It is difficult to find two books that are as similar, intertwined and meeting in terms of their ideas, but not only, as George Orwell's novel "1984" and Milovan Đilas's book "New Class". To put it a little more Montenegrin, these books are two sides of the same coin.
The books were published around the same time. Orwell published the book in London in mid-1949, and Gilas in New York in mid-1957. And the authors are almost peers. Orwell was born in 1903, and Djilas in 1911.
The small time difference in the publication of these books is not accidental. On the contrary. It is the "point" where the Second World War has just ended and where the ideological and Cold War curtains (USSR - USA) have just begun to be tightened, closing and delimiting the societies of the political East and West with "iron" bars. The struggle for planetary total power has just heated up.
It is obvious that at the time of the publication of the books, both of them felt a higher consideration, a moral obligation and a personal call to "tell the truth that no one will ever hear" as Orwell's hero Winston Smith says.
And M. Đilas "adds" in "The New Class" that it is not moral to be a slave in the power of Big Brother and a slave to the power of his new-class wingmen.
Therefore, it is primarily - at the time of publication of the books - about moral rebels. And that - moral rebellion - is the initial and even the most important basis of any successful rebellion. This rebellion always springs from the head and spirit of the individual. They can be useful.
Contrary to moral rebellions, rebellions that arise from hungry stomachs and "revolutionary" satisfaction of the material needs of the rebels, always end in terror. (This is the case, for example, with the French revolutions of 1789 and 1848.)
So, not only are the books descriptions of imagined (Orwell) and real (Đilas) societies, the books are also "identical". Authors of books are also present. It was as if they were looking for each other, building on each other, complementing each other and forming a kind of unity of opposites.
Đilas's "New Class" is a book of scientific study and description of a system and the state of the social spirit in it.
Orwell's novel "1984" is a razor-sharp satire of that same system and society.
1.
Orwell's main, but not the only, hero of the novel Vincent Smith "realizes himself as a dead man" who is caught in the web (authority) of Big Brother. By the way, Winston Smith is a censor by profession in the Ministry of Truth. His narrower specialty is fitting history into the present. Thus, the continuous changing of history.
Milovan Đilas is a man who steps through the ("Orwellian") system. With "New Class", he explains the history and roots of Big Brother's creation and the importance of the "natural" support of Big Brother's power. (He finds the basis of his power in the middle, upper, higher and other party and state administration and bureaucracy, which he called the "new class".)
Orwell's hero lives the life of ideology and Party rule, while Đilas, naturally, has no hero.
Both explain the supremacy of the Party over the individual and society when the Leader wins over the people.
So, the meeting and common point of Orvel and Djilas is the rule of Big Brother and the fight against it. With Orwell, the struggle is silent, secret, hidden and primarily internal. In Đilas, the fight is noisy, open and public.
Simply, the passions and temperaments of these personalities were opposite. Orwell was born in "quiet" India, and Đilas in "noisy" Montenegro.
It was as if they came from different galaxies. But they had a passion for freedom in common.
2.
Orwell's hero (V. Smith) "accidentally" and unknowingly became a rebel. He was imprisoned and tortured. In the end, he realizes his mistake and concludes that "two and two equal five". Djilas' case is different. He looks at the reality around him with an open mind and eyes. So, seen through the eyes of Orwell's Ministry of Love, Orwell is smart and Djilas is dumb.
But here there is one more trap than the difference between the authors. It is about the description of combat areas, ie. their "geographies".
Namely, Milovan Đilas, in his new-class description of the party system ruled by Vođa, had Yugoslavia in mind as a global example of the conflict between the civilizations of East and West. But the example of Yugoslavia is only a useful example of an ideology that he believed in for a period of his life. Approximately until 30-40. years of his life.
George Orwell reduced the field of his observation to the clash of global cultures and party values of the "real" state of Oceania and its invisible, everyday and omnipresent opponents (Eurasia, Euroindia, Eastasia, etc.).
At the same time - it is very important to note - that it remained a secret whether Dž. In his criticism of the state of society in Oceania, Orwell had in mind the political East (USSR) or the modern "Sovietization" of the ruling elite of the political West (USA). Today's reading of the novel "1984" would go more in the second direction (USA) than in the first direction (USSR).
In the vision of his book "New Class", Đilas is clear and surgically precise. That's why it's unambiguous. His "geography" refers to the USSR, China and Yugoslavia.
