Dennis Reinhartz - The Nationalism of Milovan Djilas

Montenegrinism into a New Yugoslavism

The Nationalism of Milovan Djilas Dennis Rein ha rtz

MILOVAN DJILAS IS one of the most con- troversial figures in the turbulent history of the Balkans in the twentieth century. Born in Montenegro on the Ottoman- Albanian border in 191 1, he emerged first as a writer and then as one of the most important and fanatical leaders of the Yugoslav Revolution and Partisan struggle during World War 11. His rise continued with the establishment of communist Yugoslavia, culminating with his becoming vice president of Yugoslavia and president of the Federal Assembly in 1953. He also was touted by many as Tito’s heir- apparent. Previously, from 1948 to 1950 he had helped to create the Yugoslav system of self-management, a cornerstone of Titoism. In 1953, during the Sixth Con- gress (the “Djilas Congress”) of the Yugoslav Communist party, he encouraged the de-emphasis and decentraliza- tion of the party into the League of Yugoslav Communists (SKJ). In the next three years his ongoing critique of communism brought about his fall from power into disgrace and his first imprisonment under the revolution which he helped to bring to fruition. He since has become Yugoslavia’s, and communism’s, most famous and persistent heretic. During his imprisonments Djilas began to write again, and since 1958 he has established himself as a major South Slavic author who transcends the Balkans to claim a place of distinction in Western literature.

From his humble Montenegrin peasant

origins through his evolution as an important leader, dissenter, and writer, Djilas has experienced a development that mir- rored the growth of Yugoslavia and the, in- tegration of the individual South Slavic areas, especially Montenegro, into it. The growth of Djilas’s nationalism, which was essential to his intellectual maturation, also reflected and was affected deeply by twentieth-century Yugoslav events. Thus, starting out from romantic Montenegrin- ism and Serbianism in the interwar era, Djilas’s ideas proceeded to communism and Titoism. Eventually, in dissent, he reached what can be called a new Yugo- slavism.’

Montenegro has been a central theme in Djilas’s life, works, and thought. But his feelings toward his homeland and its stark natural grandeur, its stormy and bloody history, and its primitively individualistic people invariably have been bittersweet: “The land is one of utter destitution and forlorn silence. Its billowing crags engulf all that is alive and all that human hand has built and cultivated. Every sound is dashed against the jagged rocks, and every ray of light is ground into gravel.”2

For Djilas the essential unit of the Montenegrin kingdom and the broader Serbian nation was the clan, which he early experienced as a member of the proud Djilasi. When he was a boy, his first heroes were drawn from Montenegro’s recent past. He was fascinated by tales about the hujduks, bandits under Ottoman rule who

Modern Age 233

LICENSED TO UNZ.ORGELECTRONIC REPRODUCTION PROHIBITED

were bitterly anti-Turk and romantically perceived as “freedom-fighters,’’ and he was proud of actually being descended from some of these outlaws. His great- uncle Marko Djilas, his grandfather Aleksa Djilas, and others of the type served as a bridge between ancient legends and contemporary reality.

Djilas drew some of his earliest and most enduring intellectual stimulation from Prince-Bishop Petar I1 Petrovii NjegoS (1830-51) and the uojuodu (army com- mander) Marko Miljanov DrekloviC (1833-1901). NjegoS tried to see beyond the clans and began the task of moderniz- ing his small domain; he was also the creator of several romantic literary works that could stand the test of comparison with their counterparts of Western Europe. Miljanov, on the other hand, was a self-educated and principled military leader who loyally served Danilo 11 (1 852-60) but opposed the more despotic rule of his successor, Nikola (1860-1918). He broke with Nikola by renouncing all rank and titles in order to turn to writing.

Many of the striking actions and ideas of Djilas’s career have been carried out in compliance with or in reaction to his Montenegrin heritage. In a retrospective article he has captured beautifully the im- port of Montenegro to his life and work:

