This is from Class Struggle by Domenico Losurdo, chapter After revolution, the ambigueties of class struggle

In a situation characterized by a permanent state of emergency, and a lack of clear ideas about the concrete shape of the new political and social order, communist parties in power and their leaders ended up establishing a relationship with the proletariat and popular masses that recalls the one established with the bourgeoisie by Louis Bonaparte. That is, paraphrasing Marx, ‘the dictatorship of the proletariat by the sabre’ turned into the ‘dictatorship of the sabre over civil society’ and over the proletariat itself. However, albeit slender and twisted, a thread continued to connect Louis Napoleon with the bourgeoisie behind the counter-revolution, just as a thread continues to connect communist leaders in power with the proletariat and popular masses who were the protagonists of the revolution. Bonapartism or Caesarism is one of the ways that the process of autonomiziation of ideological, political, and military castes occurs. Gramsci’s distinction between regressive Caesarism and progressive Caesarism remains valid; and it also remains the case that in different historical situations the progressive or regressive character of Cesarism proves more or less pronounced.

Desperate times call for drastic measures, which themselves can be for a progressive or reactionary cause. The DPRK comes to mind as a recent progressive bonapartism immediately after the arduous march albeit not that much anymore. Same with Syria under Assad, and now they found themselves under a reactionary bonapartism under the fundamentalists.