scholar
  222. 190.
    Ibid., p. 421.Google Scholar
  223. 191.
    Ibid., p. 423.Google Scholar
  224. 192.
  225. 193.
    Ibid., p. 45.Google Scholar
  226. 194.
  227. 195.
  228. 196.
    Ibid., p. 46.Google Scholar
  229. 197.
    B. Kerblay and M. Lavigne, Les Soviétiques des années 80 (Paris: Armand Colin, 1985) p. 83.Google Scholar
  230. 198.
    Lavigne, Economie internationale des pays socialistes, p. 32.Google Scholar
  231. 199.
    Kerblay and Lavigne, Les Soviétiques des années 80, p. 57. In recent years, a few young French scholars have devoted some specific attention to the notion of ‘crisis’ in the context of the Soviet-type economy. See, for instance, M. Drach, La crise dans les pays de l’Est (Paris: Editions La Découverte, 1984)Google Scholar
  232. and X. Richet, Crises à l’Est? (Lyon: Presses Universitaires de Lyon, 1984).Google Scholar
  233. 200.
    As to Soviet agriculture, Lavigne acknowledges that the necessity of reforms in this sector of the Soviet economy is urgent. In her view, the major sources of the difficulties plaguing Soviet agriculture lie outside it, that is, in Soviet industry. One must note that she dismisses as simplistic the idea of a per se inefficiency of a planned agriculture such as the Soviet one. For a different viewpoint on this question, see Basile Kerblay, ‘Les enseignements de l’expérience soviétique d’agriculture collectiviste (Résultats, problèmes et perspectives)’, Revue d’études comparatives Est-Ouest, vol. x, no. 3 (September 1979) p. 27.Google Scholar
  234. 201.
    J.-C. Asselain, Plan et profit en économie socialiste (Paris: Presses de la Fondation Nationale des Sciences Politiques, 1981), p. 265.Google Scholar
  235. 202.
    Lavigne, Les économies socialistes soviétique et européennes, p. 175.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Robert Desjardins 1988

Authors and Affiliations

  • Robert Desjardins

There are no affiliations available

Personalised recommendations