Talk:Nomenklatura

Old talk

This article uses the "communal apartment" expression. I think this means an apartment shared by several families, rather than an apartment owned by the state. Maybe this should be transformed into a link, but to what?

A communal apartment ("komunal'ka") is a room with a shared kitchen and bath. Pre-Revolutionary buildings were subdivided into apartments, often with five or more rooms per unit. The building is owned by the government so it's essentially public housing, but it's possible to privatize your apartment (the room) by paying a large amount of money to the government. Sluggoster (talk) 09:08, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

There are surely signs of this evolving in Britain under New Labour? No wonder former members of teh Communist Party are thriving in Government!

History of post-Soviet Russia article gives a very different (although not contradictory) reason as to why the Oligarchs have been such important figures after the fall of communism, namely the The "loans for shares" scheme.

Not very different at all. Mikkalai 16:56, 15 May 2005 (UTC)

Actually, this article is incorrect. One description is given here: Nomenclatura used the komsomol leaders to get the property. Some of these leaders became oligarchs (but many were nobodies before 1990). The old nomenclatura retained positions in the new government, eventually getting some of the property. But when we are talking about Russian oligarchs, they weren't members of nomenclatura. Paranoid 20:01, 15 May 2005 (UTC)

I will not engage in editing of this article, since I give a damn for modern Russia, but please let me say that you are incredibly naive. In Russia of the Latter Day Soviets the only people that had access to real money were nomenklatura and thieves. Period. Mikkalai 04:28, 16 May 2005 (UTC)

Eh? Where does does that contradict what I wrote? I am just saying that oligarchs were not members of nomenklatura. That's very easy to check. Most of them were nobody and during early 90s became thieves and then oligarchs. Paranoid 12:20, 16 May 2005 (UTC)

Well, from what I've read it seems apparent that a huge number (a majority?) of them were among the lower classes of the authorities, that is for instance secretaries of city/rayon committees, chiefs of factories and so on. Halibutt 15:13, May 16, 2005 (UTC)

Needs general fixing, NPOV work, more facts, etc.172.193.255.206 14:37, 25 July 2005 (UTC)

Objections to having a ruling class

Marx said (and later Communists agreed) that it's bad to have a ruling class. This was the justification for the socialist revolution.

Critics say that the Communists merely replaced the corrupt ruling class of the Tzar and aristocracy with a new ruling class - the nomenklatura - which became the new aristocracy (the new elite).

In the days of the Soviet Union, for example, this elite was called the nomenclatura, and if you were lucky enough to be a member life was good. You lived in a restricted neighborhood or housing complex whose inhabitants were also members of the nomenclatura, your health care was provided at private hospitals staffed by highly-trained physicians and equipped with the world’s most advanced medical technologies, your children were enrolled in private schools, your family vacationed at resorts open only to nomenclatura families, and your wives had access to stores barred to members of the to the general public and stocked with all sorts of goodies from beef, to caviar, to fancy faucets for the bathroom sink to household items such as babies’ disposable diapers not available in local shops. [1]

What's the best way to add criticism like this to the article? Uncle Ed 18:46, 27 October 2005 (UTC)

One way may be to examine where the Nomenklatura is still operational, i.e. Cuba, PRC, & North Korea. nobs 18:52, 27 October 2005 (UTC)

Americans recently saw how the Nomenklatura operates up close and personal, with the Elian Gonzalez debate; Elain's father recieved larger rations of beans and rice because of his connection to the Cuban Nomenclatura, yet the word was never used in English articles reporting the story. nobs 19:45, 27 October 2005 (UTC)

Why not "Nomenclature"?

Why not? Xx236 11:06, 16 January 2006 (UTC)

There alreadyexists a page of that name.--Nema Fakei 20:04, 31 January 2006 (UTC)

Source of the term "Nomenklatura"

Some vandal evidently had a problem with the derivation of the word "nomenklatura", adding "Do you really believe this!?!?!??!". I deleted this, but added a citation needed tag. While I don't have a source yet, I remember reading that this is an accurate derivation of the word.

NPOV Tag

Added the NPOV tag as the article appears largely negative, and contains a significant number of loaded words (i.e. clearly does not conform with WP:NPOV). From what I remember about nomenklatura, it had both advantages and drawbawbacks; and despite indeed having a number of corrupt individuals, it presents a rather interesting way of organizing a government. If I have time, I'll try to correct the article myself, but unfortunately that's not likely to happen in the next few months, so I'd strongly encourage someone else to do it. ikh (talk) 22:27, 14 June 2006 (UTC)

Nomenklatura is a pejorative, tongue-in-cheek term, and is used as such in negative contexts, serving (in part) as a substitute for "oligarchy" in former communist countries when referring to their ruling classes. All the article does is reflect this. I suggest we remove the tag. Thoughts? Reichenbach 13:59, 27 September 2006 (UTC)

Removal of content

Why was this removed @ [2]

"Supporters of state socialism, however, claim that Djilas's view is not supported by the facts, maintaining: The privileges that workers of nomenklatura had were at least an order of magnitude lower than those afforded to CEOs and business-owners in countries such as United States. For example, Stalin's wife wrote him once about going to the exam by tram. She had to take a taxi only because the tram broke (September 2, 1929). In another example Stalin's parents-in-law lived in a communal apartment. Of course, after the war the ascetic lifestyle was not maintained, but this happened with the similar improvement in quality of life of average Soviet people. Many members of nomenklatura also explained later that the privileges weren't something provided by the system, instead it was the possibility of corruption that those less honest used."

