Hostname: page-component-cd9895bd7-hc48f Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-25T08:27:23.243Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Soviet Interpretations of American Politics: A Case of Convergence?

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  27 January 2009

Neil Malcolm
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Extract

According to Western observers Soviet political scientists have been making substantial advances in recent decades in their understanding of the United States. It is often pointed out, however, that cultural distance causes special problems. Soviet authors, it is claimed, tend to create images of their object of study which are coloured by conceptions of political behaviour specific to their own society. Although this is incontestable, it is worth remarking that American and British observers of Soviet politics and ideology are not exempt from the same kind of failing.

Type
Research Article
Information
British Journal of Political Science , Volume 12 , Issue 1 , January 1982 , pp. 43 - 73
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge University Press 1982

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, for example, Hough, J. F., ‘The Man and the System’, Problems of Communism, XXV, no. 2 (1976), 1–17Google Scholar; Breslauer, G. W., ‘Khrushchev Revisited’, Problems of Communism, XXV, no. 5 (1976), 18–33Google Scholar. A Soviet social scientist now living in the West has appealed to Americans to exchange their ‘black and white’ image of Soviet politics for a ‘multicolored’ one. See Yanov, A., Detente after Brezhnev: The Domestic Roots of Soviet Foreign Policy (Berkeley: University of California Press, 1977), p. 74.Google Scholar

2 Zimmerman, W., Soviet Perspectives on International Relations (Princeton, N.J.: Princeton University Press, 1969)Google Scholar; Zimmerman, W., ‘Soviet Perceptions of the United States’, in Dallin, A. and Larson, T., eds, Soviet Politics since Khrushchev (Princeton, N.J.: Princeton University Press, 1968), pp. 163–79Google Scholar; Griffiths, F., Images, Politics and Learning in Soviet Behavior towards the United States (doctoral dissertation, Columbia University, 1972)Google Scholar. See, too, Marantz, P., ‘Prelude to Detente: Doctrinal Change under Khrushchev’, International Studies Quarterly, XIX (1975). 501–28.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

3 Zimmerman, , ‘Soviet Perceptions of the United States’, p. 165.Google Scholar

4 Schwartz, Morton, Soviet Perceptions of the United States (Berkeley: University of California Press, 1978)Google Scholar. This work is based principally on analysis of articles from the journal of the Soviet Institute for the Study of the United States and Canada (SShA: ekonomika, politika, ideologiya, 1970–1976) and of a number of specialized works on United States foreign policy and international relations.

5 Critics from left and right continue to ignore or minimize the distinction between official and academic views. See Mandel, E., Late Capitalism (London: New Left Books, 1975), p. 516Google Scholar; Claudin, F., The Communist Movement: From Comintern to Cominform (Harmondsworth, Middx.: Penguin, 1975)Google Scholar; Polsby, N. W., ‘JFK through Russian Eyes’, Political Science Quarterly, XC (1975), 117–26.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

6 Mills, R. M., ‘One Theory in Search of Reality’, Political Science Quarterly, LXXXVII (1972), 63–79CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Remnek, R., ‘Soviet Scholars and Soviet Policy towards India’, in Remnek, R., ed., Social Scientists and Policy Making in the USSR (New York: Praeger, 1977)Google Scholar; Eran, O., The Mezhdunarodniki (Tel Aviv: Turtledove, 1979)Google Scholar; Dawisha, K., Soviet Foreign Policy Towards Egypt (London: Macmillan, 1979).CrossRefGoogle Scholar

7 Extended accounts of the ‘Stalinist model’ can be found in Nordahl, R., The Soviet Model of Monopoly Capitalist Politics (doctoral dissertation, Princeton University, 1972)Google Scholar; Nordahl, R., ‘Stalinist Ideology: The Case of the Stalinist Interpretation of Monopoly Capitalist Polities’, Soviet Studies, XXVI (1974), 239–59CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Griffiths, , Images, Politics and LearningGoogle Scholar; Barghoorn, F. A., The Soviet Image of the United States (New York: Harcourt, Brace, 1950).Google Scholar

