What do you think?
Rate this book
Historical Materialism #17
Western Marxism and the Soviet Union: A Survey of Critical Theories and Debates Since 1917
“The amount of sources the author has studied is staggering . . . the book [has] an encyclopedic value and [is] accessible to all scholars interested in political history.”—Martin Kragh, Stockholm School of Economics “Since the Russian experience is still used to vilify the idea of socialism, the debate remains relevant. Van der Linden . . . has now produced a comprehensive scholarly account of the arguments.”—Ian Birchall, London Socialist Historians Group The “Russian Question” was an absolutely central problem for Marxism in the twentieth century. Numerous attempts were made to understand the nature of Soviet society. Here Marcel van der Linden describes the development of these theoretical contributions since 1917. Marcel van der Linden is research director of the International Institute of Social History and professor in the History of Social Movements at the University of Amsterdam.
380 pages, Paperback
First published June 22, 2007
5 people are currently reading
323 people want to read
Ratings & Reviews
Friends & Following
Create a free account to discover what your friends think of this book!
Community Reviews
Displaying 1 - 11 of 11 reviews
November 17, 2014
Generally pretty fascinating survey. The author does his best to explain each view in very limited space and generally does a good job (although sometimes the differences between some of the more similar views slipped by me). He also made me more sympathetic to the "ortho-Trot" viewpoints, which I realised I'd misunderstood for a while. Very different to the Cliffite stuff I'd been exposed to.
Special shout out to all the views based around "Asiatic despotism" or "the Asiatic mode of production" (primarily Wittfogel descendants - awful man) which take a very rough rarely mentioned point from Marx and extend it really far to produce a racist, orientalist view of socialist states which explains nothing at all and deliberately bends the facts to fit the absurd theory. Some of these people saw Russia becoming "Asiatic" through the invasion of the Mongols! Surely a valuable way of analysing the USSR in 1970.
The conclusion of "none of these theories work in terms of 'orthodox Marxism'" is basically the extent of explicit editorialising the author offers but it's not meant as a criticism necessarily but more something important to point out because trying to fit everything into a framework sketched out 150 years ago is really constricting and whether something is "orthodox Marxist" isn't very important - or rather, it shouldn't be, as long as the framework created afterwards is still consistent and a useful way of analysing society. The meta theoretical note in the appendix is actually quite thought provoking, even though it's only a few pages - just some notes on what a "political theory" consists of and how political theories are attacked and changed
Special shout out to all the views based around "Asiatic despotism" or "the Asiatic mode of production" (primarily Wittfogel descendants - awful man) which take a very rough rarely mentioned point from Marx and extend it really far to produce a racist, orientalist view of socialist states which explains nothing at all and deliberately bends the facts to fit the absurd theory. Some of these people saw Russia becoming "Asiatic" through the invasion of the Mongols! Surely a valuable way of analysing the USSR in 1970.
The conclusion of "none of these theories work in terms of 'orthodox Marxism'" is basically the extent of explicit editorialising the author offers but it's not meant as a criticism necessarily but more something important to point out because trying to fit everything into a framework sketched out 150 years ago is really constricting and whether something is "orthodox Marxist" isn't very important - or rather, it shouldn't be, as long as the framework created afterwards is still consistent and a useful way of analysing society. The meta theoretical note in the appendix is actually quite thought provoking, even though it's only a few pages - just some notes on what a "political theory" consists of and how political theories are attacked and changed
July 16, 2025
This book is a good read. It's given me a new appreciation of Tony Cliff's theory of state capitalism. The book historically catalogues theories on the nature of the Soviet Union, within the self-identified Marxist left. There's a lot that's useful for studying the political thought of various Marxist figures throughout the 20th century. But of particular interest was that there were several theories which understood the Soviet Union to be 'state capitalist', others on top of that which came close to that theory in important ways. The difference was in what exactly the understanding of the thing being called 'state capitalism' was. Each theory had its own political logic, and many were objectionable. Arguably, even Kautsky before 1920 implied that Bolshevik Russia was a new kind of capitalist society. Karl Korsch's argument that Russia was state capitalist, for example, was not an insightful prefiguration of Cliff, but was actually an expression of anti-Bolshevism which ought to have been rejected at the time it was articulated.
