In a review of William Taubman’s Gorbachev (TLS, 1/19/18),
Geoffrey Hosking makes note of Mikhail Voslensky’s Nomenkatura, “an acclaimed study of the Soviet ruling class.”
Hosking also refers to the “Soviet apparat” and there were the
infamous apparatchniks who occupied the Government
building built during l931, with its cosmopolitanism and amenities—and of
course the country dachas, which were one of the prizes party hegemons enjoyed.
But nomenklatura is particularly
resonant word, sharing the same Latin root with the English “nomenclature,”
which is the way something is named or branded. When you think about it
Pyongyang might be the closest thing to what Peking was like during the days of
the Cultural Revolution or Moscow at the heart of the Stalin terror. Surely
there's the North Korean equivalent of a Beria who’s responsible for arranging
the infamous executions that use anti-air craft guns on opponents of the
regime. But would any top party official in China or North Korea ever be
referred to as nomenklatura? It it’s
a word that lies somewhere between Rome and Tashkent, but retains too much
cultural inertia to allow itself to be imported into cultures that think in
ideograms. And what about Gorbachev? He was not your run of the mill Nomenkatura. In fact, being the leader who brought about "perestroika" and "glasnost," he was in an exulted category, high up where the air is thin with other peaceniks like Mandela for whom there's no real label.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
No comments:
Post a Comment
Note: Only a member of this blog may post a comment.