The New Class: An Analysis Of The Communist System

by Milovan Djilas

This classic by an associate of Yugoslavia's Tito created a sensation when it was published in 1957 because it was the first time that a ranking Communist had publicly analyzed his disillusionment with the system.

Genres: Politics, History, Nonfiction, Philosophy, Economics, Sociology, Law

228 pages, Paperback

First published January 1, 1957

About the author

Milovan Đilas was a prolific political writer and former Yugoslav communist official remembered for his disillusionment with communism. Much of his work has been translated into English from Serbian. He was, above all, a literary artist. In several of his books, Djilas proclaimed himself a writer by vocation, and a politician only under the pressure of events.

Reviews

[Helen · Rating 4 out of 5]

This is a critique of Communism - circa 1957 - but still quite interesting more than 60 years later. Many of the author's comments about how communism would end, are prescient in retrospect. The author was a high-level Yugoslav official in the communist government of Marshall Tito who eventually became disillusioned with the system and became a Social Democrat. He came to view entrenched Communism as little better than one autocrat system substituting for another (such as, in Russia, the Communist leadership substituting for the Czar) since the power of communists was absolute just as in an absolute monarchy. The one-party state meant that parliaments were little more than window-dressing, and the fact that the state owned everything including all factories, meant that strikes were essentially meaningless. The workers paradoxically lost power in the workers' state they created. The most striking thesis is how the idealism of revolutionary Communism invariably ends up delivering the opposite of liberation, because of the unwillingness or inability of the Communist state to change and share some of its vast centralized power with the citizenry. He does say however that the revolutions in E. Europe and Asia were responses to the slow pace of industrialization in those areas - and that perhaps (disorganized/haphazard) capitalism could not have delivered industrialization in E. Europe/Asia as quickly as a planned economy, especially since capitalism, centralized in the West, might not want to promote "competition" in areas outside the West. He says that the price of rapid industrialization under Communism was enormous inefficiency and waste - briefly citing the environmental damage that the communists usually ignored. There is thus the arc of the romantic idealism of revolution - the direct "descendant" of the French Revolution, which promises a class-less society and equality, but after a few short years, that idealism is quenched by grim reality: The communist leadership has become "the new class" as Djilas calls it, which doesn't want to relinquish power and usher in the withering away of the state, or at least share power with the masses. Rather, the leadership becomes a powerful "new class" of bureaucrats that protects its own privileges and perks. The new Communist elite replaces the old bourgeois elite - and inequality in this system may be even worse than under Capitalism as the bureaucrats own everything and thus may be said to own unlimited power over the entire population. Djilas predicted that the system would fall, but when he wrote this book, could not have imagined the way Communism would finally fall in E. Europe - triggered by trade unionists in Poland at first, but hastened by Gorbachev, a communist reformer who managed to reform his own country (USSR) out of existence.

The quotes:

From the Preface:

"The ideas of equality and brotherhood among men, which have existed in varying forms since human society began -- and which contemporary Communism accepts in word--are principles to which fighters for progress and freedom will always aspire."

From Chapter 1 - Origins

"...once in power, Communism tends to remodel the rest of the world according to its own ideas and tends less and less to change itself." "Being a product of his time, Marx denied the need for any kind of philosophy. His closest friend, Engels, declared that philosophy had died with the development of science." "Marx's ideas were influenced by the scientific atmosphere of his time, by his own leanings toward science, and by his revolutionary aspiration to give to the working-class movement a more or less scientific basis." "In countries such as Germany, where the degree of political and economic progress made revolution unnecessary, the democratic and reformist aspects of Marxist teaching, rather than the revolutionary ones, dominated. The anti-dogmatic ideological and political tendencies generated an emphasis on reform by the working-class movement." "The countries which were not yet industrialized, particularly Russia, were in an entirely different situation. They found themselves in a dilemma: they had either to become industrialized, or to discontinue active participation on the stage of history, turning into captives of the developed countries and their monopolies, thus doomed to degeneracy." "Revolutionary Marxism was transplanted during the period of monopolistic capitalism from the industrially developed West to countries of the industrially undeveloped East, such as Russia and China. This is about the time when socialist movements were developing int eh East and West. This stage of the socialist movement began with its unification and centralization in the Second International, and ended with a division into the Social Democratic (reform) wing and the Communist (revolutionary) wing, leading to the revolution in Russia and the formation of the Third International."

