Every thinking person is more or less a controversial person. That is nothing new. Controversy is a normal way of constantly changing human thinking and a way of constantly forming new values, new beliefs and creating new realities and new forms of life. Naturally, even that (newest) form of life would be the subject of a new controversy. And so on indefinitely.
Therefore, it is no coincidence that he is a Nobel Prize winner Hermann Hesse sang "Being is not given to us, we are just electricity".
Note that the root Đilasov The controversy lies in his struggle against the rigid, dogmatic consciousness of the communist ideology that seized power during a period of Yugoslav history.
A few words about ideology and its emergence in politics to come closer to understanding Đilas's controversy.
From Napoleon to Marx
By a twist of fate, some words and their derivatives simply wander into the vocabulary of life, and are then adopted by politics. Thus the word ideology At the end of the 18th century, it became domesticated in society and imposed on the practice of life as a higher awareness of rapid and secure social progress.
In this regard, be careful Hannah Arendt reminds that such was the case with the word ideologyAccording to her research, for the first time, the coin of ideologies (science of ideas) was said by a French thinker Destitu of Tresi 1796. With this modern coinage, de Trecy sought to give the absolute idea the form of science and to make it a science. (Let me note that this was a time of the flowering of science in many areas of work and life in Europe.)
This meaningless coinage would probably have been quickly forgotten if the word had not been first introduced into the political life of France - Napoleon Bonaparte. And he was the top of the government that was obeyed ex officio. Napoleon de Trecy and the group of like-minded people around him, derogatorily - and even mockingly - called ideologists. In other words, he called them idlers.
Like all populism, this word immediately became popular. It was circulating in the ruling circles of France, because he launched a new Sun King.
During the turbulent 19th century, the word ideology gained revolutionary utility and global significance. Namely, a group of revolutionaries gathered around Karl Marx - which he led Friedrich Engels - they made Marx's (globalist) ideas into an ideology as a new, more progressive revolutionary worldview. It was a new, "scientific" worldview, directed towards "humiliated and insulted"(Manifesto Comm.) who fought for new class relations in France during the 19th century.
The awareness, i.e. ideology, of the new, upcoming revolutionary time, but also the personal "stamp" on that time was put by Friedrich Engels, a friend, comrade-in-arms and admirer of Karl Marx's work. He used Marx's great scientific achievements - primarily economic - for the pragmatic needs of the then revolution. Because every revolution is "dry", lifeless, and even meaningless, if it does not impose on society a new hope, a more advanced consciousness and the practice of a better life than before.
To the word ideology, Engels added the prefix Marxist and the word was created. Marxist ideology as a new “scientific consciousness.” The term immediately became familiar to revolutionaries as a higher and global intelligence.
This term (Marxist ideology) has cleverly circumvented the more logical term “philosophy of Marxism.” Because philosophy in and of itself includes criticism of everything that exists, while ideology excludes criticism. Therefore, Marxist ideology cannot be criticized, because it is supposedly the pinnacle of social science.
So, the term “Marxist ideology” was imprinted on the French revolutionary movements of the mid-19th century as evidence of a “higher consciousness.” This higher mystical consciousness was, of course, Marxist-Communist.
In its development, it went in several directions, one of which was the rapid industrialization of French society and the urgent application of modern scientific achievements as a condition (sine qua non) social survival and progress.
And let us pause here for a moment and briefly explain the hidden, duplicitous role of Karl Marx and his more hidden (dark) role in the context of using the word ideology for revolutionary purposes.
Namely, Karl Marx was a great scientist. Probably the greatest synthetic mind of the 19th century (jurist, philosopher, sociologist, economist). But such a mind did not protest or criticize Engels's (mis)use his scientific work and the use of his scientific achievements for the needs of the then French Revolution.
However, if we were to dig deeper into Marx's psyche, it is possible that he imagined himself as the new revolutionary Messiah on the Planet and that he was eager for glory and global power. ambition. In that sense, "his ideology" opened up for him - worldwide fame.