8 Powell, D. E. and Shoup, P., ‘The Emergence of Political Science in Communist Countries’, American Political Science Review, LXIV (1970), 572–88, p. 580.CrossRefGoogle Scholar See too Theen, R., ‘Political Science in the USSR: “To be or not to be?”’, World Politics, XXIII (1971), 684–703CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Theen, R., ‘Political Science in the USSR’, Problems of Communism, XXI, no. 3 (1972), 64–70.Google Scholar

9 There are conflicting views on this last point. Cf. Bahro, R., ‘The Alternative in Eastern Europe’, New Left Review, CVI (1977), 3–37, pp. 6–7Google Scholar; Varga, E., ‘Political Testament’, New Left Review, LXII (1970), 31–43, pp. 39–40Google Scholar; Medvedev, R., On Socialist Democracy (London: Macmillan, 1975), pp. 49–50, 66–7.Google Scholar

10 Hill, R., Soviet Politics, Political Science and Reform (London: Martin Robertson, 1980), pp. 162–3.Google Scholar

11 Churchward, L. G., ‘Towards a Soviet Political Science’, Australian Journal of Politics and History, XII (1966), 66–75, p. 71.Google Scholar

12 Schwartz's, Soviet Perceptions of the United StatesGoogle Scholar leaves a rather ambiguous impression on this point. The author states that Soviet ‘analysts still remain loyal to basic doctrinal formulations, which they must’, but he also maintains that ‘government policies are now recognized to be the product of a medley of influences – political, bureaucratic, historical, even psychological – as well as the once-dominant “class interests” of the “ruling circles”’; that ‘the American political system is seen to be a policy-making apparatus independent of its economic substructure’; and so on. See pp. 37, 154, 155 (my italics).

13 This article is based on research carried out at the Centre for Russian and East European Studies of the University of Birmingham. The results will be published in fuller form in my book, The Soviet View of the American Political System (London: Macmillan, forthcoming). Primary sources used include the journals SShA: ekonomika, politika, ideologiya, Mirovaya ekonomika i mezhdunarodnye otnosheniya, Kommunist, Voprosy filosofii, Sovetskoe gosudarstvo i pravo, International Affairs (Moscow), a sample of the books on Western and especially American politics published over the last ten years by the USSR Academy of Sciences Institute of State and Law, Institute of the World Economy and International Relations and Institute for the Study of the United States and Canada, and a smaller number of the larger-circulation works published by the Soviet Academy of Social Sciences and other CPSU bodies.

14 Failure to acknowledge this diversity is the most serious shortcoming of a publication issued by the Stanford Research Institute in 1977: Gibert, S. P., Soviet Images of America (New York: Crane, Russak, 1977).Google Scholar This book focuses on Soviet perceptions of détente, the strategic balance, American foreign policy formation and American intentions. There is assumed to exist some monolithic ‘Soviet view’, which is reproduced by accumulating quotations from different authors; only the sparseness of the evidence cited makes it possible to avoid overt contradictions. See the review by Marantz, P., ‘Probing Moscow's Outlook’, Problems of Communism, XXVIII, no. 2 (1979), 49–54.Google Scholar

15 See, for example, articles by V. Lan and V. Noritsky published in Mirovoe khozyaistvo i mirovaya politika.

16 Beloff, N., ‘Escape from Boredom: A Defector's Story’, Atlantic Monthly, 11 1980, p. 44.Google Scholar

17 Hill, , Soviet Politics, Political Science and ReformGoogle Scholar. The annual publications of the Soviet Association of Political Sciences, which have been appearing since 1976, give a good idea of the range of work being done.

18 Marko, K., ‘Soviet Ideology and Sovietology’, Soviet Studies, XIX (1968), p. 477.Google Scholar

19 Lenin, V. I., ‘The State and Revolution’, in Lenin, V. I., Selected Works (London: Lawrence and Wishart, 1969), p. 282.Google Scholar

20 Lenin, , ‘The State and Revolution’, p. 288.Google Scholar

21 Stalin, J. V., Ekonomicheskie problemy sotsializma v SSSR (Moscow: Gospolitizdat, 1952), p. 43Google Scholar. The word ‘monopoly’ in Soviet usage has lost its technical economic sense: it embraces any large scale capitalist enterprise (i.e. ‘big business’).

22 Burlatsky, F. M., Lenin, gosudarstvo, politika (Moscow: Nauka, 1970), pp. 266–8Google Scholar; Guliev, V. E., Sovremennoe imperialisticheskoe gosudarstvo. Voprosy teorii (Moscow: Mezhdunarodnye Otnosheniya, 1973), pp. 67–100.Google Scholar

23 See, for example, Griffiths, , Images, Politics and Learning, pp. 86, 117, 201Google Scholar; Schwartz, , Soviet Perceptions of the United States, p. 40.Google Scholar

24 Poulantzas, N., Classes in Contemporary Capitalism (London: New Left Books, 1975), p. 158Google Scholar. See criticisms originating from various schools of Western Marxists, such as Wirth, M., ‘Towards a Critique of State Monopoly Capitalism’, Economy and Society, VI (1977), 284–312, p. 306CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Altvater, E., ‘Some Problems of State Interventionism’, in Holloway, J. and Picciotto, S., eds, State and Capital: A Marxist Debate (London: Edward Arnold, 1978), pp. 40–2Google Scholar; Mandel, , Late Capitalism, pp. 516–17.Google Scholar

25 Tumanov, V. A., ‘Vozrastanie roli burzhuaznogo gosudarstva i burzhuaznaya ideologiya’, in Tumanov, V. A., ed., Sovremennye burzhuaznye ucheniya o kapitalisticheskom gosudarstve (Moscow: Nauka, 1967), p. 54.Google Scholar

26 Tumanov, V. A. and Levin, I. D., eds, Politicheskii mekhanizm diktatury manopolii (Moscow: Nauka, 1974), pp. 173–4Google Scholar. See also Burlatsky, , Lenin, gosudarstvo, poliiika, pp. 90–1Google Scholar; Inozemtsev, N. N., Contemporary Capitalism: New Developments and Contradictions (Moscow: Progress, 1974), p. 81.Google Scholar

27 The phrase is borrowed from Szymanski, A., The Capitalist State and the Politics of Class (Cambridge, Mass.: Winthrop, 1978), pp. 272–5Google Scholar. See too Block, F., ‘The Ruling Class Does Not Rule’, in Quinney, R., ed., Capitalist Society: Readings for a Critical Sociology (Homewood, Ill.: Dorsey Press, 1979), pp. 128–40.Google Scholar

28 See for example Peregudov, S. P. and Kholodkovsky, K. G., ‘Uslozhnenie mekhanizma svyazi burzhuaznogo gosudarstva s gospodstvuyushchim klassom’, in Peregudov, S. P. and Kholodkovsky, K. G., eds, Novye yavleniya v mekhanizme politicheskogo gospodstva monopolii, Pt. I (Moscow: IMEMO, 1975), pp. 7–10.Google Scholar

29 The class nature of the state is demonstrated by Soviet authors with a greater or lesser degree of sophistication, but it is never denied. Griffiths occasionally suggests a degree of revisionism on this point; this is not borne out by the evidence. Compare A. Galkin: ‘Those active in the political sphere must take into account the variety of ruling class interests and also the positions taken up by the other classes’, with Griffiths' paraphrasing: ‘The political elite could approach problems from a position that represented the interests of the whole of the ruling class and other classes as well’ (my italics). See Galkin, A., ‘Pravyashchaya elita sovremennogo kapitalizma’, Mirovaya ekonomika i mezhdunarodnye otnosheniya, no. 3 (1969), p. 83Google Scholar; and Griffiths, , Images, Politics and Learning, p. 205.Google Scholar

