The hero of the novel "The Four-Fingered People" by the great writer Miodrag-Bula Bulatović He describes his change of residence with the words “I am leaving, because there is no conversation here.” So, I am leaving - says the hero of the novel - because there is no dialogue here. The point is that without dialogue there is no life, progress, or survival for a free man.
Described in socio-political terms, dialogue is a form of rebellion against ideological and any other dogma in power. It is individual resistance to the decay of society, regardless of whether the discussion between two or more people is oral or written.
Briefly. Dialogue is that passionate human energy that knows how to improve society and make people upright and better. Since ancient Greek times (Sokrat, Platon, Aristotel...) it was known.
Dialogue is an essential foundation of democracy and the stability of every society. It is the foundation of every (liberal) policy and its government.
The government strives for a monologue
In its desire for total dogma power over society, every government strives for monologue. It fears dialogue. Especially if the dialogue is media-based and public. Because dialogue legitimizes the “opponent” of the government and openly grants him the right to citizenship. And from this right to dialogue (“glasnost”), political opposition is easily born or it expands the sphere of its influence among the people.
But dialogue in society is not easy to achieve. It is created by educating society “in silence” (Oscar Wilde) and its elevation to the level of a mental institution.
Dialogue is irrelevant if it does not lead to a concrete change in values and other judgments and a change in practice, in this regard. (Sometimes compromise is the defeat of dialogue.)
Without dialogue, society becomes stunted, and can even split apart, and harmony turns into its opposite.
How ready and willing we are in Montenegro for dialogue is another question. It is often (stupidly) linked exclusively to morality. Although - on the other hand - there is no dialogue without morality.
The pain is all the greater because each government wants to direct the dialogue in a way that suits its party or political interests. This bypasses or dulls the dialogue, and the government hardens itself in its struggle for power.
The strength and courage of each individual and society as a whole lies in dialogue. But one must be careful here. Because a conversation between “dead phones” is not a dialogue. The dialectic of dialogue and its driving force is not “I in the wedge, you in the board” and - period.
Therefore, the individual and collective consequences of continuous (self)critical questioning, primarily of one's own attitudes, beliefs, convictions, and confrontation of different arguments in dialogue are important. Naturally, as many scientific arguments as possible, without the wrong ad hominem approach. Everything else leads to "Šešeljism".
Here is an instructive example of how to enter into and open a dialogue in a society.
The phenomenon of “loudness”
Realizing the crucial importance of dialogue for the development of democracy and freedom in Yugoslavia and beyond, Milovan Djilas The issue of social dialogue was publicly raised in the media as early as mid-1952. It should be noted that the Second World War in Yugoslavia lasted somewhat longer than until mid-1945, and until then there was no room for social dialogue. (The semi-war situation was actually prolonged in Yugoslavia by the defense of its sovereignty in 1948 and a few years later after the capitulation of Germany on May 9, 1945.)
Although still a communist, Đilas would open up the need for free and public discussion in Yugoslav society in the early 50s. It was then that he published his most famous polemical text, “Class or Caste.” (Magazine Testimonials br. 1/1952. s. 2-3.)
This was the first time that someone from the top of the Yugoslav government, through a public act and not the usual slogans, advocated for “glasnost” in society, which is to say for dialogue and free discussion. With this first and most important non-dogmatic “spark”, Đilas sought to open the possibility of new individual non-dogmatic polemical reflections and dialogues in Yugoslav society.
By initiating a "loud" dialogue, Đilas set a personal example of how opposing and even conflicting ideological views should be found in the Yugoslav media and cultural market and given the right of citizenship.
More covertly, Milovan Đilas bravely threw down the “gauntlet of freedom” to the Yugoslav party society, Tito and his “new class”. But also to that part of society that was not ideologically so. He threw down the “gauntlet” to the state “elite” in order to meet the need for public expression of ideological diversity without any consequences for the discussants.
Specifically, it looked like this.
At the beginning of April 1952, Milovan Đilas wrote in the newly launched, somewhat non-partisan newspaper Testimonials published his article “Class or Caste”. This was the first publication of this article. Due to its polemical character and wider social significance, the article was later republished in the central state and party newspaper Borba No. 17/1952, pp. 4-6.
In short. In the article, Djilas writes about a new social phenomenon in the Soviet Union which, in its manifest form, Djilas characterizes as the creation of a new social class or a new caste.
