Democracy or Bonapartism: Two Centuries of War on Democracy

by Domenico Losurdo

How democracy became a form of soft authoritarian rule

The history of the advent of universal suffrage is a fraught one. As late as the mid-twentieth century, it was still impeded by forms of censitary, racial and sexual discrimination, which proved especially stubborn in countries with the most rooted liberal tradition. Moreover, no sooner had it been achieved than universal suffrage was subject to internal depletion that reduced the exercise of political rights to the acclamation of a leader vested with very wide powers.

In and through a complex historical process, Bonapartism has assumed its current 'soft' form, involving orderly competition and succession and resorting to the iron fist only in emergency situations. The electoral system most conducive to this regime seems to be one involving single-member constituencies.

Cutting out organized parties with programmes and, courtesy also of the gigantic concentration of the mass media, depriving the subaltern classes of any political expression, it reduces 'democracy' to a contest between competing leaders, who are the interpreters exclusively oflocal realities or interests, over and above which towers the figure of the nation's charismatic leader.

The United States represents the primary country-laboratory of the 'soft Bonapartism' that has also emerged in Italy, and which seems set to become the political regime of our time.

Genres: History, Politics, Nonfiction

352 pages, Hardcover

First published January 1, 1993

About the author

Domenico Losurdo (14 November 1941 – 28 June 2018) was an Italian Marxist philosopher and historian better known for his critique of anti-communism, colonialism, imperialism, the European tradition of liberalism and the concept of totalitarianism.

He was director of the Institute of Philosophical and Pedagogical Sciences at the University of Urbino, where he taught history of philosophy as Dean at the Faculty of Educational Sciences. Since 1988, Losurdo was president of the Hegelian International Association Hegel-Marx for Dialectical Thought. He was also a member of the Leibniz Society of Sciences in Berlin (an association in the tradition of Gottfried Wilhelm Leibniz's Prussian Academy of Sciences) as well as director of the Marx XXI political-cultural association.

From communist militancy to the condemnation of American imperialism and the study of the African-American and Native American question, Losurdo was also a participant in national and international politics.

Reviews

[Zach Carter · Rating 5 out of 5]

If Losurdo's theory of the triumph of "soft" Bonapartism at the beginning (WWI) and close (the dissolution of the Soviet Union) of the twentieth century is to be carried into the new century, we can see the beginning of the 21st century's crystallization of Bonapartism - the personalization of power, the religious justification for uninterrupted imperial conquest, and the Caesarian state of exception - in George W. Bush's unauthorized invasion of Iraq and the subsequent killing of one million Iraqis. In fact, Losurdo analyzes Bush's father - Bush 41 - in the context of the first Gulf War and the 1988 presidential election that's a perfect encapsulation of the 'competitive monopartisanship' and the reduction of democracy to the market. His analysis of the conditions of democracy as they apply internally to the capitalist metropole as well as the colonized presents us with a really great way to think about democracy in the world's biggest empire, but they also give us much to reflect on for the Communist revolutions in Russia, China, and Cuba, and in particular the impact that October had on the Third World. Much like in Liberalism: A Counter-History, Losurdo comes to his conclusions armed with countless references, quotes of leading thinkers, and detailed documentation of the historical record.

Of course, I can't miss the obvious connection to the state of affairs today, as Joe Biden's 'state of exception' regarding the uninterrupted flow of bombs and arms to the genocidal state of israel while thousands of teenagers are forcibly arrested across the country and the monopolized multimedia apparatuses parrot State Department propaganda further entrenches his theories. In the words of Losurdo himself:

We are witnessing a phase of disemancipation. Similar such phases have marked democracy's long and tortuous path throughout its history. But as far as the current one is concerned, the end is not yet in sight.

[Dan · Rating 5 out of 5]

Every time I read one of Losurdo's books I have to continually remind myself that they weren't written just last week. His historical materialist analysis of modern liberalism, even from the perspective of the early 90s, is extraordinarily clarifying for understanding the current form of the capitalist state in the great powers.

Tracing the long history of attacks on universal suffrage, proportional representation, and strong Party organizations capable of representing the interests of a class, instead of just an individual, Losurdo again shows how the governmental form held up as "the end of history" has developed with the specific intent of neutralizing the impacts of political emancipation.

