ABSTRACT
This raises a whole series of questions. There is the Soviet experience viewed historically: the ‘war-communism’ period, NEP, the various theories and controversies of the 1920s, the Soviet model viewed as a model of rapid industrialisation of a backward country, and so on. It can be considered against the background of Marxian prophecy: that is to say, we can compare Soviet socialism at any of its stages with what Marx envisaged. We could apply Marxist theory to the USSR, but in doing so, we should undertake a double process: not only using Marxist ideas on socialism as a criterion for judging the USSR, but also seeing how far Soviet experience might throw some light on the validity of the Marxian criteria. We could also look at Soviet planning as a technique, its achievements, weaknesses, limitations, efficacy, its potential for reform. Then socialist theorists must inevitably look at the political economy of the USSR from the standpoint of the rights of the working masses, the extent of their control over their leaders, over the means of production, over the disposal of the product - at political and economic democracy. Once again, this should be done without adopting utopian criteria: thus no one would seriously wish to criticise Soviet criminal law or constitution on the grounds that, in a truly socialist society, law, crime and the state will have withered away. Similarly - for reasons abundantly explored in Part 1 - it would be naive and pointless simply to denounce the USSR because there are elements of hierarchy, because some are managers and others are managed - in other words, there is a vertical division of labour. But a critical and realistic appraisal of Soviet experience could be of considerable assistance to clear thought about the relationship which could exist in a socialist society, without making any absurd or far-fetched assumptions. Then there is one other important question, that of economics, or economic laws, under socialism. Here too there are Soviet discussions, there is Soviet experience. Nor should the views of minority groups be neglected, whether these belong to oppositions within the party or to (especially economic) specialists outside it.
