Jones's (1984) critique of the political model of Soviet-type society, especially in its totalitarian version, rests on its overemphasis of the political and relative ignorance of social structural features. He also argues that the political model is limited by its static character. Subsequent approaches within the political genre, like the interest-group approach, have allowed for these societies’ greater pluralism, but they are still constrained by their political focus.

But is the totalitarian model not the ultimate critical approach? The most vociferous opponents of Communist Party-led regimes frequently call these societies “totalitarian.” Ronald Reagan, for instance, won widespread popularity in Poland when he called the Soviet Union “an evil empire.” Much of the Eastern Central European opposition itself uses the term “totalitarian” (Rupnik, 1988). Certainly, in the common use of the term “critical”, “totalitarian regimes” and “evil empires” are severe denunciations. They are less useful for an immanent critique, however, inasmuch as the totalitarian approach assumes that no change can come from within. The totalitarian model tends to lead its proponent to the view that totalitarian systems are invincible in the face of domestic challenge. The Hungarian revolution supposedly destroyed that belief in totalitarianism's immutability (Féher and Heller, 1983).

Although this revolution may have changed the beliefs of totalitarian theorists on the theoretical possibility of internally driven transformation, neither the policies of its political adherents nor the problematics of its theoretical proponents give much credence to that eventuality.