-- It should rightly have been tagged "citation needed"...? That'd be me. Skrewz 11:11, 25 September 2006 (UTC)

Uncited content can be removed anytime.Ultramarine 01:45, 26 September 2006 (UTC)

Deletion seconded. `'mikkanarxi 18:42, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

LOC text

A good pick!

However the LOC text is quite chaotic and essayish, and requires restructuring. In particular, it must be stated clearly that "nomenclatura" was not purely for positions inside the Party. This article is a good place to explain how Party excerted control over all aspects of the whole country, not only party itself, using the mechanism of "nomenklatura". `'mikkanarxi 18:38, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

The same source has several articles on related topics. See chapter 7. Maybe something could be added? Ultramarine 12:38, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

Trotskyism

The reason why the trotskyists prefered caste before class in describing the nomenklatura is not a question of terminology. It is a result of their, i my eyes flawed, analysis of the soviet union. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.172.144.196 (talk) 16:03, 26 April 2008 (UTC)

Privileges

The article is overly abstract. It could be fleshed out with a discussion of the privileges awarded to Nomenklatura, such as shopping in special stores that stocked scarce commodities and some Western goods, and vacationing in restricted areas, such as the Curonian Spit.

Sca (talk) 16:58, 20 June 2008 (UTC)

I would also like to see more information on numbers, if available: How many members of the nomenklatura at the various levels. MikeR613 (talk) 15:42, 25 March 2010 (UTC)

Israel Flag in preview of link of this page?

I'm not sure why, since no reference to Jews or Israel appears within the article itself, but when someone hovers over the link to this page from another article (in my case it was on the article "Predictions of the collapse of the Soviet Union") the article preview text is accompanied by a large Israeli flag. Given the topic of the article and the prevalence of antisemitic conspiracy theories that accuse Jews of secretly running government, should this perhaps be changed? I would change if I knew how. 2600:8803:5E00:1D0:F56F:7A73:F7D0:7C2 (talk) 02:07, 19 September 2023 (UTC)

I guess Mossad is secretly but sloppily running your computer :-) I see no image in preview. Preview of trotsky link nearby shows portrait of trotsky, preview of Stalin link shows stalin. The preview shows the top image in the page. Are you using desktop or mobile device? Do your friends see the same? - Altenmann >talk 03:08, 19 September 2023 (UTC)

This is the result of template vandalism. It was quickly reverted but the effect remained in the cache for some articles. It must be mostly gone by now. Nardog (talk) 07:53, 19 September 2023 (UTC)

Pipes on nomenklatura

"nomenklatura system mainly reflected a continuation of the old Tsarist regime, as many former Tsarist officials or "careerists" joined the Bolshevik government during and after the Russian Civil War"

I find this thoroughly dubious, both by fact and possibility, bearing in mind the idea of dictatorship of proletariat. Maybe a wikipedia misrepresented Pipes? Can someone double-check in the book?- Altenmann >talk 03:15, 19 September 2023 (UTC)

Amwercian nomenklatura section

Removed as original research. Cronyism is not the same as nomenklarura. The Free Press uses the term polemically not really understanding the meaning of the term. Nomenklatura is a list approved by a ruling Communist party - there is no such thin in capitalist democratic America. - Altenmann >talk 22:51, 4 August 2024 (UTC)

"A form of nomenklatura has been said to exist within the United States among "Ivy Leaguers" as separate and apart from working class Americans. According to The Free Press report which cited a Rasmussen poll, "The poll defined the former as 'those having a postgraduate degree, a household income of more than $150,000 annually, living in a zip code with more than 10,000 people per square mile,' and having attended 'Ivy League schools or other elite private schools, including Northwestern, Duke, Stanford, and the University of Chicago.'" Further, "Asked if they would favor 'rationing of gas, meat, and electricity' to fight climate change, 89 percent of Ivy Leaguers said yes, as against 28 percent of regular people. Asked if they would personally pay $500 more in taxes and higher costs to fight climate change, 75 percent of the Ivy Leaguers said yes, versus 25 percent of everyone else. 'Teachers should decide what students are taught, as opposed to parents' was a statement with which 71 percent of the Ivy Leaguers agreed, nearly double the share of average citizens. 'Does the U.S. provide too much individual freedom?' More than half of Ivy Leaguers said yes; just 15 percent of ordinary mortals did. The elite were roughly twice as fond as everyone else of members of Congress, journalists, union leaders, and lawyers. Perhaps unsurprisingly, 88 percent of the Ivy Leaguers said their personal finances were improving, as opposed to one in five of the general population.""

