New Elites in Russia vs. France Introduced by revolutions

 

Cadres and Meritocrats

Revolutionary Ideals and New Elites in Leninist Russia vs. Napoleonic France!

Norsk oppsummering

Introduction

Both the Russian Revolution of 1917 and the French Revolution of 1789 were driven by powerful egalitarian ideals, yet each ultimately produced a new hierarchical system. In the aftermath of the Bolshevik seizure of power, Lenin and his comrades developed a cadre system – a Communist Party apparatus of loyal functionaries – which became the backbone of Soviet governance. 

Similarly, after the French (bourgeois) Revolution, especially under Napoleon Bonaparte, an ostensibly meritocratic elite arose, blending revolutionary ideals of “careers open to talent” with the realities of a new aristocracy and privileged class. 

This article explores the origins and ideologies of both revolutions, examines the Leninist cadre system and the Napoleonic elitist system, and compares how these revolutions that championed equality ended up creating new forms of hierarchy and privilege. Key similarities and differences, as well as the implications of these systems for governance, social mobility, and political control, are discussed with supporting historical evidence and analysis.

Origins and Ideological Foundations of the Revolutions

The Russian Revolution of 1917: Marxist-Leninist Ideals

The Russian Revolution was rooted in Marxist ideology and the pressing socio-political crises of World War I and Tsarist collapse. Vladimir Lenin, inspired by Karl Marx’s vision of a classless society, aimed to overthrow the old order of aristocracy and bourgeoisie and establish the dictatorship of the proletariat as a pathway to socialism. Marx’s theory held that a proletarian revolution would abolish class distinctions and eventually cause the state to “wither away,” yielding a classless society (Nomenklatura - New World Encyclopedia). 

Lenin embraced these goals but also introduced a critical innovation to revolutionary theory: the concept of a disciplined vanguard party. Convinced that the working class would not spontaneously achieve revolutionary consciousness, Lenin organized the Bolshevik Party as a relatively small but tightly disciplined cadre of professional revolutionaries (Soviet Union - Lenin, Bolsheviks, Revolution | Britannica). 

This vanguard would lead and educate the masses in revolution, reflecting Lenin’s belief that without an organized revolutionary elite, workers would only attain “trade-union” consciousness and not full socialist awareness (Soviet Union - Lenin, Bolsheviks, Revolution | Britannica). The Bolsheviks, under Lenin’s fanatical and strategic leadership, rejected gradualism and were “bent on seizing power” on behalf of the proletariat (Soviet Union - Lenin, Bolsheviks, Revolution | Britannica).

When the Bolsheviks took power in October 1917, they justified their one-party rule through Marxist-Leninist ideology: since they embodied the proletariat’s interests, no other parties or opposition were deemed permissible. Early Soviet decrees abolished the ranks and titles of the old Tsarist regime and claimed to install governance by workers and peasants. 

The ideological foundation was egalitarian and anti-elitist in theory – Lenin spoke of smashing the old class hierarchy and empowering the common people. However, almost immediately, practical needs of governance and survival (amid civil war and economic breakdown) led the new regime to concentrate authority in the Communist Party and retain some old institutional methods. 

Lenin’s government resorted to “democratic centralism,” meaning internal debate was allowed, but once the party decided a policy, all members had to obey it unquestioningly (COMMUNIST PARTY OF THE SOVIET UNION | Facts and Details) (COMMUNIST PARTY OF THE SOVIET UNION | Facts and Details). In practice, power flowed top-down: local soviets and officials were often selected or approved by the Bolshevik Central Committee rather than truly elected from below (COMMUNIST PARTY OF THE SOVIET UNION | Facts and Details). 

This principled but strict approach laid the groundwork for a new political hierarchy even as Lenin professed dedication to socialist equality.

The French Revolution of 1789: Enlightenment and Egalitarianism

The French Revolution erupted in 1789 driven by Enlightenment ideals and resentment of aristocratic privilege. Philosophers like Rousseau and Voltaire had advocated liberty, equality, and the rights of man, and these ideas found expression in revolutionary documents. 

The Declaration of the Rights of Man and of the Citizen (1789) proclaimed that “Men are born and remain free and equal in rights” and that social distinctions may only be based on the common good (Avalon Project - Declaration of the Rights of Man - 1789). It explicitly asserted that all citizens are equally eligible for public office and dignities “according to their abilities, and without distinction except that of their virtues and talents” (Avalon Project - Declaration of the Rights of Man - 1789). This was a radical rejection of the hereditary aristocracy of the ancien régime, where birth, not talent, determined one’s opportunities. The revolutionaries sought to dismantle feudalism, abolish noble titles, and create a society of equal citizens under law.

The French Revolution’s ideological foundation was thus egalitarian and anti-elitist in principle, emphasizing merit and the rights of the Third Estate (commoners). The early revolutionaries eliminated noble privileges, and in 1790 the National Assembly formally abolished the nobility. Slogans like “Liberté, Égalité, Fraternité” captured the aspiration to replace the old class hierarchy with a new order of equal citizens. Revolutionary leaders such as Abbé Sieyès argued that the Third Estate “is everything” and should control the nation, heralding the rise of the bourgeoisie and talented commoners into power. In 1793, even universal male suffrage was proclaimed (briefly), highlighting the ideal of broad participation.

However, as the revolution progressed through chaotic phases (Constitutional monarchy, Republic, Terror, Directory), a tension grew between egalitarian rhetoric and the need for effective governance and stability. By the late 1790s, the bourgeois class and military figures had gained influence as a “new elite” replacing the old nobility. 

When General Napoleon Bonaparte seized power as First Consul in 1799, he inherited a society where legal equality had been established, but questions loomed as to who would now wield power in practice. Napoleon – a man of modest Corsican gentry background who rose through military talent – in many ways embodied the revolutionary promise of “careers open to talent.” Under his rule, France’s ideological emphasis shifted towards order and meritocracy: preserving the Revolution’s social gains (like equality before law and property rights) while building a strong state led by the capable and ambitious, regardless of birth.

In summary, both revolutions were founded on ideals of equality and ending old privileges. The Bolsheviks promised a classless socialist society run by workers, and the French revolutionaries promised a society where merit and talent replaced noble blood as the path to advancement. Ironically, as the next sections show, each revolution’s aftermath saw the rise of a new privileged hierarchy – the Communist Party cadres in Soviet Russia and the Napoleonic notables and neo-nobility in France – that carried forward some old patterns in new forms.