These books also have this in common.
The time frame that Orwell and Đilas write about is the second half of the 1984th century. And that's exactly Orwell's temporal epicenter of events. And that is XNUMX. But this year has been extended and lasts some ten years later. Well, it still seems to be going on.
And Đilas's "New Class" is a modern read. The time frame of this book is the same as that of Orwell. But it also extends into the 21st century.
3.
Orwell's novel ("1984") is a highly artistic and philosophical work. It only seems to have the form of fiction and fantasy. Orwell critically describes the state of mind, consciousness and life in an ("imagined") society. But that is a superficial and even false image of this book. It is - to repeat - a razor-sharp satire of a system and a sharp criticism of the coming modern age.
Orwell felt, heard the coming and roar of the modern age and its spirit. It bravely brought out his dark side and the metallic sound of his military stride.
Đilas's book ("New Class") is a book that uses scientific methodology and personal experience to present and present a real society. Of course, as he saw it. The book shows a society and a system of government where the fiction of the future has almost defeated man and the "juices" of the tree of life for over 50 years.
There is no question of satire in Djilas. Everything is deadly serious.
It is a real and joint miracle of these two giants of human thought that socialist and post-socialist man survived the system of power of Big Brother and the Leader and remained intact. (Looks like luck was on the side of human nature.)
4.
The expressive forms of these books are different. They are primarily different in literary aesthetics.
The first book ("1984") is widely written. She is a supreme work of art. Vocabulary rich and sumptuous, to perfection. And even investigative. He cites the example of the "Newspeak of Oceania" which "when it is perfected, the revolution will be over... and what beauty lies in the destruction of words". I guess Orwell wants to say that fewer words reduce the range of thought in society and reduce people's awareness. Because an ideologically "correct" vocabulary means being unaware.
Đilas's book ("New Class") is written with the vocabulary and rigor of a scientist. Well, to some extent, the weight of the scientist. This is because Đilas - even while he was writing this book - was still (somewhat) enamored with the materialistic view of consciousness and the practice of the world of communism.
Đilas' vocabulary is strict, careful, precise, scientific. It is far from the wooden, hard, party, slogan vocabulary used to mold the consciousness of man.
All in all, let's briefly conclude here.
These two books have - one critical and the other (Đilas's) descriptive character. And precisely in these descriptions and criticisms of two "witnesses" of a system lies the original and greatest strength of these books. To this day, they are indispensable reading for many literary, social, political, sociological and numerous other discussions and scientific analyses.
But books are also beacons that indicate the dangers of civilization "thrown on a stormy hill" and its condemnation to vegetation like a tree "without sap (root - VP) of life" as Đilas writes in another book and "Orwellian" observes the fate of humanity.
5.
Đilas was an excellent connoisseur of the (communist) system. He partly created it himself while he was at the top of the Yugoslav government. And just by knowing that system from the inside, he knew how the system works, who are its bearers, who is the government, where it hides, etc. He knew that Big Brother (Tito) held all the strings in his hands.
He rebelled with the book "New Class" and some earlier writings. Primarily "Borba" articles. With that he put the noose around his neck. The other end of the death rope was held by Tito (Big Brother). He did not know and did not want to live the life of Orwell's Oceania and its heroes Smith, Bryan, Parsons, Tiloston and numerous other people-numbers who had to follow and verbally repeat the commands of Big Brother from the telescreen.
(Vincent Smith was administratively registered in Oceania under the number 6097. It is interesting that Đilas' first prison number in the Sremsko-Mitrovac prison was 6033.)
***
With Orwell as a rebel, the situation is the opposite. He came "on the fly" to observe the system and the people in it. He came when the revolution had already eaten its children, ie. when the children have already eaten the revolution. Namely, utopia came to power. Orwell harshly criticizes her. And that - utopia - when it comes to power is the most dangerous thing that can happen to society in peaceful, post-revolutionary times. (In revolutionary times it is the other way around.)
Orwell, therefore, had no political or other obstacles to (pre)see the future of "Englsoc." (English socialism). He had nothing to fear. Personal freedom of thought and writing was guaranteed to him.
In Đilas, the political circumstances were significantly different and more dangerous.
6.
Unlike Orwell's "1984", Djilas' "New Class" is very historical. In "New Class", Đilas investigates the ideological, party, historical, social and numerous other circumstances and roots of the emergence of the new class and the total power of the (Orwellian) Big Brother.
