Question on "The German Ideology" and the Nomenklature Caste/Class

[Guardia Rossa]

I have just read in "The German Ideology" by Marx that a new elite, revolutionary class usually declare their objectives as the objectives of all non-elite classes, and really believe it (By Ideology)

How this relations with the Nomenklature, it's growing power and corruption, until a part of them abolished the USSR and became bourgeois?

Can we trace a paralel with the history of the bourgeoisie or am I urgently needing to sleep more than 6 hours/day?

[ComradeAllende]

I have just read in "The German Ideology" by Marx that a new elite, revolutionary class usually declare their objectives as the objectives of all non-elite classes, and really believe it (By Ideology)

How this relations with the Nomenklature, it's growing power and corruption, until a part of them abolished the USSR and became bourgeois?

Well, I haven't gotten to "The German Ideology" yet (still trying to finish an abridged version of the Grundrisse), but I think this concept depends on your interpretation of the Soviet Union (socialist state, "degenerated workers' state", state capitalist entity, etc), particularly the early years and during the shift of power from Lenin and Trotsky to Stalin.

I think (based on the historical context) that Marx was referring to "populist" reformers (like Louis Bonaparte) who claim to lead a "mass movement" against a small group of elites. Regarding the nomenklatura, I guess one could draw a parallel, if they could prove that the apparatchiks were devoted to the Marxist cause as opposed to pragmatists trying to secure their power within the USSR and in the broader global environment.


Can we trace a parallel with the history of the bourgeoisie or am I urgently needing to sleep more than 6 hours/day?

You could, particularly during the decline of feudalism and the rise of capitalism, when proto-capitalists and peasants (and other precursors to the proletariat) joined to crush the weakened nobility. Not to mention the various times when members of the bourgeoisie "break" from the main bourgeois dogma and enact seemingly-radical reforms (the Thirteenth Amendment, the New Deal, etc).

[Hatshepsut]

My understanding is being in the "Nomenklatura" in the USSR meant you knew the people who might pick you to get a top post. Corruption? Yes. Parallel with historical development of bourgeoisie? Less certain. A parallel would mean they became members of a commercial class by knowing other members of that class. Sometimes that was true, but often a new commercial capitalist was able to rise by knowing members the nobility at the court, or knowing government officials who could grant them needed licenses. That would break the parallel, because commercialists didn't join the nobility or become government officials themselves. For one thing, nobility was hereditary so they usually weren't eligible; the other option of being an official would take them away from their businesses.

At least usually that's how I think it went; the German monarchical systems changed over time and after 1860, Otto von Bismarck, a Duke, was the big player. Marx's take also well predates actual Soviet experience.

When the USSR's state-owned enterprises were disbanded, it's true most of the new heads of companies were former Communists, often the same ones who had been running the enterprises under the old system. Nothing in Marx will cover this novel shift which doesn't have any clear precedents I'm aware of.

[Guardia Rossa]

My understanding is being in the "Nomenklatura" in the USSR meant you knew the people who might pick you to get a top post. Corruption? Yes. Parallel with historical development of bourgeoisie? Less certain. A parallel would mean they became members of a commercial class by knowing other members of that class. Sometimes that was true, but often a new commercial capitalist was able to rise by knowing members the nobility at the court, or knowing government officials who could grant them needed licenses. That would break the parallel, because commercialists didn't join the nobility or become government officials themselves. For one thing, nobility was hereditary so they usually weren't eligible; the other option of being an official would take them away from their businesses.

At least usually that's how I think it went; the German monarchical systems changed over time and after 1860, Otto von Bismarck, a Duke, was the big player. Marx's take also well predates actual Soviet experience.

When the USSR's state-owned enterprises were disbanded, it's true most of the new heads of companies were former Communists, often the same ones who had been running the enterprises under the old system. Nothing in Marx will cover this novel shift which doesn't have any clear precedents I'm aware of.

I don't mean a paralel by a exactly same history, but if both took power relying on the people honestly believing they were for the people, and some time later betray them and take power for themselves.

