T. Anthony Jones (1984) identifies three basic approaches to the study of Soviet-type society: the political–economic, the political and the industrial. Jones advocates the industrial model within a general modernization approach and evaluates models on the degree to which they facilitate the comparison of societies. His analysis overstates the unity in political and political–economic models, but this classification of approaches nevertheless serves as a useful point of departure for this overview. In what follows, I consider the relevance of modernization theory for understanding Solidarity and developing a critical sociology of Soviet–type society. I then turn to a more extended analysis and critique of various political–economic approaches. I conclude this chapter with a review of the strengths and weaknesses of these approaches. In the following chapter I consider whether the “political” models of totalitarianism and civil society overcome the limitations of the political–economic models.

Industrialism, functionalism and normative commitments

Jones (1984) finds the industrial–society model superior to the political and political–economic models he considers because it opens the way for a dynamic analysis of these societies and their comparison with other societies with similarly developed technological bases. The common tendency for all industrial societies to become increasingly complex with technological development serves, for him, as a useful point of departure for sociological analysis (Jones, 1976). It provides a dynamic approach and directs analysts to problems of social structure, unlike the political and political–economic models which focus on politics and class respectively.