Lenin’s Cadre System in Post-Revolutionary Russia: Structure, Purpose, Evolution

After the October 1917 revolution, Lenin and the Bolshevik Party rapidly set about constructing a new state apparatus. Central to this was the development of a cadre system – a network of loyal Communist Party members embedded throughout the government, military, and economy to exercise control and implement policy. In communist terminology, cadres are the trained, reliable activists who form the backbone of the party organization. Indeed, Communist officials themselves were routinely referred to as “cadres,” meaning a small group of people specially trained for a purpose (CHINESE COMMUNIST PARTY (CCP): ORGANIZATION, POWER ...). Lenin’s concept of the vanguard party inherently implied a cadre-based organization: a select group of committed revolutionaries would lead and administer the state on behalf of the working class (Cadre - Oxford Reference).

Structure and Purpose: The cadre system was essentially the mechanism by which the Communist Party monopolized governance. Early on, the Bolsheviks began appointing trusted party members to key positions in all spheres of public life – government ministries, local soviets, factories, the military (through political commissars), and so on. In 1919, the Communist Party introduced the practice of maintaining nomenklatura lists – rosters of important positions and approved candidates to fill them. 

By design, only individuals vetted for their loyalty and competence would be placed in these posts. As Lenin put it, appointments to public offices should be based on strict criteria: “reliability, political attitude, qualifications, and administrative ability” (Nomenklatura - Wikipedia). In other words, a person had to be a proven communist with the right revolutionary zeal and skills to be trusted with authority. This policy was meant to ensure that the new state apparatus functioned according to socialist goals and remained under party control, preventing “unreliable” elements (e.g., Tsarist loyalists or class enemies) from infiltrating the government.

Under Lenin, this system was in its infancy but growing. The Bolshevik Party’s Organization Bureau (Orgburo) and later the Party Building Department were established to supervise cadre assignments (Nomenklatura - New World Encyclopedia) (Nomenklatura - New World Encyclopedia). The party committees at each level would keep two lists: one of positions that needed filling and another of approved candidates (the pool of cadres) for those positions (Nomenklatura - New World Encyclopedia). The power to appoint or approve appointments was concentrated in the Party hierarchy – for example, the top leadership (Politburo and Central Committee) had to sign off on filling all major national and regional posts (Nomenklatura - Wikipedia) (Nomenklatura - Wikipedia). This effectively created a parallel authority structure: regardless of governmental titles, true authority lay with the Communist Party committees controlling who occupied those titles.

The purpose of the cadre system was both ideological and practical. Ideologically, it embodied the dictatorship of the proletariat by ensuring that committed communists (purportedly representing the proletariat’s interests) held the levers of power. Practically, it was a control mechanism: the party could enforce policy discipline throughout the vast country by deploying loyal cadres who answered to the party line (The Elite and Their Privileges in the Soviet Union | Communist Crimes). 

It allowed a small group (the Bolshevik leadership) to extend its influence capillarily into every administrative unit. As one historian noted, the Soviet regime became “a new kind of imperial regime” that rested on nothing more solid than the internal discipline of the Communist Party (COMMUNIST PARTY OF THE SOVIET UNION | Facts and Details). 

In absence of traditional legitimacy, Bolshevik rule was secured by the loyalty of its cadres and the suppression of dissent. Lenin’s insistence that organized opposition could not be tolerated meant that cadres also served as enforcers – any adversaries of the revolution were to be marginalized or prosecuted (COMMUNIST PARTY OF THE SOVIET UNION | Facts and Details).

Evolution under Lenin: During Lenin’s lifetime (1917–1924), the cadre system was taking shape amidst civil war and economic upheaval. Lenin sometimes expressed concern about the growing bureaucracy and the dangers of a privileged officialdom. In fact, in the early 1920s, he (along with Trotsky) warned about the “growing bureaucratization” of the party and state (Nomenklatura - Wikipedia). 

Nonetheless, by necessity, the Bolsheviks had already absorbed many experienced administrators from the old regime into their system – often former Tsarist officers, engineers, and clerks – as “specialists” to keep the economy and army running. Historian Richard Pipes observed that the Soviet nomenklatura system in many ways continued Tsarist patterns, as a number of former Tsarist officials or career bureaucrats joined the Bolshevik government during and after the Civil War (Nomenklatura - Wikipedia). This continuity eased the transition but also meant that the revolutionary state inherited an apparatus with hierarchical habits.

By the early 1920s, the Communist Party was clearly forming a new elite. Party members enjoyed influence and access to resources unavailable to non-members. While workers and peasants were told they now ruled, in practice it was the Party cadres who issued orders and managed assets. This disparity did not go unnoticed: critics (later, both internal and external) would label the party bureaucracy a “new class.” Yugoslav communist-turned-critic Milovan Đilas famously described the Soviet nomenklatura as a bureaucratic “New Class” that enjoyed special privileges and supplanted the old capitalist and noble elites (Nomenklatura - Wikipedia). During Lenin’s era, such privileges were modest compared to later decades, but the trend had begun – for example, senior officials had access to better food, housing, and transportation (like the iconic Zil limousines for top members) (Nomenklatura - Wikipedia).

Nevertheless, Lenin maintained that these cadres were a temporary necessity to defend and develop the first socialist state. The Bolsheviks justified any emerging hierarchy as purely functional: only the most faithful and competent should guide the masses until class antagonisms faded. The slogan “Cadres decide everything” would later be emphasized by Stalin, reflecting the idea that the quality and loyalty of the party’s cadres were the key to building socialism. In sum, under Lenin the cadre system’s foundations were laid – a centralized one-party rule through appointed loyalists – creating a de facto new elite (party members and officials) even as the regime spoke the language of proletarian egalitarianism. This paradox of a revolution that abolished aristocracy but created a party aristocracy would become more pronounced in the decades after Lenin, but its origins trace back to the immediate post-revolutionary years.

The Post-Revolutionary Elite in France: Napoleon’s Meritocracy and New Nobility

In contrast to Russia’s overt one-party rule, post-revolutionary France, especially under Napoleon Bonaparte, developed a new elite under the banners of meritocracy and stability. The French Revolution’s tumultuous 1790s had seen the demise of the old nobility’s legal privileges, but by the time Napoleon took power (1799), a vacuum existed in the social hierarchy. Napoleon filled this void by co-opting the wealthy and educated classes and by creating new institutions that nurtured talent. The result was an ostensibly merit-based elite that nonetheless became an entrenched hierarchy – often called the Napoleonic notables or Imperial nobility.

Careers “Open to Talent”: Revolutionary Principle to Napoleonic Policy – The idea that France should be led by the most capable individuals, rather than by those of noble birth, was enshrined by the revolution. As noted, the revolutionaries declared that all citizens could aspire to public office based on talent (Avalon Project - Declaration of the Rights of Man - 1789). This principle, known as “la carrière ouverte aux talents” (the career open to talents), was immensely popular among the bourgeoisie and ambitious commoners (The Napoleonic myth of la méritocratie - Engelsberg ideas). Napoleon Bonaparte himself was a prime example of this principle in action: of relatively modest Corsican noble lineage, he rose to general and then ruler by virtue of his military genius and political acumen. Once in power, Napoleon espoused meritocracy as a core tenet (albeit within an authoritarian framework). He famously stated that his policy was to govern “as the greater number wish to be governed,” claiming this recognized the people’s sovereignty, but in practice he built a regime that was “authoritarian but inclusive,” emphasizing merit and talent (Napoleonic Satires). To conciliate the bourgeois supporters of the Revolution, Napoleon maintained that advancement would depend on ability and service rather than aristocratic pedigree.

