Montenegrinism into a New Yugoslavism

The Nationalism of Milovan Djilas
Dennis Reinha rtz

MILOVANDJILAS IS one of the most controversial figures in the turbulent history of the Balkans in the twentieth century. Born in Montenegro on the OttomanAlbanian border in 1911, 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 o f the Federal Assembly in 1953. He also was touted by many as Tito’s heirapparent. Previously, from 1948 to 1950 he had helped to create the Yugoslav f self-management, a cornerstone system o of Titoism. In 1953, during the Sixth Congress (the “Djilas Congress”) of the Yugoslav Communist party, he encouraged the de-emphasis and decentralization 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
Modern Age

origins through his evolution as an important leader, dissenter, and writer, Djilas has experienced a development that mirrored the growth of Yugoslavia and the, integration 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 Montenegrinism 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 Yugoslavism.’ 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
233

1918. Montenegro was always foremost in my mind. against its trials and dead. remembering the fairytalelike Montenegrin barbarity. The unification secured territorial integrity. and attested to the desire of the South Slavs to Summer I985 I have been in prisons-in those of the Yugoslav monarchy and then in those of the socialists-and thankfully thought of Montenegro. but sweetly so. It brought inner conflict and disarray. go deep into Montenegro’s rocky soil. established a fragile political unity. Montenegro shared its morality with the entire Serbian nation. I saw sparkling blue springs in which gigantic trout would bite at my hook. but also furnished stability and a firm foundation for his humanism. Goethe. It was like a second childhood-a carefree 234 . . an unwritten. Djilas drew some of his earliest and most enduring intellectual stimulation from Prince-Bishop Petar I1 Petrovii NjegoS (1830-51) and the uojuodu (army commander) Marko Miljanov DrekloviC (1833-1901). Time and again in my dreams.’’ and he was proud of actually being descended from some of these outlaws. His greatuncle Marko Djilas. Montenegrin rivers flowed through me and with their clear waters washed away the remnants of ideology and eased my bitterness with their freshness.I’~ It was in the gymnasium that Djilas’s native romantic nationalism led him to humanistic philosophy and literature. infallible conduct . and Byron.were bitterly anti-Turk and romantically perceived as “freedom-fighters. There is only one h0me1and. against its genuineness. a truth that I had previously steeped in ideology and politics.~ At the same time the young Djilas was experiencing all the violence and dislocation that followed World War I with the birth of Yugoslavia and Montenegro’s reconstruction and incorporation into it. undefined morality that is conveyed as instinctual. and it provided aesthetic inspiration. he was also the creator of several romantic literary works that could stand the test of comparison with their counterparts of Western Europe. Man is born only once and in one place. my prison dreams. on the other hand. 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. There also were obligations and convictions that kept me sane. did not make it one nation. . But everything considered. Montenegro gave him life. In the prisons’ gloom Montenegro also renurtured in me an artistic-moral truth. Seeking the liberation of the common man from suffering. and to that life definition and direction. And everything was measured against it. Then I would wake up-sorrowfully. even if it was only in a dream3 Djilas’s roots. and others of the type served as a bridge between ancient legends and contemporary reality. was a self-educated and principled military leader who loyally served Danilo 11 (1852-60) but opposed the more despotic rule of his successor. . The historical heritages of its composite parts differentiated them then and continue to do so. causing me to doubt whether my light pole and all too thin line would be strong enough to pull them out. Miljanov. Djilas emerged as an idealistic romantic revolutionary under the sway of Kant and Rousseau before accepting MarxismLenini~m. In a retrospective article he has captured beautifully the import of Montenegro to his life and work: and conflict-free childhood. especially of the broader European romantic movement and the works of Pushkin. With Montenegro in mind he wrote: “It is not true that one’s homeland is wherever it is good. his grandfather Aleksa Djilas. The proclamation of the unification of Yugoslavia on December 1. He broke with Nikola by renouncing all rank and titles in order to turn to writing. like those of the stalwart trees of the mountain forests. NjegoS tried to see beyond the clans and began the task of modernizing his small domain. Nikola (1860-1918).

