Appendix: Caesarism, Bonapartism and the State¶
Core Argument¶
This appendix examines the Marxist theory of Caesarism and its modern bourgeois equivalent, Bonapartism, as a specific form of state power arising from a deadlock in the class struggle. The core argument is that while the state is normally the instrument of the ruling class, exceptional historical periods occur when warring classes are so nearly equal in force that the state power acquires a relative independence from all classes, including the ruling class it ultimately serves. The text grounds this analysis in Engels’s careful formulation from The Origin of the Family, Private Property and the State, noting his precise language that the state is the state of the ruling class only in “typical periods,” allowing for abnormal periods where this does not directly apply.
The chapter draws heavily on the historical example of the late Roman Republic, where the struggle between classes had exceeded normal bounds and fought itself to a standstill, producing the rule of Caesar and Augustus. It then develops the parallel with the Bonapartist regimes of nineteenth-century France, particularly Napoleon III, and extends to Bismarck’s Germany and Hitler’s fascism. The key theoretical claim is that such regimes present a dialectical contradiction: the state of Napoleon III, like that of Caesar, was composed of adventurers who plundered the very class they represented—the bourgeoisie—yet the class nature of the regime remained bourgeois, determined by existing property relations, not by the political configuration of the government. Ted Grant’s reply to Tony Cliff on state capitalism is cited to illustrate how vastly different superstructures (Nazi Germany versus British social democracy) can rest on the same economic base.
The text engages in notable polemics against non-Marxist and ex-Marxist theorists who, observing extreme differences in superstructure, mistakenly posit entirely new class structures and systems. It also implicitly argues against any mechanical or vulgar Marxist conception that would deny the state can temporarily rise above society. Trotsky is quoted extensively to establish the elasticity of the term Bonapartism, warning against seeking identical repetition of historical traits while insisting on the underlying class basis. The appendix concludes by drawing a contemporary lesson: the bourgeoisie today prefers bourgeois democracy as less risky than Bonapartist solutions, but this system remains fragile and will be tested in the coming class struggles.