Hostname: page-component-cd9895bd7-gbm5v Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-24T01:37:22.715Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Communist Systems and the ‘Iron Law of Pluralism’

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  27 January 2009

Stephen White
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Extract

It is now nearly twenty years since Daniel Bell despatched ten theories ‘in search of Soviet reality’. Each of these theories represented, ‘despite some shading or overlap,… a coherent judgement of Soviet behavior’. Considering them side by side, Bell thought, would make it easier to identify their respective merits and shortcomings; and it should also make clear which had ‘“stood up” in explaining events’, and which had not. Bell himself refrained from judgement on this point. In retrospect, however, it seems difficult to avoid the conclusion that none of the theories that Bell identified – nor indeed any of those that have joined them in more recent years – has yet come close to success. Rather, as the scholarly literature groans under the weight of a steadily-accumulating load of models and paradigms, each one more abstruse and more removed from reality than its predecessor, there must be many who would be inclined to agree with Alfred Hirschman that the continued search for conceptual innovation may well have become a positive ‘hindrance to understanding’.

Type
Articles
Information
British Journal of Political Science , Volume 8 , Issue 1 , January 1978 , pp. 101 - 117
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge University Press 1978

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 Bell, Daniel, ‘Ten Theories in Search of Soviet Reality’, World Politics, x (1958), 327–65.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

2 For some representative recent surveys, see Kanet, R. E., ed., The Behavioral Revolution and Communist Studies (New York: Free Press, 1971)Google Scholar; Fleron, F. J., ed., Communist Studies and the Social Sciences (Chicago: Rand McNally, 1969)Google Scholar; Rigby, T. H., ‘New Trends in the Study of Soviet Politics’, Politics, v (1970), 1–17CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Brown, A. H., Soviet Politics and Political Science (London: Macmillan, 1974)CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Collignon, J., ‘De l'isolationnisme au comparatisme: méthodes et approches anglo-saxonnes pour l'analyse du système politique soviétique’, Revue Française de Science Politique, xxvi (1976), 445–82CrossRefGoogle Scholar; and McGrath, B. and Mclnnes, S., ‘Better Fewer but Better: On Approaches to the Study of Soviet and East European Politics’, Canadian Slavonic Papers, xviii (1976), 327–37.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

3 Hirschman, A., ‘The Search for Paradigms as a Hindrance to Understanding’, World Politics, xxii (1970), 329–43.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

4 The standard account remains that of Friedrich, C. J. and Brzezinski, Z. K., Totalitarian Dictatorship and Autocracy, 2nd edn. (Cambridge, Mass.: Harvard University Press, 1965)Google Scholar. For some ‘revisionist’ statements, see Barber, B. R., ‘Conceptual Foundations of Totalitarianism’, in Friedrich, C. J., ed., Totalitarianism in Perspective (New York: Praeger, 1969)Google Scholar; Spiro, H. J. and Barber, B. R., ‘Counter-ideological Uses of Totalitarianism’, Politics and Society, 1 (1970), 3–22CrossRefGoogle Scholar; and White, Stephen, ‘Political Science as Ideology: The Study of Soviet Politics’, in Chapman, B. and Potter, A. M., eds., W.J.M.M. Political Questions (Manchester: Manchester University Press, 1974).Google Scholar

5 Azrael, J., ‘Varieties of De-Stalinization’, in Johnson, Chalmers, ed., Change in Communist Systems (Stanford, Calif.: Stanford University Press, 1970), pp. 135–6.Google Scholar

6 Some representative studies are Huntington, S. and Moore, C. H., eds., Authoritarian Politics in Modern Society (New York: Basic Books, 1970)Google Scholar; Schapiro, L., ed., Political Opposition in One-party States (London: Macmillan, 1972)Google Scholar; Johnson, , ed., Change in Communist SystemsGoogle Scholar; Mesa-Lago, Carmelo and Beck, Carl, eds., Comparative Socialist Systems: Essays on Politics and Economics (Pittsburgh, Pa.: University of Pittsburgh Center for International Studies, 1975)Google Scholar; and Field, Mark, ed., The Social Consequences of Modernization in Communist Societies (Baltimore, Md., and London: Johns Hopkins University Press, 1977).Google Scholar