~ With his father’s gradual adjustment and as a result of the strong pan-Serb and panSlav influences emanating from the works of NjegoS and Vuk KaradiiC (1784-1864)the great Serbian lexicographer. ancient socio-cultural-economic divisions between and within the South Slavic peoples remained after the unification to be overcome. Djilas’s father. But as Tito’s British biographer. He was also apt to be carried away by his own ideas. Djilas recaptured some of his feelings at the end of the 1920s when he wrote: “The Serb people of Montenegro are my people.I0 Djilas never did finish the university. Djilas had his horizons broadened. not to speak o f world conditions.”12 After his release from Sremska 235 . I perish with it. When Montenegro perishes. The establishment of a royal dictatorship by King Alexander at this time. and new ones were created. alienation and maturation went hand in hand. As was the case with most Montenegrins who had defended fiercely their country’s independence. but he nevertheless accepted the post of commandant of police in the town of Kolasin. This gave him a spiritual individualism and independence that greatly affected his rise in the Yugoslav communist movement. “Like most Montenegrins. while the new order failed to bring people either peace or liberty. Djilas was by nature inclined to go too far. it was prison from 1933 to 1936 that served him as finishing school. a veteran of the Balkan and the European wars. while the political and social unrest of the times reached directly into the Djilas family. The literature of communism did not have an impact on him until he had committed himself firmly to the idea itself. and folklorist-the young Djilas became imbued with Serbianism and gradually began to move toward Yugoslavism. the clans continued their vendettas against each other.’ helped in this. with its men and mores. To him a vision of civilization constituted without violence and populated by a new humanity was a potent inspiration. Yet. Fitzroy Maclean. Failing to realize their dreams. but I cannot do without my soul.” There he became one of the most dedicated Stalinists in the local Yugoslav leadership. But for me there can be no Serbs without Montenegro. New men were needed with new dreamsg Modern Age After coming to Belgrade and its university in 1929.6 In Montenegro Christians committed atrocities against Muslims and vice versa. was still loyal to the old order of King Nikola. he became a communist without Marx or Lenin.live together in one state. In his novel Montenegro. was to observe some twenty years later. There he first met influential communists like MoSa Pijade and Alexander RankoviC. I know that there are Serbs without Montenegro and there can be no Montenegro without Serbs. There his belief in communism was crystallized during long periods of solitary confinement. His personalized outlook contained. While in school Djilas did not read communist literature. In his writing one can observe Montenegrin provincialism yield to Yugoslavism and peasant populism to communism. Wanting to bring into existence a world of justice and brotherhood. men became bad and deformed. though hidden. 1 can do without my head. Djilas concluded that the staunchly anticommunist monarchical dictatorship had to be replaced by a political system that might accelerate rather than stifle development. schismatic elements that surfaced much later. and a radical one at that. not even those who hoped for these and fought for them. written in prison three decades later.”s In his memoirs he concludes: Old Montenegro faded away. He was almost the sole architect of his own world view-an original communist-who put action before theory. The apparent success of the Bolshevik Revolution persuaded him that a revolution was possible in Yugoslavia with the Soviet Union as its model. and “Whites” (Yugoslavists) fought “ G r e e n s ” (Montenegrin monarchists) across the land. Nikola Djilas only gradually became reconciled to the Yugoslav ~nification. philologist.