Napoleon’s government took concrete steps to implement this vision:

• Military Meritocracy: The French Army under Napoleon became a key avenue of social mobility. The saying that “every soldier carries a marshal’s baton in his knapsack” captured the ethos that a common soldier could rise through the ranks to the highest command by bravery and skill (The Napoleonic myth of la méritocratie - Engelsberg ideas). Indeed, many of Napoleon’s top marshals and officers hailed from relatively humble origins or the lower gentry, and had risen thanks to battlefield merit. For example, Marshal Ney was the son of a cooper, and Marshal Murat the son of an innkeeper – unthinkable under the Bourbon monarchy, but possible in Napoleon’s France. Napoleon created the Légion d’honneur in 1802 as an order to reward merit in military and civil service; crucially, it was open to all ranks and not just gentlemen (The Napoleonic myth of la méritocratie - Engelsberg ideas). This was a republican nod to egalité, and recipients gained not only a prestigious medal but also a stipend, reinforcing that virtue would be materially recognized. (It’s worth noting the Légion d’honneur was a republic’s adaptation of an old regime honor, and it later came with titles and lifetime pensions, hinting at emerging privilege).

• Civil Administration and Education: Outside the military, Napoleon understood that France needed a competent civil administration. He famously centralized the government, appointing prefects to govern each département (province). These prefects were often drawn from the educated bourgeoisie or former minor nobility who demonstrated loyalty. In 1800, as First Consul, Napoleon established the lycée system – state secondary schools intended to train the nation’s future civil and military leaders (Napoleonic Satires). The lycées, along with specialized grandes écoles (great schools) like the École Polytechnique (for military engineering) and École Normale Supérieure (for teacher training), formed an elite education network (The Napoleonic myth of la méritocratie - Engelsberg ideas). Enrollment in these institutions was based on competitive examinations and merit, at least in theory. By producing a stream of educated officials and engineers, these schools underpinned a meritocratic state service. However, it must be noted that the lycées were relatively few, with limited scholarships; they primarily catered to those families who could already afford good primary education or had connections (The Napoleonic myth of la méritocratie - Engelsberg ideas) (The Napoleonic myth of la méritocratie - Engelsberg ideas). This meant that practical access to the highest meritocratic avenues was skewed toward the sons of existing elites (wealthy bourgeois or notables), making “all the talents” something of a monopoly of the fortunate classes (The Napoleonic myth of la méritocratie - Engelsberg ideas). Still, the ideological commitment to meritocracy was real: France’s bureaucracy and technical corps were staffed by people chosen for their qualifications (engineers, jurists, etc.), which contrasted with the aristocratic patronage appointments of the ancien régime. In the long run, as historian Robert Tombs observes, France became a country with a “true ruling class trained to govern,” thanks to this network of elite schools – a system initiated or expanded by Napoleonic reforms (The Napoleonic myth of la méritocratie - Engelsberg ideas).

Emergence of a New Elite and Nobility: While Napoleon championed talent, he was also pragmatic in consolidating his rule. He needed the support of the propertied and educated elite – the class of “notables” who had risen during the Revolution by buying former noble lands or profiting from new opportunities (The Napoleonic myth of la méritocratie - Engelsberg ideas). He assured these bourgeois notables that their gains would be protected: the Napoleonic Code (Civil Code of 1804) enshrined equality before law and sanctity of property, ensuring that peasants and bourgeois who had acquired confiscated lands from nobles and Church kept their properties (Napoleonic Satires). By aligning his regime with their interests, Napoleon created a stable base of support among the new landowners and businessmen. In return, their sons filled the officer corps, civil service, and professional posts, forming a de facto elite class.

Perhaps inevitably, Napoleon also reintroduced aristocracy in a new form. Desiring to reward service and bind the elite to him, he began to grant noble titles. In 1808, Napoleon formalized a hereditary nobility of the First French Empire (Napoleonic Titles and Heraldry - Heraldica). He created a hierarchy of titles – princes, dukes, counts, barons, and chevaliers (knights) – very much like the old nobility ranks, except that these titles were bestowed on the basis of service rather than birth. That year, by imperial decree, titles were conferred lavishly: for example, between 1808 and 1814, Napoleon made hundreds of counts, over a thousand barons, and many knights (Napoleon and the "New Nobility"). As one account notes, “In 1808, Napoleon started granting titles of nobility to people who served him particularly well,” adding a new layer of honors on top of the existing Légion d’honneur (Napoleonic Satires). Many of his marshals and ministers were made dukes or princes (often with estates and wealth attached). This Imperial Nobility was explicitly hierarchical and hereditary – by design, titles would pass to heirs (with some requiring a certain annual income to maintain, ensuring the new nobility remained wealthy). In effect, Napoleon engineered a new aristocracy in everything but name – or indeed in name as well, since titles like Duke of Dalmatia (Marshal Soult) or Prince of Wagram (Marshal Berthier) mimicked the prestige of old regime nobility (The Napoleonic myth of la méritocratie - Engelsberg ideas). An anecdote from the era illustrates this social change: when an upstart imperial duke was asked about his ancestors by an old noble, he quipped, “I am the ancestor.” (The Napoleonic myth of la méritocratie - Engelsberg ideas) This encapsulated the Revolution’s social consequence: the old nobility had been swept away, and a man of humble origin could now become the founder of a new noble line through talent and service.

Napoleon’s elite, therefore, consisted of a mix of meritorious commoners-turned-nobles, bourgeois notables, and co-opted remnants of the old aristocracy. Notably, Napoleon did not entirely exclude the ancien régime aristocrats; he pardoned many émigrés and even employed some. In 1802 he declared an amnesty for most royalists, allowing exiled nobles to return to France (Napoleonic Satires) (Napoleonic Satires). He believed reconciliation would strengthen France. While earlier revolutionary governments (like the Directory) had kept nobles out, Napoleon was willing to use any talent available – “he simply wanted the best men he could find, even if they happened to be from aristocratic families” (Napoleonic Satires). For example, he appointed the ex-bishop and aristocrat Talleyrand as his foreign minister despite Talleyrand’s elite lineage (Napoleonic Satires). In doing so, Napoleon broadened his regime’s talent pool but also signaled that birth was no disqualification if accompanied by loyalty and ability. The result was that by the Empire period, French governing circles included both new men risen from obscurity and rehabilitated old nobles. What bound them was allegiance to Napoleon and the state, and the fact that their privilege now flowed from imperial favor and personal achievement, not ancient right.

Institutions and Legacy: Napoleon’s system of elite formation had lasting effects. The grandes écoles and centralized administration became permanent features of French governance, surviving regime changes (The Napoleonic myth of la méritocratie - Engelsberg ideas). Every subsequent monarchy or republic in France kept the competitive education system to train its ruling class; for instance, long after Napoleon, the elite École Nationale d’Administration (ENA) was founded (in 1945) to perpetuate the meritocratic recruitment of top civil servants (The Napoleonic myth of la méritocratie - Engelsberg ideas). This demonstrates how Napoleon’s approach – an autocratic meritocracy – created a template that even later democratic regimes found useful (The Napoleonic myth of la méritocratie - Engelsberg ideas). Paradoxically, the French Republics maintained what one scholar called an “elitist system largely designed by autocratic rulers” because it fit the mythology of social mobility by merit (The Napoleonic myth of la méritocratie - Engelsberg ideas). The belief that any talented child (at least any boy, historically) could rise from a village school to high office via education became a cherished part of French identity, even if in practice the path was dominated by those from well-to-do backgrounds (The Napoleonic myth of la méritocratie - Engelsberg ideas) (The Napoleonic myth of la méritocratie - Engelsberg ideas).

In summary, post-revolutionary France under Napoleon replaced the abolished feudal aristocracy with a new elite class defined by merit, service to the state, and loyalty to the regime, reinforced by titles and honors. This new elite upheld many revolutionary changes (equality before law, no feudal dues, careers based on talent) but simultaneously created a new hierarchy of power and wealth. The “notables” of Napoleonic France enjoyed great influence, forming a class that, while theoretically open to anyone of talent, in reality drew disproportionately from the already advantaged strata of society (The Napoleonic myth of la méritocratie - Engelsberg ideas) (The Napoleonic myth of la méritocratie - Engelsberg ideas). The revolutionary ideal of equality thus gave way to a society where meritocracy could sometimes serve as a rationale for inequality – an educated elite justified its privileges as earned. This is strikingly parallel to what happened in Soviet Russia, where a revolutionary promise of classlessness evolved into rule by a party elite claiming to act for the people. In the next section, we compare these emergent hierarchies more directly.

Based on the uploaded article "New Elites in Russia vs. France Introduced by Revolutions" (VisMiscellanea), here is an updated version that integrates a focused discussion on centralism — both under Lenin in Soviet Russia and in revolutionary/post-revolutionary France — along with the consequences of centralism for governance, democracy, and elite formation.

Centralism and the Formation of New Elites 
Revolutionary Russia and France

Revolutions are often seen as explosions of democratic energy, designed to topple old hierarchies and empower the people. Yet, in both Russia (1917) and France (1789), revolutions that began with the promise of liberty, equality, and fraternity ended in centralized authority and elite reproduction. Centralism — the concentration of power in a central authority — became a defining feature in both post-revolutionary regimes, shaping not only governance structures but the very nature of the new elites that emerged.

Centralism in Revolutionary France

Following the French Revolution, the collapse of the monarchy left a power vacuum that the new regime sought to fill with a rational, centralized state. The Jacobins, and later Napoleon, institutionalized a model of governance that concentrated power in Paris. Key features included:

• The creation of a uniform legal code (Code Napoléon).

• A national bureaucracy with prefects representing the central state in each département.

• Centralized control of education, taxation, and conscription.

Though these reforms were meant to promote equality and efficiency, they also disempowered local governance and marginalized regional identities. The elite that emerged — civil servants, legal professionals, and military officers — were selected based on loyalty to the central state, not on regional representation or democratic legitimacy.

Lenin and Soviet Centralism

Lenin's Bolshevik regime followed a strikingly similar path, albeit under Marxist guise. After the October Revolution, Lenin rejected the idea of spontaneous, mass-based socialism in favor of a vanguard party — a centralized, ideologically unified elite that would act on behalf of the proletariat. Centralism was embedded in:

• The principle of democratic centralism, which allowed internal debate but forbade dissent after decisions were made.

• The elimination of political pluralism: only the Communist Party held power.

• Soviets (workers’ councils) were maintained but gradually reduced to instruments of party control.

During the civil war and early Soviet period, Lenin defended centralism as necessary for survival and modernization. However, the result was a new bureaucratic elite, loyal not to the working class but to the party hierarchy — mirroring the technocratic elite that emerged in Napoleonic France.

Consequences of Centralism

While centralism allowed for state-building, legal standardization, and military mobilization, it also carried deep structural consequences:

Consequences	Revolutionary France	Soviet Russia
Loss of local autonomy	Communes and provinces became subordinate to Paris	Soviets and regional committees subordinated to Moscow
Elite insulation	State-trained administrators formed a self-replicating elite	Party cadres and nomenklatura dominated governance
Democratic decline	From mass participation to rule by technocrats	From workers’ soviets to single-party rule
Ideological rigidity	Centralized education shaped ideological uniformity	Marxism-Leninism institutionalized and unquestioned

Both revolutions thus produced new elites through centralization rather than democratization. What began as revolts against aristocratic privilege ended in structured, hierarchical systems — justified in the name of the people, but increasingly detached from them.

The trajectories of revolutionary France and Soviet Russia demonstrate how centralism can paradoxically suppress the democratic impulses of revolutions. In both cases, centralism facilitated the emergence of a new elite — educated, ideologically aligned, and loyal to a national vision — at the expense of participatory politics and local self-rule. Rather than dismantling hierarchy, revolutions refashioned it, replacing royal or aristocratic power with state-centered bureaucratic authority. The lesson is clear: revolutions may change the symbols and structures of power, but without mechanisms for real decentralization and accountability, centralism will regenerate the logic of elite domination.

Revolutionary Ideals vs. New Hierarchies
A Paradox in Both Systems

Both the Leninist cadre system and the Napoleonic meritocratic system reveal a fundamental paradox of revolutions: even as they profess to level society and eliminate old privileges, they tend to produce new hierarchies and elites. In Lenin’s Russia and post-revolutionary France alike, the lofty ideals of egalitarianism had to contend with the practical exigencies of governing a state and consolidating power. The result was the rise of a privileged ruling group in each case – the Soviet Party cadres and the French meritocratic elite – which enjoyed power and benefits not available to the average citizen, thereby betraying (to an extent) the original revolutionary ethos.

In the Soviet Union, the Bolsheviks had promised to abolish class exploitation and create a classless society. Under Marxist-Leninist doctrine, the “exploiting classes” (nobility, bourgeoisie) were expropriated and politically disenfranchised after 1917. Yet, by the 1920s, a new stratification was evident: Communist Party members and especially officials formed a ruling stratum above the rest of society. While peasants and workers theoretically wielded power through soviets, real decision-making lay with party committees and their appointed commissars. This development did not go uncontested in ideology – Lenin himself was uneasy at times with bureaucratic habits, and later Trotsky and others criticized the rise of a bureaucratic caste. Nonetheless, the one-party state structure inherently concentrated authority. As decades went on, the Soviet elite’s separation from the masses grew starker: they had better housing, access to special stores, healthcare, dachas, and other perquisites, all denied to ordinary citizens. By mid-20th century, the party nomenklatura was effectively a privileged class, leading critics like Djilas to label it a new class of exploiters (Nomenklatura - Wikipedia). Thus, the Soviet experiment, which sought to eliminate class differences, ended up creating a new form of class hierarchy – one based on political power rather than property, but a hierarchy nonetheless. The ideal of equality was preserved in official rhetoric but often belied by daily reality (The Elite and Their Privileges in the Soviet Union | Communist Crimes). As an analysis of Soviet society notes, the communist ideal of social equality remained largely an “empty slogan” in the face of pervasive privileges for the elite (The Elite and Their Privileges in the Soviet Union | Communist Crimes).

In France, the Revolution had enshrined legal equality and dismantled feudal classes. No longer were there estates or legally defined castes after 1789; in principle, any citizen could rise to prominence. However, by the time of Napoleon’s Empire, a de facto elite class had solidified – wealthy landowners, high-ranking military officers, top civil servants, and imperial courtiers. Napoleon’s regime, while not reintroducing legal inequality, did foster social inequality through its honors system and economic realities. The “new nobility” created by Napoleon, complete with titles and hereditary transmission, re-established the concept of an aristocratic class, albeit on new foundations (Napoleonic Satires). These imperial nobles and dignitaries received incomes, estates, and prestige that set them apart from ordinary citizens. Moreover, the bourgeoisie that dominated commerce and owned land formed a powerful class whose interests Napoleon protected (and which in turn buttressed his rule). The principle of meritocracy itself, which ostensibly allowed anyone to advance, had a built-in irony: it naturally led to a hierarchy of merit. Those who succeeded – through talent, education, or connections – accumulated positions and wealth, and often passed on their advantages to their children (through education or influence, if not formal titles). Over time, this created an entrenched elite. As one historian dryly observed, “equality of opportunity is something of a sleight of hand” – the system was palatable because people hoped to rise by talent, but in practice the top schools and careers were dominated by those from a “limited social stratum” with prior advantages (The Napoleonic myth of la méritocratie - Engelsberg ideas). In fact, the social composition of the French ruling elite under Napoleon would not have been entirely unrecognizable to an Old Regime observer: many members were from well-off families, and even the brand-new nobles exercised privileges reminiscent of the old nobility (just without feudal rights). Thus, the revolutionary ideal of fraternité gave way to a society where a new elite enjoyed privilege, justified as the deserving reward of ability and service.

Crucially, both new elites – Soviet cadres and Napoleonic notables – claimed legitimacy through revolutionary ideals even as they undermined those ideals in practice. The Soviet elite justified its dominance by invoking the need to lead the proletariat to socialism (they portrayed their rule as a dictatorship for the proletariat, not of a separate class). Similarly, the Napoleonic elite justified its status through the notion of merit and service to the nation, claiming that they had earned their positions through talent and work, unlike the idle hereditary aristocrats of old. In both cases, ideology provided a veneer that masked the emergence of a closed, self-perpetuating hierarchy.

However, there were differences in tone. In the Soviet Union, equality remained a core official value – the disparities were somewhat cloaked, and overt displays of luxury by officials were ideologically discouraged (though they certainly lived better than average citizens). In Napoleonic and post-Napoleonic France, the elite’s status was more openly celebrated (titles, lavish ceremonies at court, public honors). Napoleon’s imperial court revived much pomp and protocol, signaling that an elite culture had returned (Napoleonic Satires). While commoners were still legally equal to nobles, the social reality was that France had a ruling class that enjoyed deference and influence. This was a betrayal of the radical egalitarian aspirations of 1789, though one could argue it was a moderated fulfillment of the bourgeois liberal aspiration: equality before law, but not necessarily equality of outcome.

In sum, both revolutions illustrate the difficulty of sustaining equality after the revolutionary moment. The cadre system and the Napoleonic meritocracy each became vehicles for new hierarchies. The Soviet Union ended up with a one-party elite comparable in some ways to the Western “establishment” or a new nobility of officials (Nomenklatura - Wikipedia), and Napoleonic France ended up with an aristocracy of talent and wealth that in some respects resembled the old nobility (Napoleon himself even married into old royalty and imagined founding a dynasty). The next section will explicitly compare the features of the Soviet cadre elite and the Napoleonic elite, highlighting similarities and differences.

Similarities and Differences Between the Soviet Cadre Elite and the Napoleonic Elite

Both the Leninist cadre system and the Napoleonic meritocratic elite created new power hierarchies after a revolution. Yet the nature of these hierarchies and the ideologies behind them differed in key ways. Below is a comparative look at their main similarities and differences:

Similarities:

• Revolutionary Origin, New Ruling Class: In both cases, a revolutionary upheaval destroyed an old ruling class (Tsarist nobility/bourgeois in Russia; feudal aristocracy in France), only to replace it with a new ruling class. The Bolshevik nomenklatura became a de facto elite (Nomenklatura - Wikipedia), and Napoleonic France saw the rise of an imperial nobility and entrenched bureaucratic-military elite (Napoleonic Satires). Each new elite wielded decisive influence over society, essentially governing in place of the vanquished old elites.

• Hierarchy and Privilege: Despite ideals of equality, both systems developed clear hierarchies of status and privilege. The Soviet cadre elite enjoyed special privileges (exclusive shops, better housing, chauffeured cars, etc.), forming a distinct upper stratum in what was officially a classless society (Nomenklatura - Wikipedia) (The Elite and Their Privileges in the Soviet Union | Communist Crimes). Similarly, Napoleon’s marshals, ministers, and notables were granted titles, estates, pensions, and honors, enjoying wealth and prestige far above the average citizen (The Napoleonic myth of la méritocratie - Engelsberg ideas) (Napoleonic Satires). In each case, membership in the elite brought tangible rewards and a higher standard of living, creating a gap between rulers and ruled.

• Centralization of Power: Both the cadre system and Napoleonic system centralized authority to prevent factionalism and opposition. The Soviet cadre system, via the Communist Party, tightly controlled all key appointments and decisions, enforcing top-down governance (the Politburo at the apex) (COMMUNIST PARTY OF THE SOVIET UNION | Facts and Details). Napoleon likewise centralized power in his own hands as Emperor and through his appointed officials (prefects, magistrates, military commanders), leaving little room for independent local power bases. In both regimes, loyal agents were installed across the country – Communist party secretaries in the Soviet provinces, and prefects or military commanders in Napoleonic France – to ensure compliance with central directives. This created a vertical chain of command headed by a supreme leader or leadership committee in each case.

• Merit and Loyalty as Justifications: The criteria for joining the new elite in both systems ostensibly revolved around merit and loyalty (as opposed to birth in the old order). The Bolsheviks promoted those who were “reliable” communists with ability (Nomenklatura - Wikipedia) – political loyalty to the revolution was paramount, along with competence. Napoleon promoted those who demonstrated talent and served him well – whether on the battlefield or in administration – regardless of their social origin (Napoleonic Satires) (Napoleonic Satires). In theory, this made both systems “open” to anyone from humble origins: e.g., a Russian factory worker could become a Red director or commissar if he became a proven Bolshevik cadre, and a French peasant’s son could become a general or official if he had the talent and opportunity. In practice, as noted, the pool of those who could demonstrate these merits was limited, but the principle stood in contrast to aristocratic hereditary privilege. Both elites thus portrayed themselves as earned leadership: Bolsheviks earned it through revolutionary dedication and class consciousness, Napoleonic elites through talent and service.

• Continuation of Some Old Practices: Ironically, each new system resurrected some form of the old hierarchical culture in new guises. The Soviet cadre system, while abolishing noble titles, created an internal ranking system (e.g., Central Committee members, People’s Commissars, Generals, etc.) that mirrored a noble hierarchy in privileges. Richard Pipes pointed out that the Soviet patronage system was in some ways a continuation of Tsarist bureaucracy with new people in charge (Nomenklatura - Wikipedia). Likewise, Napoleon’s court and nobility consciously imitated the grandeur of monarchic tradition (he crowned himself Emperor, used titles like Prince/Duke, and held elaborate ceremonies) (Napoleonic Satires). In both cases, the revolutionary form changed but some substance of hierarchical rule – an exalted “court” around the leader, be it the Kremlin or the Tuileries – persisted.

Differences:

• Ideological Foundation: The Soviet cadre elite was rooted in a collectivist, ideological mission – they justified their rule as necessary for building socialism and achieving a classless future. The Communist Party was avowedly ideological; its cadres had to undergo political education and demonstrate Marxist-Leninist orthodoxy. By contrast, Napoleon’s elite was more pragmatic and nationalist in orientation – they justified themselves by results (governing efficiently, winning wars, restoring order, and glory to France). Meritocracy in France was less about adhering to a strict ideology and more about loyalty to Napoleon and competence in secular tasks. In short, the Soviet elite was an ideocracy (rule by an idea), whereas the Napoleonic elite was more of a technocracy/military aristocracy with a nationalist veneer.

• One-Party Dictatorship vs. Authoritarian Empire: Lenin’s cadre system was embedded in a party-state structure. The Communist Party was the sole political organization, and cadre power was exercised through party committees controlling state institutions. This meant a tight fusion of party and state – the cadre is the state in the Soviet context. In Napoleonic France, there was no single ruling party; rather, Napoleon himself, as Emperor, was the source of authority. The French administration under Napoleon was staffed by individuals loyal to him, but they weren’t members of a ruling party apparatus – they were civil servants, military officers, or members of the new nobility. Napoleon did use patronage and personal bonds (like oaths of loyalty, the Légion d’honneur, and noble titles) to secure his elite’s fidelity, but France still had ministries and a bureaucracy that, at least nominally, could operate on professional lines. In essence, the Soviet system was party-centric (institutionalized collective leadership under General Secretary by later years), whereas the Napoleonic system was leader-centric (personal rule by Napoleon with no independent party structure).

• Social Composition and Recruitment: The social origins of the Soviet cadre elite were, especially early on, often from the intellectual and working classes (e.g., many Bolshevik leaders were radicalized intelligentsia or militant workers). Over time, the Soviet elite did recruit upwardly mobile workers and peasants – for instance, under policies like the “Lenin Levy” (1924) and later Soviet education, many children of humble families became part of the Soviet managerial class. In Napoleonic France, the core of the new elite largely came from the bourgeoisie and petty nobility. Many of Napoleon’s marshals had been lower officers in the royal army (i.e., minor nobles or middle-class professionals) rather than common soldiers; many administrators were lawyers or educated bourgeois who had risen in the 1790s. While there were cases of dramatic social mobility (Murat, Ney, etc., rising from very low status), the majority of Napoleon’s senior officials were from families that were already at least moderately well-off or had military backgrounds. Also, Napoleon reintegrated a number of old elites (nobles who accepted the new regime) (Napoleonic Satires), whereas the Bolsheviks only very selectively co-opted old elites (mostly for technical expertise, and those people rarely had political power). So, the Soviet cadre elite attempted to be more of a break with the past social order, whereas Napoleon’s elite was in part a fusion of old and new elites.

• Duration and Evolution: The Soviet cadre system persisted, evolving into the Stalinist nomenklatura and continuing throughout the USSR’s 74-year existence. It became increasingly entrenched, bureaucratic, and hereditary (party elites often groomed their children for elite positions, akin to a caste). By the 1970s–80s, the Soviet Union was governed by a second or third generation nomenklatura that had little resemblance to revolutionary fervor. In contrast, Napoleon’s elitist system was short-lived in its original form. The First French Empire lasted until 1814/1815, after which the Bourbon Restoration briefly reinstated old nobles (though many Napoleonic notables also retained influence). France oscillated through regimes, and while the concept of meritocracy in administration endured, the Napoleonic nobility per se was largely absorbed into either older aristocracy or fell from power after Napoleon’s fall. In essence, the Soviet cadre elite had a longer time to consolidate into a stable ruling class, whereas the Napoleonic elite faced disruption with regime change (though the broader French bureaucratic elite continued under subsequent governments).

• Degree of Total Control: The Soviet cadre system penetrated every aspect of public life – down to factory managers, collective farm heads, school principals – all were party-appointed cadres. This was a totalitarian approach to control, aiming to leave no independent power centers. Napoleonic France, while authoritarian, did not reach the totalitarian scope. There was censorship and central control, but local society (peasants, small towns) largely just followed the new laws without an omnipresent party watcher in every village. For example, Napoleon did not attempt to control church clergy’s every appointment (he signed a Concordat to make peace with the Church), whereas the Soviet regime sought to replace religion and had party cadres overseeing local soviets. Thus, the intrusiveness of the Soviet cadre system was greater – it was a party dictatorship that aspired to remake society in its ideology. Napoleon’s system was content to govern efficiently and build a loyal elite, without requiring every French citizen to be a Bonapartist in belief.

Despite these differences, the central story remains: both revolutions ended up with new elites that, in effect, recreated a structured hierarchy in society. In Russia, the Communist Party cadres became synonymous with a ruling class, and in France, the Napoleonic civil-military establishment became a quasi-aristocracy. Each system had its own flavor, but neither delivered the pure egalitarian society that the revolutionaries had envisioned.

Implications for Governance, Social Mobility, and Political Control

The emergence of these new elites had profound implications for how each post-revolutionary state was governed, how people could (or couldn’t) advance in society, and how political control was maintained.

Governance: In both the Soviet Union and Napoleonic France, the new systems of elite rule led to highly centralized and efficient (if often authoritarian) governance structures. The cadre system in the USSR meant that governance was carried out by party loyalists at all levels – this ensured unity of purpose (no officials would openly defy Moscow’s line) and facilitated rapid implementation of policies like war communism or later Five-Year Plans. However, it also stifled local initiative and replaced democratic participation with appointed rule. Governance became a matter of bureaucratic administration by the Party, which could be very effective in mobilizing resources (as seen during industrialization or wartime) but could also be inflexible or prone to corruption (since officials were accountable upward to the party more than downward to the public). In Napoleonic France, governance was similarly centralized: the Emperor and his council formulated policy, and prefects and mayors (often appointed) executed it in the provinces. The legal and administrative reforms (such as the Napoleonic Code, standardized taxation, and a rationalized bureaucracy) gave France a coherent, modern state. Yet, this came at the cost of the participatory democratic experiments of the earlier Revolution. Napoleon shut down meaningful elections and representative institutions (the elected legislature became a rubber stamp). Governance under Napoleon was essentially authoritarian technocracy – competent administration without consent of the governed in any real sense.

One beneficial implication in both cases was state stability and capacity. After periods of revolutionary chaos (the Civil War in Russia, the Terror and Directory in France), these new elite systems brought order. The Soviet cadre system forged a state capable of executing massive programs (literacy campaigns, economic modernization, etc.), and Napoleonic France’s merit-based administration helped streamline a previously byzantine feudal system. Many later nations even emulated aspects: for instance, other communist states adopted the Soviet nomenklatura model (Nomenklatura - Wikipedia), and many states in 19th-century Europe restructured their bureaucracies on Napoleonic lines. However, a negative implication was the entrenchment of authoritarian rule. Neither Lenin’s nor Napoleon’s system provided effective checks on power. Dissent was suppressed – through the Cheka secret police and later the NKVD in Soviet Russia (Internal Workings of the Soviet Union - Revelations from the Russian ...), and through Napoleon’s censorship and secret police under Joseph Fouché (Napoleonic Satires). Thus, political control in both systems was maintained by surveillance, censorship, and sometimes outright terror (Lenin’s Red Terror against “class enemies”; Napoleon’s purges of Jacobins and royalist plots). The cadre system especially enabled a comprehensive political control: since every institution’s leader was a party appointee, any opposition could be quickly rooted out. In France, Napoleon’s control, while strict, had to contend with an independent Catholic Church (somewhat) and the fact that he didn’t try to remold citizens’ beliefs, only their obedience.

Social Mobility: Initially, both the Soviet and Napoleonic systems offered significant social mobility – one of their early successes. In the 1920s USSR, for example, young workers and even peasants were encouraged to get education and join the Party; many rose to positions of influence that would have been unattainable before. The promise of a “worker-peasant” government meant that an individual from a poor background could theoretically become a factory manager, an army commander, or a local soviet chief if they proved to be a capable cadre. Educational opportunities were expanded (literacy campaigns, “worker faculties” at universities), aiming to create a new generation of communist-trained experts from humble origins. Similarly, Napoleonic France dramatically opened up the military and civil careers to commoners. The abolition of the privilege that only nobles could be officers meant talented commoners flooded into officer ranks during the revolutionary wars. Under Napoleon, those who distinguished themselves – regardless of birth – could attain high rank. The new imperial nobility included men who started as mere soldiers. Furthermore, the new educational system in France, while limited, did allow a provincial middle-class youth to attend a lycée on scholarship and potentially move up in life (Napoleonic Satires).

However, over time, the mobility ladder in both systems began to narrow. In the Soviet Union, by the mid-20th century, the system had calcified: the children of the party elite had enormous advantages (better education, connections) in themselves becoming the new elite, while outsiders found it harder to break in. The nomenklatura became self-reproducing. Although officially classless, Soviet society by the 1970s had essentially three unofficial classes: the party-state elite, the urban skilled populace, and the rural peasants/urban poor – with limited mobility between them. In Napoleonic France, the restoration of heredity via titles and the natural advantages of wealth meant that the elite increasingly perpetuated itself. After Napoleon’s fall, the Restoration monarchy actually recognized many of Napoleon’s nobles in the new peerage, merging the new and old elites (French nobility - Wikipedia). During the 19th century, the elite of France remained largely those with education, property, and often family connections – not radically different from Napoleonic times. Thus, while a measure of merit-based mobility remained (and indeed France continued to allow exceptional individuals to rise), the system still favored those with existing advantages. It became clear that, as in most societies, initial conditions (family background, access to education) heavily influenced one’s chances, even in a formally open system (The Napoleonic myth of la méritocratie - Engelsberg ideas).

The implication here is somewhat double-edged: both revolutions improved the principle of advancement by ability (compared to pure aristocratic birthright), making their societies more fluid than before. Yet neither eliminated social hierarchy; they simply redefined its basis. In terms of political mobility, though, the Soviet system was much more closed – only Communist Party members could hold power, and by the late Lenin/Stalin era, only those toeing the party line could rise (factional deviation meant expulsion or worse). Napoleon’s France, on the other hand, while autocratic, did not require one to join a particular party to advance – but one did have to navigate favor with the regime.

Political Control: The cadre and Napoleonic systems were both adept at maintaining political control. The Soviet leadership famously said, “trust in cadres”, meaning that if the right cadres were in place, the Party’s control was secure. Stalin later quipped “Cadres decide everything,” underlining that who holds positions of power is decisive for policy (Cadre - Oxford Reference). By controlling appointments (the nomenklatura lists), the Communist Party ensured its grip on every lever of power (The Elite and Their Privileges in the Soviet Union | Communist Crimes). This had the effect of insulating the regime from popular pressures – even if discontent brewed among the masses, the local leaders and officials were all tied to the party and unlikely to lead any dissent. It also meant that policies could be enforced uniformly, but conversely, mistakes or abuses by cadres often went unchecked due to the lack of external oversight. In Napoleonic France, political control was maintained through a combination of popular nationalism and authoritarian measures. Napoleon cleverly used plebiscites to legitimize his consulate and empire, giving the public a sense of participation (though these referenda were carefully managed). He also used propaganda celebrating the glory of the Grand Armée and France’s achievements, which won him genuine support. For those not swayed, his police state ensured few outlets for opposition – the press was muzzled, dissenters could be exiled or imprisoned. By rewarding loyalty (titles, honors) and neutralizing opposition (censorship and surveillance), Napoleon kept France mostly obedient during his reign.