I have been in prisons-in those of the Yugoslav monarchy and then in those of the socialists-and thankfully thought of Montenegro. There also were obligations and convictions that kept me sane. But everything con- sidered, Montenegro was always foremost in my mind. And everything was measured against it, against its genuineness, against its trials and dead. Montenegro shared its morality with the entire Serbian nation, an unwritten, undefined morality that is conveyed as instinctual, infallible conduct . . . . In the prisons’ gloom Montenegro also renurtured in me an artistic-moral truth, a truth that I had previously steeped in ideology and politics. It was like a second childhood-a carefree

and conflict-free childhood. Montene- grin rivers flowed through me and with their clear waters washed away the remnants of ideology and eased my bit- terness with their freshness. Time and again in my dreams, my prison dreams, I saw sparkling blue springs in which gigantic trout would bite at my hook, causing me to doubt whether my light pole and all too thin line would be strong enough to pull them out. Then I would wake up-sorrowfully, but sweetly so, remembering the fairytale- like Montenegrin barbarity, even if it was only in a dream3

Djilas’s roots, like those of the stalwart trees of the mountain forests, go deep into Montenegro’s rocky soil. Montenegro gave him life, and to that life definition and direction. It brought inner conflict and disarray, but also furnished stability and a firm foundation for his humanism; and it provided aesthetic inspiration. With Montenegro in mind he wrote: “It is not true that one’s homeland is wherever it is good. Man is born only once and in one place. There is only one h0me1and.I’~

It was in the gymnasium that Djilas’s native romantic nationalism led him to humanistic philosophy and literature, especially of the broader European romantic movement and the works of Pushkin, Goethe, and Byron. Seeking the liberation of the common man from suffer- ing, Djilas emerged as an idealistic romantic revolutionary under the sway of Kant and Rousseau before accepting Marxism- Lenini~m.~

At the same time the young Djilas was experiencing all the violence and disloca- tion that followed World War I with the birth of Yugoslavia and Montenegro’s reconstruction and incorporation into it. The proclamation of the unification of Yugoslavia on December 1, 1918, did not make it one nation. The historical heritages of its composite parts differen- tiated them then and continue to do so. The unification secured territorial integri- ty, established a fragile political unity, and attested to the desire of the South Slavs to

234 Summer I985 LICENSED TO UNZ.ORG

ELECTRONIC REPRODUCTION PROHIBITED

live together in one state. Yet, ancient socio-cultural-economic divisions between and within the South Slavic peoples remained after the unification to be over- come, and new ones were created.6 In Montenegro Christians committed atrocities against Muslims and vice versa; the clans continued their vendettas against each other; and “Whites” (Yugoslavists) fought “Greens” (Montenegrin monarchists) across the land, while the political and social unrest of the times reached directly into the Djilas family. Djilas’s father, a veteran of the Balkan and the European wars, was still loyal to the old order of King Nikola, but he nevertheless accepted the post of commandant of police in the town of Kolasin. As was the case with most Montenegrins who had defended fiercely their country’s independence, Nikola Djilas only gradually became reconciled to the Yugoslav ~nification.~

With his father’s gradual adjustment and as a result of the strong pan-Serb and pan- Slav influences emanating from the works of NjegoS and Vuk KaradiiC (1784-1864)- the great Serbian lexicographer, philolo- gist, and folklorist-the young Djilas became imbued with Serbianism and gradually began to move toward Yugo- slavism. In his novel Montenegro, written in prison three decades later, Djilas recap- tured some of his feelings at the end of the 1920s when he wrote: “The Serb people of Montenegro are my people. I know that there are Serbs without Montenegro and there can be no Montenegro without Serbs. But for me there can be no Serbs without Montenegro. When Montenegro perishes, I perish with it. 1 can do without my head, but I cannot do without my soul.”s In his memoirs he concludes:

Old Montenegro faded away, with its men and mores, while the new order failed to bring people either peace or liberty, not even those who hoped for these and fought for them. Failing to realize their dreams, men became bad and deformed. New men were needed with new dreamsg

Modern Age

After coming to Belgrade and its university in 1929, Djilas had his horizons broadened; alienation and maturation went hand in hand. In his writing one can observe Montenegrin provincialism yield to Yugoslavism and peasant populism to communism. The establishment of a royal dictatorship by King Alexander at this time, not to speak of world conditions,’ helped in this. Wanting to bring into exis- tence a world of justice and brotherhood, Djilas concluded that the staunchly anti- communist monarchical dictatorship had to be replaced by a political system that might accelerate rather than stifle development. The apparent success of the Bolshevik Revolution persuaded him that a revolution was possible in Yugoslavia with the Soviet Union as its model. To him a vision of civilization constituted without violence and populated by a new humani- ty was a potent inspiration.

While in school Djilas did not read communist literature; he became a communist without Marx or Lenin. He was almost the sole architect of his own world view-an original communist-who put action before theory. The literature of communism did not have an impact on him until he had committed himself firmly to the idea itself. This gave him a spiritual in- dividualism and independence that greatly affected his rise in the Yugoslav communist movement. His personalized outlook contained, though hidden, schismatic elements that surfaced much later.I0

Djilas never did finish the university; it was prison from 1933 to 1936 that served him as finishing school, and a radical one at that. There he first met influential communists like MoSa Pijade and Alexander RankoviC. There his belief in communism was crystallized during long periods of solitary confinement.” There he became one of the most dedicated Stalinists in the local Yugoslav leadership. But as Tito’s British biographer, Fitzroy Maclean, was to observe some twenty years later, “Like most Montenegrins, Djilas was by nature inclined to go too far. He was also apt to be carried away by his own ideas.”12

After his release from Sremska

235


Mitrovica Prison, Djilas went underground to pursue his revolutionary career. His Yugoslavism and communism grew stronger and eventually were tested under fire during his Partisan experiences; his Yugoslavism prevailed, but the first real feelings of anti-Sovietism were generated in him in World War I1 during two visits to the Soviet Union and to Stalin.

World War I1 was a time of troubles for Yugoslavia. It was invaded and eventually partitioned by Italy, Hungary, Bulgaria, and Germany. Significant segments of the Yugoslav population, particularly in Croatia and Serbia, collaborated with the invaders to secure specific political, economic, and national ends. Initially resistance was weak and divided, so that it led ultimately to a vicious, divisive, and destructive civil war. But gradually the monarchist Chetniks under Draia Mihailo- vi6 lost popular and allied support to Tito’s communist-led Partisans. A new communist Yugoslavia emerged from the Sec- ond World War beset with new divisions and problems, besides many of the old ones.

In 1946, promoted to minister without portfolio, Djilas was becoming increasing- ly critical of the counterrevolutionary ten- dencies developing under Soviet communism.13 The Soviet Union was continuing to expand under the auspices of “Leninism-Stalinism,” but he understood the geopolitical basis of her aggressive, nationalistic impulse, stronger than any altruistic Marxist ideal, and responded by opposing the prolonged Soviet occupation of Eastern Europe. Following Djilas’s return from a third trip to Moscow, Stalin, trying to divide the Yugoslav leadership, wrote to Tito charging Djilas with being the most prominent of a number of “suspect Marxists,” an initiative which fur- ther contributed to the rupture of Yugoslav-Soviet relations during the winter of 1948. The continuing independence of the Yugoslav leadership from Moscow; Soviet economic exploitation, subversion, and threats; and Yugoslav ex- pansionism toward Albania and Bulgaria, coupled with the absence of a prolonged

236

Red Army occupation-these happenings led to Yugoslavia’s becoming a renegade from the Soviet camp. Djilas and other Yugoslav intellectuals then undertook a major reinvestigation of the classics of Marxism in order to justify and clarify the Yugoslav position. This they did before the United Nations in 1949. By this time Djilas had become the most articulate spokesman for the case against Stalin and the Soviet Union.

He saw a centralized, bureaucratically dominated one-party state as the Stalinist antithesis to the communist ideal; Stalin represented the rule of a “new class” and the demise of the Russian Revolution. By 1952 Djilas openly criticized the tyranny of officialdom in Yugoslavia, as well as in the Soviet Union. He offered the view that no structured working class was needed under Yugoslavia’s self-management scheme, and he also recommended that his colleagues draft a party platform (com- pleted in 1958) free of Soviet influences. But Djilas found it difficult to build on these initial gains because he soon came into conflict with Tito and other Yugoslav leaders.

lntellectually Djilas was moving away from the sterility of Stalinism; it is indicative that he now drew close to the left- wing British Labourite Aneurin Bevin, whose humanist conception of social democracy had a significant effect on his world view. Djilas also was impressed by Mohandas Candhi; he saw nonviolence as the only way to bring about the mobiliza- tion and participation of the masses in the Indian Revolution. He greatly admired Candhi for providing India, and perhaps Asia and the entire Third World, with a viable alternative to c o m m u n i ~ m . ~ ~

Continuing his efforts to humanize Yugoslav communism, he published a series of highly critical articles in Borba (Struggle) and the journal Nova Misao (New Djilas warned that abusive bureaucratization was an “inter- nal contradiction” of the revolution. In Borba, on October 22, 1953, he wrote:

Arbitrariness, undemocratic behavior,

Summer 1985


willful, facile and self-centered inter- pretation of what is and what is not bourgeois, destruction of still-tender forms of democracy, all deform, pervert, and undermine socialist forces and socialism, even if they do weaken the bourgeoisie. When power and in- dustry are in socialist hands, then unselfishness, intellect, love of truth, discussion and criticism, harmony of words and deeds (respectfully obeying the proper laws), are more important for democratic progress than anything else, even if the struggles against the bourgeois vestiges then take longer. These are the forms which motivate socialism and democracy; they not only lead to the disappearance of a class which ultimately was able to be only a slave and a traitor, but also to the disappearance of both capitalism and state capitalism. l6

Two months later he wrote another article, discussing the Stalinist terror, in which he pleaded for ideological toleration that would allow for the development of diver- sity of opinion free from threats of per- secution. He concluded that a free intellectual climate was essential to assure future democratic pr0gre~s. l~ On January 4, 1954, Djilas chided the SKJ for back- sliding:

The final aim of a true communist is not, and cannot be, some kind of abstract party as such, catering ex- clusively to communists; it is, instead, elevating the people’s socialist con- sciousness, educating the masses for democracy, and formulating concrete means of fighting for democracy, legali- ty, the rights of citizens, etc.18

He received several semiofficial warn- ings about his publications from colleagues in the Yugoslav Communist leadership, but continued his criticism for he was committed to an ideal and, given his personality and background, could do little else. Djilas felt an obligation to those who had sacrificed themselves in the Yugoslav Revolution to strive toward

what he conceived to be its ideal realiza- tion. His fight and subsequent disenchant- ment with Marxism never really constituted the basis for a movement, but his critiques found a good deal of popular SUP- port. l9

In January 1954 he was stripped of all state and party posts, and in March, con- cluding that the Marxist utopia was a myth, he resigned from the SKJ. Later, Djilas summarized his feelings during this crucial period:

1 look back on that period. . . as barren and somehow undignified. From a hopeful .writer and revolutionary, I saw myself transformed by victory [in World II] into the instrument of prop- aganda for an even more absolute monarch than King Alexander had been, and the spokesman for a failed and obviously unjust social order.20

When, in the early 1950s, Djilas lost his political power and later was imprisoned by his former comrades-in-arms from 1956 to 1961, he became even more pro- foundly aware of the rapid changes in communism, in Yugoslavia, and in the world. He emerged as an influential dissenter and became one of the foremost commentators on these changes, some of which affected his situation directly. Through his percipient analysis he also had an effect on these changes. Djilas’s nationalism changed again, and his early Montenegrinism was revived and placed in the perspective of a new Yugoslavism.

While Djilas was completing several major literary works dealing with Monte- negro, Njego:, and Miljanov,21 the first real crystallizations of his new political outlook emerged in The New Class and The Unperfect Society. When The New Class first appeared in 1957 it created a controversy that brought its little-known author to the attention of the world. In the communist community the book was greeted with condemnation and scorn and was banned as the work of a traitor, or else it was ignored. But in the West generally it was acclaimed as a revealing and pioneering critical analysis of the

Modern Age 237


communist system by a courageous former “insider.” Although Djilas had chosen the Soviet Union as his principal model, it was clear that his critique was directed at all communist ( le . , Stalinist) societies, including his own. Those aspects of this seminal work that were applauded as its major strengths by Western reviewers over a quarter of a century ago-the delineation of the new class and the recognition of national communism- still prove to be of value today.

In the final sections of The New Class Djilas advanced the concept of national communism and emphasized its direct relationship to the rise of the new class. He began by explaining that “communism is only one thing, but it is realized in dif- ferent degrees and manners in every country. Therefore, it is possible to speak of Communist systems, l e . , various forms of the same manifestation.”22 He argued that for communists to bring about suc- cessful revolutions, to establish their oligarchical authority, and to maintain their power, international communism must be adapted by them to national conditions. Thus Marxism-Leninism-Stalinism was viewed correctly as Russian national communism.

But Soviet communism was international communism as long as the Soviet Union could force its ideology on its satellites and other communist parties around the world. Consequently Djilas said that the concept of national communism had no real meaning until after World War 11, when other national communist regimes began developing, partly in response to Soviet-Russian imperialism. The new ruling classes in other communist states also came to reflect their national intere~ts.‘~ Clearly to Djilas the most striking example was his own Yugoslavia, which, because of its particularly strong national communism, was ostracized from the Stalinist camp in 1948 in order to bring about its downfall. But he also recognized the growing independence of the Chinese and East European leaderships, as well as certain Western communist parties like those of France and Italy.

Since the Sino-Soviet split in 1957, national communism in Eastern Europe, among Soviet satellites like Poland, Hungary, Czechoslovakia, et cetera, in- dependent communist states like Romania and Albania in Europe and Vietnam and North Korea in Asia, and Eurocommunism in the West have helped to substantiate Djilas’s original observations, especially that, “in reality, national Communism is Communism in de~line.”~4 In a recent article he provides a summary explanation:

A ruling power, even a Communist one, is based on realities and cannot help but be national: even the Communists, despite their pretension, cannot “con- struct” a culture, a language, a past, and a national character. Let us simplify: the longer a Communist power lasts, the more it has national characteristics, whether it likes it or not. Naturally, I speak of those that go well with Communism, and vice versa, and which, in today’s world, arise in any manner in all nations.. . . One could thus conclude that the Soviet- Russian Communists are more nationalistic than are the other Com- munists-this for the simple reason that they are still “No. 1” today: that is, the strongest and most industrious in the propagation of Cornmuni~m.~~

The New Class reflected Djilas’s disillu- sionment with the reality of contemporary communism in all its national forms, but his break with Marxjsm was not clearly enunciated until the publication of The Unperfect Society in 1969. In between, in addition to several important literary works, Djilas also published Conoersations With Stalin (1962), which was a memoir of his wartime and postwar encounters with the Soviet dictator, containing both a re- sounding denunciation of Stalinism and the germs of ideas developed more fully in The Unperfect Society and other writings.

The political realities of communism in the post-World War II years (e.g., the Soviet invasions of Hungary in 1956 and Czechoslovakia in 1968), as well as in his own life, finally convinced Djilas of the

238 Summer 1985


theoretical impossibility of Marxism: “Every human community is a community of diverse aspirations. This. confirms that no system ever can be good for, and ac- ceptable to all men.”26 Marxism as a global ideology in the form of communism was crumbling, indicative that “Marx’s ideas were unrealizable.” Communism had reached its peak under Stalin, but it was disintegrating into national forms which became more conservative and, unlike the international variety, were capable of “coexistence” and “dbtente.” Djilas stated that although a valuable “rational core” of Marx’s ideas-the classless society and the economic dependence of man-remained, communism and capitalism were now cor- rupted by each other and their local en- vironments. For the long run native types of social democracy seemed to him to be the best compromise.

In Djilas’s alternative society human rights and freedom would be guaranteed, and totalitarianism, especially that of bureaucratic absolutism and/or a cult of personality, would not be tolerated. In- herent in this vision is complete pluralism breaking up the ideological stagnation of communism and giving rise to a society based on criteria stressing the transcen- dence, not the destruction, of the old by the new. Within the realities of contemporary Yugoslavia this means greater self- management and sustained federalism. Djilas warns that the present Yugoslav leadership’s continued adherence to disintegrating Titoist authoritarianism is creating a political and economic crisis and greater inefficiency on the part of the federal government, leading to greater “contradictions” between it and the six Yugoslav republics. He fears growing republican autonomy and, perhaps, dissolution, if Yugoslavia does not seek a democratic alternati~e.~’

In foreign affairs this also means true nonalignment. Djilas is strongly anti- Soviet and views Yugoslavia as a Western country, needing increased Western support. He wants Yugoslavia vigorously to oppose totalitarianism and imperialism- Soviet, American, or Chinese-as well as

violence and terrorism at home and abroad. He consistently champions human rights and the right to national independence of all peoples, and he wants to live in peaceful coexistence with all of them. To Djilas the Soviet threat in the Balkans and elsewhere in the world is very real. He sees the Soviet Union out- maneuvering Yugoslavia internationally and eroding its post-1948 nonalignment. In the post-Tito era closer cooperation with the West, especially with nonaligned neutrals-Austria, Finland, Sweden, Switzerland, and Romania-and with the Eurocommunists, is advocated for Yugo- slavia to survive and advance as envi- sioned by DjilasZ8

Recently, especially since the death of Tito and the appearance of Djilas’s highly critical new book about him, Tito: The Story From Inside, Djilas has come under severe attack in the Yugoslav press for being “unpatriotic” and for attempting to fo- ment an anti-Yugoslav conspiracy. Djilas’s new Yugoslavism remains in conflict with Titoism, even after Tito. The principal issue is pluralism. Djilas believes that greater pluralism, including multina- tionalism, must be officially tolerated and encouraged to allow for Yugoslavia’s peaceful transition from communism to democratic socialism, which to him ultimately means “greater security for the individual, better organized production, a fairer sharing, and-seen as a whole-a more rational society.”29

The Yugoslav leadership fears that too much freedom too soon will lead to anar- chy and the disintegration of Yugoslavia into a number of bickering national states, reminiscent of the nineteenthcentury Balkans. In turn, Yugoslavia will be easy prey for the stronger powers around it, especially the Soviet Union and its War- saw Pact allies (e.g., Bulgaria). This ap- prehension is shared somewhat by several of Djilas’s fellow dissidents, particularly among the Praxis But at least since 1948 Djilas’s own Yugoslavism has been both stimulated and tempered by strong anti-Sovietism. Consequently, on numerous occasions Djilas has voiced the

Modern Age 239


opinion that the best defense against the abuses of Stalinism, foreign or domestic, is a democratic, socialist Yugoslavia.

In Tito: The Story From h i d e Djilas relates that, in 1953, at the funeral of a fellow communist leader and architect of self-management, Boris Kidrit, Tito said in a conversation that he thought the “na- tionalities of Yugoslavia would ultimately merge into one true nation.” When Djilas remarked that King Alexander Karajord- jevit had thought the same, Tito responded, “Ah, but there was no socialism then.”31 On March 22, 1979, provoked by a series of contacts over a two-year period initiated by Djilas and fellow dissident and close friend Mihajlo Mihajlov, along with prominent Croat and Slovene nationalists and other dissenters, Djilas was sum- moned to police headquarters in Belgrade for the first time since 1972 and given a “last warning” to curtail his “hostile ac- tivities.” Tito and other high-ranking officials seemed concerned that the various dissenting groups might be coming together in some sort of united front. Djilas responded by denying that any common program for action had been decided upon. But he also stated that the contacts would continue to seek out areas of potential c o o p e r a t i ~ n . ~ ~ The present harassment of Djilas continues in the same vein. In response to it he has said:

I am neither a Communist nor an anti- communist. I am a free personality, criticizing what I consider worth criticizing. 1 even believe that I have remained a revolutionary, although I am today against revolutionary methods in Yugoslavia. In an undemocratic system it is most revolutionary to be for freedom.33

Djilas is aware that these are crucial

240

times for his country and that his position continues to be precarious. He and other dissidents have been cautious in their demands of the post-Tito leadership. Its responses generally have been guarded and in character. Some dissenters and government officials are projecting a “dissident D-Day,” a positive “destabiliza- tion,” and a “new 1948 where they will shatter the one-party monopoly and demonstrate the possibility of the transition into a pluralistic

De-Titoization is inevitable, and the post-Tito power struggle in the League of Yugoslav Communists with a liberal faction seeking the support of some of the dissidents could trigger a transition to a “Dubcek-type of democracy.” This indeed would be a historical miracle, rivaling in significance the French R e v ~ l u t i o n . ~ ~

While Djilas may see this to be as yet too optimistic a speculation, he is confident that his vision of the future for Yugoslavia can be realized:

The political structure and external situation make difficult any sudden transition to democracy, because sud- denness would cause chaos and conflict and make Soviet intervention easier. This is the reason why democratiza- tion, at least at the outset, has to be modest and cautious. “Democratiza- tions” that meant the maintenance of the monopoly of Communist forms end- ed with purges and repressions. There is no democracy for everyone. The storms are already raging: Yugoslavia can survive only if it introduces democracy and attaches itself to coun- tries that effectively oppose the new c ~ n q u e r o r . ~ ~

