Abstract
The paper addresses the research question of why the Soviet political leaders did not implement Chinaʼs model of reforms. The theoretical background and methodological instruments are based upon social constructivism (Berger & Luckmann), pragmatism (James), postmodernism (Foucault), Marxist tradition (Gramsci, Althusser, Laclau & Mouffe) and civilisational sociology (Eisenstadt, Arnason).
The method is discourse analysis which draws upon Laclau & Mouffe, Fairclough and Reisigl & Wodak. This interdisciplinary approach sheds new light on the topic despite the limited availability of archive materials.
The research focuses on the members of the Politburo, the Council/Cabinet of Ministers, and the leading representative of the RSFSR. The research puts the discourse analysis into the context defined by the following points: (1) the socio-economic development of the USSR and PRC; (2) the history of Soviet reformism against the background of a peculiar civilisational trajectory; (3) Sino-Soviet relations.
Given the theoretical and methodological assumptions are discourses the main object of the investigation, for which purpose an original typology will be introduced. The discourses are tentatively defined as neo-Stalinism, neo-Leninism, liberal socialism, and neoliberalism.
Their analysis will help us to explain why the Soviet leaders wasted the opportunity to follow the Chinese path.