From Chapter 2 - Character of the Revolution

"Backward, semi-feudal, with absolutist monarchy and a bureaucratic centralism, with a rapid increase of the proletariat in several centers, Russia found herself in the whirlpool of modern world capitalism, and in the snares of the financial interests of the gigantic banking centers." "...foreign capitalists used their power to check progress in these countries, to develop them exclusively as their own sources of raw materials and cheap labor, with the result that these nations became un-progressive and even began to decline." "..the Mensheviks...took the point of view that it was necessary to have fully developed capitalism in order to arrive at socialism later." "In a serious collapse of a system, and particularly in a war which has been unsuccessful for the existing ruling circles and state system, a small but well-organized and disciplined group is inevitably able to take authority in its hands." "The achievement of every revolution, as well as of every victory in war, demands centralization of all forces." "Napoleon's dictatorship, which emerged from the revolution, signified both the end of the Jacobin revolution and the beginning of the rule of the bourgeoisie." "In the Baltic countries, thousands of people were liquidated overnight on the basis of documents indicating previously held ideological and political views." "The masses of a nation also participated in a Communist revolution; however, the fruits of revolution do not fall to them, but to the bureaucracy. For the bureaucracy is nothing else but the party which carried out the revolution." "The Communist revolution while still in process of development, destroys capitalist, land-holding, private ownership, i.e., that ownership which makes use of foreign labor forces." "Nationalization of industrial property and the land is the first concentration of property in the hands of the new regime." "This is experienced by the Communists and by some members of the masses as a complete liquidation of classes and the realization of a classless society." "Every revolution, and even every war, creates illusions and is conducted in the name of un-realizable ideals." "Revolutions are inevitable it eh lifetime of nations. They may result in despotism, but hey also launch nations on paths previously blocked to them." "The Communist revolution, in the course of its later industrial duration and transformation, converts the revolutionaries themselves into creators and masters of a new social state." "But the need that made the revolution inevitable--industrial transformation on the basis of modern technology--is fulfilled." "In reality, the Communists were unable to act differently from any ruling class that preceded them."

From Chapter 3 - The New Class

"Everything happened differently in the U.S.S.R. and other Communist countries from what the leaders--even such prominent ones as Lenin, Stalin, Trotsky, and Bukharin--anticipated. They expected that the state would rapidly wither away, that democracy would be strengthened. The reverse happened. They expected a rapid improvement in the standard of living--there has been scarcely any change in this respect and, in the subjugated East European countries, the standard has even declined. In every instances, the standard of living has failed to rise in proportion to the rate of industrialization, which was much more rapid. It was believed that the differences between cities nd villages, between intellectual and physical labor, would slowly disappear; instead these differences have increased." "The once live, compact party, full of initiative, is disappearing to become transformed into the traditional oligarchy of the new class, irresistibly drawing into its ranks those who aspire to join the new class and repressing those who have any ideals." "Russia was no longer able to live in the modern world as an absolute monarchy, and Russia's capitalism was too weak and too dependent on the interests of foreign powers to make it possible to have an industrial revolution." "On the other hand, the working class sees in expanded industry the salvation from its poverty and despair." "Discrepancies between the pay of workers and party functionaries are extreme..." "...in Communism, power or politics as a profession is the ideal of those who have the desire or the prospect of living as parasites at the expense of others." "Marx died a poor emigrant in London, but was valued by learned men and valued in the movement; Lenin died as the leader of one of the greatest revolutions, but died as a dictator about whom a cult had already begun to form; when Stalin died, he had already transformed himself into a god." "The Soviet Thermidor of Stalin had not only led to the installation of a government more despotic than the previous one, but also to the installation of a class." "Lenin's revolutionary Communism was replaced by Stalin's dogmatic communism, which in turn was replaced by non-dogmatic Communism, a so-called collective leadership or a group of oligarchs." "The class profited from the new property it had acquired even though the nation lost thereby." "More than anything else, the essential aspect of contemporary Communism is the new class of owners and exploiters." "If the so-called liberalization and decentralization meant anything else, that would be manifest in the political right of at least part of the people to exercise some influence in the management of material goods. At least, the people would have the right to criticize the arbitrariness of the oligarchy. This would lead to the creation of a new political movement, even though it were only a loyal opposition. However, this is not even mentioned, just as democracy in the party is not mentioned. Liberalization and decentralization are in force only for Communists; first for the oligarchy, the leaders of the new class; and second, for those in the lower echelons." "Under such conditions, demands to return to the old pre-revolutionary relations seem unrealistic, if not ridiculous. Material and social bases no longer exist for the maintenance of such relations." "Wherever there has been a higher degree of freedom for society as a whole, the ruling classes have been forced, in one way or another, to renounce monopoly of ownership. The revere is true also: wherever monopoly of ownership has been impossible, freedom, to some degree, has become inevitable." "The new class cannot avoid falling continuously into profound internal contradictions; for in spite of its historical origin it is not able to make its ownership lawful, and it cannot renounce ownership without undermining itself."