A must read, and for anyone approaching Losurdo for the first time, I'd recommend this in the middle of a trio between Liberalism: A Counter-History, and War and Revolution.

[Brad · Rating 4 out of 5]

"The thesis of a spontaneous maturation of liberal thought as it gradually opened up to an ever-wider extension of suffrage is nothing but an apologetic myth. Moreover, even up to our own time, authors like Mises and Hayek have identified universal suffrage the ultimate cause of...measures to redistribute wealth that have emanated also from the welfare state in the West.

But the thesis advanced by the liberal tradition's apologists is unsustainable, and not only because it overlooks the gigantic political and social struggles waged by the popular masses excluded from political rights. It is also because it confers a linear character on the historical process of the conquest and extension of suffrage, which does not at all correspond to reality.
...
Just as the dogged restriction of political rights based on property was no accident or 'mistake' for the liberal tradition, the rolling back of emancipation was no chance error or youthful folly of this tradition."

===========================================================

This is a dense foray into the seedy underbelly of classical liberal theory and its modern remix of neoliberalism. Drawing from Tocqueville, Mill, Hayek, Schumpeter, and more, Losurdo highlights the rhetorical refuges of liberal and reactionary thinkers in a world where overt rollbacks and restrictions on universal suffrage are seen by most as faux pas.

The Verso translation of this work just came out this year, but sadly Losurdo passed away in 2018, a time when contemporary analyses drawing from this work could not be more useful.

What is Bonapartism?

Losurdo enumerates its traits without systematically boiling it down in a handy definition, so, if you'll forgive a reference to Trotsky, in Bonapartism and Fascism:

a government of the saber as the judge arbiter of the nation – that’s just what Bonapartism is. The saber by itself has no independent program. It is the instrument of “order.” It is summoned to safeguard what exists. Raising itself politically above the classes, Bonapartism, like its predecessor Caesarism, for that matter, represents in the social sense, always and at all epochs, the government of the strongest and firmest part of the exploiters.
...
Just as Bonapartism begins by combining the parliamentary regime with fascism, so triumphant fascism finds itself forced not only to enter into a bloc with the Bonapartists, but what is more, to draw closer internally to the Bonapartist system. The prolonged domination of finance capital by means of reactionary social demagogy and petty-bourgeois terror is impossible. Having arrived in power, the fascist chiefs are forced to muzzle the masses who follow them by means of the state apparatus. By the same token, they lose the support of broad masses of the petty bourgeoisie.

A key addition from Losurdo:

Integral to Bonapartism is not only an imperial consciousness, but one ideologically transfigured into the terms of religious, moral or political mission. In this way, the sense of belonging to a particular community is powerfully reinforced, attention is diverted from internal conflicts, and dissent is marginalized or silenced, and criminalized.

By way of example, Losurdo explores the history of pax Americana: the imperial mission to "bring civilization" by manifest destiny and its concomitant exclusion of slaves, Indigenous peoples, and others as infantilized non-citizen 'outsiders'. This is both imperialist ideology and a way of proclaiming "democracy" while in fact working overtime to obscure democracy's limitation.

Finally, Bonapartism aims

not to tolerate filters between leader and nation and to deprive the subaltern classes of any independent political representation.

Bonapartism in history:

Overview:

If we analyze the respective political situations of France, Germany, and Britain in the second half of the 1860s, the analogies are striking. For, in all three cases, we are in the presence of a political regime whose more or less liberal features were balanced by the presence of a strong executive power, in which the concession of political citizenship to large strata of society was neutralized by a...chauvinistic excitement of the masses.

America:

A strong or very strong executive found its legitimacy in a popular investiture that was expressed either by plebiscite or by an electoral suffrage that was broad and, in any case, considerably more extensive than in the past. This new political regime proved especially effective in America because it was able to combine the rapidity, strength and unity of the decision-making centre with competition and turnover among different leaders and, in normal conditions, with citizens' enjoyment of their rights to freedom. In this sense, America produced a soft Bonapartism, albeit one which -- thanks to the wide powers conferred on the president -- could painlessly turn into a hard war-Bonapartism able to rule with an iron fist whenever a crisis situation required or seemed to require this.

Examples abound of the 'executive overreach' of presidential power and its openly cynical use to militaristic, antidemocratic ends. And of course, aside from the provisional quality of 'rights to freedom', conveniently for the few, many living there were/are not citizens.

