New Proposals: Journal of Marxism and Interdisciplinary Inquiry Vol. 11, No. 1 (Summer 2020) Pp. 34-47 Rereading The 18th Brumaire of Louis Bonaparte: The Phenomenon of Bonapartism as a Capitalist State Without Popular Representation Spyros Sakellaropoulos Panteion University of Social and Political Sciences, Athens, Greece ABSTRACT: This article examines the character of so-called Bonapartism through the development of the class struggle in the period between 1848 and 1851. The perspective adopted is that in contrast to what is stated in the classics (Marx, Engels, Lenin, Gramsci) of Marxism, Bonapartism is neither a form of politics imposed from the exterior against all social classes, nor is it a manifestation of the state’s autonomy vis à vis the bourgeoisie (Poulantzas). On the contrary, it is a characteristic form of the bourgeois state, which does not have parliamentary institutions among its constituent elements. On the basis of this argumentation, one can understand the current tendency of limited representative relations, which benefits state-controlled mechanisms that are independent of popular control KEYWORDS: state, Marx, capitalism, Bonapartism, class struggle, bourgeoisie Introduction he purpose of this article is to approach analysis capital. The reaction of these bourgeois factions in alli- Tof the nature of the State in capitalism through ance with the proletariat and the peasantry is what led an examination of the class struggle in France in the to the 1848 revolution. The division of the bourgeoisie period between 1848 and 1851, that is to say of the into distinct segments with particular interests played phenomenon that has come to be called Bonapartism. an important role in the developments of the period. To aid with understanding of the historical context of The composition of the Bonapartist state did not the events, Marx’s classic analyzes will be utilized, as amount to some special type of State reflecting a bal- will texts by present-day researchers. ance between two opposing social coalitions, as the What we will attempt to show is that developments Marxist classics claim. It was a cruder political vari- in this period are epitomized by the fact that the French ant of bourgeois domination largely divested of the social formation was passing through the stage of con- trappings of representation of the dominated classes solidating capitalist relations of production, a process and their interests. The phenomenon of Bonapartism generating some superstructural turbulence up to the shows that a bourgeois state, if it is to be such, should time that all factions of the French bourgeoisie could reflect the interests of all factions of the bourgeoisie, feel that they had some presence in it. This is in contrast without it being necessary for representative institu- to what happened in the last years prior to the 1848 tions to be in operation. In other words, Bonaparte’s uprising. At that time, bank capital in collaboration victory constitutes not a victory over all social classes, with a section of the parliamentary elite spearheaded but rather the ascendancy of an authoritarian model of the state securities, affecting significantly other bour- the bourgeois state over relations of representation. It geois factions such as the industrial and commercial is a development which cannot in any way be regarded REREADING THE 18TH BRUMAIRE OF LOUIS BONAPARTE • 35 as being against what Marx called the “great mass” of called upon Bonaparte to co-operate and/or confront the bourgeoisie. This observation helps us to see that the bourgeoisie has no meaning. Questioning of the the “caesarist” traits of Bonapartism are also linked to capitalist character of the French state is a view associ- the present-day trajectory of the authoritarian State ated with Comninel and corroborated precisely by the where the relations of representation (the power of the majority status of the rural strata that would ultimately parliament) are restricted, to the advantage of centres support Bonaparte (see below) but also by the special impervious to popular control. role played by the state bureaucracy in his rise to power From this viewpoint it becomes understandable how (Comninel 1997, 203). this supposed class equilibrium, overseen by an indi- Mooers cites some data which, without his person- vidual whom Marx regarded as a buffoon, lasted for two ally being led to such a conclusion, could justify the decades, given that it represented a form of class domina- position that the French state was not at that time a tion rather than the manifestation of individual initiative capitalist state: three-quarters of the active population in favourable social conditions. It is also not hard to were farmers; there were just over a million of workers interpret why sections of the lumpenproletariat actively employed in establishments employing an average of supported Bonaparte, inspired by his struggle with some ten workers. At the same time factors of rural economy of the political