7 Dahl, R. A., Polyarchy (New Haven and London: Yale University Press, 1971), pp. 64–5 and 77Google Scholar, and in Greenstein, F. I. and Polsby, N. W., eds., Handbook of Political Science, Vol. 3: Macro-Political Theory (Reading, Mass.: Addison-Wesley, 1975), pp. 142–5.Google Scholar The literature on this general subject is too extensive for footnote citation. See, for a classic statement, Kerr, Clark et al. , Industrialism and Industrial Man (Harmondsworth, Middx.: Penguin Books, 1973)Google Scholar; and for useful collections of papers, Finkle, J. L. and Gable, R. W., eds., Political Development and Social Change, 2nd edn. (New York: Wiley, 1971)Google Scholar; Welch, C. E., ed., Political Modernization, 2nd edn. (Belmont, N.C.: Wadsworth, 1971)Google Scholar; Gillespie, J. V. and Nesvold, B. A., eds., Micro-Quantitative Analysis (Beverly Hills, Calif.: Sage Publications, 1971)Google Scholar; and Pierce, J. C. and Pride, R. A., eds., Cross-National Macro-Analysis (Beverly Hills, Calif.: Sage Publications, 1972).Google Scholar

8 Dahl, , Polyarchy, pp. 78–9 and 218.Google Scholar

9 Eckstein, A., ‘Economic Development and Political Change in Communist Systems’, World Politics, xxii (1970), 475–95.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

10 Campbell, R., Soviet-type Economics (London: Macmillan, 1974), p. 226CrossRefGoogle Scholar; similarly Berliner, J. S., ‘Economy, Polity and Social Change’, in his Economy, Society and Welfare (New York: Praeger, 1972), pp. 99–133.Google Scholar

11 B. I. Sazonov has pointed out, for instance, that 1016 arithmetic operations are currently required each year for national economic decision-making. Industrial ministries alone send out about 1,700 orders (prikazy), despatch over 12,000 telegrams, and process about 300,000 documents every year (Pravovedenie, 1976, no. 1, pp. 72–3).Google Scholar

12 Eckstein, , ‘Economic Development and Political Change in Communist Systems‘;Google Scholar but see also his reservations on pp. 475 and 495.

13 ‘There has been a curious reluctance on the part of scholars’, Presthus, Robert has noted, ‘precisely to define “pluralism”’ (Men at the Top (New York: Oxford University Press, 1964), p. 10)Google Scholar. Our definition, which is close to that which Presthus himself advances, is as follows: the diffusion and dispersion of power in a political system from central authorities to more or less autonomous groups, organizations and individuals, typically expressed in the establishment of ‘bargaining’ rather than ‘command’ relationships between them. See further Harasymiw, B., ‘Application of the Concept Pluralism to the Soviet Political System’, Newsletter on Comparative Studies of Communism, v (1971), 40–54Google Scholar; Hough, J., ‘The Soviet System: Petrification of Pluralism?’, Problems of Communism, xxi (1972), 25–45Google Scholar; Korbonski, A., ‘Comparing Liberalization Processes in Eastern Europe: A Preliminary Analysis’, Comparative Politics, iv (1972), 231–49CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Nicholls, D., Three Varieties of Pluralism (London: Macmillan, 1974)CrossRefGoogle Scholar; LaPalombara, J., ‘Monoliths or Plural Systems: Through Conceptual Lenses Darkly’, Studies in Comparative Communism, viii (1975), 305–32CrossRefGoogle Scholar; and (for an East European perspective) Kozharov, A., Monizm i Plyuralizm v Ideologii i Politike (Moscow: Progress Publishers, forthcoming)Google Scholar. Our employment of the term ‘pluralism’ in the present connection should not be taken to imply support of what might be called ‘pluralist orthodoxy’ in the analysis of non-communist systems.