Single-member Constituency:

A common thread in "soft Bonapartist" sympathies, with their elitist militant nationalism that disdains populism while distrusting intermediaries (parties, unions---in modern terms, the desire to circumvent traditional media or Congress as a 'charismatic authority' figure) is the single-member constituency.

The reactionary meaning of the return to the single-member constituency, invoked by a large and varied group of people in post-World War 1 Italy, was clearly understood by the various mass parties that expressed their support for the proportional system.

A "winner take all" system that allows pluralities to win representation to the exclusion of the rest, significantly distorting results, acts as a sort of workaround to the spirit of "one person, one vote". For the U.S., Canada, and elsewhere in their nationally-flavoured manifestations, this is a legacy of the British parliamentary system that began not only before universal suffrage, but where aristocratic property qualifications and explicitly unequal ("one person, many votes") procedural rules were taken for granted. It's not that proportional representation (% of vote = % of representation) is a panacea. The point is the lauding of a system in which the results and the popular vote don't match is no coincidence. To Schumpeter and other exponents of "nonintervention" in the market, this is one more measure to protect capitalism from popular measures like progressive taxation.

After all, in Italy's "Two Red Years", specifically the 1919 Italian election

with the proportional system, the masses were called upon for the first time to express themselves not in order to choose, on a fragmentary local basis, between this or that candidate, or between this or that notable, but between different and opposed political parties and alternatives, of national importance.

...and we can't have that, so Liberals and Fascists both pushed for a stop to it. The effects are apparent even today: In the election that brought Giorgia Meloni to power, "Over 56% of Italian voters voted for centre or left-of-centre parties, but Italy will now be led by a right-wing coalition with a far-right."

As the author puts it bluntly

the attack on universal suffrage or on the proportional system goes hand-in-hand with the assertion of a free-market economic policy.

Imperialism:

historically the emancipation process that developed in the context of a determinate state, national, or ethnic community has often been intertwined with the disemancipation and even enslavement of ethnic groups and populations located outside that community.

There's also an in-depth look at this in Liberalism: A Counter-History. For this book, it's enough to understand that economic rights (i.e. to means of living) are substantively decoupled from political rights (speech, voting...), and subaltern nations are doubly excluded in their inability to influence either.

Bonapartism & the Media

Late in the book, Losurdo tackles the culpability of corporate media in soft Bonapartism's appeal. While it was tempting to set much of this aside as nothing new, even somewhat poorly dated by preceding social media, the parallels in this passage on 1988 struck me:

Who, even in the United States itself, knew that, in addition to Bush and Dukakis, a certain Leonora B. Fulani was running for president? Fulani? She was a black woman, a psychologist from New York, supported by the black community disappointed by the Democratic Party, who expressed a pacifist agenda, friendship with Cuba and solidarity with the Palestinian people. The television stations that organized the electoral debates were very careful not to invite her on, or even mention her name...Yet, in those same days, a public opinion poll (conducted by the Wall Street Journal and NBC News) showed that 63 per cent of voters did not feel represented by either the Republican or Democratic candidate.

Further, while social media does proliferate some niche spaces...if anything it plays further into the Bonapartist tendency to disdain intermediary bodies---why play by the rules of liberal corporate media norms when you can post on your billionaire friend's very own app?

Red Bonapartism?

It's worth exploring the brief few pages tackling the question of Bonapartism's relation to "actually existing socialism".

Since Losurdo wrote this in 1993, the overthrow of the USSR and Yeltsin were top-of-mind:

For Gramsci, so long as the subaltern classes were 'an amorphous mass perenially swaying back and forth outside of any spiritual organization', the 'working people' were doomed to remain 'easy prey for all' and simple 'human material' in the hands of the elites...

But it so happened that the vanguard called upon to direct the process of abolishing this state of affairs turned itself into a new elite...For this reason, the political regimes that recently collapsed in Eastern Europe were rightly denounced in the common understanding as dominated by a nomenklatura - by a now closed and sclerotic leadership group, a veritable oligarchy that developed on the basis of the central and privileged position of the Communist Party, although the [Party] itself constituted an obstacle to the development of Bonapartism proper. Bonapartism did, however, begin to emerge in Russia, starting from the collapse of AES.

