KRAKOVSKY KONSTANTIN P.

The article describes how nomenclature became the basis of the Soviet party-state apparatus in the 1920s and 1930s of the XX century. The authors explain how the nomenclature turned into an independent social institution with a centralized management system, its own norms of political behavior, moral attitudes, mechanisms of recruitment and regulation of activities. Particular attention is paid to the formation of the “nomenclature complex” - a system of accounting and distribution of personnel, the introduction of which was accompanied by numerous difficulties and required constant intervention of the party authorities. Since the early 1920s, an important direction of personnel policy was the formation of personnel reserve, which marked the beginning of systemic work that continued in the following decades. It is noted that in the process of developing the nomenclature, a classification of civil servants based on a class approach was created, which strengthened the ideologized nature of management. One of the key consequences of the introduction of the nomenclature principle was the substitution of electability with appointments, which led to the alienation of citizens from participation in state governance. The electoral mechanisms enshrined in the Soviet constitutions became a formality to cover up the centralized personnel policy. This, in turn, contributed to a high turnover of personnel in the nomenclature system.

The article reviews the history of the first Russian professional periodicals for civil servants before the revolution of 1917 and the first Soviet magazines. The authors also analyze the thematic component of the publications. It is noted that such a turbulent historical era could not leave aside the numerous class of Russian officialdom, whose interests the periodicals for civil servants tried to represent. The authors emphasize that the publishers who created periodicals for officials believed that this large social group should be aware of the social and economic difficulties facing them and defend their labor rights. No less significant was the rethinking of the essence of the bureaucracy, its recognition of the professional community, and consolidation up to the point of establishing a professional union.

In XIX century there was more than just a shortage of officials for new ministries (more officials were required than for collegiums), but also a lack of proper education for officials because the collegial management experience was not very useful, and sometimes it was even harmful. In the first third of the XIX century, the heads of the Russian state realized the importance of officials' training in universities, which, according to G.V. Plekhanov, is achieved through career education. Government circles gradually accepted the importance of enlightenment to improve the quality of work of officials. Despite this, in the first quarter of the XIX century, the basic organizations for education were in boarding houses and military schools. University and elite-lyceum education began to appear only during the reign of Nicholas I. The article is devoted to the analysis of the formation of the system of educational institutions to train civil servants of the Russian Empire in the XIX century.

The article is devoted to the analysis of the formation of the system of educational institutions that trained civil servantsof the Russian Empire in the 18th century. The implementation of global government reforms at the beginning of the 18th centuryrequired a large number of competent officials. They had to be prepared for the future profession. Established in 1687, the Hellenic-Greek Academy (in 1701 - Slavic-Latin, and in 1775 - Slavic-Greek-Latin) Academy in Moscow, being, in fact, an ecclesiasticaleducational institution, did not solve the problem of training personnel for public administration. Peter I outlined the need for specialtraining for officials. He saw the prospect of developing the cadre of the state apparatus in filling it with educated noblemen, andthey were to be trained, first of all, by the central institutions themselves: the Senate, the most important colleges and chancelleries.The idea of this was contained in the General Regulations (1720), where there was an appeal to the nobility and petty official peopleto give their children in colleges and chancellery to study the science of order, and in the Table of Ranks (1722), which determinedthe order of training of noble young people, for which vacancies of the College-Junkers were opened in the institutions. Thesuccessors of Peter I, albeit with less enthusiasm, continued the work of the great reformer for the training of the nobility, whomandatorily were fallen into the rows of military and civil ranks. In connection with the establishment of the Imperial MoscowUniversity in 1755, an unexpected conflict arose between the duty of the nobility to serve and receive education. The prospects ofthe civil service, in contrast to the ‘hardships and deprivations of military service', led to great interest of noble youth to it.