Structured Analytical Summary: Napoleon, Marxism vs Movie Myths

Spectre Of Communism · 2023-12-05

Core Argument

The central thesis is that Ridley Scott's Napoleon is not merely a historically inaccurate film but a politically reactionary one that systematically distorts the French Revolution and Napoleon's role within it. The hosts argue that the film reduces complex historical processes to the psychological insecurities of a "small man" — a reverse great-man theory of history — while erasing the class dynamics, mass agency, and structural forces that actually shaped the period. The film's contempt for historical truth, exemplified by Scott's postmodern dismissal of historians ("were you there?"), serves a political purpose: it naturalises cynicism about revolutionary transformation and reinforces a counter-revolutionary narrative in which popular mobilisation is depicted as a bloodthirsty mob and revolutionary change as futile. Against this, the episode insists that Marxist historical method — grounded in class analysis, the lawfulness of historical development, and the dialectical relationship between individual agency and social forces — is essential for understanding both the past and the present conjuncture.

Theoretical Grounding

The analysis draws on several core Marxist concepts:

Bonapartism — The episode's theoretical centrepiece. Marx's analysis of Napoleon III in The Eighteenth Brumaire of Louis Bonaparte is used to explain how a "strong man" can arise when contending classes are mutually exhausted, allowing the state to stand "above" society while ultimately defending ruling-class property. Trotsky's formulation — that bonapartism "raises the ruling class up by the throat" — is cited to capture the paradox of a regime that secures bourgeois interests while denying bourgeois political freedom.

The role of the individual in history — The hosts explicitly reject both the great-man theory (history as the product of heroic individuals) and its mirror image (history as the product of petty individuals). Instead they deploy the Marxist position that individuals can only play historically significant roles when the balance of class forces creates the objective conditions for such agency. Napoleon was not inevitable, but neither was he merely a product of his own ambition.

Bourgeois revolution and its contradictions — The French Revolution is analysed as a bourgeois revolution in which the bourgeoisie repeatedly lost confidence in its own project, requiring the sans-culottes (the urban poor) to intervene decisively at every turning point. This generates the central contradiction: the masses make a revolution that is not fundamentally in their class interest, and the revolution's radicalisation — including inroads on bourgeois property through price controls and state-directed war production — creates the conditions for its own Thermidorian reaction.

The dialectic of progress and reaction — Napoleon's wars are characterised as "accidentally progressive": despite his domestic counter-revolution, his armies smashed feudal relations across Europe, redistributed church and aristocratic lands, and accelerated the development of the German bourgeoisie. This is explicitly compared to Stalin's USSR, where a degenerated workers' state nevertheless imposed progressive property relations on Eastern Europe.

Historical lawfulness — The episode positions itself against postmodern relativism, arguing that history has objective lawfulness that can be understood through Marxist method. Without this, political analysis becomes impossible and cynicism — which serves the status quo — becomes the default posture.

The analysis sits firmly within the Trotskyist tradition, particularly in its use of bonapartism as a category for understanding regimes that arise from class stalemate, and in its insistence on the progressive character of deformed workers' states. The IMT (International Marxist Tendency, now RCI) lineage is evident in the emphasis on mass agency, the critique of reformism implicit in the analysis of bourgeois vacillation, and the use of historical analogy to illuminate the present.

Conjunctural Relevance

The episode connects to the current moment in several ways:

Bonapartism today — The hosts explicitly state that bonapartism is "not just a purely historical phenomenon" and that "there are bonapartist regimes all around the world." This is a direct reference to the contemporary conjuncture, where many Marxists identify bonapartist tendencies in figures such as Trump, Bolsonaro, Modi, and Orbán — leaders who arise from crises of bourgeois democracy, stand "above" traditional party politics, and use authoritarian methods to manage class conflict while preserving capitalist property relations.

The crisis of bourgeois democracy — The analogy between the decaying French ancien régime and contemporary capitalism is drawn explicitly: "most people feel like Society is going backwards... rather than it being feudalism that's dying on its feet it's obviously capitalism today." The episode implies that the current period of political instability, declining living standards, and institutional decay creates conditions analogous to those that produced Napoleon — though with the crucial difference that the working class, not the sans-culottes, is the revolutionary subject.

The battle over historical memory — The critique of Scott's postmodern contempt for truth is not merely academic. The hosts argue that if history is treated as mere narrative, then "here's mine" becomes the only possible response, leading to political nihilism and acceptance of the status quo. This connects to contemporary struggles over historical memory — from debates about colonial statues to the weaponisation of history by far-right movements.

The Lord Mountbatten example — The discussion of Mountbatten's abandoned coup plot against Harold Wilson's Labour government in the 1960s demonstrates that bonapartist temptations are not confined to the Napoleonic era. The point is that such projects fail not because of individual inadequacy but because the class balance of forces does not require them — a lesson for understanding why contemporary authoritarian projects succeed or fail.

Where the Argument Continues

The episode deliberately leaves several threads open:

Marx's writings on France — The host explicitly recommends Marx's works on the French Revolution and bonapartism, particularly The Eighteenth Brumaire of Louis Bonaparte and The Class Struggles in France, 1848-1850. These are the essential theoretical texts for understanding the argument developed in the episode.

Trotsky on bonapartism — The reference to Trotsky's formulation ("raises the ruling class up by the throat") points to his writings on the phenomenon, particularly in The Revolution Betrayed and his analyses of the rise of fascism and the Bonapartist character of the Stalinist state.

The French Revolution in Marxist historiography — The episode's analysis of the sans-culottes, the Jacobins, and the Thermidorian reaction draws on a rich tradition of Marxist historiography, including Georges Lefebvre, Albert Soboul, and more recent work by historians such as Peter McPhee. The host's reference to his own talk at the Revolution Festival suggests this is part of an ongoing educational project within the RCI.

Contemporary bonapartism — The episode does not develop a full analysis of contemporary bonapartist regimes, but the framework is clearly intended to be applied. Other Against the Stream or Spectre of Communism episodes likely develop this thread — particularly those analysing Trump, Bolsonaro, or the crisis of bourgeois democracy more broadly.

The question of historical truth — The critique of postmodernism and the defence of historical lawfulness is a recurring theme in Marxist theory. Georg Lukács's History and Class Consciousness and E.P. Thompson's The Poverty of Theory are relevant texts that develop this argument at greater length.

Connections

Primary texts: - Marx, The Eighteenth Brumaire of Louis Bonaparte - Marx, The Class Struggles in France, 1848-1850 - Trotsky, The Revolution Betrayed (on bonapartism and the Stalinist state) - Trotsky, The Struggle Against Fascism in Germany (on bonapartism as a stage before fascism)

Secondary texts: - Georges Lefebvre, The Coming of the French Revolution - Albert Soboul, The Sans-Culottes - C.L.R. James, The Black Jacobins (for comparative analysis of revolutionary dynamics) - Domenico Losurdo, The Marxist Critique of Liberalism (for the relationship between bourgeois revolution and counter-revolution)

Other episodes: - Against the Stream episodes on contemporary bonapartism (Trump, Bolsonaro) - Spectre of Communism episodes on the Russian Revolution and Stalinism (for the comparative analysis of degenerated workers' states) - Revolution Festival talks on the French Revolution (referenced in the episode)

Key Quotes

1. "Bonapartism... raises the ruling class up by the throat so it raises it up to maintain its position of privilege but it does so while denying its political freedom."

2. "The film feels like the great man theory of history in reverse — it's the small man view of History where this guy's insecurities and anger and self-loathing compels him to conquer half of the world rather than him being an agent of historical forces that were greater and broader than he was."

3. "Everywhere that his soldiers went and conquered they did completely overhaul the social relations in those places... despite the fact that politically he's affected the most brutal counter-revolution."

4. "If you think there's no lawfulness, the main thing that leads you to is a kind of status quo effect — because you can't change anything, it's nihilism."

5. "The masses play the most decisive role in a revolution that's not fundamentally in their interest — and that brings about the tragedy."