The above-described state imbued with hegemony, but partly resisting it, is a Caesarist state. It says: “I will not enter tomorrow, I will stay in today, let my today be eternal.” Caesarism is a state that does not oppose hegemony, but simply freezes in time, becoming a deterrent to hegemony achieving its next step only as some (temporary) obstacle in hegemony’s way.
Caesarism is an attempt to interact with and oppose hegemony at the same time. The desire to interact with hegemony in this way is in order to partially let it in, partially to evade it. For example, the contemporary Russian Federation is a typical case of Caesarism in Gramsci’s terms.
Formally, the Caesarist state can proclaim: “We are for sovereignty!” But if the hegemony is inside like the mold it is – ideologically, technologically, economically – then it does not matter whether this state is fully integrated into hegemony or not. It doesn’t matter which side hegemony comes from: picking up an iPhone already makes you included in hegemony, because there are different programs already crawling along your profile, examining you. You are included in its network. Hegemony is a network, a rhizome.
The line between hegemony and Caesarism, on the one hand, and between counter-hegemony and Caesarism, on the other, are fundamental aspects of Gramsci's political science.