Leon Trotsky: On Bonapartism

Marxism is Superior

Published December 1, 1934

[Writings of Leon Trotsky, Vol 7, 1934-1935, New York 1971, p. 105-107]

In the single but extremely important question of present-day Bonapartism is to be found fresh confirmation of the superiority of Marxist analysis over all forms of political empiricism. More than three years ago, we set forth in these columns the idea that, as it disappeared from the scene, bourgeois democracy, fully in accordance with the laws of history, gives way to the Bonapartism of a capitalism on the decline. Let us recall the course of the analysis of democracy; it is primarily a committee of conciliation organized between two classes; it is maintained for as long as class contradictions allow conciliation. The explosion in democracy is provoked by the tension of class contradictions. Democracy can give place either to the fascist dictatorship of monopoly capital or to the dictatorship of the proletariat But before one of these two warring sides can gain victory over the other, of necessity inside the society is established a transitional regime of unstable equilibrium between the two extreme wings, the proletariat and fascism, which paralyze each other and thus allow the bureaucratic apparatus to acquire exceptional independence and force in its capacity of arbiter and savior of the nation. A supra-parliamentary government of the big bourgeoisie that creates an equilibrium between the two warring sides, basing itself on the police and the army, is precisely a government of the Bonapartist type. That was the character of the governments of Giolitti in Italy, of Brüning-Papen-Schleicher in Germany, of Dollfuss in Austria. To this same type belong the governments of Doumergue and today of Flandin in France, Colijn in Holland, etc. To understand the essence of neo-Bonapartism is to understand the character of the last period of time still left the proletariat to prepare itself for decisive battle.

When we first made this analysis, the Stalinists were more than a little proud of the aphorism of their science, "Social Democracy and fascism are twins." They announced, "Fascism is here now." They accused us — neither more nor less — of having deliberately given the name Bonapartist to the fascist regime in order to reconcile (!) the proletariat to it Who does not know that the Stalinist arguments are always distinguished by their theoretical profundity and political honesty?!

However, the Stalinists were not alone. Political invalids Thalheimer and Brandler more than once exercised their great irony on the subject of Bonapartism; in this way they were hoping to find the shortest road to the Communist International's trough.

Final proof in the debate was brought by France, classic country of Bonapartism. In a series of articles, Leon Blum has recently shown that the proposal to reform the constitution was completely impregnated with the spirit of Bonapartism. The Antifascist Committee of Left Intellectuals (Langevin and others) showed in its appeal the truly astounding analogy between the latest speeches of Doumergue and the manifestos of Louis Napoleon in 1850. The subject of Bonapartism is no longer absent from today's agenda. People who did not want any talk about Bonapartism when the social and political conditions for it were being prepared have recognized it now by its juridical formulas and its blackmailing rhetoric.

The Marxist method has once more shown its superiority. It was that precisely that allowed us to recognize the new state form when it was only beginning to take shape; we had established it not by its juridical and rhetorical flowerings but by its social roots. This method also allows us to understand better the direction of the neo-Bonapartism that has taken form in our country. Its essence is not at all in the formal revision of the constitution, as Leon Blum thinks. It is only the juridical tradition of French political thought that has driven Doumergue on the road to Versailles. The real revision of the constitution has in fact already been made. It was a question not of three or four paragraphs but of three or four score thousand fascist revolvers. Long ago, Engels said the state was a detachment of armed men with material attributes, like prisons. For aged, simple-minded democrats of the Renaudel type, this definition was almost always a blasphemy. Now the state stands before us in all its cynical nudity. With the help of some thousands of revolvers, the fascists, watchdogs of finance capital, have matched and neutralized millions of unarmed workers and peasants; it is this material fact alone that has made possible the appearance of the Bonapartist regime. To overthrow the Bonapartist government we must before all else crush its armed auxiliary detachments. For that we must arm the proletarian vanguard by creating a workers' militia.

That is the lesson of historical experience and Marxist analysis.