30 See, for example, Mills, C. Wright, The Power Elite (New York: Oxford University Press, 1956), p. 267Google Scholar; Domhoff, G. W., The Higher Circles: The Governing Class in America (New York: Vintage Books, 1970), pp. 309–55Google Scholar; Burns, J. M., Presidential Government: The Crucible of Leadership (Boston, Mass.: Houghton Mifflin, 1973), pp. 56–7Google Scholar; Schlesinger, A. M. Jr., The Imperial Presidency (Boston, Mass.: Houghton Mifflin, 1973), p. 404.Google Scholar

31 Rose, A. M., The Power Structure (New York: Oxford University Press, 1967), p. 1, note.Google Scholar

32 Nordahl, , The Soviet Model of Monopoly Capitalist Politics, p. 229Google Scholar; Schwartz, , Soviet Perceptions of the United States, pp. 34–60.Google Scholar

33 Because of social ties, interlocking directorships, and so on. See Mills, Wright, The Power Elite, pp. 121–2Google Scholar; Domhoff, , The Higher Circles: The Governing Class in America;Google ScholarUseem, M., ‘The Inner Group of the American Capitalist Class’Google Scholar, in Quinney, , Capitalist Society: Readings for a Critical Sociology, pp. 109–24.Google Scholar

34 Guliev, V. E., ‘Teoriya “plyuralisticheskoi demokratii”’, in Sovremennye burzhuaznye ucheniya o kapitalisticheskom gosudarstve, pp. 76, 82Google Scholar; Beglov, I. I., Sobstvennost' i vlasl' (Moscow: Nauka, 1971), pp. 385–94.Google Scholar

35 See the articles in SShA: ekonomika, politika, ideologiya by Kobrinskaya, (1979, no. 11)Google Scholar, Lavrova, (1979, no. 1)Google Scholar, Ovinnikov, (1979, no. 8)Google Scholar; also by Svanidze, in Mirovaya ekonomika i mezhdunarodnye otnosheniya (1978, no. 11).Google Scholar

36 Borisyuk, V., ‘Usilenie politicheskoi aktivnosti amerikanskogo biznesa’Google Scholar, in Peregudov, S. P. and Kholodkovsky, K. G., eds, Novye yavleniya v mekhanisme politicheskogo gospodstva manopolii, pp. 54–110Google Scholar. The quotation is from p. 62. Borisyuk refers repeatedly to Epstein, E. M., The Corporation in American Politics (Englewood Cliffs, N.J.: Prentice-Hall, 1969).Google Scholar

37 Despite numerous criticisms by Soviet authors – see Varga, E., Ocherki po problemam politekonomii kapitalizma (Moscow: Politizdat, 1964), pp. 51–5Google Scholar and Burlatsky, F. M., Lenin, gosudorstvo, polilika, p. 219Google Scholar – the idea of the centrality of the National Association of Manufacturers and the Chamber of Commerce has been remarkably persistent. It is put forward again, although more tentatively, in a recent book by Sakharov, N. A., Predprinimatel'skie assosiatsii v politicheskoie zhizni SShA (Moscow: Nauka, 1980).Google Scholar

38 Sivachev, N. and Yazkov, N., History of the USA since World War I (Moscow: Progress, 1976), p. 281Google Scholar. Cf. American pluralists, e.g. Rose, , The Power Structure, pp. 22–3.Google Scholar

39 Milbrath, Lester W., The Washington Lobbyists (Chicago: Rand McNally, 1963)Google Scholar; Dexter, L. A., How Organizations are Represented in Washington (Indianapolis: Bobbs-Merrill, 1969)Google Scholar; and Rose, , The Power Structure.Google Scholar

40 Zyablyuk, N. G., SShA: lobbizm i politika (Moscow: Mysl', 1976), p. 80Google Scholar. See too his contributions to SShA: ekonomika, politika, ideologiya (1974, no. 12; 1978, no. 8).Google Scholar

41 Chetverikov, S. B., Kto i kak delaet politiku SShA? (Moscow: Mezhdunarodnye Otnosheniya, 1974), pp. 31–2, 41, 45–7Google Scholar. Most frequently cited are Redford, Jacob, Pfiffner and Presthus, Albrow, Rourke and Destler; also Kissinger, Sorenson, Rogers and other retired officials.