representatives of the bourgeoisie, albeit such as demographic crises and famine had a significant not with its hard core, the overwhelming majority of effect on overall economic development (Mooers 1991, its economic agents. Last but not least, the transforma- 83). But numerous figures highlight the consolida- tions to be described provide an interpretation more tion of capitalism within the French social formation: comprehensive than a mere mention of the bourgeoisie’s France in 1850 on a number of indicators (production tendency to weaken the institutions of political repre- capacity of steam engines, coal consumption, crude sentation, concerning the French proletariat’s inability to iron production, raw cotton consumption) may have form a politically and organizationally unified collective lagged behind Britain but it was clearly ahead to challenge, with a plan and a program, the designs of of Germany and Belgium. In the period between Bonaparte and the bourgeoisie. 1851 and 1853 it came fourth after Switzerland, This approach helps to understand the relatively Holland and England in per capita global trade, and recent developments in the State where representation third (with around 11 percent of the total) after the relations (the power of the Parliament) decline for the USA and Britain in annual national income per benefit of unelected government (technocratic staff, employee.1 At that time England, France, Germany government advisers, public administration experts) and the U.S. accounted for two-thirds of global indus- and supranational institutions (credit rating agencies, trial production, with the figure for France being 16 the European Central Bank for euro countries, the percent (Beaud 1981, 126). Between 1815 and 1850 World Bank etc.). industrial production increased by 2.8 percent, and the corresponding rural production by 1.9 percent,2 so General Context of the Era that in 1850, 29 percent of the GNP was generated in In this section we present the outline of the basic this way. In the same year the relevant figures for the economic and social parameters characterizing French UK were 35%, for Germany 21%, for Italy 19% and society on the eve of the 1848 uprising and continuing for Russia 10% (Trebilcock 1996, 51). Finally, very to sustain it as it unfolds. large production units had begun to be established. Before we embark on this, however, there is a In 1834 the company Doltfus-Mieg et Cie employed question that needs to be answered, concerning the 4,200 workers and Schneider at Le Creusot increased nature of the French social formation at that time. Is the workforce at its factory from 230 in 1812 to3,250 it a capitalist social formation or something else, given in 1850 (Beaud 1981, 134). the majority status of the rural strata and the strong state bureaucracy? If the “something else” applies 1 For the relevant data see Clough- Rapp 1980 Vol II : 418; then the whole discussion about a capitalist state that 431, 435, and Beaud 1981, 125. 2 Data compiled by Levy-Leboyer 1968, 796. 36 • S. SAKELLAROPOULOS But the empirical/quantitative factor is the least This was the general framework of domination for important because in every social formation there this power bloc. Beyond that there are the specific fac- are typically various coexisting, or to be more precise, tors that sparked the uprising of 1848: events such as interlocking modes of production, one of which pre- the potato blight, the poor harvests of 1845 and 1846, dominates over the others.3 This mode of production the price rises of 1847, all exacerbating popular dis- succeeds in constructing an edifice of maintenance- content. To these should be added the crisis in Britain. disintegration vis à vis the others, commencing at the These factors taken together had the effect of inhibit- economic level and subsequently expanding into the ing the extroversion of big French investors. Seeing superstructure. In the France of 1850 the capitalist the British crisis spreading into Central Europe, they mode of production structured the economic process preferred to invest in France, thereby causing suffering in accordance with its own priorities: an expansion of to many shopkeepers and small entrepreneurs. wage labour, the sale abroad of capitalist commodities, All socially combustible material had accumulated the gradual transformation of agricultural products in preparation for the outbreak of the 1848 uprising. from barter items into commercial goods, increas- ing involvement of the banking sector in the circuit The February Republic of production, distribution and sale of goods, ever The prohibition of a programmed demonstration on greater deployment of technological innovation in the February 22 led to militant demonstrations and the set- production process. ting up of barricades, with the majority of the National Having clarified this issue, let’s proceed to an Guard refusing to intervene. outline of the economic and social conditions of the Louis Philippe dismissed the Prime Minister period.