And it is possible that - if we dig even deeper - it was also avaricious man. Because With fame comes money., it is said. And Karl Marx inherited from his family his father's commercial spirit and his mother's religious spirit.
One of the most dangerous words of the 19th and 20th centuries
So, the meaningless word ideology entered politics “by the back door.” The prefix Marxist was added to it for “scientific” reasons. Soon, this word became one of the most planetary, widespread, famous, and dangerous words of the 19th and 20th centuries.
And perhaps it will be deadly dangerous in the future. Because people always believe the most in turbulent, critical, revolutionary times, such as today's, the most false, the most fantastic, the most utopian, the most - ideological.
It is as if that magic word contains a written ("scientific") code that can solve all the leading social problems and human suffering. Especially when it comes to the working class (proletarians), because it is the easiest to manipulate in all turbulent times.
Djilas himself was at one time fascinated by this word (communist ideology/Bolshevism/USSR).
After World War II, communists came to power in Yugoslavia.
Very quickly, Đilas rebelled against this same government, which he had partly created himself. He rebelled against the ideological ruling consciousness and the practices of its protagonists. (The protagonists of the government were led by Tito"Djilas will call later"new class".)
His rebellion against the government and its ideology was not hasty, quick, or thoughtless. On the contrary. He replaced his revolutionary and ideological consciousness with the observation and analysis of facts from “ordinary” life. (Theorists would say that he gradually replaced his revolutionary spirit with the spirit of an evolutionist.)
Đilas began his ideological reevaluation as early as 1946/47, when from the height of power he "looked down" - from the distant (communist) utopian horizon - to the earth, to reality, to a living man who was almost "killed" by the ruling Marxist-Leninist and Titoist ideology.
Over the next several years, even decades, Đilas would gradually shed the layers of “ideological dust” that had fallen on him. He shed the layers of “ideological dust” in this order: first Stalinism, then Leninism, then Marxism, then Titoism.
With his moral rebellion, he raised his voice of protest that it is not ethical, humane, and possible to create a new ideological ""man of marble" (A. Vajda) i.e. create slaves for the party and the government.
Milovan Đilas paid for this lowering of his gaze - from the rapturous ideas and ideology that were impossible to realize - with immediate arrest. Not only was he expelled from all leading Yugoslav state and party positions in 1954, he was even expelled from the fishermen's association.
The frontal attacks by Tito and his "new class" on the rebel brought various anathemas upon him, including the "dull" story about Đilas's controversy.
Controversial man - party anathema
Word controversy had the same “birthplace” and trajectory in society as the word ideology. Although this word has a lower and party orbit in politics from the word ideology. The word controversy was intended for a rebellious individual who was to be morally denigrated and subjected to popular ridicule and laughter.
So, the word controversy came from the local party mind as some scientific-speculative novelty. The word entered politics from the “mind” of the party’s new-class individuals. The use of this word was aimed at the struggle to preserve communist ideological consciousness and Tito’s rule from “traitors” from within their own ranks.
In this sense, the party cast anathema on Djilas: controversial man.
Let's see how controversial a figure Milovan Đilas was.
From the end of 1946, Milovan Đilas gradually distanced himself from the official ideological-utopian ideas and practices of Tito's government. He publicly advocated for more freedom, public discussion, and more legality in Yugoslav society. He wrote non-dogmatic "Borba's articles" at the end of 1953, in which he stated that the revolution had long been over, that the Party should not be a commanding force in society, etc.
He criticized the “new class” and its morality. It was no coincidence that he gave the title of his most famous story “Anatomy of a Morality".
Due to his pro-liberal stances, in mid-January 1954 he was ousted from power and expelled from all leading party and state positions. He was removed from the position of President of the Federal Assembly of the FNRY.
A few months later, he himself returned the party booklet, which had the number 4. That number meant that Đilas was fourth from the top in the hierarchy of the Yugoslav government. (Party booklet number 1 was held by Tito.)
