In Alienation and the Soviet Economy, 2nd ed., Paul Craig Roberts attributes the excesses of war communism, the resistance to market?type reforms, and the retention until very recently of administered material allocation in the Soviet Union, to Marxist ideology, and in particular to Marx's views on the link between markets and ?alienation.? However, war communism was due in some part also to war emergency, and it was not only ideology but also the interests of the ruling stratum that delayed the (...) much?needed move towards a market economy. There are indeed problems in reconciling socialist ideas with efficiency and entrepreneurship, and Lange's attempt to define a sort of neoclassical socialism was unsatisfactory. However, it does not follow that the only alternative to Soviet?type planning is untrammelled laissez faire. Our own system can also give rise to alienation, and to the need for action by public authorities to take care of environmental and other externalities and provide essential social services. (shrink)

The late Alec Nove explores the relationship between Marxist ideas and the Soviet reality and presents a methodology for understanding Soviet type societies.

What does the Soviet record tell us about the viability, effectiveness, and efficiency of socialism? There are several questions that arise if one examines the Soviet experience, in addition to the comparative systems aspect. One question relates to the impact of the experience of the Soviet Union on theories of socialism, and also vice versa: the impact and relevance of socialist theory in assessing the Soviet system. Then there is the important issue of the role of specifically Soviet- Russian circumstances: (...) traditions, political culture, and work ethic. A poet, Voloshin, wrote, “ Velikii Pyotr byl pervyi bolshevik ”. The eminent philosopher Nikolai Berdyaev also remarked that “Peter's methods were purely bolshevik.” Leftists of a Trotskyist persuasion argue that the Soviet Union under Stalin took the wrong turn, that the Soviet Union is not socialist at all, that it is “state capitalist” – run by a “new bourgeoisie,” a bureaucratic ruling class—and continue to manufacture other variants on this theme.While official Soviet ideology claims that the U.S.S.R. is socialist and is following the principles laid down by Marx and Lenin, this can be questioned. One can indeed show that many aspects of the Soviet economic and political scene are at variance with the anticipations of Marx and of Lenin. But from this, one need not draw the conclusion that there was a “revolution betrayed,” but rather that some of these anticipations were unreal or unrealizable. (shrink)