Re: YOU "heard" it first here

Marv,
You have identified the disagreement clearly. I will answer the two main objections: the empirical test and the genealogical one.
First, the test. You argue that if Trump led a Bonapartist regime, I would not be writing for Tempest, and we would not be on Marxmail since features like exiled opposition, censored media, compliant unions, and banned demonstrations are missing. But these are features of fascism, not Bonapartism. I have said we do not face fascism. You are applying the evidentiary standard of the thesis I reject. Classical Bonapartism did not abolish parties. Marx's Bonaparte ruled with parliament in session, a functioning press, and opposition that still spoke. What defined Bonapartism was not the end of bourgeois political life but the executive's autonomy above it. The bourgeoisie kept its social power but gave up political rule. The existence of Tempest is not evidence against Bonapartism. It is normal under it.
Now the genealogy. You are right that Weber took patrimonialism from pre-capitalist despotisms like China, the Ottomans, and absolutist Europe. The point of using the category now is that pre-bureaucratic logic has returned inside a bureaucratic state. Weber said that patrimonial and rational-legal authority are ideal types that mix in reality, and that modern bureaucracy is never fully secure against personal appropriation of office. The generals' houses, the benefices, the tenure by loyalty are not just corruption in a normal state. They are the return of patrimonialism in a state that had been rationalized. This is not an anachronism. It is the point.
This is why I reject your attempt to call this just 'corruption incidental to any system.' Every bourgeois state has graft. What sets patrimonial rule apart is that favor is the mechanism. Tenure, appointment, and regulatory power depend on personal loyalty, not legal competence. This is structurally opposed to the calculable law that capital requires. This is not about Trump being crooked. It is a claim about the state form, and your own examples show it. The WSJ tariff editorial and the FT piece on bipartisan War Powers pushback are not capital disciplining a president it controls. They are capital confronting an executive whose arbitrariness it cannot predict. The pushback exists because the executive's autonomy exists. A president who only served the class as its instrument would not create this conflict.
On the Iran parallel, the 1973 Act passed because a professional apparatus and party structures with autonomy from the president forced it through. My argument is that these transmission belts are now being patrimonialized. Bipartisan grumbling can exist alongside an executive that no longer answers to it. This does not refute the thesis. It confirms it.
We agree on what matters in practice: resistance where there are openings and defense of every target of the machine. But the nature of those openings depends on whether the coming crisis is capital returning to the Democrats or a succession crisis inside a household that cannot transfer its loyalties. I think it is the latter. 2028 will test this.
Tony
--
Tony


-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-
Groups.io Links: You receive all messages sent to this group.
View/Reply Online (#42602): https://groups.io/g/marxmail/message/42602
Mute This Topic: https://groups.io/mt/119773879/6024700
-=-=-
POSTING RULES & NOTES
#1 YOU MUST clip all extraneous text when replying to a message.
#2 This mail-list, like most, is publicly & permanently archived.
#3 Subscribe and post under an alias if #2 is a concern.
#4 Do not exceed five posts a day.
-=-=-
Group Owner: [email protected]
Unsubscribe: https://groups.io/g/marxmail/leave/10173629/6024700/1441833971/xyzzy [[email protected]]
-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-