What is Bonapartism? A reply to Révolution Permanente

Marxist Theory · 2026-05-13

Core Argument

The article argues that Révolution Permanente has fundamentally misapplied the Marxist concept of Bonapartism to the current French conjuncture. Its central thesis is that France remains a bourgeois-democratic regime, not a Bonapartist dictatorship, and that the conditions for a genuine Bonapartist turn do not yet exist. The author contends that Révolution Permanente's repeated warnings of an imminent "Bonapartist leap" confuse the presence of repressive measures—which exist in all bourgeois democracies—with a qualitative shift in the character of the regime itself.

The decisive factor determining the nature of the regime, the article claims, is not the degree of police violence or the existence of exceptional constitutional provisions, but rather the relationship of class forces and the mechanism through which the bourgeoisie maintains its rule. In France today, the bourgeoisie rules not primarily through military-police force but through the conservative leadership of the trade union confederations and reformist organisations, which systematically sabotage mass mobilisations. This is the classic pattern of bourgeois democracy, not Bonapartism.

The article further argues that Révolution Permanente's call for a "broader democratic regime" as a transitional programme represents an opportunist abandonment of revolutionary Marxism. By appealing to the majority of workers on the terrain of bourgeois democracy rather than consistently linking democratic demands to the necessity of socialist revolution, Révolution Permanente repeats the errors of reformism it claims to oppose.

Theoretical Grounding

The analysis draws on several foundational Marxist concepts and texts:

The Marxist theory of the state: The article grounds itself in Engels' definition of the state as "special bodies of armed men" and Lenin's elaboration in The State and Revolution that even the most democratic bourgeois republic remains a form of wage slavery. This provides the framework for distinguishing between the form of the bourgeois state and its class content.

The classical Marxist theory of Bonapartism: The article draws directly on Engels' formulation in The Origin of the Family, Private Property and the State concerning exceptional periods when warring classes are "so nearly equal in forces that the state power, as apparent mediator, acquires for the moment a certain independence in relation to both." It also deploys Trotsky's mechanical metaphor from The History of the Russian Revolution—the cork balanced on a pin point—to illustrate the precarious equilibrium on which Bonapartist regimes rest.

Ted Grant's analysis of bourgeois democracy: The article cites Grant's 1946 text to establish the decisive criterion for distinguishing bourgeois democracy from dictatorship: the existence of independent workers' organisations and, crucially, the bourgeoisie's reliance on the reformist leadership of those organisations to contain working-class militancy.

The distinction between elements and essence: A key theoretical move is the argument that repressive measures, states of emergency, and constitutional provisions for "full powers" are elements of Bonapartism present in all bourgeois democracies, but they do not in themselves determine the political character of a regime. The totality of class relations is the determining factor.

The article situates itself within the Trotskyist tradition, particularly the current associated with Ted Grant and the Revolutionary Communist International, which has consistently emphasised the centrality of reformist betrayal—rather than Bonapartist dictatorship—as the principal mechanism of bourgeois rule in advanced capitalist countries.

Conjunctural Relevance

The article engages directly with the French conjuncture since 2017, addressing:

The Macron presidency: The author treats Macron not as a Bonapartist figure but as a classic bourgeois politician—a banker turned president whose rule depends on the conservative policies of trade union leaders. The article explicitly rejects the characterisation of the Fifth Republic as an "ultra-Bonapartist framework."

The Yellow Vests movement (2018-2019): The article argues that this movement brought France "on the brink of a revolutionary crisis" but was contained not primarily by state repression but by the refusal of trade union leaders to call a general strike or link their forces to the movement.

The 2023 pension reform mobilisations: Similarly, the massive strikes and demonstrations against raising the retirement age are presented as evidence of the working class's continued reserves of strength and militancy—reserves that remain untapped because of reformist sabotage, not because of Bonapartist repression.