42 Reviewing Soviet accounts of United States foreign policy making, Schwartz states that references to the involvement of economic interests are rarely ‘anything more than ritualistic’ (Soviet Perceptions of the United States, p. 64)Google Scholar. Yet there has been a great deal written on the Council on Foreign Relations (see references above) as an agency of ‘monopoly’ control, and also on the Trilateral Commission – see articles in Mirovaya ekonomika i mezhdunarodnye otnosheniya by Matveev, (1977, no. 3)Google Scholar and Utkin, (1978, no. 4)Google Scholar, and in SShA: ekonomika, politika, ideologiya by Turkatenko, (1977, no. 9)Google Scholar – as well as on other elements of the system of foundations, brains trusts, and consultative committees which form the ‘thousands of threads’, linking the state and the monopolies, referred to by Chetverikov.

43 Burlatsky, F. M., The Modern State and Politics (Moscow: Progress, 1978), p. 10.Google Scholar

44 For examples of the former, see campaign reports published in SShA: ekonomika, politika, ideologiya, by Savel'ev and Linnik; for examples of the latter see contributions to the same journal by Lyuberatskaya, (1977, no. 3)Google Scholar and Zorin, (1978, no. 8).Google Scholar

45 Savel, V. A.'ev, ‘Doroga k Belomu domu’, SShA: ekonomika, politika, ideologiya (1976, no. 11), p. 44Google Scholar; Zorin, V. S., Savchenko, V. P., ‘Krizis dvukhpartiinoi sistemy i budushchie vybory’, SShA: ekonomika, polilika, ideologiya (1979, no. 6), p. 23.Google Scholar

46 Volkov, F. D., Velikobritaniya – trudnye vremena (Moscow: Znanie, 1977), p. 48.Google Scholar

47 The subject of Soviet views of mass politics, the ‘anti-monopoly alliance’, and the prospects for a parliamentary transition to socialism is a very large and complicated one, and is less relevant to the United States than to Western Europe. For these reasons the present section on political conflict will be devoted mainly to conflict inside the ruling class.

48 Varga, E. S., Osnovnye voprosy ekonomiki i politiki imperializma (Moscow: Gospolitizdat, 1957), pp. 73–5.Google Scholar

49 It is noticeable that those Western Marxist and radical authors who have set about this task have come to rather vague and tentative conclusions. See, for example, Domhoff, G. W., Who Rules America? (Englewood Cliffs, N.J.: Prentice-Hall, 1967), pp. 28ff.Google Scholar; Szymanski, , The Capitalist State and the Politics of Class, pp. 35–53Google Scholar; Westergaard, J. and Resler, H., Class in a Capitalist Society: A Study of Contemporary Britain (Harmondsworth, Middx.: Penguin, 1976), pp. 239–43.Google Scholar

50 Zorin, V. S., ‘Monopolii i politika Vashingtona’, SShA: ekonomika, politika, ideologiya (1978, no. 8), p. 51Google Scholar. See Zorin, V. S., Monopolii i politika SShA (Moscow: Institut Mezhdunarodnykh Otnoshenii, 1960)Google Scholar and numerous subsequent works. Cf. Perlo, V., The Empire of High Finance (New York: International Publishers, 1957).Google Scholar