Almost all the theories have a difficult time understanding the role of politics and the state in the USSR. They fail to grasp a conception of the primacy of politics in capitalist society. Most render Marxism as sociological, a theoretical construction of Russia as an internally self-sufficient socio-economic structure. Some adopted a crude economic rationalism to explain inter-class economic dynamics. Cliff's theory is different. If we read Cliff's theory as not just being a sociological analysis of Soviet Russia, but also an analysis of political interest and leadership in the face of dynamic conditions, crucially imperialism, it's rendered more profound that simply one of many theories of Soviet Russian society.
Through such a reading we can better understand the continuities and discontinuities throughout 1920s Russia. The degeneration began not just with the formation of bureaucracy, nor with the 'state capitalism' of the Russian economy in the earlier years of Bolshevik rule. Instead it began with a political shift based in particular political practice centred on the Russian state, expressed in Stalin's proclamation of 'socialism in one country'. Perhaps we could use the term 'bending to spontaneity' to describe this movement. This shift was then consummated in the consolidation of Stalin's power in the late 1920s, carrying through its fundamentally bourgeois aims across Russian society, shaping society around capital accumulation. This was not a sudden betrayal, but neither was it the singular logical conclusion of Bolshevism in power. It also wasn't just a problem of having a bureaucracy in itself; having a degree of bureaucracy in a workers' state is not only inevitable but also necessary and important. Lenin had a conception of how you could have a bureaucracy without bending to its spontaneous inclinations politically.
This doesn't deny that the key task was to spread the revolution, but it allows for a sight towards there having been real work to be done in Russia to struggle against its problems. The idea that the situation inevitably led to one conclusive political orientation could be an apologism for Stalin, that Stalinism was just an expression of a disembodied process, rather than being a tendency of political agents responding to economic conditions but also forms of political practice; the former conception doesn't sufficiently blame leaders. The solution was not just a reconstitution of the working class in itself, a position which would leave the door open to Stalin's Five Year Plan, nor a democratisation of the party, as democratisation within the party would just lend sway to the bureaucracy. The solution was on the one hand a struggle to raise workers to a high cultural and political level in order to check the state bureaucracy, to train workers in knowing how to run the state, and on the other hand giving power in the party to trusted old Bolsheviks, not the party membership which was increasingly bureaucratic. Both of these things Lenin recommends in his last fight against bureaucratisation.
Almost all the theories have a difficult time understanding the role of politics and the state in the USSR. They fail to grasp a conception of the primacy of politics in capitalist society. Most render Marxism as sociological, a theoretical construction of Russia as an internally self-sufficient socio-economic structure. Some adopted a crude economic rationalism to explain inter-class economic dynamics. Cliff's theory is different. If we read Cliff's theory as not just being a sociological analysis of Soviet Russia, but also an analysis of political interest and leadership in the face of dynamic conditions, crucially imperialism, it's rendered more profound that simply one of many theories of Soviet Russian society.
Through such a reading we can better understand the continuities and discontinuities throughout 1920s Russia. The degeneration began not just with the formation of bureaucracy, nor with the 'state capitalism' of the Russian economy in the earlier years of Bolshevik rule. Instead it began with a political shift based in particular political practice centred on the Russian state, expressed in Stalin's proclamation of 'socialism in one country'. Perhaps we could use the term 'bending to spontaneity' to describe this movement. This shift was then consummated in the consolidation of Stalin's power in the late 1920s, carrying through its fundamentally bourgeois aims across Russian society, shaping society around capital accumulation. This was not a sudden betrayal, but neither was it the singular logical conclusion of Bolshevism in power. It also wasn't just a problem of having a bureaucracy in itself; having a degree of bureaucracy in a workers' state is not only inevitable but also necessary and important. Lenin had a conception of how you could have a bureaucracy without bending to its spontaneous inclinations politically.
This doesn't deny that the key task was to spread the revolution, but it allows for a sight towards there having been real work to be done in Russia to struggle against its problems. The idea that the situation inevitably led to one conclusive political orientation could be an apologism for Stalin, that Stalinism was just an expression of a disembodied process, rather than being a tendency of political agents responding to economic conditions but also forms of political practice; the former conception doesn't sufficiently blame leaders. The solution was not just a reconstitution of the working class in itself, a position which would leave the door open to Stalin's Five Year Plan, nor a democratisation of the party, as democratisation within the party would just lend sway to the bureaucracy. The solution was on the one hand a struggle to raise workers to a high cultural and political level in order to check the state bureaucracy, to train workers in knowing how to run the state, and on the other hand giving power in the party to trusted old Bolsheviks, not the party membership which was increasingly bureaucratic. Both of these things Lenin recommends in his last fight against bureaucratisation.
