[Ebook] ➧ The Concept of the Political Author Carl Schmitt – Tactical-player.co.uk

The Concept of the Political De todos los libros que tuve que leer para Teor a Pol tica, este fue lejos el mejor Pero una precauci n no estarecomendado para ilusos, ut picos, idealistas Es para quien quiera llegar a la esencia de la pol tica, que para Schmitt radica en el conflicto , no verbal o econ mico, sino que existencial , es decir, la oposici n espec ficamente pol tica es la de amigo enemigo, y se define porque al menos existe la eventualidad de matarse mutuamente.LA cr tica al concepto de Estado tradicional, De todos los libros que tuve que leer para Teor a Pol tica, este fue lejos el mejor Pero una precauci n no esta recomendado para ilusos, ut picos, idealistas Es para quien quiera llegar a la esencia de la pol tica, que para Schmitt radica en el conflicto , no verbal o econ mico, sino que existencial , es decir, la oposici n espec ficamente pol tica es la de amigo enemigo, y se define porque al menos existe la eventualidad de matarse mutuamente.LA cr tica al concepto de Estado tradicional, as como al weberiano, es implacable, y uno termina convencido de las tesis de este sujeto.CAp tulo aparte es su cr tica al liberalismo, verdadera joya de un esp ritu cr tico que uno ya no ve dangerous, yet brilliant. Carl Schmitt, like Martin Heidegger, has the scary Nazi stain permanently covering his philosophical legacy Despite his tainted reputation, The Concept of the Political is still regarded by those on the right and left , as one of the best overviews on how politics work orlike how they don t work Schmitt brings up such things as how whenever the leaders of a country want to go and mass murderer a bunch of people in war, the leaders go on about protecting humanity Of course, th Carl Schmitt, like Martin Heidegger, has the scary Nazi stain permanently covering his philosophical legacy Despite his tainted reputation, The Concept of the Political is still regarded by those on the right and left , as one of the best overviews on how politics work orlike how they don t work Schmitt brings up such things as how whenever the leaders of a country want to go and mass murderer a bunch of people in war, the leaders go on about protecting humanity Of course, the enemy of humanity despite being part of humanity is no longer part of humanity but something lower, something worthy of extermination This tactic was used by revolutionaries like Lenin, but can be used by both ends of the political spectrum Schmitt spends most of the book critiquing liberalism and how it is at odds with the state In fact, liberalism always attempts to ignore the state and politics and replaces them with two heterogeneous spheres such as ethics and economics, intellect and trade, education and property, etc People can no longer look past themselves and their feelings With this kind of thinking, a truly successful state can never prosper It makes one wonder what the future will hold, but it surely won t be good One just has to look at all the imaginary progress that has taken place in our world since the book was written We are no doubt headed towards some type of international chaotic we already have the chaos explosion Whatever happened to good old organic kultur I guess intellectual abstractions aren t always so good Poor Marx, he must be philosophizing in his grave Someone will get Marxism right one day Carl Schmitt 1888 1985 is most recognised for his idea of friend foe distinction The ability of a group of people to define their enemies and friends constitutes the political The ultimate consequence and litmus test of this this process is war I find it interesting, that the friend foe distinction is not the result of his thought process, but its starting point He postulates the friend foe distinction as the axiom of the political sphere and develops his thinking on concepts such as liber Carl Schmitt 1888 1985 is most recognised for his idea of friend foe distinction The ability of a group of people to define their enemies and friends constitutes the political The ultimate consequence and litmus test of this this process is war I find it interesting, that the friend foe distinction is not the result of his thought process, but its starting point He postulates the friend foe distinction as the axiom of the political sphere and develops his thinking on concepts such as liberalism, pacifism or the League of Nations he does not think much of any of these from that point He is deeply skeptical of waging war for normative reasons such as peace the last war of all wars , democracy, liberty or international law because it blurs the real reasons underlying the conflict and escalates war into a totalitarian conflict Notably, he admires Marxism for excelling in creating friend foe distinction across the globe Apart from that Schmitt still believes that the nation state is the core category of friend foe distinctions Schmitt