[Hatshepsut]

I question the cynical assumption that Lenin and his colleagues were simply out for a power grab. We've seen lots of tin-pot coups for power in Latin America and Africa. Look at Mobutu Sese-Seko, with a little Belgian assistance taking over Congo in 1961, murdering its only democratically elected leader (Patrice Lamumba), then effectively crowning himself a king on his new throne, leopard skins and all. Amid a faux ideal of taking the country back to tribal roots. The war to remove him in 1996-97 would cost nearly a million lives. His regime gave us the word "kleptocracy," rule by thieves. This latter type don't bother with an intellectual tradition or a Party program; Lenin had both.

I think Lenin wanted his projects for socialist revolution to succeed in delivering the fruits of Russia's productive capacity to its people. But his strategy for revolution underestimated both the reactionary backlash and the corrupting influence all violence has on those who employ it, revolutionary or not. The Soviet experience holds real lessons for us, since I doubt capitalism will fold its tents quietly, having to be displaced by force. Yet without discovering a way around the corruption and bureaucratization violence leads to, we'll be back in the same boat. We should be looking for ways to minimize the amount of force used and defanging it after we win.

[A Revolutionary Tool]

Well what part of The German Ideology are you referencing? Like a specific quote we could talk about. I remember him saying that communist ideology could come about in other classes through the contemplation of the workers situation.

[Tim Redd]

I have just read in "The German Ideology" by Marx that a new elite, revolutionary class usually declare their objectives as the objectives of all non-elite classes, and really believe it (By Ideology)

I recall Marx saying something very similar to: quite often the class struggle and movement to advance by a class also takes on a universal character in the sense that what is in the interest of class is also in the best interests of society as a whole moving forward.

This is the case for both the bourgeois struggle against feudalism from the 15th to the 19th century. And it is the case for the proletarian revolutionary struggle of today.

[Sibotic]

If it's assumed that the interests of the working class and people generally are in communism then we were probably well on our way back then, you would conclude. Obviously this is more a sign than a movement in itself, as indeed one could conclude of the Bolshevik uprising along with other, similar movements leading up to the present and communism.

[Hatshepsut]

Marx on The Peasants' War in Germany (1850) for the historical context and Engels on The Peasant Question in France & Germany (1894) for the class relations might be the proper sources to consult. In the latter, Engels says


"The peasant has so far largely manifested himself as a factor of political power only by his apathy, which has its roots in the isolation of rustic life. This apathy on the part of the great mass of the population is the strongest pillar not only of the parliamentary corruption in Paris and Rome but also Russian despotism. Yet it is by no means insuperable."

Yet the working classes of today demonstrate such apathy without being isolated, which shows that apathy can have roots in comfort and affluence as well. Neither Marx nor Engels seems to have anticipated the post-WWII rise of living standards throughout the world that may be today's inhibitor of revolution. This can be forgiven them as it wasn't easily predictable. The working classes of rich countries won't rebel until something happens to impair their routine purchase of houses and cars, leaving only the workers of the exploited countries as agitated. The latter are kept under wraps both via police repression and by selling them the ideologies of consumerism, a thing we can do through long-distance visual communications not available in the 19th century.

Meanwhile the peasantry has completely disappeared from middle-income and rich countries; food production being on the factory system. Workers certainly remain exploited in this sector but they are often immigrants in the past possessing limited language skills and organizational ability that would favor a revolution amongst them. This includes the "internal migrants" who work plantations in countries like Brazil. As such disadvantages fade they are becoming numerically minority, however. Traditional peasantry involved a subsistence element we don't see as often now except in rural areas disconnected from the global economy. That was the idea connoted by use of the word "rustic," I think.

[Tim Redd]

If it's assumed that the interests of the working class and people generally are in communism then we were probably well on our way back then, you would conclude. Obviously this is more a sign than a movement in itself, as indeed one could conclude of the Bolshevik uprising along with other, similar movements leading up to the present and communism.

I'm pretty sure what you mean to convey in the above is worthwhile, but do you mind rephrasing it so that it is easily understandable by other readers? Thanks.