Why do leftists deny the existence of the nomenklatura class? That is, the class of professional officials (rus. сhinovniks).
Why is the nomenklatura a class?
1. They have specialized universities and specialized faculties that train the nomenklatura: the Institute of Public Administration, Customs, Law, Diplomacy, the Institute of the Ministry of Internal Affairs, and so on.
2. They never change their occupation. Once they become members of the nomenklatura, they only move from one government position to another.
3. They pass on their membership in the class by inheritance. The child of an official is highly likely to become an official.
4. They have their own closed social circle. Officials almost never hang out with proles.
5. They are empowered to control the means of production.
>>2505239Nomenklatura is not a distinct class, nibba. They are state workers.
>>2505239Oh no, there was a division of labour in ussr! Also nomeklatura isnt the only demographic with professional dynasties, that is, they arent the only people who's children go to same occupation as them
>>2505239Are you trying to say that Grey Suits, Civil Servants, are their own class?
They have a lot more influence on politics than is often acknowledged, yes. But this is so dumb.
>>2505249I said in my post why nomenklatura is a class
>>2505270Those criteria are applicable to most professions and workers in ussr.
>Why is the nomenklatura a class?
None of those are descriptors of relations of production, and apply to pretty much any profession. The only one that comes close is that they're "empowered to control the means of production" but this is actually pretty vague, and also not entirely true. Middle managers were usually considered "nomenklatura" but they didn't have the kind of power over their firms that members of the bourgeoisie did. They were directly answerable to both officials above them and the trade union apparatus below them, which could and did stand up to them regularly. If you were going to use this alone to argue that they were a class, it would realistically only be applicable to the very top of the party and Gosplan hierarchy where there was less direct accountability to the people above and below them. The nomenklatura (or more accurately the bureaucracy) was a very real social stratum in Soviet society, one with unique characteristics and distinct interests, however it simply did not fit the definition of a separate class as described by Marx. They were state employees like everybody else, and being relatively privileged is not enough to constitute a separate class.
The kind of arguments OP is making were made in a much better and smarter way by ex-communist James Burnham in 1941 in his book The Managerial Revolution. But Burnham was still wrong. So where does that leave us?
>Burnham agreed with Marxists that the capitalist class would inevitably lose the class struggle, but disagreed that they would lose to the working class due to this class being too disorganized and weak. He instead argued that a new class called the managerial class would win against the capitalist class. Burnham defines this new class as the individuals responsible for "the tasks of the technical direction and coordination of the process of production." The managerial class is responsible for directing technical experts, including "operating executives, superintendents, administrative engineers, supervisory technicians; or, in government … administrators, commissioners, bureau heads, and so on." According to Burnham, the managerial class has risen due to the increasing complexity and large scope of modern economies. Because doing certain tasks requires hyper specific technical knowledge, the capitalist class cannot perform all of the necessary tasks by themselves. This means that the capitalist class has to employ individuals who manage other individuals engaged in technical work. By doing this, the capitalist class has made themselves obsolete, since the managers are the individuals who actually control production. Although the managerial class is still employed by the capitalist class, Burnham argued that this arrangement was irreconcilable. This would eventually result in the managerial class who actually owns production seizing it from the capitalist class who owns it in name only. According to Burnham, the managerial class would seize power by implementing state ownership of production. Due to the complexity and large scale of modern economies, Burnham argues that this form of state ownership would prove more efficient than rule by individual capitalists. The "managerial revolution", according to Burnham, would result in the decline of capitalist democracy and the rise of managerial control of production while using "the unlimited state" as a vehicle.
>Analyzing the emerging forms of society around the world, Burnham saw certain commonalities between the economic formations of Nazi Germany, Stalinist Russia, and America under Roosevelt's New Deal. Burnham argued that in the short period since the First World War, a new society had emerged in which a social group or class of "managers" had waged a "drive for social dominance, for power and privilege, for the position of ruling class."[7] For at least the previous decade, there had grown in America the idea of a "separation of ownership and control" of the modern corporation, notably expounded in The Modern Corporation and Private Property by Berle and Means.[8] Burnham expanded this concept, arguing that whether ownership was corporate and private or statist and governmental, the essential demarcation between the ruling elite (executives and managers backed by bureaucrats and functionaries) and the mass of society was not ownership so much as control of the means of production.
>Burnham emphasized that "New Dealism", as he called it, "is not, let me repeat, a developed, systematized managerial ideology." Still, this ideology had contributed to American capitalism's moving in a "managerial direction":
<In its own more confused, less advanced way, New Dealism too has spread abroad the stress on the state as against the individual, planning as against private enterprise, jobs (even if relief jobs) against opportunities, security against initiative, "human rights" against "property rights." There can be no doubt that the psychological effect of New Dealism has been what the capitalists say it has been: to undermine public confidence in capitalist ideas and rights and institutions. Its most distinctive features help to prepare the minds of the masses for the acceptance of the managerial social structure.[9]
>Burnham argued that the power of the capitalist class would decline, while a new managerial class would rise to take its place, directing the state and industry. He described both Nazi Germany and the Soviet Union as having a managerial class based on an economic model he considered to be superior to liberal capitalism. Because of this, he incorrectly predicted that the Nazis would win World War II.[4]