[J.S. Nelson · Rating 3 out of 5]

Terrifying how much this currently resembles America

[Audun Forgard · Rating 5 out of 5]

This is an absolutely scathing attack on totalitarian communism written by one of yugoslavian dictator Tito`s close aidès, he know whereof he speaks. If I remember correctly the author was quickly donated to prison after this book, but he writes very authoritavely, and explores the many facets of socialism that can wreck havoc on a nation. I read it in norwegian, but will try to translate a choic equote here "When the New Clss leaves the world scene - and it will hapen someday - there will be less mourning over its dissaperance than there ever has been than any previous class before it. By oppressing and choke everything that doesnt fit its ego it has sentenced it self to defeat, and utter oblivion" .
Although for some strange reason Milovan never abonded his socialist ideals, I will say that you will probably will not find a more erudite an in-depth criticism of the legacy of Marx than what is in these pages here.

[Yüksəl Babayev · Rating 1 out of 5]

The first time I see it I thought I'd see a bureaucracy criticism rooting and ascending to power in the worker state that stemming from cultural and economic backwardness of the society just like that of in Trotsky’s The Revolution Betrayed. However, I didn't expect a masterpiece as The Revolution Betrayed. My expectation came out as the opposite, a classical phrase-mongering of ”communism always leads to totalitarianism bruh”. The difference between classic trained anti-communists and Djilas is that Djilas is a former communist who pretends as an authority on the issue who cannot be wrong. Thus, is seen as a reliable person (or as a source maybe), however, the thing is that the book even as anti-communist rubbish is pretty bad and boring, even the most hardline anti-communist would be bored on the half of reading. The author tries to prove that degeneracy of the revolution is stemming from Marx itself and it's inevitable, however, no matter how I tried to read it from an objective perspective, I couldn't be convinced. The author also tries to portray capitalism as a new and different thing apart from that of the 19th century and early 20th century and points out that the new capitalism is developing towards the uniting the world and communism hinders it. Unfortunately, Djilas came out as wrong as we see populist, anti-globalist leaders and parties are emerging and want to isolate their countries from ”invader” immigrants and old allies that want nothing but a slice from cake of their countries. So, basically sums up it's classic but a bit different capitalism and status quo advocacy from a former communist perspective which denounce ”evil” communism.

[Alan Fogelquist · Rating 5 out of 5]

A classic analysis of false promises and the degeneration of a Communist or Leninist revolution into a new class society with new forms of domination, exploitation and inequality. A cogent critique from the inside.

[Parnia Alborzi · Rating 5 out of 5]

A deep analysis on what life under a communist regime is like, from the arts, science, society, and of course politics. Really interesting to note that this book was sent to the publisher right before the author was taken to jail, and when the book came out, his sentence was increased. He also gives his analysis of western democracy. Throughout the book I thought how much communism post WW2 resembled capitalism in North America, except you simply replace an individual person with a handful of corporations that control the governments like puppets, the corporations would be the “new class” in today’s political climate. A must read.

[sologdin · Rating 2 out of 5]

i like djilas quite a bit. his presentation of a 'new class' is a bit overreaching, i think, though as a critique of the distortions & inegalitarianisms in the yugoslav system, it is worthy of one's attention.

[Constantin Vasilescu · Rating 3 out of 5]

Scurtă şi cuprinzătoare sinteză despre paradoxurile comunismului, scrisă de un comunist "pocăit". Despre un regim fără clase, care a generat cea mai puternică clasă. Tranziţia ne/dialectică Marx-Lenin-Stalin-Hrusciov sau idealism-revoluţie-dogmă-birocraţie.

[Tomislav · Rating 3 out of 5]

An overview of the socialist system written by a Yugoslav politician who witnessed firsthand some of its main weaknesses. It includes sociological study of the socialist ruling class, an analysis of political and economic system, and the characteristics of intellectual and cultural life under socialism. Soviet Union is mostly used as an example, other countries like Yugoslavia are occasionally mentioned.

