New class is apolemic term bycritics of countries that followed the Soviet-typestate socialism to describe the privilegedruling class ofbureaucrats andCommunist partyfunctionaries which arose in these states.[1][2] Generally, the group known in theSoviet Union as thenomenklatura conforms to the theory of the new class.[3][4] The term was earlier applied to other emerging strata of the society.Milovan Đilas' new-class theory was also used extensively byanti-communist commentators in theWestern world in their criticism of theCommunist states during theCold War.
"Redbourgeoisie" is apejorativesynonym for the term new class, crafted by leftist critics and movements like the1968 student demonstrations in Belgrade. New class is also used as a term in late 1960spost-industrialsociology.
 | This section has multiple issues. Please helpimprove it or discuss these issues on thetalk page.(Learn how and when to remove these messages) (Learn how and when to remove this message)
|
A theory of the new class was developed byMilovan Đilas the Vice President of theFederal People's Republic of Yugoslavia underJosip Broz Tito, who participated with Tito in theYugoslav People's Liberation War but was laterpurged by him as Đilas began to advocatedemocratic andegalitarian ideals, which he believed were more in line with the waysocialism andcommunism should look like.[5] There were also personal antagonisms between the two men, and Tito felt Đilas undermined his leadership. The theory of the new class can be considered to oppose the theories of certain ruling Communists, such asJoseph Stalin, who argued that their revolutions and/or social reforms would result in the extinction of any ruling class as such.[6][7] It was Đilas' observation as a member of a Communist government that Party members stepped into the role of ruling class, a problem which he believed should be corrected through revolution. Đilas completed his primary work on his new class theory in the mid-1950s. While Đilas was in prison, it was published in 1957 in the West under the titleThe New Class: An Analysis of the Communist System.[8]
Đilas posited that the new class' specific relationship to themeans of production was one of collective political control, and that the new class' property form was political control. For Đilas, the new class not only seeks expanded material reproduction to politically justify its existence to theworking class but also seeks expanded reproduction of political control as a form of property in itself. This can be compared to the capitalist who seeks expanded value through increased sharemarket values, even though the sharemarket itself does not necessarily reflect an increase in the value of commodities produced. Đilas used this argument about property forms to indicate why the new class sought parades, marches and spectacles despite this activity lowering the levels of material productivity. Đilas proposed that the new class only slowly came to self-consciousness of itself as a class. On arriving at a full self-consciousness the initial project undertaken would be massiveindustrialisation in order to cement the external security of the new class' rule against foreign or alternative ruling classes. In Đilas' schema, this approximated the 1930s and 1940s in the Soviet Union. As the new class suborns all other interests to its own security during this period, it freely executes and purges its own members in order to achieve its major goal of security as a ruling class. After security has been achieved, the new class pursues a policy of moderation towards its own members, effectively granting material rewards and freedom of thought and action within the new class, so long as this freedom is not used to undermine the rule of the new class. Đilas identified this period as the period ofKhrushchev's government in the Soviet Union. Due to the emergence of conflicts of policy within the new class, the potential for palace coups, or populist revolutions is possible, as experienced in Poland and Hungary, respectively. Finally, Đilas predicted a period of economic decline, as the political future of the new class was consolidated around a staid programme of corruption and self-interest at the expense of other social classes. This can be interpreted as a prediction of theLeonid Brezhnev so-calledEra of Stagnation by Đilas. Đilas also heavily criticizedSoviet imperialist practices for violating the national sovereignty of Eastern European countries and the unequal price exchange in trade between the USSR and these republics. He predicted that these countries would desire more sovereignty and independence from the totalitarian communist imperialist system. This can be interpreted as the prediction ofRevolutions of 1989.
While Đilas posited that the new class was a social class with a distinct relationship to themeans of production, he did not claim that this new class was associated with a self-sustainingmode of production. This claim, withinMarxist theory, argues that the Soviet-style societies must eventually either collapse backwards towards capitalism, or experience a social revolution towards realsocialism. This can be seen as a prediction of the downfall of the Soviet Union.Robert D. Kaplan's 1993 bookBalkan Ghosts: A Journey through history also contains a discussion with Đilas,[9] who used his model to anticipate many of the events that subsequently came to pass in the former Yugoslavia. Đilas also argues that a communist society has three phases: the revolutionary phase, the dogmatic phase, and the non-dogmatic phase. The new class does not perish despite attempts to moderate communist practices such as Yugoslavia’sworkers' self-management or the reversal of Stalinist totalitarian policies ofKhrushchev Thaw. Djilas argues these moderations are only concessions of the communist bureaucracy to appease the working class and therefore consolidate their new class rule. Marxists likeErnest Mandel have criticised Djilas for ignoring the existence of a new socio-economic system, which cannot be reconciled with the old class system.[10]
 | This sectionneeds additional citations forverification. Please helpimprove this article byadding citations to reliable sources in this section. Unsourced material may be challenged and removed.(June 2023) (Learn how and when to remove this message) |
Mikhail Bakunin had made a point in hisInternational Workingmen's Association debates with Marx in the mid-to-late 19th century of bureaucrats becoming a new oppressive class in socialist states. This idea was repeated after the Russian revolution by anarchists likePeter Kropotkin andNestor Makhno, as well as some Marxists. In 1911,Robert Michels first proposed theIron law of oligarchy, which described the development of bureaucratic hierarchies in supposedly egalitarian and democraticsocialist parties.[11] It was later repeated by a leader of the Russian Revolution,Leon Trotsky through his theory ofdegenerated workers state.Mao Zedong also had his own version of this idea developed during theSocialist Education Movement to criticize theChinese Communist Party underLiu Shaoqi. This wide range of people over the decades had different perspectives on the matter, but there was also a degree of core agreement on this idea.[citation needed]
Đilas'New Class has also been likened to theprofessional–managerial class seen in advanced capitalist societies.[12] In fact, originating withJames Burnham's famous discussion thereof,[13] there is a whole tradition that posits a purportedly very troublesome convergence between especially the Chinese and Western political order along such lines.[14]
Canadian-American economistJohn Kenneth Galbraith also wrote about a similar phenomenon under capitalism, the emergence of a technocratic layer inThe New Industrial State andThe Affluent Society. The new-class model as a theory of new social groups in post-industrial societies gained ascendency during the 1970s as social and political scientists noted how new-class groups were shaped by post-material orientations in their pursuit of political and social goals.[15] New-class themes "no longer have a direct relationship to the imperatives of economic security."[16]
| |||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| |||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| |||||||||||||||||||||||||||