This is further elaborated through the parallel example of the Cultural Revolution in China:

The moment in which a communist-led society seems to have come closest to the Bonapartist model is perhaps represented by the years of the Cultural Revolution in China, with the leader who, bypassing the party and leveraging his own personal charisma, addressed himself directly to the masses. Yet the latter were not called upon to express plebiscitary acclamation and then return to private life: on the contrary, they were insistently prodded into permanent political activity, albeit one guided and controlled from above. And this control was itself problematic and brought many strains. The extreme difficulty which Mao encountered in delimiting the forms of struggle and the objectives of the Cultural Revolution, and in concluding it at any given moment, provides further confirmation of the autonomous role that continued to be played, also on this occasion, by ideology and programme, as well as by political groups which, although sometimes clashing with the Communist Party or its leadership, also organized on the basis of this same ideology and programme.
...
it is precisely for these reasons [the role of mass organizations] that liberal or conservative theorists reduce the...communist revolutionary of whatever form to...a species totally unacceptable to Bonapartism, with its furious loathing for "indoctrinated" and ideologized masses or individuals.

Yet, counter to Arendt's "assimilation of communism to Fascism":

if there is a trait that both...share, it is simply their common inability - albeit for different reasons - to pass from the state of exception (crisis) to normality, as instead happens in the sphere of soft Bonapartism.

The Missing

A major and glaring gap, at least in this work which (to be fair!) was already of immense scope, is the lack of exploration of case studies of military dictatorships that 'transitioned' seemingly smoothly back into bourgeois democracy, in Spain and Latin America (Argentina, Brazil...). Its hard to overstate the relevance of these cases for the central concept here. But that's something for future analysis, perhaps, picking up on this work to explore.

[Stella Hansen · Rating 4 out of 5]

4.5 Incredibly important book about the current state of Western ‘democracy’. Cannot recommend Losurdo enough to anyone interested in political theory and history

[Paulo Seara · Rating 5 out of 5]