s essay is short, precise and non dull I appreciate the clearness of his analytical framework and I will add it to my toolkit of analysing political conflict I read the bulk of The Concept of the Political quite rapidly, but I nonetheless got a few interesting though scattered reflections from Schmitt s influential essay It s hard to talk about Schmitt without raising the fact of his unmitigated allegiance to the Nazi party, and while this piece was written prior to the full realisation of Hitler s nightmare, there s certainly elements of his argument that one can t help but think are called into question by their later influence Nonetheless, Schmi I read the bulk of The Concept of the Political quite rapidly, but I nonetheless got a few interesting though scattered reflections from Schmitt s influential essay It s hard to talk about Schmitt without raising the fact of his unmitigated allegiance to the Nazi party, and while this piece was written prior to the full realisation of Hitler s nightmare, there s certainly elements of his argument that one can t help but think are called into question by their later influence Nonetheless, Schmitt puts forward some interesting and relevant views that would appeal to fans of Hobbes and Machiavelli, and which I think have a particular endurance for International Relations IR It seems Schmitt s basic premise is that the political is fundamentally defined by the dichotomy of collective friend and enemy I quite liked his justification for defining political in terms of a dichotomy like this, as he draws our attention to the fact that other categories are similarly defined by their consideration of dichotomies For example, aesthetics as a consideration of beauty and vulgarity, ethics as a consideration of good and evil He views the political distinction as the most powerful, in that in friend enemy relations there exists the very real threat of mortal violence To a significant extent I felt that there was a lot to be said for this view of the political at the level of international relations It seems something of a precursor to the neorealist thought in IR The only thing we as a nation have in common with each other is our supposed difference to other nations, and these relations are defined constantly in a militarised world by the underlying threat of conflict I couldn t help but feeling it was a negative and reductive view of the world, though There s no doubt some truth to it but by splitting the world up in terms of such a harsh dichotomy Schmitt seems to miss a lot of nuance about the character of relations He was writing in a period of significant enmity within Europe where allegiances seemedtransparent and conflictimminent The modern day, however, seems a littlecomplex I think few Western states would explicitly identify any enemies beyond such nebulous terms as extremists Perhaps the analysis carriesresonance in regions such as the Middle East where conflict isomnipresent and thus a friend enemy conceptioncentral to political considerations I felt in general that the argument fell apart because it was an attempt to attack liberalism I m not the biggest fan of liberalism but given the option of replacing war with economic and intellectual competition, I ll take it He seems to bemoan the fact that a true liberal would never be willingly forced to die for his state He even says things such as That art is a daughter of freedom, that aesthetic value judgment is absolutely autonomous, that artistic genius is sovereign all this is axiomatic of liberalism Is that supposed to be bad I think the point he was trying to make is that with increasing individualism comes increasing isolation, while meaning comes from the collective Thus in liberalism s push towards increasing individualism at the cost of community results in a loss of collective meaning If this was his point, though, I personally felt that he made it poorly Not to mention that his solution seems to be an undemocratic totalising state in which our meaning is defined for us from on high Schmitt does rescue his analysis of liberalism in the closing pages, however, when he attacks the liberal view of economics being an apolitical activity because economic competitors are not the same as enemies He argues in a sort of Platonic fashion that an ostensibly apolitical society ruled by economic considerations inevitably becomes political in it s considerations I think this is a profound point Schmitt uses the example that was very much a sore spot for the Germans in the interwar years of punitive war reparations, and economic sanctions that essentially legitimise starvation for economic reasons One thinks ofrecent examples of US liberal imperialism in its conflicts abroad The specific political distinction to which political actions and motives can be reduced is that between friend and enemy A very interesting exploration of what the political and non political realm encompasses, a detailed categorization of different types of conflicts, as well as a strong criticism of liberalism as a system which destroys democracy the way Schmitt understood and accepted democracy Asserts the need of having a strong state as the decision maker and the ultimate power. I read this philosophical work with the help of the book Carl Schmitt and Leo Strauss The Hidden Dialogue by Heinrich Meier and many other works of Carl Schmitt.My objective in reading this book was to bring Carl s theological political worldview to the foreground.All I can say is that this philosopher made me reconsider the unproblematic simplicity of my liberal democratic worldview Challenging my naive intuition with biting ideas Must read for those who want to underpin their political I read this philosophical work with the help of the book Carl Schmitt and Leo Strauss The Hidden Dialogue by Heinrich Meier and many other works of Carl Schmitt.My objective in reading this book was to bring Carl s theological political worldview to the foreground.All I can say is that this philosopher made me reconsider the unproblematic simplicity of my liberal democratic worldview Challenging my naive intuition with biting ideas Must read for those who want to underpin their political views with philosophy and like a challenge What a wham bam shazzam tour de force After finishing it, I m not sure if I m leaningleft or rightwards It is a manifest fraud to condemn war as homicide and then demand of men that they wage war, kill and be killed, so that there will never again be war War, the readiness of combatants to die, the physical killing of human beings who belong on the side of the enemy all this has no normative meaning but an existential meaning only, particularly in a real combat situation with a real What a wham bam shazzam tour de force After finishing it, I m not sure if I m leaningleft or rightwards It is a manifest fraud to condemn war as homicide and then demand of men that they wage war, kill and be killed, so that there will never again be war War, the readiness of combatants to die, the physical killing of human beings who belong on the side of the enemy all this has no normative meaning but an existential meaning only, particularly in a real combat situation with a real enemy There exists no rational purpose, no norm no matter how true, no program no matter how exemplary, no social ideal no matter how beautiful, no legitimacy nor legality which could justify men killing each other for this reason Two ways to make a big deal of a book make sure its author was momentarily a Nazi, and, by the logical principle of contagion, follow the logic author was a nazi book is certainly nazified reader reader book reader becomes a nazi Bam This is the most dangerous book you ll ever read Except it s barely political in that sense at all, and isof an essay than a book The thought process is clear and not unreasonable if there s something called politics, it must have certa Two ways to make a big deal of a book make sure its author was momentarily a Nazi, and, by the logical principle of contagion, follow the logic author was a nazi book is certainly nazified reader reader book reader becomes a nazi Bam This is the most dangerous book you ll ever read Except it s barely political in that sense at all, and isof an essay than a book The thought process is clear and not unreasonable if there s something called politics, it must have certain characteristics If we purify our concept of politics from such extraneous concepts as morality, aesthetics, economics and so on, what are we left with For Schmitt, at least, you re left with the opposition between friends and enemies, where enemies are people in the world who threaten the sovereignty of your political state QED Sure there s an odd suspicion that Schmitt really wishes there waswar between friends and enemies His critique of liberalism as a theory which leaves no room for fighting people who undermine liberal state sovereignty might look icky, but only if you ve drunk the pacifist cool aid and think nothing s worth fighting for Otherwise it just looks like a reasonable complaint against people who want to rid the world and our lives of all meaning So don t worry You can let little Sammy read this book without fear that he ll suddenly goose step his way over your face Otherwise, there are three commentators here, Strong, Schwab and Strauss Strong is the most contemporary, and spends a bit of time talking about how Schmitt is the golden boy of the New Left Review types, as well as various reactionary lunatics Schwab sets CP in its historical setting Strauss, you will be surprised to learn, over reads the text makes wild and implausible assumptions about its argument really being about culture and human nature doesn t really say anything particularly concretely and does so in a rambling, repetitive and turgid manner IT IS TO UNDERSTAND SOCRATES indeed In This, His Most Influential Work, Legal Theorist And Political Philosopher Carl Schmitt Argues That Liberalism S Basis In Individual Rights Cannot Provide A Reasonable Justification For Sacrificing Oneself For The State This Edition Of The Work Includes The Translator S Introduction By George Schwab Which Highlights Schmitt S Intellectual Journey Through The Turbulent Period Of German History Leading To The Hitlerian One Party State It Also Includes Leo Strauss S Analysis Of Schmitt S Thesis And A Foreword By Tracy B Strong Placing Schmitt S Work Into Contemporary Context


