Đilas’s core argument is deceptively simple. The revolution, he claims, was not led by the proletariat but by a small, disciplined core of intellectuals and professional revolutionaries (the Party). Once they seized power, they did not “wither away” as Marx predicted. Instead, they expropriated the means of production not to the people, but to the state—which they control absolutely.
Consequently, the book has almost nothing to say about a market economy or liberal democracy as alternatives. Đilas’s solution is vague: a return to a “democratic,” “self-governing” socialism (he admired the early workers’ councils). He cannot see—or refuses to see—that the centralization he criticizes might be a feature, not a bug, of state-controlled economies. He still believes in socialism without the party.
Few books have landed with the geopolitical force of Milovan Đilas’s The New Class . Written from a prison cell by a man who was once the vice president of Yugoslavia and a devoted Stalinist, the book is an autopsy of the communist revolution performed by one of its most trusted surgeons. It is not merely a polemic; it is a political and sociological treatise that argues a radical and uncomfortable thesis: the communist revolution did not create a classless society. Instead, it created a new, brutal ruling class—the party bureaucracy.
Published: 1957 (written after Đilas’s break with Tito and subsequent imprisonment) Original language: Serbo-Croatian ( Novi razred )
★★★★☆ (Essential for understanding the Cold War and the nature of bureaucratic power; limited as a blueprint for any alternative.)
Furthermore, the book’s scope is limited. It is a brilliant anatomy of Stalinism and its Yugoslav variant, but it struggles to explain communist systems that adapted (like China’s market reforms) or collapsed (like the USSR). It predicts stagnation, which was largely correct for the USSR, but cannot account for the rapid industrialization of East Asia under similar party structures.
This “New Class” is defined not by ownership of capital in the traditional sense, but by . They control access to resources, jobs, housing, and information. Their privilege is not a salary but nomenklatura —the right to occupy key positions. Đilas argues that this class is more ruthless than the old bourgeoisie because it masks its self-interest behind the sacred rhetoric of “social ownership” and “the common good.”
Đilas’s core argument is deceptively simple. The revolution, he claims, was not led by the proletariat but by a small, disciplined core of intellectuals and professional revolutionaries (the Party). Once they seized power, they did not “wither away” as Marx predicted. Instead, they expropriated the means of production not to the people, but to the state—which they control absolutely.
Consequently, the book has almost nothing to say about a market economy or liberal democracy as alternatives. Đilas’s solution is vague: a return to a “democratic,” “self-governing” socialism (he admired the early workers’ councils). He cannot see—or refuses to see—that the centralization he criticizes might be a feature, not a bug, of state-controlled economies. He still believes in socialism without the party. milovan dilas novi razred
Few books have landed with the geopolitical force of Milovan Đilas’s The New Class . Written from a prison cell by a man who was once the vice president of Yugoslavia and a devoted Stalinist, the book is an autopsy of the communist revolution performed by one of its most trusted surgeons. It is not merely a polemic; it is a political and sociological treatise that argues a radical and uncomfortable thesis: the communist revolution did not create a classless society. Instead, it created a new, brutal ruling class—the party bureaucracy. Đilas’s core argument is deceptively simple
Published: 1957 (written after Đilas’s break with Tito and subsequent imprisonment) Original language: Serbo-Croatian ( Novi razred ) Instead, they expropriated the means of production not
★★★★☆ (Essential for understanding the Cold War and the nature of bureaucratic power; limited as a blueprint for any alternative.)
Furthermore, the book’s scope is limited. It is a brilliant anatomy of Stalinism and its Yugoslav variant, but it struggles to explain communist systems that adapted (like China’s market reforms) or collapsed (like the USSR). It predicts stagnation, which was largely correct for the USSR, but cannot account for the rapid industrialization of East Asia under similar party structures.
This “New Class” is defined not by ownership of capital in the traditional sense, but by . They control access to resources, jobs, housing, and information. Their privilege is not a salary but nomenklatura —the right to occupy key positions. Đilas argues that this class is more ruthless than the old bourgeoisie because it masks its self-interest behind the sacred rhetoric of “social ownership” and “the common good.”
Skip to content