Milovan — Dilas Novi Razred
Consequently, the book has almost nothing to say about a market economy or liberal democracy as alternatives. Đilas’s solution is vague: a return to a “democratic,” “self-governing” socialism (he admired the early workers’ councils). He cannot see—or refuses to see—that the centralization he criticizes might be a feature, not a bug, of state-controlled economies. He still believes in socialism without the party.
Few books have landed with the geopolitical force of Milovan Đilas’s The New Class . Written from a prison cell by a man who was once the vice president of Yugoslavia and a devoted Stalinist, the book is an autopsy of the communist revolution performed by one of its most trusted surgeons. It is not merely a polemic; it is a political and sociological treatise that argues a radical and uncomfortable thesis: the communist revolution did not create a classless society. Instead, it created a new, brutal ruling class—the party bureaucracy. milovan dilas novi razred
★★★★☆ (Essential for understanding the Cold War and the nature of bureaucratic power; limited as a blueprint for any alternative.) Consequently, the book has almost nothing to say
However, the book is also a prisoner of its moment. It is written with the fervor of a betrayed lover—angry, intimate, and at times, naive. It assumes that exposing the hypocrisy of the New Class would be enough to topple it. History proved otherwise. The New Class often simply rebrands itself (as “technocrats” or “national developers”) and continues. He still believes in socialism without the party
This “New Class” is defined not by ownership of capital in the traditional sense, but by . They control access to resources, jobs, housing, and information. Their privilege is not a salary but nomenklatura —the right to occupy key positions. Đilas argues that this class is more ruthless than the old bourgeoisie because it masks its self-interest behind the sacred rhetoric of “social ownership” and “the common good.”
For all its brilliance, The New Class suffers from the very idealism it claims to reject. Đilas writes as a disappointed believer. His critique is essentially that the revolution failed to live up to its own ethical promise of freedom and equality.
The book’s undeniable power comes from Đilas’s credibility. This is not a Cold War tract written by a disillusioned exile from a safe distance. Đilas was the insider’s insider. He fought with Partisans, served in Tito’s highest councils, and personally helped build the system he later eviscerates.
5 comments