One difference in implications: The Soviet cadre system, by monopolizing power in a single party, arguably limited innovation and corrective feedback in governance. With no opposition allowed, the regime sometimes pursued disastrous policies (like early collectivization or later economic stagnation) with little internal correction until crises hit. Napoleon’s system, while autocratic, still operated in a somewhat competitive international environment (other nations opposing him) and had some internal debate within his council. But broadly, both systems prioritized control and stability over liberty.

Another implication is how these systems ended or evolved. The entrenched Soviet cadre class may have contributed to the USSR’s ossification and eventual collapse – by the 1980s, the ruling gerontocracy was out of touch and resistant to needed reforms, until a reformist (Gorbachev) attempted changes that spiraled out of control. In France, the Napoleonic elite’s fate was tied to Napoleon himself – when he fell, they had to adapt. Many of Napoleon’s administrative reforms, however, outlasted him and continued to influence governance in France and beyond (for example, the civil code and centralized bureaucracy remained). Thus, Napoleon’s elitist system had a legacy in institutions, whereas Lenin’s cadre system had a legacy in the continued Communist Party rule in the Soviet Union (and was exported to other communist countries where cadre policy became standard (Nomenklatura - Wikipedia), e.g., China’s Communist Party operates on a similar nomenklatura basis to this day).

In terms of social justice, both systems invite the critique that they betrayed the revolutions’ common people. Peasants in Russia, having hoped for true power, found themselves again under authority figures (just now called commissars instead of landlords). Many French sans-culottes (urban poor) who fought for equality saw a new elite dominate them, with wealth still concentrated at the top by 1810. However, it’s also fair to acknowledge that these systems did deliver some of what the revolutions promised: the Soviets massively expanded education, industrialized the country, and claimed to raise the living standard of the masses (albeit with repression); Napoleonic France ended feudal constraints, opened society somewhat, and spread some revolutionary principles across Europe (like legal equality). The implication on society was therefore complex – a blend of progress and the reassertion of hierarchy.

End note

The comparison of Lenin’s cadre system and the Napoleonic meritocratic elite highlights a recurring theme in revolutionary history: revolutions often replace one elite with another, even as they pursue ideals of equality. In the Soviet case, the Bolsheviks created an organized cadre of party officials – a new ruling class that wielded power through the one-party state and enjoyed privileges in contradiction to the classless society they preached. In the French case, the revolution’s disruption of the old order paved the way for Napoleon to construct a new elite grounded in merit and service, which nonetheless resurrected many trappings of aristocracy and concentrated power and privilege in its own hands.

Despite vast differences in ideology – Marxist-Leninist collectivism versus French liberal meritocracy – both systems converged in establishing hierarchical structures to govern and maintain control. They demonstrated that even under revolutionary regimes, practical needs of administration and security tend to produce a stratified society. The Soviet “cadres” and the Napoleonic “notables” each became linchpins of their respective regimes’ governance, social stability, and continuity. Both claimed to embody their revolution’s goals (uplifting the proletariat or rewarding talent from any class), and both did contribute to breaking the stranglehold of hereditary elites. Yet, both also showed how new elites can legitimize forms of inequality: through the language of party loyalty and historical necessity in the Soviet Union, and through the language of merit and patriotism in Napoleonic France.

Ultimately, the cadre system and Napoleonic system left mixed legacies. In Soviet Russia, the cadre-based Communist Party ruled for decades, for better or worse, deeply shaping Russia’s 20th-century trajectory; its collapse in 1991 revealed both the strengths and flaws of that tightly knit elite system (interestingly, many post-Soviet leaders emerged from the former nomenklatura, indicating how enduring that class became) (Nomenklatura - Wikipedia). In France, Napoleon’s fall led to attempts to restore the old elite, but the country could never completely undo the meritocratic and bureaucratic innovations he introduced – even modern France’s elite educational institutions and civil service ethos owe much to that period (The Napoleonic myth of la méritocratie - Engelsberg ideas) (The Napoleonic myth of la méritocratie - Engelsberg ideas). 

Both revolutions thus illustrate how the pursuit of equality can used by the previligated ones to new forms of inequality, and how revolutionary governments balance ideals in the meeting with the realities of power. The lesson, perhaps, is that the “revolutionary road” inevitably winds through complex social terrain – where cadres or career open to talents can alike become the seeds of a new ruling class, tempering the dream of absolute equality with the practicality of governance.

Right-wing politicians in Europe nowadays

Sources:

• Britannica – Soviet Union: Lenin and the Bolsheviks (Soviet Union - Lenin, Bolsheviks, Revolution | Britannica)

• Pipes, Richard – Communism: A History (perspectives on nomenklatura as Tsarist continuity) (Nomenklatura - Wikipedia)

• Đilas, Milovan – The New Class (defining the Soviet nomenklatura elite) (Nomenklatura - Wikipedia)

• Nomenklatura (early Soviet cadre appointment criteria) (Nomenklatura - Wikipedia)

• Olev Liivik – “The Elite and Their Privileges in the Soviet Union” (CommunistCrimes.org, 2020) (The Elite and Their Privileges in the Soviet Union | Communist Crimes) (The Elite and Their Privileges in the Soviet Union | Communist Crimes)

• Engelsberg Ideas – Robert Tombs, “The Napoleonic myth of la méritocratie” (on Napoleonic meritocracy and elites) (The Napoleonic myth of la méritocratie - Engelsberg ideas) (The Napoleonic myth of la méritocratie - Engelsberg ideas) (The Napoleonic myth of la méritocratie - Engelsberg ideas) (The Napoleonic myth of la méritocratie - Engelsberg ideas)

• Brown University Library – Napoleonic Satires: Timeline of Napoleon’s rule (on careers open to talent, lycées, nobility of Empire) (Napoleonic Satires) (Napoleonic Satires) (Napoleonic Satires)

• Declaration of the Rights of Man and Citizen (1789) – Article 6 (careers open to talent) (Avalon Project - Declaration of the Rights of Man - 1789)

• Library of Congress – Country Study: Soviet Union (on Lenin’s legacy and party structure) (COMMUNIST PARTY OF THE SOVIET UNION | Facts and Details) (COMMUNIST PARTY OF THE SOVIET UNION | Facts and Details)

• Cambridge History of the Napoleonic Wars – (Napoleon’s new hereditary nobility in 1808) (Napoleonic Satires)

• New World Encyclopedia – Nomenklatura (historical roots and functioning of cadre system) (Nomenklatura - New World Encyclopedia) (Nomenklatura - New World Encyclopedia)

• Avalon Project (Yale Law School) – Declaration of the Rights of Man (primary source) (Avalon Project - Declaration of the Rights of Man - 1789).