Cahiers du monde russe Russie - Empire russe - Union soviétique et États indépendants 44/2-3 | 2003 Les pratiques administratives en Union soviétique, 1920-1960 Rebuilding the Soviet nomenklatura 1945-1948 Moshe LEWIN Édition électronique URL : http://journals.openedition.org/monderusse/8608 DOI : 10.4000/monderusse.8608 ISSN : 1777-5388 Éditeur Éditions de l’EHESS Édition imprimée Date de publication : 1 avril 2003 Pagination : 219-252 ISBN : 2-7132-1813-6 ISSN : 1252-6576 Référence électronique Moshe LEWIN, « Rebuilding the Soviet nomenklatura 1945-1948 », Cahiers du monde russe [En ligne], 44/2-3 | 2003, mis en ligne le 01 janvier 2007, consulté le 10 décembre 2020. URL : http:// journals.openedition.org/monderusse/8608 ; DOI : https://doi.org/10.4000/monderusse.8608 © École des hautes études en sciences sociales, Paris. Cet article est disponible en ligne à l’adresse : http://www.cairn.info/article.php?ID_REVUE=CMR&ID_NUMPUBLIE=CMR_442&ID_ARTICLE=CMR_442_0219 Rebuilding the Soviet nomenklatura 1945-1948 par Moshe LEWIN | Editions de l'EHESS | Cahiers du monde russe 2003/2-3 Vol 44 ISSN 1252-6576 | ISBN 2713218136 | pages 219 à 252 Pour citer cet article : — LEWIN M., Rebuilding the Soviet nomenklatura 1945-1948, Cahiers du monde russe 2003/2, Vol 44, p. 219-252. Distribution électronique Cairn pour les Editions de l'EHESS. © Editions de l'EHESS. Tous droits réservés pour tous pays. La reproduction ou représentation de cet article, notamment par photocopie, n'est autorisée que dans les limites des conditions générales d'utilisation du site ou, le cas échéant, des conditions générales de la licence souscrite par votre établissement. Toute autre reproduction ou représentation, en tout ou partie, sous quelque forme et de quelque manière que ce soit, est interdite sauf accord préalable et écrit de l'éditeur, en dehors des cas prévus par la législation en vigueur en France. Il est précisé que son stockage dans une base de données est également interdit. MOSHE LEWIN REBUILDING THE SOVIET NOMENKLATURA 1945-1948 The term “nomenklatura” became popular in Soviet studies in the early 1980s and it was used to denote both the set of procedures the ruling party developed to conduct its staffing policies, and the cohort itself of officials who, having been selected through these procedures, coalesced into the Soviet Union’s “ruling class.” Before proceeding any further, it is worth pointing out the curious fact that earlier, often very reputable, histories of the Soviet political system did not even use this term, although the discovery of “nomenklatura” implied that it revealed something new and that earlier writers might have missed something important. An implication like that would be inaccurate. Earlier authors often departed from the common knowledge that the ruling party, in fact and by its own admission, had appointed its own members to the most important positions in the state’s administration and in the party’s own apparatus, since the early stages of the regime. And it was done by a well-known party apparatus department — the Uchraspred. The precise staffing procedures of the country’s institutions could await further more detailed monographs. Despite the impression of some new revelation, a new key to Soviet reality, the authors who put such a great emphasis on “the nomenklatura” and “its power” did in fact tell the same story, sometimes even less competently than others. Introducing a new, catchy term meant just this — a term. On the other hand, the classifier “ruling class” that intended to reveal the socio-political content of the “Soviet nomenklatura” was potentially a more interesting idea — had it not been for the fact that it was used, primarily, as an ideological teaser. “Ruling classes,” it seems, is not the term writers like Milovan Djilas or Michael Voslensky would use to tease other countries — but they were ready to use it for the USSR in order to beat it at its own game, using Marxist vocabulary to imply that the USSR had a class structure and a “ruling class.” But the play with these terms did not improve matters for us either. All this was said by — and maybe taken from — say, a Soviet oppositionist like Christian Rakovsky, who analyzed the making of a Soviet ruling stratum in texts from 1928 Cahiers du Monde russe, 44/2-3, Avril-septembre 2003, p. 219-252. 220 MOSHE LEWIN and 1931 but used “ruling stratum” or “elite”, not “class” — the latter having been a contentious term among party oppositionists of the 1920s, notably because it was quite problematic to speak then of the Soviet leadership and of its apparaty as being owners of production means as was the case with feudal lords or capitalist entrepreneurs.1 “Nomenklatura” proponents might have had a point had they explained what was gained by the new emphasis on “ruling class” instead of some other concept. An elite is a narrower, less ramified social group than a “class.” A class may contain one or more elites but it also needs a rather large social base of its own and supportive groups inside society. If better defined and shown as evolving over time, the definition and study of such social constructs could have deepened our understanding of the evolution, vitality or decline of the system, because the development, especially after Stalin, made the use of a sui generis “ruling class” justified at some stage. With a further proviso that the role of the different meanings and practices related to the term “nomenklatura” needs explaining and should not be used as just some catchy novelty. Be that as it may, we are mentioning the “class” versus “elite” (or “stratum”) quandary just in passing. Our main focus here for the moment is the actual technique of the “nomenklatura” as one of the party’s devices to maintain its control. It is sometimes claimed, notably these days in Russia, that the “nomenklatura” system was the ultimate arcanum imperii of the regime. We will show why dealing with “the technique” is of interest, but will also insist that handling the staffing of leading positions in party and state apparaty can be understood only as part of a broader ongoing process of the bureaucratic takeover of all the levers of power, whereby the administrative upper layers — the main object of the party’s control — turned into an encrusted power grid. If so, “nomenklatura” in itself was no key to the system. Actually, there was no single key to this gate although many just craved for one — a bundle of keys is necessary. Bureaucracy was not just being there — it was evolving, exhibiting trends and undergoing changes. The ruling networks were “mutating” — and so was the society around them. No particular technique gives a sufficient account of the complexity of the phenomenon. Our study does focus on the “technique” and cannot do much more — but the correlations with broader systemic trends will be strongly suggested as crucial for the analysis of the stages the system went through and of its demise. Otherwise, the outlandishly sounding term “nomenklatura” remains just a scarecrow. We are concentrating on the1945-1948 period, notably because good archival material became available but also because this was an important postwar period when the system, including the party machinery, had to be rebuilt, thereby unraveling also many phenomena the party was facing and was going to face till the 1. Milovan Djilas, The new class: an analysis of the Communist system (New York, 1957); M. Voslensky, Nomenklatura: the Soviet ruling class (preface by M. Djilas) (Garden City, NY: Doubleday, 1984). REBUILDING THE SOVIET NOMENKLATURA, 1945-1948 221 end of its existence.2 Occasional glimpses into later years will also be offered to make these implications clearer. But first, a thumbnail sketch should be offered of the making of policies that can be grouped under the “nomenklatura” label. TThhee ccaaddrreess’’ ppooll ii ccyy:: ddeell vvii nngg ii nntt oo tt hhee aappppaarraatt uuss ooff tt hhee CCeenntt rraall CCoommmmii tt tt eeee Party and state organizations must be staffed — and the party took this function upon itself from the very beginning, for the party’s own cadres in the first place. Quite soon though, all the key positions of power and influence in the state were included in what became an intricate procedure being worked and reworked as the system passed through ever more complicated stages. “Nomenklatura” meant, at first, a list of key jobs in party and state administrations to be filled by politically reliable and professionally competent personnel. But the term came to be used to denote the whole, ever more complicated set of procedures of selecting personnel for jobs of responsibility, from the highest to the lowest in all the administrations. A special department in the party apparatus — changing its name and structure over time — dealt with this task. It worked at establishing lists by branch, rank and category, and fixing the level of party or state body (Politbiuro (PB), Orgbiuro, TsK Secretariat, Sovmin or ministries themselves) — obviously depending on the ranks to be filled — to whom names of candidates for office were to be submitted for final approval (or rejection). The practice was actually begotten initially by the dearth of leading party personnel during the civil war. It made the early administrative bodies of the party’s Central Committee — the Organizational bureau, the Secretariat and an “Uchraspred” (Uchetno-raspredelitel´nyi otdel: Registration and Distribution Department) — indispensable and overworked. Thus a very much needed candidate for party secretaryship in a locality — who had to be elected according to the party’s statute — was sent in from above and quite predictably, immediately elected. The habit stayed on — the proverbial Il n’y a que le provisoire qui dure proved to be valid yet again: the practice of election of top officials by the membership of local organizations began to wither away initially, in fact, unwittingly.