14 Fainsod, M., ‘The Dynamics of One-party Systems’, in Garceau, O., ed., Political Research and Political Theory (Cambridge, Mass.: Harvard University Press, 1968), pp. 227–9.Google Scholar

15 Schapiro, L. B., The Communist Party of the Soviet Union, 2nd edn. (London: Eyre and Spottiswoode, 1970), p. 628Google Scholar. Elsewhere, however, Schapiro has argued that ‘“history is on the side” of pragmatic dissent, and that in the long run, even in the Soviet Union, it may succeed in effecting momentous changes’ (Political Opposition, p. 10).Google Scholar

16 Authoritarian Politics, pp. 40–1 and 513.Google Scholar See also Barghoorn, Frederick C., ‘Factional, Sectional and Subversive Opposition in Soviet Politics’, in Dahl, R. A., ed., Regimes and Oppositions (New Haven and London: Yale University Press, 1973), pp. 51 and 55Google Scholar; Johnson, , Change in Communist Systems, p. 26Google Scholar; Wesson, Robert G., The Soviet Russian State (New York: Wiley, 1972), p. 186Google Scholar; Godwin, P., ‘Communist Systems and Modernization’, Studies in Comparative Communism, vi (1973), 123–4Google Scholar; and Azrael, Jeremy, ‘The Managers’, in Farrell, R. B., ed., Political Leadership in Eastern Europe and the Soviet Union (London: Butterworth, 1970)Google Scholar, who argues that the ‘future course of Soviet political development is likely to see a curtailment of the political primacy of the apparat and the emergence of an increasingly rigorous [sic] and increasingly legitimate pluralistic politics’ (p. 246).

17 Medvedev, Roy, Kniga o Sotsialisticheskoi Demokratii (Amsterdam and Paris: Herzen Foundation and Grasset and Fasquelle, 1972), p. 118Google Scholar; Ionescu, Ghita, The Politics of the European Communist States (London: Weidenfeld and Nicolson, 1967), pp. 271 and 274–5Google Scholar; Deutsch, Karl W., ‘Cracks in the Monolith: Possibilities and Patterns of Disintegration in Totalitarian Systems’, in Eckstein, Harry and Apter, David E., eds., Comparative Politics: A Reader (New York: Free Press, 1963), p. 506.Google Scholar

18 Almond, G. A., Political Development (Boston, Mass.: Little, Brown, 1970), pp. 27 and 318–19.Google Scholar

19 See particularly Skilling, H. G. and Griffiths, F., eds., Interest Groups in Soviet Politics (Princeton, N.J.: Princeton University Press, 1971)Google Scholar, and the literature cited therein (pp. 3–45, 335–416); and Turtak, R. K., ‘Interessenpluralismus in den politische Systemen Osteuropas’, Osteuropa, xxiv (1974), 779–92.Google Scholar

20 Griffiths, F., in Skilling, and Griffiths, , eds., Interest Groups in Soviet Politics, pp. 341–4.Google Scholar See also Janos, A., ‘Group Politics in Communist Society: A Second Look at the Pluralistic Model’, in Huntington and Moore, eds., Authoritarian Politics, pp. 437–50Google Scholar; and Odom, W. E., ‘A Dissenting View on the Group Approach to Soviet Politics’, World Politics, xxviii (1976), 542–67.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

21 Edinger, L. J. and Searing, D. D., ‘Social Background in Elite Analysis: A Methodological Inquiry’, American Political Science Review, LXI (1967), 428–45CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Welsh, W. A., ‘The Comparative Study of Political Leadership in Communist Systems’, in Beck, Carl et al. , eds., Comparative Communist Political Leadership (New York: McKay, 1973), pp. 9 and 35.Google Scholar Milton Lodge does no service to scholarly inquiry by assuming a ‘positive correlation between articulated attitudes and political behaviour’ in his Soviet Elite Attitudes since Stalin (Columbus, Ohio: Charles E. Merrill, 1969), fn. 2 on p.2.Google Scholar

22 Donaldson, R. H., ‘The 1971 Central Committee: An Assessment of the New Elite’, World Politics, xxiv (1971–1972), 382–409, p. 399Google Scholar; Hough, J., ‘The Soviet Elite: I’, Problems of Communism, xvi (01–02 1967), 28–35, P 29Google Scholar; Kolkowicz, R., The Soviet Military and the Communist Party (Princeton, N.J.: Princeton University Press, 1967), pp. 330–1.Google Scholar