Direct and frontal attacks on his personality quickly began, he was labeled a "fickle and unreliable person", as well as a completely controversial man. who says one thing today, another tomorrow.
So, in the sense of attacking a rebel against Tito's government, the word was used controversial figure in an exclusively negative and sophistical (deceptive) context.
However, in order to take a closer look and understand how controversial a person Đilas was, it is necessary to (briefly) present several aspects of his personality in order to come closer to understanding his controversy.
If Milovan Đilas "looked" at himself with external, On the formal, superficial side, he was a very controversial person.
Well, if you would essentially followed the development of his personality, one must follow the intellectual and spiritual development of this man very logically and consistently, and there is no question of controversy here. Especially when this personality follows the development of his absolute idea and we see his firm faith in real ideal such as: freedom, social legality, the rule of law, multi-party system, and numerous other liberal orientations.
It should also be monitored pragmu his politics in order to understand Đilas's controversy even more deeply. Only in this sense is Đilas not controversial. In fact, at the beginning of 1952, he launched the non-dogmatic magazine "Nova misao" as a kind of cultural oppositions in the state. And that is the germ of multi-party system and freedom in Yugoslav society.
So, Milovan Đilas did not change as a person, but he did gradually change, his opinion about communist ideas and belief in them evolved.
From all that has been said, first of all, Đilas, as a controversial figure, could be described as counterpoint positive liberal convert. I guess that's the closest way to determine its controversy, if we were to use a dictionary. Oldosa Hashtag.
It's hard for a society without controversial figures.
Concluding considerations on ideological Montenegro: yesterday-today-tomorrow.
Đilas changed his opinion in accordance with his new knowledge and reflections on the multitude of new realities in society. He had one consciousness (Bolshevik) and belief in it as a communist, and the other when he voluntarily stopped believing in the ideology of "scientific" socialism. And in Marx, Lenin, Stalin, Sales.
All those who did not want, knew, wished or simply were not allowed to follow Milovan Đilas as a liberal thinker after 1954, rose up against him like a chorus and a mob as an immoral person - because he was, allegedly, controversial.
Let's briefly look at some of the consequences that ideological awareness and controversy have left on Montenegrin society in various times (past, present, future!)
Communist ideology was “directed” to humanity from the heights of global Marxist consciousness with the aim of making it happy. We know how that (“scientific”) experiment ended.
Today's Montenegro is in the jaws of both one (ideology) and another (controversy) consciousness. To put it more clearly, today's Montenegro is in the shackles of the medieval Balkan, basement, vengeful, aggressive national-ideological consciousness that, in the form of a well, continuously produces "security-interesting persons".
Therefore, it should not be surprising that we constantly have everything we have today...
Montenegro enters the 21st century as "lame" (sick) society. This lameness has numerous causes and a long history. The history of this lameness does not begin only with the communists. It is much deeper.
They have dominated and even conquered Montenegrin society, exclusively and conceited ideologies which easily "solve" our numerous problems from above. Primarily national, or more precisely nationalistic-chauvinistic.
Montenegrin society enters the 21st century as a prisoner of the medieval Balkan mentality of nationalist circles. And Balkan circles, by their very nature, cannot create controversial figures. liberal profile. On the contrary.
As long as Montenegrin society does not allow itself to gradually, politely and persistently build political, economic, legal and other forms of life and coexistence of the peoples in our country through liberal and democratic trends, the inherited ideological consciousness will forever create conflicts. Often with the dominant help of ruling "politicians" and "statesmen" who emerged from the street environment of the late 80s. And there will be no controversial figures in sight.
Let's conclude.
On the path to healing Montenegrin society, controversial people - modern national and global consciousness - can only be of help to us. Because they They breathe criticism. They are not single-minded, narrow-minded, populist, false, and short-sighted people. Quite the contrary.
All in all, things are not going well for us, because Montenegrin society does not know how to initiate, create, and produce controversial personalities. (I guess because we are too single-minded.)
Bonus video:
