Was the Kerensky regime ‘Bonapartist’?¶
Core Argument¶
The chapter’s central polemic is directed against Pierre Frank’s characterisation of the Kerensky regime as fully ‘Bonapartist’. The author argues that Frank misreads Lenin and Trotsky, converting their conditional observations about elements of Bonapartism into a rigid definition. The core argument is that Kerensky’s government never achieved Bonapartism because the Bolshevik Party was strong enough to carry through the proletarian revolution, foreclosing the avenue for a military adventurer to seize control. Trotsky’s chapter heading is cited precisely: “Kerensky and Kornilov – Elements of Bonapartism in the Russian Revolution”, not “Bonapartism” itself. Trotsky, the author insists, was always careful with definitions; “elements” does not mean the thing itself.
The chapter draws heavily on the historical record of 1917. Trotsky is quoted describing Kerensky’s Bonapartist phraseology — his declaration “I, as head of the government… consider that I have no right to hesitate” — but notes that this never got beyond phraseology. Lenin is cited from Towards the Seizure of Power calling Kerensky’s cabinet “indubitably the first step towards Bonapartism”, and from The State and Revolution, where the conditional character is shown by the surrounding paragraphs on wealth’s indirect power in democratic republics. The author’s key claim is that Frank confuses the germs with the disease.
A major theoretical distinction is drawn between bourgeois democracy and Bonapartism. Frank is accused of operating with metaphysical categories, equating regimes that share elements but differ in basic features. The author insists that democracy, Bonapartism, and fascism are distinct, though transformable into one another; quantity changes into quality. Frank’s method is labelled impressionism, not Marxism, and is compared unfavourably to the Stalinists’ Third Period error of lumping Social Democracy and fascism together as identical. A chemical analogy is deployed against Frank: classifying silicon carbide and calcium carbide both as ‘carbides’ does not mean one can work an acetylene lamp with the former. Frank’s method, the author concludes, cannot cast light on the nature of European regimes.
The chapter also clarifies the British comrades’ use of ‘Kerensky government’ as an analogy for the Attlee Labour government, not a finished evaluation. Trotsky’s definition of Kerenskyism is quoted from his analysis of the Spanish Revolution of 1931: “the last, (or ‘one before the last’) ‘left’ government which the bourgeoisie can only set up in its struggle against the revolution.” The author’s polemic is thus twofold: against Frank’s theoretical confusion, and in defence of a dialectical method that examines each regime in its specific features and tendencies.