Reencontro uma vez mais o filósofo marxista-leninista Domenico Losurdo. Não sendo a temática do Bonapartismo uma novidade para mim, o livro aprofunda como se desenvolveu a política segundo este modelo de governança que se estreou durante a fase das guerras burguesas, de 1792 a 1848. O ano de 1792 surge aqui como a matriz da luta pelo voto e o sufrágio universal, foi neste ano que se escreveu a primeira constituição francesa, um documento base que causou calafrios e reacionarismo nos elementos conservadores e liberais da revolução que gostariam de ter seguido um modelo inglês com origem na revolução de 1688. Do outro lado do Atlântico nos EUA começa a constituir-se aquele que é até ao presente o modelo que foi mais bem-sucedido no que diz respeito ao Bonapartismo. Losurdo explica-nos a intricada relação entre os pais fundadores dos EUA, Washington, a revolta dos populares em vias de ser expropriados e as emendas feitas a golpe de mao para evitar uma deriva democrática nos EUA. Losurdo, segue ao longo de 8 capítulos a história tortuosa do direito ao voto, e o aparecimento do modelo tipo de Bonapartismo, plasmado em Luís Napoleão III em França. Para Losurdo este governante foi rígido e flexível com o objetivo primário de controlar a impetuosidade da multidão infantil da plebe e estabeleceu no entendimento do autor vários níveis de Bonapartismo que se mantêm com vigor hoje nos EUA, mas não só. Nos capítulos 3 e 4, Losurdo faz o destrinçamento das alternativas ao voto censitário e as lutas entre as classes superiores e as classes subalternas. Todo o regime passa por um teste de fogo, ou constrói as suas externalidades para forçar as classes mecânicas a uma guerra que tanto pode rasgar o estandarte do regime ou reforçar a sua existência. Na guerra franco-prussiana de 1870-1871, Hispano-Americana, ou a I Guerra Mundial o regimes de inspiração bonapartistas vão forçar a corda e conduzir a humanidade à carnificina, no caso europeu em nome do Imperialismo no caso norte-americano em nome da democracia e do civilizacao dos povos e classes inferiores. O capítulo 6 desenvolve a análise das diversas políticas para desemancipar o sufrágio universal e expõe as ideias e práticas de pensadores liberais, conservadores, fascista e comunistas. A ênfase aqui baliza-se entre 1919 e a alvorada de aço da II Guerra Mundial. Na luta contra a democracia plena reaparecem os círculos uninominais e novas formas de discriminação mediante formas censitárias e sanitárias. Recorrendo a uma frase de um liberal francês do século XIX, Losurdo catapulta Laboulaye para os anos de 1920:" I know that universal suffrage is a dogma: one does not discuss it, one adores it I'm always wary of blind faith. In religion as in politics, it produces nothing but fanatics". Os adversários do sufrágio universal constatam nesta fase que não é possível regressar ao passado ou bloquear um direito adquirido, não obstante o progresso material e social e tecnológico possibilitaram novas formas de discriminação, que vão até a componente jurídica quando o liberalismo restaurado como neoliberalismo possui mecanismo legal e jurídicos para desemancipar 30% ou 40% do eleitorado através da abstenção. Nos dias de hoje a desemancipacao aumentou com outro tipo de descriminação feita vigorosamente, a abstenção tornou-se numa base de desempoderamento que cresceu com o neoliberalismo. As políticas identitárias e o fim das dicotomias entre esquerda e direita, um sindicalismo que definha e não expõe as misérias de classe da mesma forma que o fazia, e com partidos comunistas e socialistas que ainda resistem enjaulados pelo sistema imperial norte-americano, e uma comunicação social que desempenha o papel de bigorna onde de atomiza o sufrágio universal. Avançando esta longa analise no capítulo 7 o escritor desenvolve a parte que considero mais profunda do seu pensamento critico do bonapartismo e a sua guerra contra a democracia, aqui vamos encontrar uma constância de valores e golos entre fascistas como Mussolini e filósofos conservadores como Mises, Shumpeter, como estes existe uma opção por retornar a princípios anteriores a revolução francesa, mas com um cunho corporativista, assim a democracia devera desenvolver-se através de procedimentos que imitem o mercado, e tudo o que estiver dentro da sua esfera, desta feita, atiram-se para a sarjeta o direito natural ao voto e o direito a vida criado por legislação anti-discriminatoria de Robespierre. Quem diria, Robespierre, o guilhotinador. A reinterpretação de Shumpeter da democracia recorre a segregação de grupos alvo, e renúncia a velha crença de um governo para o povo, para Shumpeter a democracia deve ser uma competicao pacifica entre líderes ou lideranças. A analogia mais próxima e o mercado e Mises desenvolve a sua ideia criando a figura da sociedade anónima aplicada a democracia porque rejeita a solidariedade de todos os interesses, os interesses devem ser individuais e replicar a divisão social do trabalho. Esta ideologia acaba por ser uma reciclagem de Burke, que acreditava que todos os homens são iguais, mas que os dividendos devem ser partilhados segundo o capital colocado por cada um na sociedade. Mais uma vez, ideias corporatistas e a respeito disso Losurdo indica que a comunidade política de Mises existente segundo a divisão social do trabalho e da sociedade anónima transpira um individualismo regressivo. E o autor remata, que até Adam Smith observou que proibir a livre associação de trabalhadores e favorecer a união dos patrões. Este capitulo também se debruça sobre as ideias de Bobbio e Popper, Hayek; em suma Hayek diz que se os trabalhadores gozam do poder de decidir o poder legislativo, diz que uma pessoa com razão devera argumentar que seria melhor que todos os que sobrevivem da caridade dos cofres públicos fossem excluídos do voto; quanto a Popper, o autor vai desosar o livro A Sociedade Aberta e os seus inimigos na qual Popper vira as leis do jogo democrático que existem desde a Grecia Antiga, segundo Popper a velha questão "Quem deve governar" deve ser superada por uma maior questão "Como e que os podemos domar?" Popper com o seu formalismo vai ao ponto de legitimar como democracia, governos que recorrem a estados de exceção, quasi ditaduras e regimes esclavagistas como acontecia nos EUA antes de 1865. Popper diz que se uma presidente e um governo se suceder a outro pacificamente, estão compridos os requisitos para existir uma democracia, e se isso não acontecer, estamos na presença de uma tirania. Popper e Bobbio querem minimizar a democracia, estao preocupados com as injustiças que os poderosos sofrem por não se sentirem representados. Claro que este processo teve resistências e progresso e Losurdo assinala isso com a Revolução de Outubro e a expansão do sufrágio universal. O capítulo 7 termina com uma análise da agenda milenarista do imperialismo preconizado pelos EUA, ou também chamada Nova Ordem Mundial. Neste âmbito, Losurdo vai apontar Popper novamente "We must not be afraid of wage wars for peace." E em relação à descolonização, Popper disse," we liberated these states (the colonies) too hurriedly and too simplistically" and that was like "abandoning a kindergarden to itself". No final do capítulo, Losurdo analisa as dinâmicas negativas que o capital gerou ao absorver nos países centrais do sistema os novos "estrangeiros" vindos de países nos quais existiram democracias socialistas. Finalmente no capitulo 8, Losurdo liga Democracia, Mercado e Manipulação Total, e apresenta em 1993 o triunfo do Bonapartismo suave e os modelos plebiscitários de governança dos EUA e dá o exemplo das eleições presidenciais dos EUA de 1988 como contra argumento para uma democracia plural, onde existe a competição de um único modelo, mas com diferentes actores políticos ao que ele chama monopartidarismo. Na trajetória final do livro Losurdo aponta que apesar das limitações temporais Karl Marx ainda tem uma relevância na análise da democracia burguesa e apresenta o "principado multimédia" como o combustível que faz andar a máquina do bonapartismo suave, e ainda faz uma curta menção a Lenin, para validar que a representação popular e o sufrágio são parte das instituições democráticas, e que tal como Kelsen indica na página 321, os líderes da Uniao Sovietica aumentaram o número de corpos representativos, e não se envergonharam de representações a níveis secundários. Losurdo escreve na mesma pagina que se operou um paradoxo, os preponentes da democracia directa hoje não reproduzem aquela que existe nas fábricas e locais de trabalho, mas dispensa mediadores partidários são os verdadeiros preponentes do bonapartismo suave. Para um livro publicado em 1993, continua muito atual. Desde então a corrida para a desemancipar os cidadãos, agudizou-se. Durante os anos de 2015 a 2025 o bonapartismo suave conquistou mais segmentos da populacao e do voto popular e os partidos charneira da democracia liberal reproduzindo uma democracia de mercado supranacional e a população alimentada por ideais chauvinistas corre o perigo de ser imolada pela guerra, o net zero financeiro e climático, ou guiada por um líder autoritário isolacionista ungido pelo principado dos multimédia.

