At 09:13 07/08/2006, yoshie wrote:
<blockquote>It [bonapartism] tends to arise as a state form in a
situation in which there is no clear-cut class victor, in which there
is a certain contested and unstable "equilibrium." Marx locates
"bonapartism" in a conjuncture in which "the bourgeois class had
already lost, and the working class not yet gained the ability to
govern the nation." Gramsci says something similar: "the forces in
conflict balance each other in a catastrophic manner; that is to say,
they balance each other in such a way that a continuation of the
conflict can only terminate in their reciprocal destruction."
(Gramsci, SPN, p.219).
(Bua Komanisi, "South African Communist Party," Discussion Document.
2006)</blockquote>
This argument, which leads into looking at Mandela and Mbeki through
the concept of Bonapartism, is precisely what concerns me about the
way the concept is being used lately. It suggests that the emergence
of any figure over and above the contending parties (and presumably
independent) is the result of the contested equilibrium rather than,
for example, Plan B for one of those classes in conflict.
michael L
IMHO, there exists a clear-cut class victor in South Africa: the
bourgeoisie. In Venezuela, there is a good chance that the Bolivarian
process can continue and strengthen itself, the working class
eventually emerging as a clear-cut class victor (though they are far
from having done so yet). There is "a certain contested and unstable
'equilibrium'" between social forces in Iran, the equilibrium that can
tip in either South Africa's or Venezuela's direction, depending on
how masses in Iran will act.
--
Yoshie
<http://montages.blogspot.com/>
<http://mrzine.org>
<http://monthlyreview.org/>
---------------------
Michael A. Lebowitz
Professor Emeritus
Economics Department
Simon Fraser University
Burnaby, B.C., Canada V5A 1S6
Office Fax: (604) 291-5944
Home: Phone (604) 689-9510