December 11, 2024
This is a meticulously researched overview of the theoretical debates surrounding the Soviet Union among Western Marxists. For decades one of the most important and fruitful debates of the Western left was the nature of Soviet society. It became a litmus test of sorts--from someone's position on this issue it was possible to predict their position on a host of other issues. This book focuses on interpretations that differed from the official stance of the Communist Party of the Soviet Union.
Immediately after the Russian Revolution there were debates about the path forward. There were Marxists who thought that the USSR was not ready for a socialist transformation because it hadn't gone through a prolonged period of capitalism and was insufficiently developed (e.g. Karl Kautsky). Others thought building socialism in Russia was possible only if paired with socialist revolutions in more industrialized countries like Germany (e.g. Rosa Luxembourg).
Once the USSR became a stable presence in global politics, new ideas emerged: the USSR as state capitalist (e.g. Tony Cliff), Trotsky's theory of the degenerated workers' state, theories related to what the author calls bureaucratic collectivism, and those that clearly break with a traditional Marxist framework.
Van der Linden concludes that orthodox Marxism is insufficient for understanding the USSR (or that the USSR was something new that doesn't fit into a Marxist framework), but he also states that Marxist analysis is still useful.
I don't have enough knowledge of the Soviet economy and government to confidently state my own opinion other than {1} there seems to have been insufficient democratic control of the workplace and overall economy to argue that the workers genuinely controlled the means of production (not to mention the severe political repression) {2} whatever potential for socialism existed in the USSR was made more difficult to achieve by its isolation and the threat from capitalist countries {3} we should learn everything we can from both the good and bad of Soviet society without dogmatic adherence to one interpretation of theory.
Immediately after the Russian Revolution there were debates about the path forward. There were Marxists who thought that the USSR was not ready for a socialist transformation because it hadn't gone through a prolonged period of capitalism and was insufficiently developed (e.g. Karl Kautsky). Others thought building socialism in Russia was possible only if paired with socialist revolutions in more industrialized countries like Germany (e.g. Rosa Luxembourg).
Once the USSR became a stable presence in global politics, new ideas emerged: the USSR as state capitalist (e.g. Tony Cliff), Trotsky's theory of the degenerated workers' state, theories related to what the author calls bureaucratic collectivism, and those that clearly break with a traditional Marxist framework.
Van der Linden concludes that orthodox Marxism is insufficient for understanding the USSR (or that the USSR was something new that doesn't fit into a Marxist framework), but he also states that Marxist analysis is still useful.
I don't have enough knowledge of the Soviet economy and government to confidently state my own opinion other than {1} there seems to have been insufficient democratic control of the workplace and overall economy to argue that the workers genuinely controlled the means of production (not to mention the severe political repression) {2} whatever potential for socialism existed in the USSR was made more difficult to achieve by its isolation and the threat from capitalist countries {3} we should learn everything we can from both the good and bad of Soviet society without dogmatic adherence to one interpretation of theory.
July 22, 2018
Marcel van der Linden's broad but terribly shallow catalogue of "Western Marxist" theories of the nature of the Soviet Union is thoroughly pointless book.
He is clearly far more interested in collecting theories by obscure academics which never had an impact on the world than he is in actually providing any insight into the theories he is surveying. There is no attempt to understand the way in which the changes in the material reality in Russia and the Eastern block, and the class struggles going on there and in the West, affected the development of the theories. He provides no information about the different political currents which took up any of the theories or the way in which those theories shaped the class struggle.
He has split the history of the Soviet Union into time periods, and at the start of each provides a brief overview of that time period, but the level of the overview is always in terms of Big P politics, rather than class struggle.
There is not even any attempt to provide factual information to allow the reader to ascertain the veracity of any claim made by any of the theories. It is clear that the way that van der Linden sees the world is purely idealistic--the contest between two theories is carried out by two academics writing at each other, not by checking to see if one or the other theory can actually explain the material world.
It is clear that while van der Linden is mostly interested in making a butterfly collection of obscure academic theories, he is also politically motivated. He pays much more attention to, and is far less critical of, theories of bureaucratic collectivism, while being dismissive of Cliff's theory of state capitalism, and providing large swathes of criticism of that theory. He is, however, too cowardly to ever spell out exactly what his own political analysis of the Soviet Union is, hiding behind a facade of dispassionate academia.
It's a shame, because a work which actually carried out the task this work purports to would actually be an extremely interesting and useful reference.