[Jasmine · Rating 5 out of 5]

This is an incredibly relevant work for understanding modern day democracy and its discontents. Losurdo traces history from the French Revolution through the 1992 US Presidential election to show the development of Bonapartism. We see how soft Bonapartism of the US and other countries of the West (versus the war Bonpartism of fascism) is remarkably stable, and yet fails to deliver on the emancipation and social welfare one might expect would come of universal suffrage.

Bonapartism is a political structure characterized by a powerful and charismatic executive, who legitimizes their power through the support of the masses, and who becomes the interpreter of the nation — that is, power is personalized. To pave over internal strife between economic classes within a nation, conflict is externalized, and the Bonapartist leader is imbued with a mandate to protect (and expand) the lofty ideals of the nation. Soft Bonapartism is able to shift from states of exception to states of normality, and part of its stability comes from its ability to change out heads of state when the current Bonapartist leader no longer can point to popular support. This is accomplished by having competitive elections between multiple factions of a single party.

Along with the increasing power of the Bonapartist leader comes a reduction of the power of political parties, if not through overt legal means, via the implementation of single-member districts over proportional representation. We also see increased monopoly over theoretical production, i.e., the consolidation of mass media under the control over a few billionaires. Though soft Bonapartism comes with universal suffrage (first for just white men, and now for nearly all adults), we also see a disemancipation in our ability to participate in political decision-making and debate.

Readers may be particularly curious about Losurdo’s assessment of the socialist states of the twentieth century. Losurdo argues that none of these leaders were Bonapartist figures (though Mao at one point came closest), in part due to the role political parties play in mediating power. Because political parties act as forums for political education and debate, they maintain the political engagement of the masses and act as insulation against the personalization of power.

Losurdo notes that we are currently in a wave of disemancipation, and that the end is not yet in sight. He has few answers for the steps going forward, although reading between the lines it seems like fighting for proportional representation and re-taking control over the means of information dissemination (education, news, etc) are likely bets. I’d recommend this book as a good introduction to Marxist critique of modern political structures, and as a first book by this author.

