On 8/8/06, michael a. lebowitz <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
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.
In the case of South Africa, it looks to me to be the bourgeoisie's
Plan _A_ for post-Apartheid settlement. It's been a solid plan for
them, unfortunately for the economically disenfranchised in South
Africa.
--
Yoshie
<http://montages.blogspot.com/>
<http://mrzine.org>
<http://monthlyreview.org/>