23 Men at the Top, p. 12.Google Scholar

24 It should be noted that the representation of the group or individuals concerned need not necessarily be direct. In the British Parliament in the 1830s and 1840s, as Almond and Powell note, the interests of working people, who were not themselves directly represented in that assembly, were articulated by ‘certain aristocratic and middle-class members of Parliament’ (Almond, Gabriel A. and Powell, G. Bingham Jr, Comparative Politics: A Development Approach (Boston, Mass.: Little, Brown, 1966), p. 84).Google Scholar

25 Gilison, Jerome M., British and Soviet Politics: Legitimacy and Convergence (Baltimore, Md.: Johns Hopkins University Press, 1972), p. 50.Google Scholar See also Little, D. Richard, ‘Legislative Authority in the Soviet Political System’, Slavic Review, xxx (1971), 57–73CrossRefGoogle Scholar, and the same author's ‘Soviet Parliamentary Committees after Khrushchev’, Soviet Studies, xxiv (1972), 41–60Google Scholar; and Minagawa, S., ‘The Functions of the Supreme Soviet Organs and Problems of their Institutional Development’, Soviet Studies, xvii (1975), 46–70.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

26 Gripp, Richard C., The Political System of Communism (London: Nelson, 1973), p. 140Google Scholar; Blondel, Jean, Comparative Legislatures (Englewood Cliffs, N.J.: Prentice-Hall, 1973), p. 52Google Scholar; Tatu, Michel, Power in the Kremlin (London: Collins, 1969), p. 538.Google Scholar See also more generally Kornberg, A. and Hines, S. H., ‘Legislatures and the Modernization of Societies’, Comparative Political Studies, v (1973), 471–92.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

27 Golan, Galia, The Czechoslovak Reform Movement (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1971), pp. 64–6 and 182Google Scholar; Skilling, H. G., The Governments of Communist East Europe (New York: Thomas Y. Crowell, 1966), pp. 117–18Google Scholar; Leonhard, W., The Kremlin since Stalin (London: Oxford University Press, 1962), p. 203Google Scholar; Pravda, Alex, Reform and Change in the Czechoslovak Political System: January-August 1968, Research Paper 90–020 (Beverly Hills and London: Sage Publications, 1975), pp. 42–4.Google Scholar See also Wiatr, J., ‘Elements of Pluralism in the Polish Political System’, Polish Sociological Bulletin, xiii (1966), 19–26Google Scholar; Brown, A. H., ‘Pluralistic Trends in Czechoslovakia’, Soviet Studies, xvii (1966), 53–72Google Scholar; Paul, David W., ‘The Repluralization of Czechoslovak Politics in the 1960s’, Slavic Review, xxxiii (1974), 721–40;CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Gati, Charles, ed., The Politics of Modernization in Eastern Europe (New York and London: Prager, 1974)Google Scholar; Pirages, D. C., Modernization and Political-tension Management: A Socialist Society in Perspective (New York and London: Prager, 1972)Google Scholar; Gilberg, Trond, Modernization in Romania since World War II (New York and London: Praeger, 1975)Google Scholar; Farkas, R. P., Yugoslav Economic Development and Political Change (New York and London: praeger, 1975)Google Scholar; and Jambreck, P., Development and Social Change in Yugoslavia (Farnborough, Hants.: Saxon House, 1975).Google Scholar

28 Tucker, Robert C., ‘On the Comparative Study of Communism’, World Politics, xix (1967), p. 251.Google Scholar

29 Hammer, Darrell P., USSR: the Politics of Oligarchy (Hinsdale, Ohio: Dryden Press, 1974), pp. 191–2.Google Scholar

30 Lewin, Moshe, Political Undercurrents in Soviet Economic Debates (London: Pluto Press, 1975). PP. 264–7Google Scholar (he adds that the future pattern of Soviet politics nevertheless remains ‘far from clear’ (p. 269)).Google Scholar

31 Daniels, Robert V., ‘Soviet Politics since Khrushchev’, in Strong, John W., ed., The Soviet Union under Brezhnev and Kosygin (New York and London: Van Nostrand-Reinhold, 1971), pp. 22–3.Google Scholar

32 See Lodge, , Soviet Elite Attitudes since StalinGoogle Scholar, for perhaps the fullest statement of this view.

33 Zasedaniya Verkhovnogo Soveta SSSR Chetvertogo Sozyva. Pervaya Sessiya (20–27 Aprelya 1954g.). Stenograficheskii Otchet (Moscow: Izdatel'stvo Verkhovnogo Soveta SSSR, 1954)Google Scholar – Devyataya Sessiya (19–21 Dekabrya 1957). Stenograficheskii Otchet (Moscow: Izdatel'stvo Verkhovnogo Soveta SSSR, 1958)Google Scholar; Zasedaniya Verkhovnogo Soveta SSSR Pyatogo Sozyva. Pervaya Sessiya (27–31 Marta 1958). Stenograficheskii Otchet (Moscow: Izdatel‘stvo Verkhovnogo Soveta SSSR, 1958)Google Scholar – Sed'maya Sessiya (6–8 Dekabrya 1961). Stenograficheskii Otchet (Moscow: Izdatel'stvo Verkhovnogo Soveta SSSR, 1962)Google Scholar; Zasedaniya Verkhovnogo Soveta SSSR Shestogo Sozyva. Pervaya Sessiya (23–25 Aprelya 1962). Stenograficheskii Otchet (Moscow: Izdatel'stvo Verkhovnogo Soveta SSSR, 1962)Google Scholar – Sed'maya Sessiya (7–9 Dekabrya 1965). Stenograficheskii Otchet (Moscow: Izdatel'stvo Verkhovnogo Soveta SSSR, 1966)Google Scholar; Zasedaniya Verkhovnogo Soveta SSSR Sed'mogo Sozyva. Pervaya Sessiya (2–3 Avgusta 1966). Stenograficheskii Otchet (Moscow: Izdatel'stvo Verkhovnogo Soveta SSSR, 1966)Google Scholar – Sed'maya Sessiya (16–19 Dekabrya 1969). Stenograficheskii Otchet (Moscow: Izdatel';stvo Verkhovnogo Soveta SSSR, 1970)Google Scholar; Zasedaniya Verkhovnogo Soveta SSSR Vos'mogo Sozyva. Pervaya Sessiya (14–15 lyulya 1970). Stenograficheskii Otchet (Moscow: Izdatel'stvo Verkhovnogo Soveta SSSR, 1970)Google Scholar – Sed'maya Sessiya (12–14 Dekabrya 1973). Stenograficheskii Otchet (Moscow: Izdatel'stvo Verkhovnogo Soveta SSSR, 1974)Google Scholar; Zasedaniya Verkhovnogo Soveta SSSR Devyatogo Sozyva. Pervaya Sessiya (25–26 lyulya 1974).Google ScholarStenograficheskii Otchet (Moscow: Izdatel'stvo Verkhovnogo Soveta SSSR, 1974)Google Scholar – Chetvertaya Sessiya (21–24 Dekabrya 1975). Stenograficheskii Otchet (Moscow: Izdatel'stvo Verkhovnogo Soveta SSSR, 1976).Google Scholar

34 Blondel, , Comparative Legislatures, p. 124.Google Scholar

35 Plenum Tsentral'nogo Komiteta KPSS 15–19 Dekabrya 1958g. Stenograficheskii Otchet (Moscow: Gos. Izdatel'stvo Politicheskoi Literatury, 1958)Google Scholar; Plenum Tsentral'nogo Komiteta KPSS 24–29 lyunya 1959g. Stenograficheskii Otchet (Moscow: Gos. Izdatel'stvo Politicheskoi Literatury, 1959)Google Scholar; Plenum Tsentral'nogo Komiteta KPSS 22–25 Dekabrya 1959g Stenograficheskii Otchet (Moscow: Gos. Izdatel'stvo Politicheskoi Literatury, 1960)Google Scholar; Plenum Tsentral'nogo Komiteta KPSS 13–16 lyulya 1960g. Stenograficheskii Otchet (Moscow: Gos. Izdatel'stvo Politicheskoi Literatury, 1960)Google Scholar; Plenum Tsentral'nogo Komiteta KPSS 10–18 Yanvarya 1961g. Stenograficheskii Otchet (Moscow: Cos. Izdatel'stvo Politicheskoi Literatury, 1961)Google Scholar; Plenum Tsentral'nogo Komiteta KPSS 5–9 Marta 1962g. Stenograficheskii Otchet (Moscow: Gos. Izdatel'stvo Politicheskoi Literatury, 1962)Google Scholar; Plenum Tsentral'nogo Komiteta KPSS 19–23 Noyabrya 1962g. Stenograficheskii Otchet (Moscow: Gos. Izdatel'stvo Politicheskoi Literatury, 1963)Google Scholar; Plenum Tsentral'nogo Komiteta KPSS 18–21 lyunya 1962g. Stenograficheskii Otchet (Moscow: Izdatel'stvo Politicheskoi Literatury, 1964)Google Scholar; Plenum Tsentral'nogo Komiteta KPSS 9–13 Dekabrya 1963g. Stenograficheskii Otchet (Moscow. Izdatel'stvo Politicheskoi Literatury, 1964)Google Scholar; Plenum Tsentral'nogo Komiteta KPSS 10–15 Fevralya 1964g. Stenograficheskii Otchet (Moscow: Izdatel'stvo Politicheskoi Literatury, 1964)Google Scholar; Plenum Tsentral'nogo Komiteta KPSS 24–26 Marta 1965. Stenograficheskii Otchet (Moscow: Izdatel'stvo Politicheskoi Literatury, 1965).Google Scholar