[Jairo · Rating 5 out of 5]

Domenico Losurdo aims to illustrate how the American political and electoral system, which he terms "soft Bonapartism," has become dominant in the West. He argues that this system is the result of an inherent anti-democratic tendency rooted in the ideology of the "Founding Fathers" of liberal philosophy. This tendency has historically resisted the participation of the so-called "childlike multitude" in democracy and the shaping of society. Liberals have traditionally opposed universal suffrage, ensuring that any democratic rights granted were merely concessions that preserved the ruling class's control over power. Mechanisms like plural voting and proportional representation by single-member constituencies were designed to prevent the democratization of social and economic power. However, Losurdo highlights that each democratic concession has also been accompanied by a stronger centralization of executive power, especially in the United States.

Losurdo further explores the origins of liberal disdain for organized political parties with clear ideologies. He notes that such parties empower the oppressed and subaltern classes by fostering independent thought centered on the interests of the working class. This development challenges the dominant ideology upheld by the ruling class, which owns the means of ideological production and dissemination, including the media, intellectuals, and universities. Through these parties, political programs can be crafted that question the status quo and propose alternatives. Such programs counteract the liberal electoral and Bonapartist tendency to transform elections into theatrical events focused on personality, charm, and superficial appeal.

Overall, Losurdo's work demonstrates that liberalism has historically opposed democracy by gravitating toward the centralization of executive power, embodying a "Bonapartist" inclination. Notably, Losurdo argues that the radicalization of this Bonapartist trend gave rise to fascism. This book clearly laid the foundation for Losurdo's continued exploration of liberal history and its anti-democratic tendencies, culminating in his most renowned work, *Liberalism: A Counter-History*.

[Douglas Kim · Rating 5 out of 5]

I consider this work by Losurdo to be somewhat of a companion piece to his Liberalism book, since there is clearly a good amount of overlap. In Liberalism, Losurdo critiques the different political scientists and academics of the time who justify politics that end up presupposing oppression of others as a requisite for "liberty".

In DoB, Losurdo makes the case that modern liberalism is not actual democracy, and that instead, it has been a disguised dictatorship controlled by the bourgeoisie which Marxists have classified as Bonapartism, from the style of governance of Napoleon Bonaparte during the Napoleonic Wars of the early 1800s, rolling back many of the gains that the masses had made during the French Revolution.

Losurdo shows that since the American and French Revolutions, the ruling class has made every effort to contain their ideals as best they could, with disenfranchisement movements, counterrevolutionary movements after 1848, the Paris Commune, and of course the October Revolution. Liberals make various appeals to the "child like" behavior of the oppressed, with American liberals using racism as their primary ideological wedge to divide the working class.

More does this give credence to the idea that the October Revolution was the realization of the ideals of the American and French liberal revolutions, and that liberals are more concerned with appearing that they champion these ideals than they are in executing them in practice in defense of their power and privilege.

[Tom · Rating 4 out of 5]

In some ways very ahead of its time. All the talk of Bush and the war in Iraq makes you think this was written in the 2000s not 1993. A solid look at the anti-democratic currents in liberalism and their current prominence. The personalisation of power feels extremely relevant as a concept especially since the publication of this book

[Ziikii · Rating 4 out of 5]

continua la white boy summer che più white non si puo con questo libro di Losurdo sul suffragio universale e il suo rapporto con la democrazia. lettura consigliata anche per aggiungere un po’ di strumenti concettuali utili a capire come mai alla borghesia il presidenzialismo piaccia così tanto.

[Igor Mello · Rating 5 out of 5]

Li a versão em português, da editora UNESP, e como qualquer livro do Losurdo, não falha em apresentar um ponto de vista expansivo e interessante sobre o assunto.
Não é de tão facil leitura, mas recomendo à qualquer um que se interesse por história política ocidental crítica.

[Andrew Pritchard · Rating 5 out of 5]

A superb analysis of the undemocratic turn we see developing in the state. This book is very soon to appear in English translation (Verso).

[Hector · Rating 4 out of 5]

highly relevant to today. Bonapartism is an incredibly useful concept. This book is a great compliment to losurdo's magesterial counter history of liberalism.

[Massimo Andolfatto · Rating 5 out of 5]

Fantastic book. I was surprised when he speaks of “current” events (meaning the rise of Yeltsin, etc.) because the work reads as though it could have been written this year (2025).