The Prophet of the Perished Ideal: How Milovan Djilas Predicted the Failure of the "New Class"

Milovan Djilas, famously recognized as the "Prophet in the Communist World," was a high-ranking Yugoslav revolutionary who became the system's most profound internal critic. His transformation from a staunch believer to a dissident was driven by a realization that the communist ideal had been betrayed by its own success.

The Emergence of the "New Class"

Djilas’s primary contribution was the exposure of the "New Class". He argued that once a communist revolution succeeded in overthrowing the old order, it did not eliminate classes as Marx had predicted. Instead, it created a new bureaucracy of party officials who owned the means of production through their absolute control over the state.

• Corruption of Purpose: This new class became more oppressive and corrupt than the capitalists they replaced because they possessed unchecked power.

• Systemic Betrayal: They claimed to represent the workers, but in reality, they exploited the people to maintain their own status and privileges.

• Institutionalized Inequality: The gap between the ruling elite and the working class grew wider under the guise of "equality".

The Inevitable Slide into Totalitarianism

Djilas’s warnings echoed the observations of leaders like Margaret Thatcher, who noted that central planning inevitably leads to the suppression of human rights.

• The Power Trap: When the state controls all resources, it gains total power over every individual’s life.

• The End of Dissent: To protect the central plan and the "New Class," the regime must abolish free speech and institutionalize fear.

• Historical Failure: From Stalin's Great Purge to Mao's Cultural Revolution, the disregard for human life and social ethics was the natural outcome of a system that valued party discipline over individual dignity.

Djilas concluded that the only way to end this corruption was to terminate the one-party monopoly and return power to the people—a prophecy that ultimately foreshadowed the collapse of the Eastern Bloc.

 

The Inevitable Road to Serfdom: Why Managed Equality Fails and Leads to Tyranny

The dream of a perfectly equitable society—whether pursued through the revolutionary fervor of Communism or the gradualist "Fabian" approach of social democracy—ultimately collides with a singular, immovable wall: human nature. While movements like the Fabians or Social Democrats believe they can steer society toward fairness through central planning and "local efficiency," history warns that removing individual agency is the first step toward totalitarianism.

The Paradox of Central Planning

Modern socialist thought often mirrors the management error of "100% utilization." Just as an organization that optimizes every second of a secretary’s day loses the "slack" needed for innovation, a state that attempts to optimize all resources loses the "slack" required for freedom.

As Margaret Thatcher famously argued, once the state begins to direct the economy to achieve social justice, it must inevitably suppress dissent. To ensure a central plan works, the planners cannot allow individuals to "change lanes" or deviate from the script. This is why Thatcher maintained that socialism leads to a dictatorship; when the government controls the means of subsistence, it gains the power of life and death over its citizens.

The Lessons of the Communist World

The rise of Communism was a reaction to the industrial revolution's excesses. However, the transition from theory to practice revealed a fatal flaw: a total misjudgment of human nature.

• Lenin established the principle that "party discipline is higher than democracy and human rights," justifying any means to reach a political end.

• Stalin weaponized this through "The Great Purge," using terror and thought control to consolidate an absolute one-party dictatorship.

• Mao Zedong institutionalized class struggle, leading to political movements like the Great Leap Forward and the Cultural Revolution, which resulted in the deaths of tens of millions and the destruction of social ethics.

Why Gradualism Fails: The "New Class"

Even in non-revolutionary socialist models, a fundamental corruption occurs. Milovan Djilas, known as the "Prophet in the Communist World," observed that once these systems succeed, they inevitably birth a "New Class". This bureaucracy becomes more oppressive and corrupt than the capitalists they replaced.

When we sacrifice "Slack in Control"—the right of the individual to choose their own path—for the sake of state-mandated efficiency, we lose the very innovation and responsiveness that keep a society alive. A society forced to be "busy" following a central plan is a society merely repeating yesterday’s mistakes, eventually collapsing under the weight of its own rigidity.

The Evolution of Servility: Ranking the 25 Human Archetypes by Complexity

 

The Evolution of Servility: Ranking the 25 Human Archetypes by Complexity

Liu Zaifu’s archetypes provide a roadmap of human degradation. When rearranged from simplistic (primitive/instinctual) to complex (intellectual/strategic), we see how a society moves from biological existence to a sophisticated web of manipulation and survival.

I. The Simplified Ranking (From Primitive to Complex)

1. Level 1: The Instinctual (Biological)

   • Types: Flesh Man, Animal Man, Idle Man.

   • Value: Minimal. They are mere consumers. In a functioning society, they provide labor (Animal Man) but offer no spiritual or intellectual advancement.

