Basically, I was reading Gramsci's work again and reread his thing on caesarism/bonapartism. He places Julius Caesar and Bonaparte the actually competent as progressive caesarist/bonapartist, and then places Napoleon the stupid and...Bismark(?) as regressive caesarist/bonapartists.
If I'm understanding him correctly, the idea is that two forces, progressive classes (such as the proletariat now and Bourgeoisie then) and regressive classes (landowners then and the Bourgeoisie now) essentially don't have the ability to overthrow each other or to end the conflict, so a Bonapartist enters the scene and gives the slight nudge needed to either side to tip the balance and resolve the conflict.
I...do have a couple questions I can't figure out myself.
1.Did Caesar succeed or fail? What were the progressive classes at the time? The small landowners? The proletarii? Did the roman economic system change between before he came to power and after he came to power? If he did fail, what would have success look like? How did the roman class system survive for several hundred years after him, if the class system didn't change?
2.Did Napoleon help reestablish the Bourgeois dictatorship in France over the Feudal manoralists, or did he simply "solidify" the victory after taking control from the thermidorians? Would it have mattered if he did or did not?
3.Bismark? I don't really get this one.
(P.S, is Putin a modern bonapartist or no? If so, reactionary or progressive?)
cfgaussian - 3mon
Great questions! I don't get the Bismarck one either. On the others i would have to give it some thought. In the case of Caesar my first instinct is to say that he himself failed, since he was assassinated precisely for challenging the established power of the old senatorial elites. However the question arises: did Augustus succeed where Caesar failed, and if so does that not sort of count as Caesar's posthumous victory since he was the one who set the ball rolling?
6
deathtoreddit - 3mon
What were the progressive classes at the time? The small landowners? The proletarii?
I mean, those are two, but since Roman Empire was a slave economy and society, I'd say it was the slaves that were most progressive.
Also, I'm confused, what Bonaparte, you talking of, Napoleon I? Napoleon III?
5
Marat - 3mon
Napoleon the first is "the competent" and the third is "the stupid." Sorry, was being coy
5
Idliketothinkimsmart - 3mon
Did Caesar succeed or fail? What were the progressive classes at the time? The small landowners? The proletarii? Did the roman economic system change between before he came to power and after he came to power? If he did fail, what would have success look like? How did the roman class system survive for several hundred years after him, if the class system didn’t change?
I guess Caesar failed in that he didn't change Rome into a more democratic system, but that was the limitation of working within the system. Proletarii, veterans, small landowners, freed slaves were amongst some of the forces on Caesar's side. Caesar was able to get in a number of reforms like land distribution, funding public works, taxing the rich, tenant relief, etc. Caesar was a reformist, albeit a good one (subjective). Ol boy just flew too close to the sun, and the senate assassinated because he was eroding their power.
5
Marat - 3mon
Mm, right. I think my actual question was "what was the primary contradiction?" [Not your fault that you answered what you did obviously, I just couldn't remember the term. Sorry]. Obviously there were many progressive classes, but what was the main contradiction at the time? (Similar to how you had the contradiction between the landowners and Bourgeoisie during the Feudal periods. While there was also a progressive proletariat/proto-proletariat, the primary contradiction was between the landowners and Bourgeoisie). If Caesar's bonapartism had succeeded and power was transferred from the senate to the people, what economic system would have resulted? Would it have been medieval feudalism, or maybe closer to the Chinese system?
Or was he just a reformist who wouldn't gave actually changed the base structure of Roman society, compared to say Gaius Marius?
3
小莱卡 - 3mon
This is from Class Struggle by Domenico Losurdo, chapter After revolution, the ambigueties of class struggle
In a situation characterized by a permanent state of emergency, and a lack of clear ideas about the concrete shape of the new political and social order, communist parties in power and their leaders ended up establishing a relationship with the proletariat and popular masses that recalls the one established with the bourgeoisie by Louis Bonaparte. That is, paraphrasing Marx, ‘the dictatorship of the proletariat by the sabre’ turned into the ‘dictatorship of the sabre over civil society’ and over the proletariat itself. However, albeit slender and twisted, a thread continued to connect Louis Napoleon with the bourgeoisie behind the counter-revolution, just as a thread continues to connect communist leaders in power with the proletariat and popular masses who were the protagonists of the revolution. Bonapartism or Caesarism is one of the ways that the process of autonomiziation of ideological, political, and military castes occurs. Gramsci’s distinction between regressive Caesarism and progressive Caesarism remains valid; and it also remains the case that in different historical situations the progressive or regressive character of Cesarism proves more or less pronounced.