He is clearly far more interested in collecting theories by obscure academics which never had an impact on the world than he is in actually providing any insight into the theories he is surveying. There is no attempt to understand the way in which the changes in the material reality in Russia and the Eastern block, and the class struggles going on there and in the West, affected the development of the theories. He provides no information about the different political currents which took up any of the theories or the way in which those theories shaped the class struggle.
He has split the history of the Soviet Union into time periods, and at the start of each provides a brief overview of that time period, but the level of the overview is always in terms of Big P politics, rather than class struggle.
There is not even any attempt to provide factual information to allow the reader to ascertain the veracity of any claim made by any of the theories. It is clear that the way that van der Linden sees the world is purely idealistic--the contest between two theories is carried out by two academics writing at each other, not by checking to see if one or the other theory can actually explain the material world.
It is clear that while van der Linden is mostly interested in making a butterfly collection of obscure academic theories, he is also politically motivated. He pays much more attention to, and is far less critical of, theories of bureaucratic collectivism, while being dismissive of Cliff's theory of state capitalism, and providing large swathes of criticism of that theory. He is, however, too cowardly to ever spell out exactly what his own political analysis of the Soviet Union is, hiding behind a facade of dispassionate academia.
It's a shame, because a work which actually carried out the task this work purports to would actually be an extremely interesting and useful reference.
February 28, 2024
After reading Vladislav M. Zubok’s Collapse: The Fall of the Soviet Union , I came away desiring a greater understanding of the nature and source of the crisis that destroyed the largest and longest experiment in building socialism. However, to understand a systemic crisis, one must understand the system in the first place. This brought me to a book on my shelf that had been collecting dust for the past few years, Marcel van der Linden’s Western Marxism and the Soviet Union . Van der Linden’s compact book attempts to provide a coherent and comprehensive appraisal of the historical development of Marxist thought about the Soviet Union from 1917 to its collapse.
Marcel van der Linden’s study sets itself apart from prior literature through an objective inventory of the diverse theories on the nature of the Soviet Union. Other studies tend to study one particular theory or thinker. Others compare theories considered to be most important. While other inventories exist, van der Linden criticizes past attempts for forcing the available material into a priori schema. He instead favors a genealogical method that attempts to trace accurately the continuities and breaks in different traditions. In addition, he breaks from earlier research with a longer scope of time and space with an eye to completeness.
The main substance of the text is between Chapters 2 and 7. Each chapter covers a certain period of time tied to the generalized perception of the stability and dynamism of Soviet society. Each chapter is then subdivided into different classifications of theories, including: state capitalism, the degenerated workers’ state, bureaucratic collectivism, theories of a new mode of production without a consolidated working class, and interpretations without labels. Acting as a conclusion, Chapter 8 identified the main issues and themes within the presented historical survey. Chapter 9 acts as an appendix of sorts, providing a model for the development of political discourses in the history of the labor movement based on the survey of Western Marxist debates surrounding the Soviet Union.
Van der Linden’s study is remarkable for how compact and complete it is. Excluding introductions and conclusions, van der Linden manages to present a relatively complete and coherent survey of different Marxist interpretations of Soviet society in under 300 pages. However, it is important to keep in mind that this book’s focus is on the debates and not the Soviet Union itself. Insofar as van der Linden editorializes at all about these theories, it is to point out that none of them fit Marxist “orthodoxy” and not whether they line up with empirical reality.
There is, of course, aspects of these debates that the book does not touch on, but many of them would be outside of its scope. However, I did feel that there was one issue in particular that I felt was under-discussed: Soviet defencism. For Trotskyists and Maoists especially, debates over the nature of the Soviet Union were intrinsically tied to campist politics. From third camp Trotskyism to the Three Worlds Theory, Marxists justified supporting or opposing the Soviet Union based on their understanding of what type of society it was. Understanding this relationship is crucial for understanding many of the splits and schisms within Marxist organizations. It’s not that van der Linden doesn’t discuss these issues, but I felt that he did not give them enough attention, especially given the book’s appendix which demonstrates how this debate forced Marxists to choose to defend or discard their dearly held political principles.
Marcel van der Linden’s Western Marxism and the Soviet Union is an exceptionally well-researched and presented inventory of Marxist interpretations of the Soviet Union. This book is an essential start for any research project that wants to understand these debates.