This was the edit that was added. The text said "A form of nomenklatura has been said to exist within the United States"... not exactly strong language which was arguing it was the same as the Soviet original "nomenklatura". The point also highlighted the differences, and the cited the source. While this might not be appropriate for the lead section due to WP:DUEWEIGHT, if reliable sources make this point and articulate it clearly in light of the differences, then it should be included in the body of the article lower down perhaps. Iljhgtn (talk) 00:17, 23 April 2025 (UTC)

The cited article mentions the term in passing and does not support the deleted chunk, which is partly an inadmissible interpretation of what was said in the source, partly WP:SYNTH: the verbose quotations say not a word about "nomenklatura" --Altenmann >talk 01:47, 23 April 2025 (UTC)

"To see the extent of the gulf that now separates the American nomenklatura from the workers and peasants, consider the findings of a Rasmussen poll from last September, which sought to distinguish the attitudes of the Ivy Leaguers from ordinary Americans." This is a direct quote, but the policy and guidelines of editing on Wikipedia actually requires that we read a source, then take the core of the meaning from the source using our own best judgement, then in neutral language write that into a summary encyclopedic copy. WP:SYNTH or WP:OR are altogether different and not at all what is occurring in the above, but if you feel otherwise, please feel free to read the source and try to take a stab at it yourself and I could comment on the final result, otherwise I'll try again myself soon. I am fine with a greatly abbreviated section if you feel this is too much information, though the source is not unreliable, and the mention should at least receive WP:SUMMARY treatment. Iljhgtn (talk) 02:01, 23 April 2025 (UTC)

Yes, this exactly the piece I had in mind when I wrote "mentioned in passing", as a snide metaphor. Please provide me with the definition of what "American nomenklatura" is. Obvioulsy we disagree about the extent of "take the core of the meaning from the source using our own best judgement". --Altenmann >talk 02:07, 23 April 2025 (UTC)

Well I wouldn't of course be so bold as to say what it "is" or "is not", but only that "According to the Free Press,..", and then see my comment above. In essence if I were to indulge in some actual WP:SYNTH, it might be worded as, "Ivy leaguer's disconnected from the hardships of the working class but that tow the party line in protecting their own privelged life and elite bureaucratic class benefits.", but now that is of course absolutely WP:SYNTH and WP:OR, which is exactly why the fuller context and quotes and citation from above are the non-WP:OR without my own wording or synthesis down into some overly tightened "definition." Iljhgtn (talk) 02:14, 23 April 2025 (UTC)

Well, not "according to the wth it is anonymous the Free Press" (I HATE when Wikipeida writes like "according to "The Guardian"), but "according to Niall Ferguson", who is a well-known scholar. But the major problem is that we do not know what he understands under the term and to what degree it is relevant to the subject of the article. It would be like squeezing the word "feminazi" into the article about Nazism or use of any other strong word for a hype, like calling abortion "genocide" by pro-lifers. --Altenmann >talk 02:30, 23 April 2025 (UTC)

If we knew (and not guessed) from the article what Ferguson meant, then at the very least we could write "Ferg compared <what> to Sov nomenc" and then proceed with the whole enchilada of his arguments (to a reasonable volume). --Altenmann >talk 02:55, 23 April 2025 (UTC)

References

While fishing for Ferguson I accidentally found a perfect example how fake information can be created by a supposedly reliable source, by slightly twisting the content of the sources to the likes, using Fergusson as an example. In here Cathy Young (shame be upon her) says:

Later on, Ferguson discusses a 2023 Rasmussen poll supposedly showing “the gulf that now separates the American nomenklatura from the workers and peasants.” The “American nomenklatura” here is defined as “those having a postgraduate degree, a household..."

Nothin of the kind is defined in the "here". In fact Fergusson wrote:

"To see the extent of the gulf that now separates the American nomenklatura from the workers and peasants, consider the findings of a Rasmussen poll from last September, which sought to distinguish the attitudes of the Ivy Leaguers from ordinary Americans. The poll defined the former as “those having a postgraduate degree, a..."

In Fergusson's text "defined the former as", "the former" are "the Ivy Leaguers". What is more, Fergusson himself took a bit of liberty, because the definition in the Rasmussen poll is

"The Elites are defined as those having a postgraduate degree, a household income of more than $150,000 annually, and living in a zip code with more than 10,000 people per square mile. Approximately 1% of the total U.S. population meets these criteria."

- Full stop. End of paragraph. No Ivy League. "living in a zip code with more than 10,000 people per sq.mi." is "American nomenklatura?" Someone must be kidding or "pulling an owl onto a globe", as a Russian say goes.

I can easily see that people can proceed and cite Cathy Young (shame be upon her) and claim that Ferguson gave a definition of "American nomenklatura" (and referring to a secondary source, too! But in this case the "secondary source" is in fact the third link in the game of Chinese whispers.). --Altenmann >talk 03:26, 23 April 2025 (UTC)