/leftypol/ - Leftist Politically Incorrect

> in essence isn't it what most modern governments are these days?
No. Bonapartism requires a Bonaparte.

>The burgeoius class pursues it's own interrest and obscures all class conflicts and presents itself as middle of the road.
That is just bourgeois parliamentarism.

The key to Bonapartism is the re-directed revolutionary fervour. In Napoleon's case into imperial expansion. Bourgeois parliamentarians decry anything close to Bonapartism as "populism".

i hear putin is bonapartist as opposed to fascist. because fascism openly opposes any opposition, but bonapartism keeps the appearance of allowing unions, other parties etc, but in effect have no power.

>>2544977
Bonapartism, at least as Marxists use it, refers to when no class can effectively rule and so steps in an autocrat to establish order, sometimes advocating radical sounding reforms. It refers to Louis Bonaparte not Napoleon I. Most states nowadays are ruled by the bourgeoisie so it doesn't apply. I wouldn't generally apply it to fascist states because those are just bourgeois states but some people disagree because it fits some of the features (military despots, reformism). Some people refer to China as Bonapartist because neither the capitalists nor workers are in charge. Sometimes it's applied to the USSR too. Depends how you view them.

>>2544977
>thoughts ?
It’s autocratic populism and it leads to the same problems that populism does : one group of people gets privileged or fucked while the rest maintains their status.


>isn’t it what most states do today
Not really. Besides, bonapartism is less of an ideology than it is an event where one individual gets the power and centralizes it by appealing to « the people ».


>the bourgeois
Meh. There’s always been certain policies which were more or less evident to be in some’s interest

Bonapartism is just a form Ceasarism that specifically refers to Napoleon and his lineage

>>2545005
That describes all the Sahel coup states

I don’t think Lumpen’s even think Napoleon was bad, as I kid I sure as hell didn’t, nobody really knows who he was or what he did, I didn’t even know he was an emperor I just thought he was some general who wasn’t actually short.

>>2544977
>as opposed to calling everything Nazi or Fascist?
enough with this shit already
there are so many openly nazi rightoids nowadays
why are you still spouting this bullshit

>>2544977
We can't use that term because every political tendency, including most of the left, wants a bonapartist figure to break through the current crisis and catapult them into power

Bonapartism is not about Napoleon the 1st but the third. Thats a gigantic difference, that seems to be almost totally forgotten.

Bonapartism is a flawed concept. Gramsci's concept of Caesarism (of which he considers both Napoleons to be expressions) is much more useful.