” but he understood the geopolitical basis of her aggressive.” an initiative which further contributed to the rupture of Yugoslav-Soviet relations during the winter of 1948. promoted to minister without portfolio. His Yugoslavism and communism grew stronger and eventually were tested under fire during his Partisan experiences. undemocratic behavior. He greatly admired Candhi for providing India.13 The Soviet Union was continuing to expand under the auspices of “Leninism-Stalinism. on October 22. and threats. Hungary. It was invaded and eventually partitioned by Italy. wrote to Tito charging Djilas with being the most prominent of a number of “suspect Marxists. lntellectually Djilas was moving away from the sterility of Stalinism. he saw nonviolence as the only way to bring about the mobilization and participation of the masses in the Indian Revolution. and he also recommended that his colleagues draft a party platform (completed in 1958) free of Soviet influences. He offered the view that no structured working class was needed under Yugoslavia’s self-management scheme. divisive. collaborated with the invaders to secure specific political. Djilas also was impressed by Mohandas Candhi. whose humanist conception of social democracy had a significant effect on his world view. Significant segments of the Yugoslav population. This they did before the United Nations in 1949. and Germany. But gradually the monarchist Chetniks under Draia Mihailovi6 lost popular and allied support to Tito’s communist-led Partisans. bureaucratically dominated one-party state as the Stalinist antithesis to the communist ideal. Initially resistance was weak and divided. By this time Djilas had become the most articulate spokesman for the case against Stalin and the Soviet Union. so that it led ultimately to a vicious. stronger than any altruistic Marxist ideal. Bulgaria. Djilas was becoming increasingly critical of the counterrevolutionary tendencies developing under Soviet communism. trying to divide the Yugoslav leadership. as well as in the Soviet Union. economic. he published a series of highly critical articles in Borba (Struggle) and the journal Nova Misao (New Djilas warned that abusive bureaucratization was an “internal contradiction” of the revolution. A new communist Yugoslavia emerged from the Second World War beset with new divisions and problems. In Borba. Stalin represented the rule of a “new class” and the demise of the Russian Revolution. besides many of the old ones. with a viable alternative to c o m m u n i ~ m . 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. his Yugoslavism prevailed. In 1946. ~ ~ Continuing his efforts to humanize Yugoslav communism. and responded by opposing the prolonged Soviet occupation of Eastern Europe. He saw a centralized. and destructive civil war. it is indicative that he now drew close to the leftwing British Labourite Aneurin Bevin. Following Djilas’s return from a third trip to Moscow. and Yugoslav expansionism toward Albania and Bulgaria. Summer 1985 . Djilas and other Yugoslav intellectuals then undertook a major reinvestigation of the classics of Marxism in order to justify and clarify the Yugoslav position. he wrote: Arbitrariness. subversion. Stalin. 1953. But Djilas found it difficult to build on these initial gains because he soon came into conflict with Tito and other Yugoslav leaders. Djilas went underground to pursue his revolutionary career. By 1952 Djilas openly criticized the tyranny of officialdom in Yugoslavia. and perhaps Asia and the entire Third World. coupled with the absence of a prolonged 236 Red Army occupation-these happenings led to Yugoslavia’s becoming a renegade from the Soviet camp. The continuing indepenf the Yugoslav leadership from dence o Moscow. nationalistic impulse. and national ends. particularly in Croatia and Serbia. World War I1 was a time of troubles for Yugoslavia. Soviet economic exploitation.Mitrovica Prison.