36 KPSS v Reiolyutsiakh i Resheniakh S''ezdov, Konferentsii i Plenumov Ts.K., 8th edn. (10 vols., Moscow: Izdatel'stvo Politicheskoi Literatury, 1970–1973)Google Scholar; Spravochnik Partiinogo Rabotnika, vyp. 1–15 (Moscow: Izdatel'stvo Politicheskoi Literatury, 1957–1975).Google Scholar The Ezhegodnik of the Bol'shaya Sovetskaya Entsiklopediya may also be consulted (Moscow: Sovetskaya Entsiklopediya, 1957ff).Google Scholar

37 These accounts include Schapiro, , The Communist Party of the Soviet UnionGoogle Scholar; Tatu, , Power in the KremlinGoogle Scholar; Leonhard, , The Kremlin since StalinGoogle Scholar; and Conquest, R., Power and Policy in the USSR (London: Macmillan, 1961).Google Scholar The possibility exists that resolutions may have been adopted by the Central Committee which have remained secret. These, however, are probably ‘not very numerous’, in the view of the editor of the English edition of the standard collection of party documents (McNeal, R. H., in Resolutions and Decisions of the CPSU, vol. i (Toronto: University of Toronto Press, 1974), p. ix)Google Scholar, and for our purposes they may safely be ignored.

38 As Fainsod has noted, the increased number of Central Committee meetings since Stalin, is ‘one index of its enhanced importance’ (How Russia is Ruled, 2nd edn. (Cambridge, Mass.: Harvard University Press, 1963), p. 219).Google Scholar

39 It would ideally have been desirable to have included a further set of indicators relating to the content (as distinct from those other indicators selected) of members' and deputies' contributions to debate. It would have been possible to do so for the Central Committee, however, only in respect of those meetings for which stenographic records were published; and a further series of difficulties would have arisen in attempting to distinguish for coding purposes between genuine claims upon the allocation of scarce resources, and those – undoubtedly a large, but variable, majority – which were based upon the prior approval or even proposal of the party-state authorities. It seemed safest in the circumstances to concentrate upon those variables which were more susceptible of unambiguous measurement, but which nevertheless appeared to provide a sufficient basis for testing for the longer-term systemic changes with which the pluralists are essentially concerned.

40 Gregg, Philip M. and Banks, Arthur S., ‘Dimensions of Political Systems: Factor Analysis of a Cross-Polity Survey’, American Political Science Review, LIX (1965), 602–14.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

41 See, for an extended statement of this thesis, Gitelman, Z., ‘Beyond Leninism: Political Development in Eastern Europe’, Newsletter on Comparative Studies of Communism, v (1972), 18–43Google Scholar; Gilison, , British and Soviet Politics, p. 176Google Scholar; Lowenthal, R., ‘On “Established” Communist Party Regimes’, Studies in Comparative Communism, vii (1974), 335–58CrossRefGoogle Scholar; and, for what is perhaps the locus classicus on this theme, Parsons, T., ‘Evolutionary Universals in Society’, American Sociological Review, XXIX (1964), 338–57.Google Scholar