Basically, I was reading Gramsci's work again and reread his thing on caesarism/bonapartism. He places Julius Caesar and Bonaparte the actually competent as progressive caesarist/bonapartist, and then places Napoleon the stupid and...Bismark(?) as regressive caesarist/bonapartists.

If I'm understanding him correctly, the idea is that two forces, progressive classes (such as the proletariat now and Bourgeoisie then) and regressive classes (landowners then and the Bourgeoisie now) essentially don't have the ability to overthrow each other or to end the conflict, so a Bonapartist enters the scene and gives the slight nudge needed to either side to tip the balance and resolve the conflict.

I...do have a couple questions I can't figure out myself.

1.Did Caesar succeed or fail? What were the progressive classes at the time? The small landowners? The proletarii? Did the roman economic system change between before he came to power and after he came to power? If he did fail, what would have success look like? How did the roman class system survive for several hundred years after him, if the class system didn't change?

2.Did Napoleon help reestablish the Bourgeois dictatorship in France over the Feudal manoralists, or did he simply "solidify" the victory after taking control from the thermidorians? Would it have mattered if he did or did not?

3.Bismark? I don't really get this one.

(P.S, is Putin a modern bonapartist or no? If so, reactionary or progressive?)