Desperate times call for drastic measures, which themselves can be for a progressive or reactionary cause. The DPRK comes to mind as a recent progressive bonapartism immediately after the arduous march albeit not that much anymore. Same with Syria under Assad, and now they found themselves under a reactionary bonapartism under the fundamentalists.
King_Simp in genzhou
Soooo...Caesarism and Bonapartism and...uhhhh
Basically, I was reading Gramsci's work again and reread his thing on caesarism/bonapartism. He places Julius Caesar and Bonaparte the actually competent as progressive caesarist/bonapartist, and then places Napoleon the stupid and...Bismark(?) as regressive caesarist/bonapartists.
If I'm understanding him correctly, the idea is that two forces, progressive classes (such as the proletariat now and Bourgeoisie then) and regressive classes (landowners then and the Bourgeoisie now) essentially don't have the ability to overthrow each other or to end the conflict, so a Bonapartist enters the scene and gives the slight nudge needed to either side to tip the balance and resolve the conflict.
I...do have a couple questions I can't figure out myself.
1.Did Caesar succeed or fail? What were the progressive classes at the time? The small landowners? The proletarii? Did the roman economic system change between before he came to power and after he came to power? If he did fail, what would have success look like? How did the roman class system survive for several hundred years after him, if the class system didn't change?
2.Did Napoleon help reestablish the Bourgeois dictatorship in France over the Feudal manoralists, or did he simply "solidify" the victory after taking control from the thermidorians? Would it have mattered if he did or did not?
3.Bismark? I don't really get this one.
(P.S, is Putin a modern bonapartist or no? If so, reactionary or progressive?)
Great questions! I don't get the Bismarck one either. On the others i would have to give it some thought. In the case of Caesar my first instinct is to say that he himself failed, since he was assassinated precisely for challenging the established power of the old senatorial elites. However the question arises: did Augustus succeed where Caesar failed, and if so does that not sort of count as Caesar's posthumous victory since he was the one who set the ball rolling?
I mean, those are two, but since Roman Empire was a slave economy and society, I'd say it was the slaves that were most progressive.
Also, I'm confused, what Bonaparte, you talking of, Napoleon I? Napoleon III?
Napoleon the first is "the competent" and the third is "the stupid." Sorry, was being coy
https://ia600501.us.archive.org/19/items/the-assassination-of-julius-caesar-a-peoples-history-of-ancient-rome_202310/The Assassination of Julius Caesar%3A A People's History of Ancient Rome.pdf
^Parenti
I guess Caesar failed in that he didn't change Rome into a more democratic system, but that was the limitation of working within the system. Proletarii, veterans, small landowners, freed slaves were amongst some of the forces on Caesar's side. Caesar was able to get in a number of reforms like land distribution, funding public works, taxing the rich, tenant relief, etc. Caesar was a reformist, albeit a good one (subjective). Ol boy just flew too close to the sun, and the senate assassinated because he was eroding their power.
Mm, right. I think my actual question was "what was the primary contradiction?" [Not your fault that you answered what you did obviously, I just couldn't remember the term. Sorry]. Obviously there were many progressive classes, but what was the main contradiction at the time? (Similar to how you had the contradiction between the landowners and Bourgeoisie during the Feudal periods. While there was also a progressive proletariat/proto-proletariat, the primary contradiction was between the landowners and Bourgeoisie). If Caesar's bonapartism had succeeded and power was transferred from the senate to the people, what economic system would have resulted? Would it have been medieval feudalism, or maybe closer to the Chinese system?
Or was he just a reformist who wouldn't gave actually changed the base structure of Roman society, compared to say Gaius Marius?
This is from Class Struggle by Domenico Losurdo, chapter After revolution, the ambigueties of class struggle
Desperate times call for drastic measures, which themselves can be for a progressive or reactionary cause. The DPRK comes to mind as a recent progressive bonapartism immediately after the arduous march albeit not that much anymore. Same with Syria under Assad, and now they found themselves under a reactionary bonapartism under the fundamentalists.