51 Sivachev, and Yazkov, , History of the USA since World War I, p. 379.Google Scholar

52 See the contributions to Yakovlev, N. N., ed., SShA: politicheskaya mysl' i istoriya (Moscow: Nauka, 1976)Google Scholar; Pechatnov, V. O., Demokraticheskaya partiya SShA: izbirateli i politika (Moscow: Nauka, 1980)Google Scholar; and articles in SShA: ekonomika, politika, ideologica by Pechatnov, (1974, no. 11; 1975, no. 3; 1978, no. 3)Google Scholar, Glagolev, (1974, no. 9; 1980, no. 7)Google Scholar and Manykin, (1978, No. 10).Google Scholar

53 Shimanovsky, V. V., ‘Liberaly i razryadka napryazhennosti’, SShA: ekonomika, politika, ideologiya (1976, no. 1), p. 50Google Scholar. Cf. the essay by Wolfe and Sanders on the ‘Cold War Social Democrats’: Wolfe, A. and Sanders, J., ‘Resurgent Cold War Ideology: The Case of the Committee on the Present Danger’, in Fagen, R., ed., Capitalism and the State in US-Latin American Relations (Stanford, Calif.: Stanford University Press, 1979), pp. 41–75.Google Scholar

54 The Director of the USA Institute is one of the leading Soviet specialists on ideology and international relations. See Arbatov, G. A., The War of Ideas in Contemporary International Relations (Moscow: Progress, 1973)Google Scholar. For a survey of Soviet views of foreign policy making in the United States and of the part played by public opinion, see Schwartz, , Soviet Perceptions of the United States, pp. 61–88.Google Scholar

55 Popov, A. A., ‘Razryadka i amerikanskie profsoyuzy’, SShA: ekonomika, politika, ideologiya (1976, no. 9), pp. 55–61Google Scholar. See, too, Popov, A. A., SShA: gosudarstvo i profsoyuzy (Moscow: Nauka, 1974)Google Scholar, and contributions to SShA: ekonomika, politika, ideologiya by Geevsky, (1975, no. 10)Google Scholar and Chervonnaya, (1974, no. 7).Google Scholar

56 See the joint articles by Zamoshkin, and Mel, 'vil’ in SShA: ekonomika, politika, ideologiya (1977, no. 11; 1979, no. 11)Google Scholar, and in Voprosy filosofii (1976, no. 11)Google Scholar; the articles by Shestakov, in SShA: ekonomika, politika, ideologiya (1979, no. 2; 1980, no. 9)Google Scholar; by Ashin, and Midler, in SShA: ekonomika, politika, ideologiya (1977, no. 6)Google Scholar; by Volkova, in SShA: ekonomika, politika, ideologiya (1979, no. 1)Google Scholar; by Kholodkovsky, in Mirovaya ekonomika i mezhdunarodnye otnosheniya (1979, no. 6).Google Scholar

57 Oleshchuk, Yu. F., ‘O teorii “ogranichennoi razryadki”’, SShA: ekonomika, politika, ideologiya (1975, no. 4), p. 12.Google Scholar

58 See the comments which Schlesinger, Arthur Jr., makes in The Imperial Presidency, pp. 296–7Google Scholar; also Polsby, N. W., Congress and the Presidency (Englewood Cliffs, N.J.: Prentice-Hall, 1971), p. 2Google Scholar; Burns, , Presidential Government, pp. 81–4.Google Scholar

59 Politicheskii mekhanizm diktatury monopolii, p. 159.Google Scholar

60 Katznelson, I. and Kesselman, M., The Politics of Power: A Critical Introduction to American Government (New York: Harcourt, Brace, Jovanovich, 1975), p. 289.Google Scholar

61 Burlatsky, , Lenin, gosudarstvo, politika, p. 284.Google Scholar

62 Although Soviet observers do not, as a rule, discuss the dependence of presidents on urban votes. Cf. Polsby, , Congress and the Presidency, p. 109Google Scholar; Burns, , Presidential Government, pp. 276–94Google Scholar; Mayhew, D. R., ‘Congressional Elections’, in Peabody, R. L. and Polsby, N. W., eds, New Perspectives on the House of Representatives (Chicago: Rand McNally, 1977), pp. 26–43.Google Scholar

