^l In order to remain within manageable proportions, this article restricts itself wholly to the mechanics of the nomenklatura system and to the present time. There is not space enough here to treat the subject historically, to bring out its dynamics, important as that may be. Nor is there room to dwell on the characteristics of the personnel who are managed by this system and their training for positions within it. Fuller treatment of these matters will be found in this writer's doctoral dissertation, “Political and Technical Qualifications in the Selection, Appointment and Training of Soviet Decision-Makers,” in preparation.

Nearly all of the research for this study was carried out while the author was an exchange student in the USSR, in 1967–8, under the auspices of the Centre for Russian and East European Studies, University of Toronto. The centre's generous assistance, as well as that of the Canada Council, is gratefully acknowledged.

² An example of such a list is Komitet partiinogo kontrolia pri TsK VKP(b), Nomenklatura i Kharakteristika dolzhnostei sluzhashchikh gosorganov SSSR (Moscow, 1930).Google Scholar

³ Bugaev, E. I. and Leibzon, B. M., Besedy ob Ustave KPSS (Moscow: Gospolitizdat, 1962), 154Google Scholar, and Voprosy partiinogo stroitel'stva (Leningrad: Lenizdat, 1962), 335, respectively.

⁴ “Without the Party body's decision a Communist who is director of an institution or enterprise may not release a worker from an official position if it is a nomenklatura post.” Bugaev and Leibzon, Besedy ob Ustave KPSS, 155.

⁵ Morozov, P., Novye trebovaniia v rabote s kadrami (Moscow: “Moskovskii rabochii,” 1966), 40–1Google Scholar; Partiinaia zhizn’, no. 9 (1965), 47.

⁶ Voprosy partiinoi raboty (Moscow: Gospolitizdat, 1955), 121. The content of a particular body's nomenklatura will vary with such things as the degree of regional development and the party's tasks at the moment. Voprosy part, stroit. (1962), 336.

⁷ Voprosy partiinoi raboty (Moscow: Gospolitizdat, 1957), 242; Voprosy part, stroit. (1962), 335–6. By way of guidance for local bodies the former source says that, for instance, it is not necessary for a raion committee (raikom) to confirm all secretaries of primary Komsomol organizations. It need only do so in the case of such organizations in newly formed state farms (sovkhozy), say, where young people have congregated from all parts of the union. Presumably, this alludes to the Virgin Lands project. At any rate, we learn that some secretaries of primary Komsomol organizations are in the raikom nomenklatura, while the rest are probably listed with the raion Komsomol committee.

⁸ “It has become the rule for Communists, who have undergone the praticai school of leading work in the primary organizations, and in the raikomy and city committees of the Party, to be appointed to soviet and trade union bodies.” Voprosy partiinogo stroite'stva (Leningrad: Lenizdat, 1968), 79. See also Bugaev and Leibzon, p. 155, who make some interesting revelations. That only Communists are appointed to nomenklatura posts, they say, is a belief held by “careerists who have wormed their way into the Party and who consider that the title of Communist opens the way to responsible positions.” Furthermore, “being a nomenklatura worker does not in the least mean that one acquires a lifelong right to occupy responsible official positions” (Ibid.). There are, obviously, persons who regard party membership as a free ticket to office-holding and nomenklatura status as providing security of tenure.

⁹ Neuweld, Mark, “The Origin of the Communist Control Commission,” Slavic Review, XVIII (October 1959), 318 and 329.Google Scholar The question of status has been dealt with in a general and not altogether satisfactory way in Krylov, K. A., “Party Protection and Privileged Status in Soviet Society,” Institute for the Study of the USSR Bulletin, XIII (March 1966), 39–44.Google Scholar Beyond this, Western scholars, unable to measure the status of nomenklatura personnel, can say no more than that it exists. See below, p. 510, on the reluctance of personnel to give up their nomenklatura status.

¹⁰ KPSS v rezoliutsiiakh (7th ed., Moscow: Gospolitizdat, 1954), chast’ I, 498. The rapid process subsequently whereby power over personnel—and hence over policy—became concentrated in the Secretariat of the Central Committee is well described in Daniels, Robert V., “The Secretariat and the Local Organizations in the Russian Communist Party 1921–1923,” Slavic Review, XVI (February 1957), 32–49.Google Scholar

¹¹ Voprosy part. raboty (1957), 241, and Voprosy part. stroit. (1962), 336.

