Caesarism arises when conflicting forces reach catastrophic equilibrium, letting a third force intervene
Evidence
Caesarism can be said to express a situation in which 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. When the progressive force A struggles with the reactionary force B, not only may A defeat B or B defeat A, but it may happen that neither A nor B defeats the other—that they bleed each other mutually and then a third force C intervenes from outside, subjugating what is left of both A and B. In Italy, after the death of Lorenzo il Magnifico, this is precisely what occurred. — Antonio Gramsci, Selections from the Prison Notebooks, 852
Categorization
Category: Definitional Content
- DEFINE: Gramsci’s core definition of Caesarism as a mechanism born from catastrophic equilibrium of opposing forces.
- XREF: Connects forward to how Islamophobia scholarship treats the ‘bonapartist’ or authoritarian-populist mediation of race/capital tensions; also links to Marx’s 18th Brumaire which this whole note is a riff on.
Related
- Caesarism emerges when balanced hostile forces risk mutual destruction (similarity 0.94)
- Caesarism emerges when two forces reach an organic equilibrium neither can win (similarity 0.88)
- Caesarism describes compromise regimes without equating fascism with capitalism (similarity 0.82)
- Caesarism can serve either progressive or reactionary forces depending on concrete history (similarity 0.82)
- Caesarism is a compromise between fundamental social forces, distinct from Bonapartism. (similarity 0.78)