Summer 1985


’“New Yugoslavism” is used here to distinguish Djilas’s current ideas on Yugoslav nationalism from those of others, which helped to bring about the creation of Yugoslavia at the close of World War I . 2Milovan Djilas, NjegoS: Poet, Prince, Bishop (New York, 1966), p. 13. 3Djilas, “Montenegro ist mein Kerker, meine Freiheit” [Montenegro is my prison, my freedom] Merian, June 6, 1977, p. 57 (passage translated from the German by Dennis Reinhartz). 4Djilas, Land Without Justice (New York, 1958), p. 277. Vbid., 349-53. 6For a good new study of the unification, see: Dimitrije Djordjevic, ed., The Crea- tion of Yugoslavia 1914-1918 (Santa Barbara, Calif., 1980). ’In his literary works Djilas has several times captured the mood of these tumultuous years. Much of the first volume of his memiors, Land Without Justice, is devoted to them, as are several short stories. This period also is the basis for an as yet un- published major novel, Sveti i Mosti [Worlds and bridges], for access to which I am thankful to Djilas and his publisher, Harcourt Brace Jovanovich, Inc., in the United States. 8Djilas, Montenegro (New York, 1962), p. 56. gDjilas, Land Without Justice, p. 213. ‘Olbid., pp. 321-22 and 353; see also Djilas, Memoir of a Revolutionary (New York, 1973). p. 92; and Gun- ther Bartsch, Milovan Djilas: oder die Selbstbehaup tung des Menschen. Versuch einer Biographie [Milovan Djilas; or the self-assertion of the individual. An attempt at a biography] (Munich, 1971), pp. 49-50. IIDjilas, Memoir of a Revolutionary, pp. 12 and 109-259. I2Fitzroy Maclean, The Heretic: The Life and Times of Josip Eroz Tito (New York, 1957), p. 357. I3Djilas, “Perversion of the People’s Power,” in Parts of a Lifetime (New York, 1975), pp. 162-65. 14Djilas, “Eastern Sky,” in ibid., pp. 187-89. I5These writings have been collected, translated, and republished in the United States in Djilas, Anatomy

of a Moral: The Political Essays of Milovan Djilas (New York, 1959). The one omission, “Objective Forces,” was reprinted in Parts of a Lifetime, pp. 2068. 16Djilas, “For All?” in Anatomy of a Moral, p. 69. I7Djilas, “Concretely,” in ibid., pp. 94-96. I8Djilas, “League or Party,” in ibid., p. 135. ‘9George W. Hoff- man and Fred Warner Neal, Yugoslavia and the New Communism (New York, 1962). pp. 189-90. ZoDjilas, Tito: The Story From Inside (New York, 1980), pp. 31-32. 21See Djilas, Legenda o NjegoSu [The legend of Njegoq (Belgrade, 1952); Land Without Justice; Sveti i Mosti (written during his 1962-66 imprisonment); Montenegro; The Leper and Other Stories (New York, 1964); and NjegoS: 22Djilas, The New Class: An Analysis of the Communist System (New York, 1957), p. 99. Vbid . , p. 178. 241bid., p. 190. 25Djilas, “Is the Soviet Union a Socialist Country?” Cornmenfaire (Spring 1980), pp. 4-5. 26Djilas, The Unperfect Society: Beyond rhe New Class (New York, 1969), p. 198. 27Djilas, “Dissolution, Revolution and Moscow’s In- tentions,” New York Times, June 20, 1982. %ter- view with Milovan Djilas in Belgrade, Yugoslavia, June 5, 1979. zgDjilas, “Wohin steuert der Eurokom- munisms?“ [Where is Eurocommunism leading?], Playboy Deutschland (June 1977), p. 181. 301nter- views with Milovan Djilas (June 5. 1979) and Praxis philosopher Svetozar StojanoviC (June 25, 1979). 31Djilas, Tito: The Story From Inside, p. 134. 3Zlnter- view with Djilas, June 5, 1979. 33“Djilas Views Na- tional Developments after Tito’s Death,” Der Spiegel, July 7, 1980, p. 144. 34Mihajlo Mihajlov, “Impressions of America,” The New Leader, April 23, 1979, p. 11 . 35Mihajlo Mihajlov, “Prospects for the Post-Tito Era,” New America (January 1980), pp. 6-7; and “Fear and Hope in Yugoslavia,” The New Leader, February 1 1 , 1980, pp. 6 7 . 36Djilas, “Yugoslavia after Tito,” New York Times, January 24, 1980.

Modern Age 241


Dennis Reinhartz - The Nationalism of Milovan Djilas

Documents

Transcript of Dennis Reinhartz - The Nationalism of Milovan Djilas