At its crudest, the traitors thesis argues that the USSR was on track for socialism until the death of Stalin when a group of traitors to socialism, who had managed to worm their way into the top echelons of the party, took control. It is a 'bad man' theory of history that has a similar methodology to the manner in which bourgeois history is taught in terms of the reign of wicked and beneficial King's and Queen's. The traitors thesis leaves many questions unanswered. In particular, where did the traitors keep coming from?
Bring fact-checked results to the top of your browser search. Enduring debates in political science Political scientists, like other social and natural scientists, gather data and formulate theories. The two tasks are often out of balance, however, leading either to the collection of irrelevant facts or to the construction of misleading theories.
Throughout the post-World War II era, political scientists developed and discarded numerous theories, and there was considerable and unresolved debate as to whether it is more important to develop theories and then collect data to confirm or reject them or to collect and analyze data from which theories would flow.
Perhaps the oldest philosophical dispute has to do with the relative importance of subjectivity and objectivity. Many political scientists have attempted to develop approaches that are value-free and wholly objective.
In modern political sciencemuch of this debate takes place between structuralists and cultural theorists. Structuralists claim that the way in which the world is organized or structured determines politics and that the proper objects of study for political science are power, interests, and institutions, which they construe as objective features of political life.
In contrast, cultural theorists, who study values, opinions, and psychologyargue that subjective perceptions of reality are more important than objective reality itself. However, most scholars now believe that the two realms feed into one another and cannot be totally separated.
Few in one camp, however, would totally dismiss the arguments of the other. Likewise, although some political scientists continue to insist that only quantified data are legitimatesome topics are not amenable to study in these terms.
The decisions of top officials, for example, are often made in small groups and behind closed doors, and so understanding them requires subjective descriptive material based on interviews and observations—essentially the techniques of good journalists.
If done well, these subjective studies may be more valid and longer-lived than quantitative studies. Prior to the development of reliable survey research, most political analyses focused on elites.
Once a sizable amount of research had become available, there was a considerable debate about whether rulers are guided by citizen preferences, expressed through interest groups and electionsor whether elites pursue their own goals and manipulate public opinion to achieve their ends. Despite numerous studies of public opinion, voting behaviour, and interest groups, the issue has not been resolved and, indeed, is perhaps unresolvable.
Analyses can establish statistical relationships, but it has been difficult to demonstrate causality with any certainty. This debate is complicated by two factors. Political analyses based on elites are hindered by a dearth of reliable elite-level data, as researchers are rarely invited into the deliberations of rulers.
Accordingly, much is known about the social bases of politics but little of how and why decisions are made. Even when decision makers grant interviews or write their memoirs, firm conclusions remain elusivebecause officials often provide accounts that are self-serving or misleading.
Political science has had difficulty handling rapid change; it prefers the static stable political systems to the dynamic. If historians are stuck in the past, political scientists are often captives of the present.
For some the collapse of the Soviet Union showed that the theories and methods of political science are of only limited utility. Despite decades of gathering data and theorizing, political science was unable to anticipate the defining event of the post-World War II era.
Critics charged that political science could describe what is but could never discern what was likely to be. Others, however, maintained that this criticism was unfair, arguing that such upheavals can be predicted, given sufficient data.
Still, the demise of the Soviet Union spurred some political scientists to develop theories to explain political changes and transformations. Examining the collapse of authoritarian regimes and their replacement with democratic governments in GreeceSpain, Portugal, Latin Americaeastern Europe, and the Soviet Union during the last three decades of the 20th century, they sought to develop a theory of transitions to democracy.
Others argued that no such universal theory is possible and that all democratic transitions are unique. At the beginning of the 21st century, political science was faced with a stark dilemma: Although some research in political science would continue to be arcane and unintelligible to the layperson and even to other scholars, many political scientists attempted to steer a middle course, one that maintained a rigorous scientific approach but also addressed questions that are important to academics, citizens, and decision makers alike."The Collapse of the Soviet Union" Please respond to the following: Roskin discusses three theories about causes of the collapse of the Soviet Union.
Choose one of these theories and explain how it relates to the collapse of the USSR, and assess and justify whether it relates to its .
Roskin three theories about causes of the collapse of the Soviet Union Roskin discusses three theories about causes of the collapse of the Soviet Union. Choose one of these theories and explain how it relates to the collapse of the USSR, and assess and justify whether it relates to its .
Feb 25, · The Revolutions of and the Fall of the Soviet Union.
Gorbachev believed that a better Soviet economy depended on better relationships with the . INTRODUCTION.
One of the most retailed reasons amongst Marxist-Leninists for the demise of the Soviet Union is the 'traitors thesis'. At its crudest, the traitors thesis argues that the USSR was on track for socialism until the death of Stalin when a group of traitors to socialism, who had managed to worm their way into the top echelons of the party, took control.
That is, the Soviet Union remained a dictatorship of the proletariat—a regime between capitalism and socialism. What proponents of these three theories had in common—at least those who remained partisans of the Russian Revolution—was that Stalinism represented a counter-revolution to The dissolution of the Soviet Union occurred on 26 December , officially granting self-governing independence to the Republics of the Soviet Union (USSR).
It was a result of the declaration number Н of the Supreme Soviet of the Soviet Union.