Die Neue Zeit
21st May 2016, 21:34
http://marxism.halkcephesi.net/Antonio%20Gramsci/prison_notebooks/state_civil/ch02.htm
There can be both progressive and reactionary forms of Caesarism; the exact significance of each form can, in the last analysis, be reconstructed only through concrete history, and not by means of any sociological rule of thumb. Caesarism is progressive when its intervention helps the progressive force to triumph, albeit with its victory tempered by certain compromises and limitations. It is reactionary when its intervention helps the reactionary force to triumph – in this case too with certain compromises and limitations, which have, however, a different value, extent, and significance than in the former. Caesar and Napoleon I are examples of progressive Caesarism, Napoleon III and Bismarck of reactionary Caesarism.
[...]
The Caesarism of Caesar and Napoleon I was, so to speak, of a quantitative/qualitative character; in other words it represented the historical phase of the passage from one type of State to another type – a passage in which the innovations were so numerous, and of such a nature, that they represented a complete revolution. The Caesarism of Napoleon III was merely, and in a limited fashion, quantitative; there was no passage from one type of State to another, but only "evolution" of the same type along unbroken lines.
In the modern world, Caesarist phenomena are quite different, both from those of the Napoleon III type – although they tend towards the latter.
The funny thing about re-reflecting upon Antonio Gramsci's quote above is that not only does it pose sharp implications for political strategy in the Third World today, but that it affected the workers' movement, too. When in prison, Gramsci probably had Lenin in mind as a "progressive Caesar" to compare and contrast with the "reactionary Caesar" Benito Mussolini.
However, what about another compare and contrast? What about Ferdinand Lassalle vs. Stalin?
Ted Grant and his people (of IMT notoriety) wrote of "proletarian Bonapartism" when describing the authoritarian regime of the latter and his successors. In a weird way, I have to concede some brownie points to them, because I don't agree with Gramsci on one fundamental point on authority: there can be no Julian-based Caesarism (i.e., one based on the Julius Caesar of people's history per Michael Parenti, not on Augustus) that is reactionary, and there can be no Bonapartism (even that of the original Napoleon) that is sufficiently progressive.
Thoughts?
There can be both progressive and reactionary forms of Caesarism; the exact significance of each form can, in the last analysis, be reconstructed only through concrete history, and not by means of any sociological rule of thumb. Caesarism is progressive when its intervention helps the progressive force to triumph, albeit with its victory tempered by certain compromises and limitations. It is reactionary when its intervention helps the reactionary force to triumph – in this case too with certain compromises and limitations, which have, however, a different value, extent, and significance than in the former. Caesar and Napoleon I are examples of progressive Caesarism, Napoleon III and Bismarck of reactionary Caesarism.
[...]
The Caesarism of Caesar and Napoleon I was, so to speak, of a quantitative/qualitative character; in other words it represented the historical phase of the passage from one type of State to another type – a passage in which the innovations were so numerous, and of such a nature, that they represented a complete revolution. The Caesarism of Napoleon III was merely, and in a limited fashion, quantitative; there was no passage from one type of State to another, but only "evolution" of the same type along unbroken lines.
In the modern world, Caesarist phenomena are quite different, both from those of the Napoleon III type – although they tend towards the latter.
The funny thing about re-reflecting upon Antonio Gramsci's quote above is that not only does it pose sharp implications for political strategy in the Third World today, but that it affected the workers' movement, too. When in prison, Gramsci probably had Lenin in mind as a "progressive Caesar" to compare and contrast with the "reactionary Caesar" Benito Mussolini.
However, what about another compare and contrast? What about Ferdinand Lassalle vs. Stalin?
Ted Grant and his people (of IMT notoriety) wrote of "proletarian Bonapartism" when describing the authoritarian regime of the latter and his successors. In a weird way, I have to concede some brownie points to them, because I don't agree with Gramsci on one fundamental point on authority: there can be no Julian-based Caesarism (i.e., one based on the Julius Caesar of people's history per Michael Parenti, not on Augustus) that is reactionary, and there can be no Bonapartism (even that of the original Napoleon) that is sufficiently progressive.
Thoughts?