Milovan Dilas Novi Razred [90% TRUSTED]

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.”

★★★★☆ (Essential for understanding the Cold War and the nature of bureaucratic power; limited as a blueprint for any alternative.) milovan dilas novi razred

Published: 1957 (written after Đilas’s break with Tito and subsequent imprisonment) Original language: Serbo-Croatian ( Novi razred ) This “New Class” is defined not by ownership

Read The New Class not as a work of impartial political science, but as a tragic memoir of a revolution that ate its children. It is a flawed masterpiece—the first and most powerful insider account of how communism’s promise of equality curdled into a new, gray tyranny of the party card. Đilas argues that this class is more ruthless

For all its brilliance, The New Class suffers from the very idealism it claims to reject. Đilas writes as a disappointed believer. His critique is essentially that the revolution failed to live up to its own ethical promise of freedom and equality.

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.