¹² It is not quite correct to describe it, as did Borys Lewytzky in 1961, as a list of positions reserved for the party and comprising persons well known to the Central Committee. “Die Nomenklatur—Ein wichtiges Instrument sowjetischer Kaderpolitik,” Osteuropa, XI (1961), 408. The osnovnaia nomenklatura is “reserved” for the party to manage, but it is not comprised exclusively of Communists. Persons in the nomenklatura are expected to be well known to the appropriate party committee, not necessarily to the Central Committee in Moscow. See the sources cited in notes 9 and 11 above.

¹³ Morozov, P. D., Leninskie printsipy podbora, rasstanovki i vospitaniia kadrov (Moscow: VPSh i AON pri TsK KPSS, 1959), 39–40Google Scholar; Voprosy part. stroit. (1962), 336. My surmise about the osnovnaia nomenklatura is based on a careful reading of these two sources and the following facts. In 1962, a certain number of individuals was appointed to head the inter-raion and territorial agricultural administrations in the RSFSR. All of them, we are told, “were taken into the uchetnaia nomenklatura of the corresponding sections of the CC CPSU dealing with the RSFSR.” Vakhanskii, E. M., “KPSS v bor'be za neuklonnoe sobliudenie i sovershenstvovanie leninskikh printsipov sovetskoi demokratii na sovremennom etape” (unpublished Candidate of Historical Sciences dissertation, Leningrad State University, 1962), 303.Google Scholar A raion party committee first secretary has also reported that to improve the composition of shop party organization secretaries and party group organizers (obviously in a large ppo's osnovnaia nomenklatura), his committee “took this category of workers into its uchetnaia nomenklatura.” Partiinaia zhizn’, no. 20 (1967), 50.

¹⁴ K. A. Krylov, “Party Protection and Privileged Status,” 40.

¹⁵ For a sketch of the zigzags on this policy, see Avtorkhanov, Abdurakhman, The Communist Party Apparatus, (Cleveland and New York, 1966), 200.Google Scholar

¹⁶ They were Goriachev, F. S. of Novosibirsk and Kebin, I. G. from Estonia, in XXIII s”ezd Kommunisticheskoi partii Sovetskogo Soiuza: 29 marta–8 aprelia 1966 goda: Stenograficheskii otchet (2 vols., Moscow: Politizdat, 1966), I, 163 and 444Google Scholar, respectively.

¹⁷ Partiinaia zhizn’, no. 11 (1966), 19.

¹⁸ Barghoorn, Frederick C., Politics in the USSR (Boston and Toronto, 1966), 401.Google Scholar

¹⁹ Ibid.; Lebed’, A. I., “Vysshie organy SSSR opredeliaiushchie politiku i podbor rukovodiashchikh kadrov dlia nikh” (unpublished paper, Institute for the Study of the USSR, Munich, 1965), 4Google Scholar; Armstrong, John A., Ideology, Politics and Government in the Soviet Union (rev. ed., New York, 1967), 75–6.Google Scholar

²⁰ This paragraph draws upon Lebed’, “Vysshie organy,” 10–12, who cites in turn an unpublished manuscript by A. A. Avtorkhanov, “Poriadok raspredeleniia vysshikh kadrov partii i gosudarstva v SSSR” (n.p., 1963). The three categories of nomenklatura have been reproduced verbatim in Ionescu, Ghita, The Politics of the European Communist States (New York and Washington, 1967), 61–3.Google Scholar

²¹ Fainsod, Merle, How Russia is Ruled (rev. ed, Cambridge, Mass., 1963), 224CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Scott, Derek J. R., Russian Political Institutions (3rd ed., London, 1965), 185.Google Scholar

²² XXIII s”ezd KPSS, I, 185.

²³ Scott, Russian Political Institutions, 185; XI s”ezd Kommunisticheskoi partii Tadzhikistana: 14–16 ianvaria 1958 goda: Stenograficheskii otchet (Stalinabad: Tadzhikgosizdat, 1958), 54; N. A. Kazetov, “Deiatel'nost’ partiinykh organizatsii Kazakhstana po podboru, rasstanovke i vospitaniiu rukovodiashchikh kadrov (1956–61 gg.),” in Istoriia, filosofiia, ekonomika, pravo, Obshchestvennye nauki, vyp. VIII. chast’ 1 (Alma-Ata, 1965), 101.

²⁴ The example is the Leningrad, obkom. Voprosy partiinogo stroitel'stva (Leningrad: Lenizdat, 1965), 184.Google Scholar In 1962 the Voronezh obkom was reported as having a staff of 24 in its Party Organs Department. Partiinaia zhizn’, no. 3 (1962), 7.