In Đilas's vision of Big Brother power, it is the real one - Josip Broz.
In Orwell's vision of the Big Brother government, it is the real one - Tito.
It is also important to note here that both of them see the importance of the past, or as we would say politically - the importance of the power of conservatism for society and its politics. Because “he who controls the past controls the future; who controls the present controls the past" says Orwell's hero Winston Smith.
Đilas is more subtle and even deeper in "New Class". He talks about different historical events and how these past events determine the present and future of a society. On this basis, Đilas bases his theory on national communism and the new-class need for "adjustment (of history - VP) national conditions". And that means national realities.
Unlike Orwell, who did not have enough experience with the historicity of the germination of new-class bureaucrats, Đilas had that experience. He knew the destructive and destructive power of our medieval national histories, which when they appear on the public stage and when that history waits for its "five minutes", a "national" pogrom occurs.
But here there is also something in common between Orwell and Djilas. It is the continuous and mandatory production of enemies as a condition for the survival of Big Brother's rule.
Orwell explains this need for the constant production of enemies with the daily compulsory television viewing of the show "two minutes of hate" whose goal is the voluntary participation of the people in hatred towards real or imaginary enemies. Oceania is in permanent war and defense of the "revolution". (Similar to Leon Trotsky's vision of the need for permanent violence against society.)
Đilas in "New Class" is somewhat more careful. He writes about the pernicious importance of propaganda and its slogans as a mass dulling of the people's consciousness. Especially the dulling of the spirit of the bearer and creator of art by the so-called social. realism.
7.
Orwell pays considerable attention to the love between a man and a woman. (This is perhaps the saddest and even the most poignant part of the novel.)
We learn that a love relationship, even a marriage in an ideological society lasts as long as the ideology. As soon as ideology is suspected, love is also suspected. And when ideologies disappear, so does love. Orwell magnificently describes all these "one-sex" love phases and reduces love to the level of instinct. (The reproduction of society is the Party's business.)
There is none of this in Đilas's "New Class".
8.
The main character of the novel "1984", Vincent Smith, is also a rebel. But he is more similar to the personality of Milovan Đilas than to fiction. Vincent Smith and Milovan Đilas are two characters on the same medal.
But before I present the Smit-Đilas rebellion in a few lines, it is important to note that Milovan Đilas - as a serious scientist - objectifies the rebels. He does not see them as "smugglers" (Stalin), but sees them as a natural development of society whose need is irreplaceable. (He grades them into several levels.)
More precisely, rebels are a logical product of the development of society. Primarily, the development of society aimed at urgent industrialization and electrification of the state. No private property.
(These goals - urgent industrialization - have been ideologically accepted and binding on the Communist Party since 1848, and the role of K. Marx in their realization. So, it is about the urgent industrialization of the state, which supposedly only imaginary communists knew how to implement. Admittedly, that request from the middle of the XNUMXth century was justified and OK. The same as accepting the Internet is justified and OK today.)
9.
Even while he was at the top of the government, Đilas saw in the technical intelligentsia (engineers, technicians, etc.) the strength that arises as a natural, logical basis for rebellion. New-class individuals in the leadership of the Leader - as very practical people, who have to industrialize society - were simply in a subordinate position in relation to the knowledge of experts, regardless of whether the experts were members of the Party or not.
On the other, much more important side, Đilas into art, i.e. he sees artists and free-thinkers as a natural, wide and deep source of rebellion. Because there is no "art without new ideas". And every novelty and freedom in that novelty is the death of the authority of the Big Brother/Leader and his new class.
Thus, the rebels emerge from below, from the base as a technical intelligence. But the rebels also come from above, from the mental superstructure such as artists, philosophers, sociologists and others, Đilas concludes.
It is similar with Orwell and his hero Vincent Smith, because in him two personalities come together. On the one hand, he is a technical person in Big Brother's government, but at the same time, he is also an "intellectual" who revolts against Big Brother's rule.
Admittedly, Smith's rebellion is more a matter of excellent instinct than reflection and deliberation towards individual freedom and faith in a better tomorrow for society.
***
Let's conclude.
If we were to dare to give a conclusion about these books in one sentence, it could perhaps go in the direction that the country - even Montenegro, Serbia... - should not be a modern Oceania owned by new-class individuals and their Leader .
Bonus video:
