During the 20th century, the concepts of ruling class, power élite, and nomenklatura represented different but overlapping structures of power. The ruling class, in a Marxist context, owned the means of production and maintained ideological control. The power élite, as described by C. Wright Mills, focused on strategic positions in major institutions, consolidating power without necessarily owning economic means. The nomenklatura, relevant in Marxist-Leninist states, referred to the select list of influential individuals authorized by the Party to hold key governmental and bureaucratic positions. Each concept underscores different mechanisms of influencing and controlling socio-political processes: ownership, strategic occupational positions, and bureaucratic control, respectively .

Anarchists reject the establishment of a new ruling class after a revolutionary change due to their fundamental opposition to hierarchical control and centralized authority. They argue that merely replacing one ruling class with another, such as party leaders, still preserves the dynamics of power and oppression, which contradicts their goal of a society free from coercive structures. Anarchists advocate for a society without hierarchies or state apparatus, driven by voluntary cooperation and mutual aid, believing these conditions are necessary for true social freedom and equality. This reflects a skepticism towards any centralized power structure emerging from revolutions .

Globalization has led to the evolution of a ruling class into a more complex, transnational capitalist class. Unlike previous eras where ruling classes were tied to specific national contexts, this class is characterized by its international reach and influence, presiding over a global economy. Their cohesion and control over political and economic agendas are more diffuse, influenced by global networks rather than domestic boundaries. This transnational class is not beholden to a single nation's interests, reflecting a shift towards a broader, interconnected global structure .

The decline of ruling classes in historical empires, such as the Russian and Ottoman Empires, has been attributed to a combination of military defeats, political implosion, and the presence of charismatic leaders. Elite theory interprets these events as shifts in power dynamics, where the instability created by such factors allows new elites to emerge. This theory suggests that ruling classes are not permanent but are subject to the socio-political conditions of their time, which can lead to rapid transformation when conditions change dramatically .

C. Wright Mills' concept of the power élite refers to a small group of individuals at the top of the societal hierarchy who make decisions for society, distinct from a ruling class. While the ruling class implies ownership of the means of production and overarching ideological control, Mills' power élite includes leaders across distinct institutional spheres such as business, military, and government, who may not necessarily own means of production but wield significant decision-making power. The key distinction lies in the source and nature of their influence, as the power élite's influence derives more from organizational positions than from ownership .

In Marxist theory, ideology serves as a tool for the bourgeoisie to legitimize and perpetuate their power. The dominant ideology consists of ideas, values, and norms that reflect the interests of the ruling class and maintain the status quo. By shaping public perception and social norms, the bourgeoisie ensures that their economic interests appear as universal interests, thus obscuring the exploitative relations of capitalist production. Through ideological control, the bourgeoisie manages to secure the consent or passive acceptance of the working class, maintaining social order and preventing radical challenges to their power .

Social stratification challenges the cohesion of a ruling class in contemporary societies by creating fragmented layers within social hierarchies, making unified action and interest representation difficult. As stratification increases through factors like economic disparities and labor specialization, it becomes challenging for societal elites to form a homogeneous class with aligned objectives. This fragmentation limits their ability to collectively influence societal agendas, reducing the ability of elites to maintain unified class interests and reducing their effectiveness in exerting cohesive control over society .

Marxism identifies the ruling class, or the bourgeoisie, as those who own the means of production, exerting power through cultural hegemony and dominant ideologies. The Marxist framework seeks to dissolve the legitimacy of this class, replacing it with the working class, or proletariat, to assume political and socio-economic power. In contrast, anarchists like Mikhail Bakunin criticize not only the ruling class but also the state as a form of authority. Anarchism aims to abolish all hierarchical structures, claiming that even revolutionary change within a Marxist framework might simply replace the ruling class with a new form of power (e.g., party leaders). The implications of these perspectives indicate differing routes to societal change: Marxism seeks to change the power holders while maintaining structure, whereas anarchism seeks to eliminate structured authority entirely .

In Marxist theory, cultural hegemony is the process through which the ruling class maintains its dominance by shaping the cultural norms and values of society. This dominant ideology, propagated through institutions such as education, media, and religion, helps to secure the ruling class's control by gaining the consent of the working class. The ruling class thus uses cultural hegemony to justify its position and perpetuate its economic and political agenda, ensuring stability and continuity of its power without overt force .

Mattei Dogan argues that political and socio-economic elites do not form a cohesive ruling class in the 21st century. The reasons for this include increased social stratification and the narrow specialization of labor, both consequences of globalization. This fragmentation prevents the formation of a unified class capable of consistent and collective action across different societal sectors. Dogan suggests that individual elites may exercise significant power, but a cohesive, homogeneous ruling class as seen in previous centuries does not exist in the same form .