and undermine socialist forces and socialism.18 He received several semiofficial warnings about his publications from colleagues in the Yugoslav Communist leadership. he became even more profoundly aware of the rapid changes in communism. and the spokesman for a failed and obviously unjust social order. legality. I saw myself transformed by victory [in World II] into the instrument of propaganda for an even more absolute monarch than King Alexander had been. instead. f discussion and criticism. and cannot be. When The New Class first appeared in 1957 it created a controversy that brought its little-known author to the attention of the world. or else it was ignored. as barren and somehow undignified. facile and self-centered interpretation of what is and what is not bourgeois. Through his percipient analysis he also had an effect on these changes. From a hopeful . He emerged as an influential dissenter and became one of the foremost commentators on these changes. .writer and revolutionary. even if they do weaken the bourgeoisie. but his critiques found a good deal of popular SUPport. Njego:. Djilas chided the SKJ for backsliding: The final aim of a true communist is not. and his early Montenegrinism was revived and placed f a new Yugoslavism. and Miljanov. etc. the rights of citizens. harmony o words and deeds (respectfully obeying the proper laws). concluding that the Marxist utopia was a myth. and formulating concrete means of fighting for democracy. When power and industry are in socialist hands. Djilas’s nationalism changed again. are more important for democratic progress than anything else. even if the struggles against the bourgeois vestiges then take longer. in which he pleaded for ideological toleration that f diverwould allow for the development o sity of opinion free from threats of persecution. some kind o f abstract party as such. 1954. but also to the disappearance of both capitalism and state capitalism. destruction of still-tender forms of democracy. all deform. elevating the people’s socialist consciousness. His fight and subsequent disenchantment with Marxism never really constituted the basis for a movement. Djilas summarized his feelings during this crucial period: 1 look back on that period. pervert. discussing the Stalinist terror. it is. in the perspective o While Djilas was completing several major literary works dealing with Montenegro. catering exclusively to communists.willful. could do little else. given his personality and background. but continued his criticism for he was committed to an ideal and.20 When. in the early 1950s. Later. Djilas lost his political power and later was imprisoned by his former comrades-in-arms from 1956 to 1961. and in the world. l9 In January 1954 he was stripped of all state and party posts. He concluded that a free intellectual climate was essential to assure future democratic pr0gre~s.l6 Two months later he wrote another article. love of truth. Djilas felt an obligation to those who had sacrificed themselves in the Yugoslav Revolution to strive toward Modern Age what he conceived to be its ideal realization. and in March. then unselfishness. . In the communist community the book was greeted with condemnation and scorn and was banned as the work of a traitor. intellect. But in the West generally it was acclaimed as a revealing and pioneering critical analysis of the 237 . he resigned from the SKJ.l~ On January 4. educating the masses for democracy. some of which affected his situation directly. they not only lead to the disappearance of a class which ultimately was able to be only a slave and a traitor. These are the forms which motivate socialism and democracy. in Yugoslavia.21 the first real crystallizations of his new political outlook emerged in The New Class and The Unperfect Society.

l e .”22He argued that for communists to bring about successful revolutions. 238 Since the Sino-Soviet split in 1957. Djilas also published Conoersations With Stalin (1962). partly in response to Soviet-Russian imperialism.communist system by a courageous former “insider.” Although Djilas had chosen the Soviet Union as his principal model. national communism in Eastern Europe. even a Communist one. and to maintain their power. international communism must be adapted by them to national conditions. and Eurocommunism in the West have helped to substantiate Djilas’s original observations. and vice versa.~~ The New Class reflected Djilas’s disillusionment with the reality of contemporary communism in all its national forms. when other national communist regimes began developing. finally convinced Djilas of the Summer 1985 . Stalinist) societies. 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. The new ruling classes in other communist states also came to reflect their national intere~ts. . arise in any manner in all nations. to establish their oligarchical authority. a past. Thus Marxism-Leninism-Stalinism was viewed correctly as Russian national communism. . which was a memoir of his wartime and postwar encounters with the Soviet dictator. Therefore. was ostracized from the Stalinist camp in 1948 in order to bring about its downfall.g.. among Soviet satellites like Poland. Hungary. containing both a resounding denunciation of Stalinism and the germs of ideas developed more fully in The Unperfect Society and other writings. and a national character. Consequently Djilas said that the concept o f national communism had no real meaning until after World War 11. is based on realities and cannot help but be national: even the Communists. because of its particularly strong national communism.. In the final sections o f The New Class Djilas advanced the concept of national communism and emphasized its direct relationship to the rise o f the new class. which. The political realities of communism in the post-World War II years (e. in addition to several important literary works. independent communist states like Romania and Albania in Europe and Vietnam and North Korea in Asia. et cetera. . in today’s world. I speak of those that go well with Communism. it was clear that his critique was directed at all communist ( l e . the strongest and most industrious in the propagation of Cornmuni~m. but his break with Marxjsm was not clearly enunciated until the publication of The Unperfect Society in 1969. 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 o f national communismstill prove to be of value today. One could thus conclude that the SovietRussian Communists are more nationalistic than are the other Communists-this for the simple reason that they are still “No. whether it likes it or not. . various forms of the same manifestation. In between. it is possible to speak of Communist systems. as well as in his own life. but it is realized in different degrees and manners in every country. He began by explaining that “communism is only one thing.‘~ Clearly to Djilas the most striking example was his own Yugoslavia. national Communism is Communism in de~line. especially that. and which. “in reality. Czechoslovakia. But he also recognized the growing independence of the Chinese and East European leaderships. a language. Let us simplify: the longer a Communist power lasts. the more it has national characteristics. 1” today: that is. the Soviet invasions of Hungary in 1956 and Czechoslovakia in 1968). despite their pretension. Naturally. including his own.”~4 In a recent article he provides a summary explanation: A ruling power. as well as certain Western communist parties like those of France and Italy. cannot “construct” a culture.

dissolution. and acceptable to all men. This apprehension is shared somewhat by several of Djilas’s fellow dissidents. but it was disintegrating into national forms which became more conservative and. For the long run native types of social democracy seemed to him to be the best compromise. especially since the death of Tito and the appearance of Djilas’s highly critical new book about him. The principal issue is pluralism. of the old by the new. In turn. f the nineteenthcentury reminiscent o Balkans. if Yugoslavia does not seek a democratic alternati~e. unlike the international variety.” Communism had reached its peak under Stalin. and he wants to live in peaceful coexistence with all of them. Switzerland. Djilas believes that greater pluralism. Consequently. Finland. Djilas is strongly antiSoviet and views Yugoslavia as a Western country. American. 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. including multinationalism. f and totalitarianism. must be officially tolerated and encouraged to allow for Yugoslavia’s peaceful transition from communism to democratic socialism. confirms that no system ever can be good for.”29 The Yugoslav leadership fears that too much freedom too soon will lead to anarchy and the disintegration o f Yugoslavia into a number of bickering national states. This. especially with nonaligned neutrals-Austria. even after Tito. which to him ultimately means “greater security for the individual. a fairer sharing.. Within the realities of contemporary Yugoslavia this means greater selfmanagement and sustained federalism. Tito: The Story From Inside. To Djilas the Soviet threat in the Balkans and elsewhere in the world is very real. Yugoslavia will be easy prey for the stronger powers around it.Djilas has come under severe attack in the Yugoslav press for being “unpatriotic” and for attempting to foment an anti-Yugoslav conspiracy.~’ In foreign affairs this also means true nonalignment. Djilas’s new Yugoslavism remains in conflict with Titoism. He consistently champions human rights and the right to national independence of all peoples.g. leading to greater “contradictions” between it and the six Yugoslav republics. on numerous occasions Djilas has voiced the 239 . communism and capitalism were now corrupted by each other and their local environments. were capable o f “coexistence” and “dbtente. indicative that “Marx’s ideas were unrealizable. not the destruction. needing increased Western support. Bulgaria). Inherent in this vision is complete pluralism f breaking up the ideological stagnation o communism and giving rise to a society based on criteria stressing the transcendence. is advocated for Yugoslavia to survive and advance as envisioned by DjilasZ8 Recently. Sweden. perhaps. He wants Yugoslavia vigorously to oppose totalitarianism and imperialismSoviet. particularly among the Praxis But at least since 1948 Djilas’s own Yugoslavism has been both stimulated and tempered by strong anti-Sovietism. and Romania-and with the Eurocommunists. better organized production.theoretical impossibility of Marxism: “Every human community is a community of diverse aspirations. In Djilas’s alternative society human rights and freedom would be guaranteed. would not be tolerated. and-seen as a whole-a more rational society. especially the Soviet Union and its Warsaw Pact allies (e. In the post-Tito era closer cooperation with the West. He sees the Soviet Union outmaneuvering Yugoslavia internationally and eroding its post-1948 nonalignment.” Djilas stated that although a valuable “rational core” o f Marx’s ideas-the classless society and the economic dependence of man-remained. He fears growing republican autonomy and.”26Marxism as a global ideology in the form of communism was crumbling. or Chinese-as well as Modern Age violence and terrorism at home and abroad. especially that o bureaucratic absolutism and/or a cult o f personality.

at least at the outset. 1979. foreign or domestic. along with prominent Croat and Slovene nationalists and other dissenters. Djilas responded by denying that any common program for action had been decided upon. has to be modest and cautious. I am a free personality.The ~ ~ present harassment of Djilas continues in the same vein. 1 even believe that I have remained a revolutionary.” When Djilas remarked that King Alexander Karajordjevit had thought the same. socialist Yugoslavia. because suddenness would cause chaos and conflict and make Soviet intervention easier.33 Djilas is aware that these are crucial 240 Summer 1985 . “Ah.”31On March 22. is abuses o a democratic.” This to a “Dubcek-type o indeed would be a historical miracle. at the funeral of a fellow communist leader and architect of self-management. The storms are already raging: Yugoslavia can survive only if it introduces democracy and attaches itself to countries that effectively oppose the new c~nqueror. 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. Boris Kidrit. In response to it he has said: times for his country and that his position continues to be precarious.~~ While Djilas may see this to be as yet too optimistic a speculation.” a positive “destabilization. rivaling in significance the French Rev~lution. This is the reason why democratization. criticizing what I consider worth criticizing. He and other dissidents have been cautious in their demands of the post-Tito leadership.” Tito and other high-ranking officials seemed concerned that the various dissenting groups might be coming together in some sort of united front.~~ I am neither a Communist nor an anticommunist. There is no democracy for everyone. Its responses generally have been guarded and in character. and the post-Tito power struggle in the League of Yugoslav Communists with a liberal faction seeking the support o f some of the dissidents could trigger a transition f democracy. provoked by a series of contacts over a two-year period initiated by Djilas and fellow dissident and close friend Mihajlo Mihajlov. In Tito: The Story From h i d e Djilas relates that. in 1953.” 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. In an undemocratic system it is most revolutionary to be for freedom. but there was no socialism then. Some dissenters and government officials are projecting a “dissident D-Day. “Democratizations” that meant the maintenance of the monopoly of Communist forms ended with purges and repressions. although I am today against revolutionary methods in Yugoslavia. Djilas was summoned to police headquarters in Belgrade for the first time since 1972 and given a “last warning” to curtail his “hostile activities. But he also stated that the contacts would continue to seek out areas o f potential c o o p e r a t i ~ n .opinion that the best defense against the f Stalinism. Tito responded. Tito said in a conversation that he thought the “nationalities of Yugoslavia would ultimately merge into one true nation.