The South Korean martial law crisis (December 2024): The article uses Yoon Suk Yeol's failed attempt to impose martial law as a contemporary illustration of its theoretical argument. The South Korean bourgeoisie's rapid retreat and condemnation of the coup attempt demonstrates, the author claims, that ruling classes in countries with powerful working classes understand the danger of provoking mass mobilisations through Bonapartist adventures. This event is presented as a lesson closely studied by the French bourgeoisie.

Repression in France: The article acknowledges the intensification of police violence, preventive arrests, criminalisation of trade union activity, and bans on demonstrations—particularly against the Yellow Vests and the Palestine solidarity movement. But it insists these measures, however serious, do not constitute a Bonapartist regime.

Where the Argument Continues

The article leaves several lines of analysis open for further development:

The trajectory of reformist organisations: The article asserts that reformist leaders are the principal instrument of bourgeois rule but does not examine in detail the internal dynamics of the CGT, CFDT, or other French trade union confederations, nor the political evolution of La France Insoumise and the French Communist Party. These would require separate analysis.

The conditions for a genuine Bonapartist turn: The article states that such conditions "do not exist at this stage" but will eventually be created if the working class fails to take power. It does not specify what those conditions would look like or how they might emerge—this is a question for conjunctural analysis as the class struggle develops.

The international dimension: The South Korean example is introduced but not systematically compared with France. A fuller analysis might examine other cases—India under Modi, Brazil under Bolsonaro, or the United States under Trump—to develop a more general theory of Bonapartism in the current period of capitalist crisis.

The argument continues in other IDOM articles on the nature of the state, the analysis of specific movements (Yellow Vests, pension strikes), and the critique of opportunist currents on the French left. Against the Stream episodes have addressed related questions of state power and revolutionary strategy.

Connections

Primary texts: Engels, The Origin of the Family, Private Property and the State; Lenin, The State and Revolution; Trotsky, The History of the Russian Revolution (particularly the analysis of Kerensky's Bonapartism); Ted Grant, "The Marxist Theory of the State" (1946).

Contemporary Marxist debates: The article is a direct polemic with Révolution Permanente, the French section of the International Marxist Tendency (IMT). It should be read alongside RP's own articles on Bonapartism to understand the full contours of the debate. The broader question of how to characterise regimes in the period of capitalist decline—Bonapartist, fascist, or bourgeois-democratic—has been a persistent theme in Trotskyist analysis since the 1930s.

Related IDOM articles: The article references the IDOM analysis of the Yellow Vests movement (December 2018) and implicitly connects to the broader corpus on reformism, the state, and revolutionary strategy. Readers should consult the IDOM archive on France, the nature of bourgeois democracy, and the critique of "democratic" illusions.

Key Quotes

1. "In Marxist terminology, 'Bonapartism' refers specifically to a military-police dictatorship."

2. "Every state is a class state, which, in the final analysis, consists of 'special bodies of armed men,' according to Engels. Their role is to defend the rule of the ruling class. Under capitalism, the state always defends the rule of the bourgeoisie."

3. "A Bonapartist regime presents itself as an 'arbiter' between the classes and essentially rules 'by the sword', i.e. by means of the police and the army. It represses the labour movement, but also forces the bourgeoisie to make certain concessions."

4. "If you stick two forks into a cork symmetrically, it will, under very great oscillations from side to side, keep its balance even on a pin point: that is the mechanical model of the Bonapartist superarbiter. The degree of solidity of such a power, setting aside international conditions, is determined by the stability of equilibrium of the two antagonistic classes within the country." (Trotsky, quoted approvingly)

5. "To determine the nature of the current regime in France, we need only ask the question: what factor has played the main role in keeping Macron in power since 2017? Is it the use of force or the exhaustion of the working class? Neither. The decisive factor was the policy of systematic sabotage of large-scale working-class mobilisations by the reformist leaders."

6. "We are not saying that a Bonapartist regime is impossible in France. If the working class fails to take power in the next few years, the conditions for such a regime will eventually be created. But these conditions do not exist at this stage."