Caesarism is a compromise between fundamental forces, not pure Bonapartism

Evidence

“Caesarism”, for Gramsci, is a concept which does not merely refer to fascism, but can have a wider application—e.g. to the British National Government of 1931, etc.; it is thus not identical to Marx’s concept of “Bonapartism”, although it is clearly related to it. “Caesarism” represents a compromise between two “fundamental” social forces, but 1. “The problem is to see whether in the dialectic ‘revolution/restoration’ it is revolution or restoration which predominates”, and 2. “It would be an error of method to believe that in Caesarism … the entire new historical phenomenon is due to the equilibrium of the ‘fundamental’ forces. It is also necessary to see the interplay of relations between the principal groups … of the fundamental classes and the auxiliary forces directed by, or subjected to, their hegemonic influence.” — Antonio Gramsci, Selections from the Prison Notebooks, 823

Categorization

• DEFINE: Defines Gramsci’s Caesarism as distinct from Marx’s Bonapartism — a second-order compromise concept.
• XREF: The distinction between Caesarism and Bonapartism, and the caveat that auxiliary hegemonic forces matter, is methodologically useful for later Islamophobia readings that examine how ruling blocs subordinate auxiliary forces.