²⁵ Bugaev and Leibzon, Besedy ob Ustave KPSS, 154.

²⁶ Fainsod, Merle, Smolensk under Soviet Rule (Cambridge, Mass., 1958), 62 and 64.Google Scholar

²⁷ See, for example, Partiinaia zhizn’, no. 15 (1960), 29–30.

²⁸ Fainsod, Smolensk, 52, 62, and 64–6.

²⁹ Ibid., 64.

³⁰ Bugaev and Leibzon, Besedy ob Ustave KPSS, 158.

³¹ Fainsod, Smolensk, 64–6.

³² Chugaev, M. A., “Rabota partiinoi organizatsii Komi-Permiatskogo natsional'nogo okruga po uluchsheniiu podbora rukovodiashchikh kadrov (1946–53 gg.),” Uchenye zapiski Permskogo gosudarstvennogo universiteta, no. 151 (1966), 207.Google Scholar

³³ Voprosy part. stroit. (1965), 225–6. The figure is for 1965. Cf. the Western obkom's 3,085 in 1936.

³⁴ Kazetov, “Deiatel'nost’ partiinykh organizatsii Kazakhstana,” 96–7.

³⁵ Askerov, A. A., Ocherki sovetskogo stroitel'stva (Moscow: Izdatel'stvo Moskovskogo universiteta, 1953), 179n.Google Scholar

³⁶ Kriulenko, I. M., “O podbore, rasstanovke i organizatsii ucheby kadrov v period mezhdu XX i XXII s”ezdami KPSS,” Istoriia Kommunisticheskoi partii Sovetskogo Soiuza, Uchenye zapiski kafedr istorii KPSS Vysshikh partiinykh shkol, vypusk VI (Moscow: “Mysl’,” 1967), 61.Google Scholar

³⁷ Partiinaia zhizn’ (Tashkent), no. 10 (1966), 31.

³⁸ Kazetov, “Deiatel'nost partiinykh organizatsii Kazakhstana,” 100.

³⁹ Voprosy part. stroit. (1965), 182 and 184–5.

⁴⁰ Nekotorye voprosy organizatsionno-partiinoi raboty v sovremennykh usloviiakh (Moscow: Izdatel'stvo VPSh i AON pri TsK KPSS, 1961), 289–99. In 1940 the party committee of the Sverdlov raion in Moscow had a nomenklatura of 800 positions, 425 of them in the party apparatus. Baskhshiev, D., Partiinoe stroitel'stvo v usloviiakh pobedy sotsializma v SSSR (1934–41 gody) (Moscow: Gospolitizdat, 1954), 140.Google Scholar It appears that a gorkom first secretary may make recommendations on some appointments to his party committee and may designate deputies to the city soviet. Pravda, June 21, 1966.

⁴¹ Kommunist, no. 1 (1966), 36. The source leaves two posts unaccounted for. Judging from an example given for the Ukrainian city of L'vov, the sort of factory managers a gorkom would have under its jurisdiction would be those in the consumer goods industry. Partiinaia zhizn’ no. 22 (1966), 38. The only other available related information is that in 1959, the gorkom and gorraikom nomenklatury in Kirghizia included a total of 12,590 positions. Sh. Kerimbaev, , Organizatorskaia rabota partiinykh organizatsii Kirgizii po ukrepleniiu kolkhozov kvalifitsirovannymi kadrami (Frunze: Kirgizgosizdat, 1964), 22.Google Scholar

⁴² Partiinaia zhizn’, no. 1 (1961), 67; Voprosy partiinoi raboty (Moscow: Gospolitizdat, 1959), 362.

⁴³ Partiinaia zhizn’, no. 17 (1967), 40.

⁴⁴ Voprosy part. stroit. (1965), 181–2 and 185–6.

⁴⁵ Voprosy part. raboty (1959), 362. Cf. above, pp. 498–501.

⁴⁶ Organizatorskaia i politicheskaia rabota na sele (Moscow: Izdatel'stvo VPSh i AON pri TsK KPSS, 1963), 169.

⁴⁷ KPSS v rezoliutsiiakh, 7th ed., chast’ III, 685; Morozov, Leninskie printsipy, 34–5. A krai (territory) is roughly equal in administrative importance to an oblast. Kraikom is an acronym for its party committee.

⁴⁸ Spravochnik partiinogo rabotnika, vypusk 4 (Moscow: Gospolitizdat, 1963), 321–31.

⁴⁹ Ibid., vypusk 6 (1966), 101. A production administration's party apparatus was equal in size to that of a raikom, as was its nomenklatura. The party committee of a production administration in Uzbekistan controlled a nomenklatura of 258 names. Partiinaia zhizn’ (Tashkent), no. 2 (1964), 72 and no. 3 (1964), 39.

⁵⁰ Partiinaia zhizn’ Kazakhstana, no. 7 (1965), 29; Rost kul'turno-tekhnicheskogo urovnia trudiashchikhsia Rostovskoi oblasti v gody semiletki (Rostov-on-Don: Rostovskii-na-Donu pedagogicheskii institut, 1966), 116. On at least one occasion, middle link farm cadres have been taken into the obkom nomenklatura. Partiinaia zhizn’ Kazakhstana, no. 3 (1962), 30.

⁵¹ Rost kul'turno-tekhnicheskogo urovnia, 116.

⁵² Rigby's approximation is cited in Scott, Russian Political Institutions, 185n.

⁵³ Chugaev, “Rabota partiinoi organizatsii,” 221, and Kriulenko, “O podbore kadrov,” 47, respectively.

⁵⁴ Partiinaia Zhizn’ (Tashkent), no. 7 (1965), 15.

⁵⁵ Scott, Russian Political Institutions, 184.

⁵⁶ Lewytzky, “Die Nomenklatur,” 409; Fainsod, How Russia is Ruled, 515.

⁵⁷ Scott, Russian Political Institutions, 185. See also Fainsod, Smolensk, 64.

⁵⁸ Morrell, Edwin B., “Communist Unionism and the Selection of Labor Leaders in Soviet Russia” (unpublished paper, Brigham Young University, 1963), 20.Google Scholar

⁵⁹ Askerov, Ocherki sovetskogo stroitel'stva, 129. See also Vasil'ev, V. I., ed., Sovetskoe stroitel'stvo (Moscow: “Vysshaia shkola,” 1967), 264.Google Scholar

⁶⁰ Vasil'ev., ed., Sovetskoe stroitel'stvo, 264; Barabashev, G. V. and Sheremet, K. F., Sovetskoe stroitel'stvo (Moscow: “Iuridicheskaia literatura,” 1965), 276–7.Google Scholar If kolkhoz chairmen and their assistants are on the raion ispolkom's nomenklatura, as Barabashev and Sheremet maintain, they must be subject to confirmation by the party raikom.

⁶¹ Nekotorye voprosy organizatsionno-partiinoi raboty v sovremennykh usloviiakh, 298–9, and Voronovsicii, N. A., Leninskie printsipy podbora, rasstanovki i vospitaniia kadrov (Moscow: “Mysl’,” 1967), 30–1.Google Scholar The decentralization process, however, has not been without occasional reverses. Party organizations are not prohibited from reasserting political control and transferring cadres back out of non-party hands into their own nomenklatury whenever they see fit. Cf. the example of Rostov obkom below (p. 507).

⁶² Bugaev and Leibzon, Besedy ob Ustave KPSS, 155, and Fainsod, Smolensk, 66 and 100.

⁶³ Bugaev and Leibzon, Besedy, 155, and Morrell, “Communist Unionism,” 20.

⁶⁴ Bugaev and Leibzon, Besedy, 141.

⁶⁵ Slepov, L., Podbor kadrov, ikh vydvizhenie i rasstanovka (Moscow: VPSh pri TsK VKP(b), 1948), 22 and 23Google Scholar; Morozov, Leninskie printsipy 38.

⁶⁶ Voprosy part. stroit. (1965), 226–7.

⁶⁷ Partiinaia zhizn’;, no 19 (1968), 3. The sequel to this was an item in Pravda (October 25, 1968) describing a plenum of the Volgograd obkom at which the Central Committee's criticisms were seriously studied and the obkom's good intentions for the future repeatedly though vaguely asserted. Cf. similar resolutions on the Estonian CC and Vladimir obkom in Partiinaia zhizn’, no. 6 (1967), 8–12, and no. 9 (1968), 18–20, respectively.

⁶⁸ Kriulenko, “O podbore kadrov,” 53.

⁶⁹ A very brief description of the party Control Committee is given in Conquest, Robert, ed., The Soviet Political System, Soviet Studies Series (London, 1967), 117.Google Scholar For recent examples of its activity, see Partiinaia zhizn’, no. 18 (1966), 50; no. 5 (1967), 41; no. 7 (1967), 51; no. 10 (1968), 43; no. 4 (1969), 32; and no. 5 (1969), 41. This same body's predecessor, the Central Control Commission, was actually Stalin's purge instrument in the 1920s and 1930s. See, for instance, the Sixteenth Party Congress's resolution on the CCC in KPSS v rezoliutsiiakh, chast’ III, 22–32.

⁷⁰ It is not difficult to understand, therefore, the unanimity which characterizes congresses and conferences in the USSR. In the elections to the Soviets the party even goes to such lengths as instructing its local organizations on the proportions of workers, women, party members, and the like that are to be nominated (and hence “elected”) to these bodies to make them truly representative of their constituents. Mil'shtein, A. L., “Bor'ba Kommunisticheskoi partii za razvitie sovetskoi demokratii v period sotsialistcheskoi industrializatsii strany (Vybory v Sovety RSFSR v 1926–9 gg.)” (unpublished Candidate of Historical Sciences dissertation, Leningrad State University, 1955), 237Google Scholar; and Prokina, A. V., “Bor'ba Kommunisticheskoi partii Sovetskogo Soiuza za ukreplenie Sovetov v gody vtoroi piatiletki (1933–7 gg.)” (unpublished Candidate of Historical Sciences dissertation, Leningrad State University, 1955), 167.Google Scholar The soviet credentials commissions’ reports could easily be drawn up before the election: only those deputies are elected who are supposed to be elected. The subject of elections within the party has been described in Rigby, T. H., “Party Elections in the CPSU,” Political Quarterly, XXXV (Oct.–Dec. 1964), 420–3.CrossRefGoogle Scholar See also Robert Conquest, ed., The Soviet Political System, 138–9.

⁷¹ Morrell, “Communist Unionism,” 26–7. In 1969, 534 candidates for the office of secretary in the country's 350,000 ppo's were rejected by their fellow-Communists. Partiinaia zhizn’, no. 5 (1969), 9.

⁷² In Kazakhstan in 1956 an assistant executive committee chairman (and obkom bureau member), in collaboration with the local gorkom secretary, managed to effect the release of the city soviet chairman and his replacement by another comrade “who had been elected by no one.” In Karaganda, a raion executive committee chairman was similarly replaced by the party bureau without reference to the soviet. Each of these, a Soviet commentator writes, was “a gross violation of Soviet democracy….” Kazetov, “Deiatel'nost’ partiinykh organizatsii Kazakhstana,” 96.

⁷³ Partiinaia zhizn’, no. 9 (1959), 26; Kerimbaev, Organizatorskaia rabota, 27.

⁷⁴ Rigby, T. H. and Churchward, L. G., Policy-making in the U.S.S.R., 1953–1961: Two Views (Melbourne, 1962), 5.Google Scholar

⁷⁵ Fainsod, Smolensk, 67. For typical criticisms of the narrowing of nomenklatura to a small circle of friends, see: Bugaev and Leibzon, Besedy, 155; Partiinaia zhizn’, no. 24 (1959), 6 and no. 15 (1960), 29; Pravda, March 25, 1963; Spravochnik partiinogo rabotnika, vypusk 2 (1959), 566–7; and Rodionov, P., O leninskom stile v rabote (Moscow: “Znanie,” 1966), 23.Google Scholar

⁷⁶ Avilushkin, T. F., “XIX s”ezd Kommunisticheskoi partii Sovetskogo Soiuza o podbore, rasstanovke i vospitaniia partiinykh i gosudarstvennykh kadrov” (unpublished Candidate of Historical Sciences dissertation, Leningrad State University, 1954), 62–3.Google Scholar

⁷⁷ Lewytzky, “Die Nomenklatur,” 412; Spravochnik partiinogo rabotnika (1959), 566; Partiinaia zhizn’, no. 15 (1960), 29–30, and no. 11 (1963), 22; Morozov, Novye trebovaniia, 18 and 44–5.

⁷⁸ Rodionov, O leninskom stile, 23; Partiinaia zhizn’, no. 24 (1959), 6, and no. 23 (1963), 12.

⁷⁹ Bugaev and Leibzon, Besedy, 155–6; Rodionov, O leninskom stile, 25; Moshchevitin, A., Podbor i vospitanie rukovodiashchikh kadrov (Moscow: “Moskovskii rabochii,” 1962), 5.Google Scholar

⁸⁰ Morozov, Leninskie printsipy, 39; Bugaev and Leibzon, Besedy, 155.

⁸¹ Rodionov, O leninskom stile, 23–5; Kerimbaev, Organizatorskaia rabota, passim; Partiinaia zhizn’ Kazakhstana, no. 3 (1962), 30–1.

“Leading” or nomenklatura personnel receive their training mainly in a system of party schools at the apex of which stands the Higher Party School of the CC, CPSU, in Moscow. Executives for the party and state apparatuses, as well as the managers of the communications media, are prepared for their responsibilities here, either intramurally or extramurally. Like military staff colleges, these institutions assure their graduates of successful promotion in the hierarchy. See Barghoorn, Politics in the USSR, 135–8. These same schools offer as well short refresher courses usually of one month's duration for party and government functionaries. Stressing in their curricula Leninism, party history, and the party line, these courses—like the two- and four-year programs—aim more at “ideological tempering” than technical upgrading. Spravochnik partiinogo rabotnika, vypusk 7 (1967), 317–23; and Partiinaia zhizn’, no. 22 (1967), 57–8, and no. 23 (1967), 46–8.

⁸² Partiinaia zhizn’ (Tashkent), no. 2 (1964), 73.

⁸³ Voronovskii, Leninskie printsipy podbora kadrov, 26.

⁸⁴ Ibid. For more examples, see Morozov, Novye trebovaniia, 26–7; XI s”ezd Kompartii Tadzhikistana, 57; Partiinaia zhizn’ (Tashkent), no. 1 (1961), 28, and no. 10 (1966), 33.

⁸⁵ Chugaev, “Rabota partiionoi organizatsii,” 215 and 227–8; Kazetov, “Deiatel'nost’ partiinykh organizatsii Kazakhstana,” 97, 101, and 215–16; Plenum Tsentra'nogo komiteta Kommunisticheskoi partii Sovetskogo Soiuza: 18–21 iiunia 1963 goda: Stenograficheskii otchet (Moscow: Politizdat, 1964), 231.

⁸⁶ The figure of three million refers, in the main, to party committee members and does not include instructors or clerical staff. Every ppo has, on the average, 8 executives (committee and bureau members, secretaries and assistant secretaries, and party group organizers); every raikom, gorkom, and okruzhkom (national district committee)—83 committee members; and every obkom, kraikom and union republic CC—164 committee members. Partiinaia zhizn’ no. 19 (1967), 19.

⁸⁷ Slepov, Podbor kadrov, 22; Askerov, Ocherki sovetskogo stroitel'stva, 129; and Partiinaia zhizn’, no. 1 (1964), 27.

⁸⁸ Already in 1921 it was apparent that the system encouraged loyalty rather than talent. At the Tenth Party Congress, “Detailed instructions for examining, recommending and promoting Party workers… were issued. On the face of it, this seemed to be a commendable effort to bring new blood into the upper councils of the Party…. In practice it meant that the officials so promoted became more dependent than ever on the Party apparatus for their status; owing their political existence to the Secretariat, they could hardly be any thing but its willing creatures.” Daniels, “The Secretariat and the Local Organizations,” 48. Today, when the Communist party wants to increase production in “lagging” farms, it replaces the chairmen thereof with agricultural specialists from the cities who have been working as party apparatchiki, as well as with non-specialist, strictly political leaders. See, for example, Kriulenko, “O podbore kadrov,” passim.

⁸⁹ Politics of the European Communist States, 63.

⁹⁰ “…The CC CPSU has significantly shortened its nomenklatura and considered it necessary that union republic CC's, obkomy and kraikomy of the Party should do the same.” Voronovskii, Leninskie printsipy podbora kadrov, 30–1. The Hungarian CC's nomenklatura has been decreased “by about 40 per cent.” Some positions “were taken into the nomenklatura of state bodies and the mass organizations”; some were given to lower party committees. Partiinaia zhizn’, no. 20 (1968), 76.

⁹¹ Ionescu, Politics of the European Communist States, 63. A revealing light on the Hungarian nomenklatura reform is cast by the following example, which seems to undermine Ionescu's hopeful but unsubstantiated assertion. The director of an industrial plant, while he supposedly wields appointive power in his factory, yet he may not execute any decision regarding cadres coming within a party committee's nomenklatura. (Partiinaia zhizn’, no. 20 (1968), 76.) This means that although nomenklatura responsibilities have been redistributed, the factory manager does not have full control over his own personnel. Control remains with the party, and redistribution does not seem to have appreciably affected it.