“Wohin steuert der Eurokommunisms?“ [Where is Eurocommunism leading?]. Land Without Justice (New York. 33“Djilas Views National Developments after Tito’s Death. 162-65. . I2FitzroyMaclean. 213. “Montenegro ist mein Kerker. pp. 36Djilas. Land Without Justice. 144. p. Vbid. as are several short stories. 134. p. 1973). 1964). Legenda o NjegoSu [The legend of Njegoq (Belgrade. Prince. and NjegoS: 22Djilas. for access to which I am thankful to Djilas and his publisher. 1982. 1977. p. 25Djilas.“Is the Soviet Union a Socialist Country?” Cornmenfaire (Spring 1980). Tito: The Story From Inside (New York.. p. NjegoS: Poet. ‘9George W. pp.. Bishop (New York. 190.” The New Leader. 187-89. “Eastern Sky. p. 31Djilas. p. pp. Calif. 6 7 . pp. p. 27Djilas. Yugoslavia.“For All?” in Anatomy of a Moral. I5These writings have been collected. 57 (passage translated from the German by Dennis Reinhartz). 1975). 349-53.pp. 301nterviews with Milovan Djilas (June 5. pp.Tito: The Story From Inside.“Yugoslavia after Tito. 1980). which helped to bring about the those o creation of Yugoslavia at the close of World War I. 8Djilas. pp. or the self-assertion of the individual. p. p. 1979. 357. An attempt at a biography] (Munich. 1958). 94-96.The Unperfect Society: Beyond rhe New Class (New York. p. “Prospects for the Post-Tito Era. Montenegro. 1980. 321-22 and 353. 178. 1980. 2068. 181. pp. 6For a good new study of the unification.. and republished in the United States in Djilas. The New Class: An Analysis of the Communist System (New York. Land Without Justice. translated. see: Dimitrije Djordjevic. 1979. 69. Inc. in the United States. 26Djilas.. July 7. 11. Memoir of a Revolutionary (New York. 189-90. June 6.” New York Times. 56. 3Djilas.” was reprinted in Parts of a Lifetime. 92. Much of the first volume of his memiors. Hoffman and Fred Warner Neal. my freedom] Merian. Milovan Djilas: oder die Selbstbehaup tung des Menschen. is devoted to them. p. April 23. “Objective Forces. ’In his literary works Djilas has several times captured the mood of these tumultuous years. June 20.p. 99.. %terview with Milovan Djilas in Belgrade. meine Freiheit” [Montenegro is my prison. “Impressions of America. p.” in Parts of a Lifetime (New York. ed. 1962). January 24. 277. Playboy Deutschland (June 1977).” in ibid..” The New Leader.“Concretely. 198. “Perversion of the People’s Power. 1959). June 5. 1979).” Der Spiegel.“Dissolution. pp. 135. 34Mihajlo Mihajlov. 16Djilas. p. 13. 49-50. The Heretic: The Life and Times of Josip Eroz Tito (New York.. 1980. 6-7. 2Milovan Djilas. The one omission. 21SeeDjilas. I8Djilas. ‘Olbid. 241bid. 1962). Yugoslavia and the New Communism (New York. 1979) and Praxis philosopher Svetozar StojanoviC (June 25.Montenegro (New York. The Creation of Yugoslavia 1914-1918 (Santa Barbara. V b i d . June 5. 1980). zgDjilas. gDjilas. IIDjilas. p. p.” New York Times. Sveti iM o s t i (written during his 1962-66 imprisonment). 31-32..” in ibid. 1957). This period also is the basis for an as yet unpublished major novel. 4-5. Land Without Justice. 1966). pp. 1952). 4Djilas. see also Djilas.. I3Djilas. Anatomy of a Moral: The Political Essays of Milovan Djilas (New York.Memoir of a Revolutionary. p. 14Djilas. and Gunther Bartsch. Versuch einer Biographie [Milovan Djilas. pp. 12 and 109-259. ZoDjilas. Sveti i Mosti [Worlds and bridges]. 1971). February 1 1 . 1969). 1957). Harcourt Brace Jovanovich. and “Fear and Hope in Yugoslavia. I7Djilas.” in ibid.” New America (January 1980). “League or Party. 3Zlnterview with Djilas. 35Mihajlo Mihajlov. The Leper and Other Stories (New York. Modern Age 241 . Revolution and Moscow’s Intentions.’“New Yugoslavism” is used here to distinguish Djilas’s current ideas on Yugoslav nationalism from f others. pp. 1979.

Sign up to vote on this title
UsefulNot useful