So, Đilas was in a dilemma about how to name, to designate a new (class) social phenomenon. New for Milovan Đilas, but not for Plekhanova, Kaucki (1919) or older Edvard Abramovsky from 1887, for example, which already described this class phenomenon. (Interestingly, the lucid Leo Trotsky (While in exile in Mexico, he emphasized the absence of a “new class” in Soviet society, but rather the existence of “a bureaucratic parasitic layer.”)
It is, as Đilas' text continues, a new and silent party stratum of silencers in Soviet society that rules and hinders its further successful development. In this writing, Đilas's view of "class", "caste" is still Marxist. (In the article Đilas often refers to Marx, to “Capital”, and there are also formulations such as “Marxist proven”, “Marx’s predictions”, “Marxist view”, etc.)
Replica from Slovenia
The article immediately provoked various internal, hidden reactions. This was no wonder, since the article was written by someone who was considered to be a leading party ideologue, that the party was behind the article, and that something was going on behind the scenes.
Opinions were stirred up. But they were also immediately divided.
Đilas sought dialogue, or a "reply." And he succeeded in that goal.
Two (younger!) scientists from Slovenia contacted Đilas directly: John Stanovnik i Zvonimir Kristl. They very carefully challenged the scientific nature of Milovan Đilas's writing. Especially Zvonimir Kristl. In other words, both of them criticized Đilas's understanding of social stratification as well as the method of his approach to the topic in the article.
Janez Stanovnik sent a shorter letter expressing caution and even doubt about Đilas's theses presented in the text, while Zvonimir Kristl did the same with a more extensive analysis. He titled his analysis "Some Characteristics of the Class Struggle in the USSR, Response to M. Đilas's Article Class or Caste?").
So, both of them hesitated to argue with such a high and important member of the party. Or perhaps - more likely - they lacked the courage to publicly express critical thoughts about Đilas's writing. (A lack of courage was the standard of behavior of the cultural and scientific elite of the time. Let's not even talk about party apparatchiks of various levels.)
Both authors of the texts "closed" their writings to the public. They did not respond to Milovan Đilas through the magazine. Testimonials or in some other similar public way. On the contrary. These two scientists sent letters to Đilas at his official address.
Start of a free discussion
Milovan Đilas published the letters of these two people, with all their disagreements, objections, explanations, interpretations, and reflections against Milovan Đilas' ideas, in their entirety in a daily newspaper. BorbaOf course, my response to them, giving them the opportunity to continue the dialogue.
That was the beginning of free discussion in our country. The first "glasnost" in Yugoslavia.
Therefore, Đilas was the first from the leading establishment of the Yugoslav government to open up public debate and the need for public expression of differences in society.
But what is far more significant is that Đilas directed this criticism from two people against his writing, that is, against himself.
It is not known whether Stanovnik and Kristl continued the controversy.
But every piece of writing, like every thought, knows that it lives “after death”. Đilas learned a lesson from this controversy. From “Class or Caste” grew Đilas’s “Articles of Struggle” (1953), the short story “Anatomy of a Morality” (1954), the book “The New Class” (1957). From this came Đilas’s even more significant book in this field, “The Imperfect Society” (1968), numerous liberal interviews by Đilas around the world, etc.
In other words, a new liberal dissident - a free man - grew out of the dialogue.
Extinguishing the spark of dialogue and the consequences
Unfortunately, Đilas' polemical spark quickly died out with his downfall in early 1954. He extinguished the spark of dialogue Tito with its "new ear".
A decade later, during the 80s and 90s, the "dialogue" emerged (exploded) in its monstrous form of nationalist camps. Most notably in the form of "Šešeljism" which primarily clashed with the world, including warfare, the Serbian and Montenegrin people both externally and internally.
“Šešeljism” has defeated dialogue, regardless of the fact that “Šešeljism” appears in various variants in both Serbia and Montenegro. (Admittedly, it did not fall from the sky like a natural disaster. Quite the opposite. But that is another story.)
Such a spiritual state is very dangerous. Because the deficit of dialogue and argumentative knowledge in dialogue and dialectical reflection on scientific facts, as well as their application in practice, can cost us very dearly. As it has cost us throughout most of history.
Therefore, we anxiously conclude in a “simple” sentence.
Dialogue is the most expensive Montenegrin word.
Bonus video:
