Differing regimes in capitalist society¶
Core Argument¶
The chapter dissects the Marxist taxonomy of bourgeois political regimes, arguing that Bonapartism, fascism, and bourgeois democracy are not static abstractions but fluid categories determined by the specific balance of class forces and the stage of capitalist development. The core narrative thrust is to establish a rigorous, concrete method for distinguishing between these regimes, rejecting both mechanical schematism and the conflation of the state’s inherently repressive nature with Bonapartism proper.
Classic Bonapartism, as exemplified by Napoleon I, arose during capitalism’s vigorous, ascending phase. It is characterised by the state assuming a relative independence from the contending classes, balancing between them while remaining fundamentally an instrument of big capital. Marx’s description of Napoleon III’s regime in The Eighteenth Brumaire is cited to capture its essence: naked military-police dictatorship, the “sword” ruling without shame. The key structural condition for this is a rough equilibrium between bourgeoisie and proletariat, allowing the state power to manoeuvre and “arbitrate.”
However, the chapter insists on a sharp distinction between this robust Bonapartism of capitalism’s youth and the senile, sterile Bonapartism of its decline. Drawing extensively on Trotsky’s Germany: The Only Road, the analysis of the Brüning, Papen, and Schleicher governments in Weimar Germany is used to illustrate the latter. Trotsky’s metaphor of a cork balanced on a pin between two forks is deployed to explain the precarious independence of such regimes. Unlike Napoleon’s stable rule, senile Bonapartism arises from a crisis it cannot resolve; it is inherently weak and shaky, serving as a transitional phase that prepares the ground for the bourgeoisie to surrender power to fascism. The regimes of Pétain and von Schleicher are presented as caricatures of the original.
The chapter then establishes the defining traits of each regime category. Bourgeois democracy is defined not by the absence of force but by the existence of independent workers’ organisations—trade unions, parties, the right to strike and vote—which Trotsky described as the “embryo” of working-class rule within capitalism. Fascism is fundamentally defined by the complete destruction of all such organisations. Bonapartism is defined by the state’s “independence,” the concentration of power in a personal figure, and direct rule through the military-police apparatus.
A notable polemic is directed against Comrade Pierre Frank, who is accused of causing “immeasurable confusion” by labelling Popular Front governments under Blum as “Bonapartism.” The chapter argues this error conflates the universal repressive function of the state with a specific regime form. While every state, as Engels noted in The Origin of the Family, is a product of irreconcilable class antagonisms and a power standing above society, this does not make every repressive or emergency measure Bonapartist. The bourgeoisie retains extreme flexibility, manipulating regimes according to the resistance of the masses, a flexibility enabled by the betrayals of the workers’ leaderships. The chapter thus insists on a concrete, historical analysis of each regime’s specific class relations, not a formalistic application of labels.