63 Popova, E. I., Amerikanskii senat i vneshnyaya politika 1969–1974 (Moscow: Nauka, 1978), pp. 19–20Google Scholar. See too Shvetsov, V. A., ‘Rol' kongressa’, in Shvedkov, Yu. A., ed., SShA: vneshnepoliticheskii mekhanizm (Moscow: Nauka, 1972), p. 269Google Scholar; Dolgopolova, N. A., ‘Voennye raskhody i obshchestvennost’, SShA: ekonomika, politika, ideologiya (1975, no. 2), p. 114Google Scholar; Gromyko, A. A., ‘US Foreign Policy Strategy for the 1970s’, International Affairs (Moscow) (1973, no. 10), p. 67.Google Scholar

64 Savel, V. A.'ev, ‘Vneshnyaya politika i kongress’, SShA: ekonomika, politika, ideologiya (1976, no. 12), pp. 80–7.Google Scholar

65 Chetverikov, , Kto i kak delaet politiku SShA?, pp. 20–1.Google Scholar

66 See, for example, Semenov, V. S., ‘Nakoplenie politicheskikh znanii s 1949g.’, in Kerimov, D. A., ed., Politika mira i razvitie politicheskikh sistem (Moscow: Nauka, 1979), pp. 26–33Google Scholar; Kalensky, V. G., ‘Strukturno-funktsional'nyi analiz’, in Burlatsky, F. M. and Chirkin, V. E., eds, Politicheskie sistemy sovremennosti (Moscow: Nauka, 1978), pp. 79–86Google Scholar; Burlatsky, F. M., ‘Politicheskaya sistema obshchestva: ponyatie i elementy’Google Scholar, in Burlatsky, F. M. and Chirkin, V. E., eds, Politicheskie sistemy sovremennosti, pp. 5–53Google Scholar; and other works by Burlatsky. Soviet political systems theorists adopt what they describe as a Marxist, dialectical approach. They stress the need ‘to distinguish the main factors of change in the political system arising above all from the economy and class structure of society’. See Burlatsky, , ‘Politicheskaya sistema obshchestva: ponyatie i elementy’, p. 6.Google Scholar

67 Schwartz, , Soviet Perceptions of the United States, pp. 48–Google Scholar9. The author does comment on ‘renewed Soviet respect for Congress’ after 1974 (p. 57), but in general he is unduly sceptical about Soviet ability to comprehend the division of powers.

68 Burlatsky, , The Modern State and Politics, pp. 73–4Google Scholar. See, too, Peregudov, and Kholodkovsky, , ‘Uslozhnenie mekhanizma svyazi burzhuaznogo gosudarstva s gospodstvuyushchim klassom’, pp. 32–3.Google Scholar

69 Savel, V. A.'ev, SShA: srnat i politika (Moscow: Mysl', 1976), pp. 171–2.Google Scholar

70 Popova, , Amerikanskii senat i vneshnyaya politika, pp. 11–12.Google Scholar

71 Guliev, V. E. and Deev, N. N., ‘Amerikanskaya burzhuaznaya gosudarstvennost’: krizis doktrin i institutov’, Sovetskoe gosudarstvo i pravo (1976, no. 7), pp. 105–14.Google Scholar

72 See items in SShA: ekonomika, politika, ideologiya by Katasonov (1977, no. 4)Google Scholar, Ivanov, (1978, no. 6)Google Scholar, Zyablyuk, (1978, no. 8)Google Scholar, Zolotukhin, and Linnik, (1978, no. 9)Google Scholar, Savchenko, Zorinand (1979, no. 6)Google Scholar, Savel, 'ev (1980, no. 3).Google Scholar

73 Zyablyuk, , SShA: Lobbizm i politika, p. 121.Google Scholar

74 Shvedkov, Yu. A., ‘Strategiya, upravlenie i vnutripoliticheskii protsess’Google Scholar, in Shvedkov, , ed., SShA: Vneshnepoliticheskii mekhanizm, p. 34Google Scholar; Orlov, V. N., ‘Konsul'tativnyi apparat Belogo doma’, SShA: ekonomika, politika, ideologiya (1977, no. 7), pp. 34–5.Google Scholar

75 Yakovlev, N. N., ‘Vvedenie’, in Yakovlev, ed., SShA: politicheskii mysl' i istoriya, pp. 11–12Google Scholar. See too Semeiko, L. S., ‘Voenno-promyshlennyi kompleks, ego vliyanie’, SShA ekonomika, politika, ideologiya (1976, no. 7), pp. 29–30Google Scholar; Zvolinsky, V. I., ‘Izmenenie obstanovki v kongresse SShA’, in Shershnev, E. S., ed., SSSR-SShA: ekonomicheskie otnosheniya (Moscow: Nauka, 1976), pp. 172–81Google Scholar; Zorin, V. S., ‘Monopolii i politika Vashingtona’, SShA: ekonomika, politika, ideologiya (1978, no. 7), p. 33.Google Scholar

76 Ivanov, Yu. A., ‘Kongress: labirinty vlasti i vneshnyaya politika’, SShA: ekonomika, politika, idologiya (1978, no. 6)Google Scholar. Ivanov refers to work by Pearson and Anderson, Wilcox, Frye, Manning, Fiorina and others.

77 Apart from Chetverikov's book of 1974, the main contributions are Shvedkov, , ed., SShA: vneshnepoliticheskii mekhanizmGoogle Scholar; Denisenko, V. S. and Shvedkov, Yu. A., ‘Vneshnyaya politika i byurokraticheskaya bor'ba’, SShA: ekonomika, politika, ideologiya (1973, no. 2)Google Scholar; Chetverikov, S. B., ‘“Organizatsionnye problemy” vneshnei politiki’, SShA: ekonomika, politika, ideologiya (1974, no. 8)Google Scholar; Orlov, V. N., ‘Konsul'tativnyi apparat Belogo doma’, SShA: ekonomika, politika, ideologiya (1977, no. 7).Google Scholar

78 Domhoff, G. W., ‘Who Made American Foreign Policy 1945–1963?’ in Horowitz, D., ed., Corporations and the Cold War (New York: Monthly Review Press, 1969), p. 59.Google Scholar

79 Menshikov, S., Millionaires and Managers. The Structure of the US Financial Oligarchy (Moscow: Progress, 1959)Google Scholar; Vladimirov, M. G., ‘Politika i politikanstvo’, SShA: ekonomika, politika, ideologiya (1975, no. 6), pp. 95–7Google Scholar; Kozlova, K. B., ‘“Obshchaya strategiya reform” Dzhona Gelbreita’, SShA: ekonomika, politka, ideologiya (1975, no. 3), pp. 21–4.Google Scholar

80 Ashin, G. K., ‘Elitizm: amerikanskie varianty’, SShA: ekonomika, politika, ideologiya (1975, no. 2), pp. 43–5Google Scholar; Zamoshkin, Yu. A. and Motroshilova, N., ‘“Tekhnistskoe soznanie” i ego evolyutsiya’, SShA: ekonomika, politika, ideologiya (1975, no. 6).Google Scholar

81 Franklyn Griffiths' ‘four images’ of American politics correspond in his interpretation to four tendencies in Soviet policy towards the United States in the 1950s and 1960s. Writers whom he places in the ‘fourth image’ (i.e. most innovative) class turn out to be extremely varied in their approach. In the 1970s diversity has increased still further. See Images, Politics and Learning, pp. 192–213.Google Scholar

82 Miliband, R., Marxism and Politics (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1977), p. 15.Google Scholar