2. Level 2: The Reactive (Emotional/Physical)

   • Types: Fierce Man, Reckless Man, Enduring Man, Infatuated Man, Eccentric Man.

   • Value: Destructive or neutral. They react to the world with raw emotion or fear. They create chaos or suffer in silence.

3. Level 3: The Social Tools (Systemic)

   • Types: Puppet Man, Man in a Shell, Nodding Man, Vulgar Man, Frivolous Man.

   • Value: High utility for the state, low value for humanity. They maintain the status quo and provide the "grease" for social machinery through compliance.

4. Level 4: The Strategic Parasites (Intellectual/Ego)

   • Types: Cynic, Sour Man, Eunuch Man, Slanderer, Parsimonious Man, Clever Man.

   • Value: Negative. They possess intelligence but use it to protect their ego or tear down others.

5. Level 5: The Architects of Malice (Complex/Deep)

   • Types: Slaughterer, Accomplice Man, Shadow Man.

   • Value: Dangerous. These are the "brains" behind systemic evil, manipulating reality and people with high-level calculation.

6. Level 6: The Transcendental (Self-Aware)

   • Types: The Last Man, The Crevice Man.

   • Value: The Last Man represents the tragic end of complexity (fatigue), while The Crevice Man is the only one with true value—preserving wisdom and integrity within the gaps of a broken system.

---

II. The Totalitarian End Game

In a totalitarian society, the state acts as the ultimate "Sculptor" of these types. The goal is to eliminate Complexity and Integrity (The Crevice Man) and maximize Utility and Predictability.

• Phase 1: Standardization. The state turns everyone into Puppet Men and Nodding Men. Independent thought is replaced by the "Shell."

• Phase 2: Use and Discard. The Accomplice Men and Shadow Men are used to purge the Fierce Men (uncontrolled power). Once the purge is over, the Accomplices are themselves "slaughtered" to ensure no one is smarter than the Centre.

• Phase 3: The Human Livestock. The final goal is a society of Animal Men and Flesh Men—content, fed, and mindless—overseen by a few Eunuch Men who have traded their souls for the privilege of holding the whip.

What Is a Leninist Country? Definition, Characteristics, and a Comparison of China and the UK

 

What Is a Leninist Country? Definition, Characteristics, and a Comparison of China and the UK

What does “Leninist” mean?

A Leninist country is a state whose political system is based on the ideas of Vladimir Lenin, particularly his theory of how power should be organized and exercised in a modern state. Leninism is not simply “socialism” or “communism”; it refers specifically to a method of political organization and governance.

At its core, Leninism emphasizes centralized political authority, a vanguard party, and the belief that the state must actively guide society toward a defined ideological goal.

---

Key characteristics of a Leninist country

Most scholars agree that a Leninist system typically includes the following features:

1. A single dominant ruling party
   Political power is monopolized by one party that claims to represent the long-term interests of the people.

2. The vanguard party concept
   The ruling party sees itself as an enlightened elite that leads society, rather than competing equally with other parties.

3. Democratic centralism
   Internal discussion may exist, but once decisions are made at the top, lower levels must strictly comply.

4. Fusion of party and state
   Party leadership overrides or directs government institutions, courts, military, and media.

5. Ideological legitimacy
   The ruling party justifies its authority through an official ideology, not through regular electoral competition alone.

6. Limited political pluralism
   Opposition parties, if allowed at all, do not have a realistic path to governing power.

---

Is present-day China a Leninist country?

Yes — China is widely regarded by political scientists as a modern Leninist state, though with important adaptations.

• The Chinese Communist Party (CCP) is the sole ruling party.

• The CCP explicitly follows Marxism–Leninism, adapted as “Socialism with Chinese Characteristics.”

• Party leadership stands above the state, the courts, the military, and major media.

• Political pluralism is tightly restricted.

• Market economics exist, but political power remains Leninist in structure.

In short, China combines Leninist political control with non-Leninist economic mechanisms.

---

Is the United Kingdom a Leninist country?

No — the UK is not a Leninist country, nor is it close.

Key differences include:

• Multi-party competitive elections with peaceful transfer of power

• Clear separation between political parties and the state

• Independent judiciary and media

• No official ideology enforced by the state

• Opposition parties can and do form governments

While the UK has strong institutions and party discipline, these operate within a pluralist democratic framework, not a Leninist one.

---

How close are China and the UK to Leninism?

• China: Very close — it retains the core structural features of Leninism.

• UK: Very distant — its system is fundamentally incompatible with Leninist principles.

---

Conclusion

A Leninist country is defined not by culture or economics, but by how political power is organized, justified, and enforced.
Understanding Leninism helps clarify why states that may look economically similar can be politically very different.