Đilas explains socialist movements in the undeveloped countries as driven primarily by desire for rapid industrialization. Many believed that they were stuck in a semi-feudal system, unable to set in motion capitalist growth and catch up with the West. Socialist promise of scientific, developmental dictatorship seem like the way to go. However, development proved mostly underwhelming; although the economy grew, rise in living standards did not follow proportionally and in agriculture modernization even reduced the yield. After the revolution society came to be dominated by ideologically disinterested bureaucratic class. This new class was somewhat unusual because it had collective ownership over the national economy, but behaved in many ways identically as other privileged classes in history.

His views on socialist economy – which he dubs as the most wasteful in human history – seem quite prescient considering the general attitude towards planning and the praise for Soviet development at the time. Đilas identifies problems such as poor worker motivation, widespread corruption and theft, low quality of products, slow technological innovation and adaptation, chaotic decision-making among planners, inability to coordinate autarkic planning and international trade. He also laments the narrow-minded materialism which became the dominant trend in socialist societies, limiting their cultural life and scientific development. He traces such attitude not just to Lenin, who had very limited knowledge of philosophy, but also to Marx and Engels who were disdainful of contemporary thinkers and intolerant of any opposition inside their own movement. There are some standards criticisms of totalitarianism, dysfunctionality one-party system and analogies with religious fanaticism. Last part of the book is the assessment of postwar political situation in the world and speculation about possible future direction.

The book is a collection of Đilas’ observations about numerous shortcomings of socialism, rather than an attempt to present some grand theory. He rarely quotes authors other than Marx and Lenin, although some of his ideas seem similar to the writings of Italian school of elitism. He uses a lot of his own observations, which are quite sharp and there are some very well-written descriptions. Similar ideas were already explored by early Western critics and were later expanded by other authors. If you have read other studies about the failures of socialism you will probably not find much new material in this book. However, it is an interesting historical document, and a short, very readable book.

[Hong Zhang · Rating 4 out of 5]

This is an excellent book on communist history with a unique incisive analysis from a disillusioned communist movement insider. It is particularly useful for those who have never lived under a communist regime.
It is important to note that the communist movement morphed significantly during its course and it also varies significantly from country to country. However, they all share some characteristics one of which is the new ruling class as described in this book – The New Class.
Though the book was published in 1983 and the leading communist country – the USSR – is gone, it still has relevance. Many of the points are still applicable to countries such as Cuba, the DPRK, the PRC, Vietnam. However, the PRC has quite some deviations. The CCP is more of a mafia-like organization than a political organization. It claims to be communist, but it is almost anti-communism in some sense. It created the largest disparity on earth and its top echelon essentially consists of de-factor super-wealthy capitalists who own shares of corporations.
Though the book has a painstaking analysis of communist movements, I feel it misses or fails to state clearly a general summary of communism. No matter how communist movements morph, one characteristic never changes – anti-freedom. It survives on depriving people of freedom. Wherever a communist organization (e.g., the CPSU) or so-called communist organization (e.g., the CCP) rules, there is no free speech and the land under their rule is an animal farm.

[Uros · Rating 4 out of 5]

Read a third of the book before I felt like I got the main jist of it. In communist societies, Djilas argues, the planners and party officials become a new kind of bourgeois class replacing the aristocracy, clergy, etc. They act in their own interests and don't run the country as democratically as they claim to giving themselves higher salaries. I think the figure he cited was an average bureaucrat earning 10-12 times more than a worker. I think this section sounds slightly naive as it turns out from other books I read that average managers in the US and UK were earning far more than this. The book was published in 1957 and I have not read any later works of his, but the neoliberal policies in the US and UK in the 80s also created a new class of oligarchs who make their wealth through running captive markets like the railways, the grid. Had Djilas lived to see the rigging of the house market resulting in the 2008 financial crisis, and the new class of tech billionaires in the west like Bezos, Zuckerberg, Dorcey who earn 1,000,000 times more than the average worker, I think he wouldn't be so harsh on the 10-12 times manager:worker salary ratio, even though it's still quite high.

[Boris Cesnik · Rating 4 out of 5]

Simplicity is the key. Sometimes even the most complicated events in history can be explained and unraveled with fluid sentences, plain words, unassuming statements to reach simple conclusions.

This is not the place to start with if you wish to learn every single fact in history about Communism, nor is this the book that gives you detailed narration of the how, when, why, where of the doctrine and ultimately the politics.

This is the clear and clean water that activates the windmills of the reader's mind and flows straight into your consciousness - opens up your eyes and allows you to see and read particular elements in history as a codebreaker. Ease your mind and the rest will follow.

[Marko Babić · Rating 5 out of 5]

Probably one of the finest critical accounts of Communism that I have come across. What makes this work even more extraordinary is the fact that it was first published in 1957 and that Đilas was sentenced to prison because it was published.

[Niklas · Rating 4 out of 5]

Concise and to the point, although the structure could have been clearer in many instances. Otherwise a great work that discusses the limits and risks of communism in practice, with a surprising amount of parallels to the present day, especially towards the end.

[Oscar · Rating 5 out of 5]

站在那个年代来看，也是非常深刻的分析。在stalin看来tito已经足够反叛了，然而Djilas这位tito的战友比tito还要反叛。看起来东欧的体制由于是impose上去的而不是自我选择的，领导人中知识分子的比重也很大，在控制力上并不强，所以从六十年代到八十年代一直存在离心力。

[lcjfrc · Rating 5 out of 5]

Uvijek sam mislila da sam od svih komunista Ivo Lola Ribar, ali sada vidim da sam pomalo i Milovan Đilas...

[noblethumos · Rating 5 out of 5]

"The New Class" is a non-fiction book written by Yugoslav communist politician and writer Milovan Đilas, first published in 1957. The book is an analysis of the political and social dynamics of Soviet-style socialism and the emergence of a new ruling class within communist societies.

Đilas argues that the communist party elites had become a new ruling class, distinct from the working class they claimed to represent, and that they had established a system of political and economic control that benefited themselves at the expense of the broader population. He criticizes the authoritarian and bureaucratic nature of Soviet-style socialism, and offers a vision for a more democratic and participatory form of socialism.

"The New Class" was highly controversial when it was first published, and Đilas was subsequently expelled from the Yugoslav Communist Party and imprisoned for his views. The book remains a classic work of Marxist theory, and has had a significant influence on subsequent debates about the nature of communism and the relationship between ruling elites and the broader population.

GPT

[Mawr · Rating 3 out of 5]

Though I consider Djilas's criticisms of the Soviet Union to be excessive, and biased by two factors (his American publisher presumably wanting as negative an assessment of communism as possible; and his own personal bitterness resulting from having been put in Soviet prisons), this book is a good account of the state capitalism that was the USSR of the time, from a man who knew the inner workings of the communist system intimately.

Also, his optimism, from back in 1957, for the progress of modern liberal democracy (i.e., as moving towards social democracy), I consider largely discredited, given the rise of neoliberalism that he didn't live long enough to see in full force today. But apart from these imperfections, the book is a good read.

[Bill V · Rating 3 out of 5]

This book is a bit too dry and esoteric for my taste. I tend to struggle with philosophical and political tracts and this one is no exception. It did help clarify some questions I had about communism versus other political/economic systems, i.e. democracy and capitalism. Given that the book was originally written in 1957, it was interesting to see how some points the author made turned out to be wrong, others rights and some have yet to be determined.

[ehk2 · Rating 2 out of 5]

it is certainly a renegade, anti-communist, anti-Marxist account of socialism experimentations (and class analysis) in Eastern Europe (became a best-seller anti-communist propaganda in Cold War era). However, there are some germs of useful insights, observations about the characteristics of these 'real socialisms'; i.e. the role of bureaucracy.

[Joredos · Rating 5 out of 5]

Great analysis from internal "betrayer" . The new class is disease of the power. The burecrates create this class with the monopol power they have are the new class - all other people are lower class their new slaves.

[Ike · Rating 5 out of 5]

It was a phase.

[Kenneth · Rating 5 out of 5]

A former Yugoslav, a once close associate of Marshal Tito, analyzes the Communist system as he sees it in operation, and is disillusioned.

[Michal Mazel · Rating 4 out of 5]

Diktatura tesilu, sekty sekretářů. Přečíst Leninovu Dětskou nemoc levičáctví. Marx prý říkal že není marxista.

[Leonardo]

La situación de Hungría era en efecto única, con Kádár tentando cínicamente a sus conciudadanos húngaros, privados de viajar, con el acceso al próspero Occidente como una especie de recompensa por buena conducta —un reconocimiento tácito del propio fracaso del comunismo—. El país estaba entonces dirigido por y para la «nueva clase», como el disidente yugoslavo Milovan Djilas la denominó en un influyente libro de 1957: una educada tecnocracia de burócratas y profesionales, pragmáticamente concentrados en barrer hacia adentro y asegurarse su propia supervivencia. La auténtica liberación era impensable, pero una vuelta a la represión parecía altamente improbable.

Posguerra Pág.550