December 26, 2016
Exhaustive (and somewhat exhausting!) examination of the differing theories by Marxist anti-Stalinists of what precisely the USSR was: a "degenerated workers' state," a "state capitalist" society, a "bureaucratic collectivist mode of production," or...something else. Fun reading for those of us who, for reasons difficult to explain, are still obsessed with this question.
October 26, 2022
The title of this book is misleading: more than a survey about theories and debates, it is a survey about the opinion of diverse authors about the Soviet Union. That said, it does a decent job in compiling everything about that topic.
The problem is the antistalinist paradigm: it reeks of ideology and makes the study almost impossible to continue; Marcel has an unpleasant tendency to side with reactionary authors rather than with true revolutionaries.
The problem is the antistalinist paradigm: it reeks of ideology and makes the study almost impossible to continue; Marcel has an unpleasant tendency to side with reactionary authors rather than with true revolutionaries.
July 11, 2023
Excellent overview. A little short on some authors. Confronts them well to Marx's thought, but not to any empirical facts about the Soviet Union.
October 12, 2024
I love Marcel van der linden, father my children
April 22, 2019
Marxist Explanations of the USSR
Though leftists (especially Marxists!) are as guilty of closing ranks when attacked by outsiders as anyone, they (again, most especially Marxists) were also well aware early on of the problematical nature of the USSR. Liberal leftists and trendy radicals, however (in my experience), were the easiest to dupe into believing that the USSR was a model to follow.
This excellent book gives a detailed history and discussion of the evolution of the Marxist critique of the Soviet Union. Is the USSR an example of 'State Capitalism' or is it merely a 'degenerated' workers' state? If the former then it is no longer an entity that Communists and the broader Left automatically need defend. If the latter? Well, rally round the red flag boys...
And what if it has an entirely new 'mode of production' with a 'new class' to boot? A new Mode of Production was often thought to be the worst possibility. If an entirely new economic formation arises -that is neither capitalist nor socialist (and it is also not a return to some earlier economic system)- then it was feared that Marxism, which does not predict any new mode of production (besides socialism), would be falsified. On the other hand, I think that any purported new class could be palmed off as being merely circumstantial by arguing that it is parasitical on the real relations of production peculiar to the USSR in its unique situation, - and thus it is not theoretically decisive.
A New Mode of Production, I think, was always the beating heart of the matter. Thus, whether one called it an entirely new 'bureaucratic collectivism' or a reversion to pre-modern 'oriental despotism' the status of Marxist theory was equally thought to be in question. After all, even a reversion to an earlier economic mode of production might indicate that Marxist 'progressivism' had been falsified.
I know; being interested in this sort of thing is a confession of age. But back in the seventies we were all focused on these issues. Today, I fear it is only quaint.
Though leftists (especially Marxists!) are as guilty of closing ranks when attacked by outsiders as anyone, they (again, most especially Marxists) were also well aware early on of the problematical nature of the USSR. Liberal leftists and trendy radicals, however (in my experience), were the easiest to dupe into believing that the USSR was a model to follow.
This excellent book gives a detailed history and discussion of the evolution of the Marxist critique of the Soviet Union. Is the USSR an example of 'State Capitalism' or is it merely a 'degenerated' workers' state? If the former then it is no longer an entity that Communists and the broader Left automatically need defend. If the latter? Well, rally round the red flag boys...
And what if it has an entirely new 'mode of production' with a 'new class' to boot? A new Mode of Production was often thought to be the worst possibility. If an entirely new economic formation arises -that is neither capitalist nor socialist (and it is also not a return to some earlier economic system)- then it was feared that Marxism, which does not predict any new mode of production (besides socialism), would be falsified. On the other hand, I think that any purported new class could be palmed off as being merely circumstantial by arguing that it is parasitical on the real relations of production peculiar to the USSR in its unique situation, - and thus it is not theoretically decisive.
A New Mode of Production, I think, was always the beating heart of the matter. Thus, whether one called it an entirely new 'bureaucratic collectivism' or a reversion to pre-modern 'oriental despotism' the status of Marxist theory was equally thought to be in question. After all, even a reversion to an earlier economic mode of production might indicate that Marxist 'progressivism' had been falsified.
I know; being interested in this sort of thing is a confession of age. But back in the seventies we were all focused on these issues. Today, I fear it is only quaint.
April 4, 2012
Astounding scope with outrageous amounts of analysis and understanding covering theoretical models concerning the Soviet Union since 1917. The sections on State Capitalism and Modes of Production are utterly indispensable and exhaustive.
Displaying 1 - 11 of 11 reviews