The Postwar Period 245
the end of the nineteenth century by the German Social Democrat Eduard
Bernstein. It seems that in saying so he was not embarrassed by the fact that
Stalin had also mentioned Bernstein when he had indicted Tito and his com-
rades with identical accusations in his first letter during the spring of 1948.
Djilas’s assurance that he had never read Bernstein fell on deaf ears. Kardelj
challenged his criticism of the LCY, stressing its importance, but in a new
light: he presented the party as a necessary tool in the fight for socialism and
democracy in Yugoslavia.^474 “Possibly he was a worse heretic than Djilas,”
Dedijer later commented, “but he was more subtle and flexible. He was even
able to draw back and to camouflage.... He knew how to make concessions,
but defend the essential.”^475
Djilas felt Kardelj’s words were a stab in the back, since in the previous
months they had seen or at least called each other every day, and not just for
work, but for reasons of common ideological understanding. Kardelj, however,
was too pragmatic to overlook the precipice his friend was heading toward
and had grown prudent and reserved toward him. He liked him for his “wild
frankness,” for his readiness to say anything “that goes through his head.” But
he understood that in his “limitless ambition” and in the abstractness of his
thought he overrated the democratic process in Yugoslavia, and he was not
ready to follow him down this drain.^476 When he decided to take sides against
him, after establishing Tito’s position, he even argued that Djido had tempo-
rarily gone insane. In his speech, he also revealed that he had heard him speak
about the possibility of two socialist parties in competition with each other. He
did not say, however, that one of these would be opposed to the marshal.^477
Tito, who was well aware of the real issue at stake, went even further, brand-
ing Djilas a “class enemy.” In Yugoslavia, he said, it was not possible to “liqui-
date” the party, because only the party was responsible for the implementation
of the revolution, and it surely was not an outdated piece of junk. All present
agreed with him, even Svetozar Vukmanović (Tempo), although he did so with
tears in his eyes. Moša Pijade, who according to Kardelj was an opportunistic
demagogue who had not been able to stand Djido ever since their time in jail
together, even referred to “Anatomy of a Moral” as “political pornography.”
“From one moment to the next, he amassed all his malevolence, dumping it on
me,” remembered Djilas.^478
The only one who defended Djido—aside from his ex-wife, Mitra Mitrović—
was Vladimir Dedijer. Crying and totally confused, he stressed that the incrim-
inating articles had been avidly read by the members of the CC, the same
people who were now condemning him, saying, “He only tried to put our opin-
ions into a systematic order.” Djilas himself sought distance from Dedijer’s
intervention, saying that it was full of emotional, not political arguments. He