Names can be explained by the contradiction of what they denote
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 (
#exemplifies, via linked claim)
The literature on semipresidentialism provides a good example of balance between the two poles. Here features of each pole are used for the gray zone in the middle. So while the name and terminology might suggest imbalance toward the presidential side, in practice it is quite balanced and scholars understand that there is a range where a given regime might be more toward one pole rather than the other, but that the ideal type is a relative balance of the two polar types. — Gary Goertz, Social Science Concepts and Measurement, 1156 (
#qualifies, via linked claim)
Categorization
- XREF: connects to: A concept’s name can mislead about its actual theoretical balance between poles. — Gary Goertz, Social Science Concepts and Measurement, 1156; Caesarism names rule arising when conflicting forces mutually exhaust each other — Antonio Gramsci, Selections from the Prison Notebooks, 852
Broader Connections
- Caesarism names rule arising when conflicting forces mutually exhaust each other
#exemplifies(0.80) — Antonio Gramsci, Selections from the Prison Notebooks, 852 - A concept’s name can mislead about its actual theoretical balance between poles.
#qualifies(0.75) — Gary Goertz, Social Science Concepts and Measurement, 1156