About the Author: Carl Schmitt

Carl Schmitt s early career as an academic lawyer falls into the last years of the Wilhelmine Empire See for Schmitt s life and career Bendersky 1983 Balakrishnan 2000 Mehring 2009 But Schmitt wrote his most influential works, as a young professor of constitutional law in Bonn and later in Berlin, during the Weimar period Political Theology, presenting Schmitt s theory of sovereignty, appe Carl Schmitt s early career as an academic lawyer falls into the last years of the Wilhelmine Empire See for Schmitt s life and career Bendersky 1983 Balakrishnan 2000 Mehring 2009 But Schmitt wrote his most influential works, as a young professor of constitutional law in Bonn and later in Berlin, during the Weimar period Political Theology, presenting Schmitt s theory of sovereignty, appeared in 1922, to be followed in 1923 by The Crisis of Parliamentary Democracy, which attacked the legitimacy of parliamentary government In 1927, Schmitt published the first version of his most famous work, The Concept of the Political, defending the view that all true politics is based on the distinction between friend and enemy The culmination of Schmitt s work in the Weimar period, and arguably his greatest achievement, is the 1928 Constitutional Theory which systematically applied Schmitt s political theory to the interpretation of the Weimar constitution During the political and constitutional crisis of the later Weimar Republic Schmitt published Legality and Legitimacy, a clear sighted analysis of the breakdown of parliamentary government Germany, as well as The Guardian of the Constitution, which argued that the president as the head of the executive, and not a constitutional court, ought to be recognized as the guardian of the constitution In these works from the later Weimar period, Schmitt s declared aim to defend the Weimar constitution is at times barely distinguishable from a call for constitutional revision towards aauthoritarian political framework Dyzenhaus 1997, 70 85 Kennedy 2004, 154 78.Though Schmitt had not been a supporter of National Socialism before Hitler came to power, he sided with the Nazis after 1933 Schmitt quickly obtained an influential position in the legal profession and came to be perceived as the Crown Jurist of National Socialism R thers 1990 Mehring 2009, 304 436 He devoted himself, with undue enthusiasm, to such tasks as the defence of Hitler s extra judicial killings of political opponents PB 227 32 and the purging of German jurisprudence of Jewish influence Gross 2007 Mehring 2009, 358 80 But Schmitt was ousted from his position of power within legal academia in 1936, after infighting with academic competitors who viewed Schmitt as a turncoat who had converted to Nazism only to advance his career There is considerable debate about the causes of Schmitt s willingness to associate himself with the Nazis Some authors point to Schmitt s strong ambition and his opportunistic character but deny ideological affinity Bendersky 1983, 195 242 Schwab 1989 But a strong case has been made that Schmitt s anti liberal jurisprudence, as well as his fervent anti semitism, disposed him to support the Nazi regime Dyzenhaus 1997, 85 101 Scheuerman 1999 Throughout the later Nazi period, Schmitt s work focused on questions of international law The immediate motivation for this turn seems to have been the aim to justify Nazi expansionism But Schmitt was interested in the wider question of the foundations of international law, and he was convinced that the turn towards liberal cosmopolitanism in 20th century international law would undermine the conditions of stable and legitimate international legal order Schmitt s theoretical work on the foundations of international law culminated in The Nomos of the Earth, written in the early 1940 s, but not published before 1950 Due to his support for and involvement with the Nazi dictatorship, the obstinately unrepentant Schmitt was not allowed to return to an academic job after 1945 Mehring 2009, 438 63 But he nevertheless remained an important figure in West Germany s conservative intellectual scene to his death in 1985 van Laak 2002 and enjoyed a considerable degree of clandestine influence elsewhere Scheuerman 1999, 183 251 M ller 2003.Unsurprisingly, the significance and value of Schmitt s works


Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *