Roberto Ruberto
A CONVERSATION WITH DJILAS
INT: Ehrenburg's position is rather unclear; but, in spite
of all, I have the feeling that he was an honest man.
D
JILAs:
No, he was till his last days, as long as he lived, an oppor–
tunist. But he was an intelligent man and at the end of his life, in
the period of Khrushchev, he used the situation and finished his life
as a very honest man. But he was really an opportunist; and to be
an opportunist in Communist countries means to agree with crimes.
It
means to participate in such crimes. Not spontaneously, but under
the influence of the Soviet regime. He participated in attacking the
others who were being purged.
INT: During the Stalinist period.
D JILAS:
In the thirties, yes.
INT: Was he aware of everything?
D
JILAS :
I think he was.
INT: In your short stories there is so much crime. There is also, in–
directly, the question: what is crime? Political crime, I mean.
DJILAS:
In politics you cannot say that Stalin was a criminal, for
example, but there is a borderline between revolutionary acts and
acts of violence. For example, Lenin was very cruel but he did not
pass the line. He did not kill any member of the party. He sent many
to concentration camps up North - he invented the concentration
camp, that's true - but that was a marginal step, not essential for
Lenin's regime.
INT: But looking at them as human beings, what is the difference be–
tween a man and a party member?
DJILAs:
From a philosophical or human point of view there is no
difference, I agree completely; but in concrete politics to kill a
member of the party means
instauration,
the rising of personal
pow~r.
INT: Yes. You talk about this in your
Conversations with Stalin,
I
remember. But in your short stories there is a
c~nflict
between poli–
tical and moral values, which to me seems quite strong. Take
The
Foreigner,
with this very beautiful, human character, Gordana....
