/lit/ - Literature

I love his works but I feel he was a bit disingenuous in his treatment of liberalism. I gather that he was engaging in political theology (revealing hidden theological assumptions behind political ideologies) because it was easier to attack liberalism as just another religion than as a neutral secular sphere which allows people to practice different religions without coming into conflict with one another (which is how liberals see liberalism). Are there any books that argue against Schmitt from a more moderate point of view?

>>15694824
>Left wing thought takes a more scientific approach
lmao you retards literally believe in an ultimate sublation and resolution of all contradictions by the elimination of economic classes and a subsequent withering away of the state, one can hardly get less scientific than that. read Carl Schmitt

>>15659960
t. former libertarian, converted to fascism
libertarianism is very good as an introduction to right wing thought but they're basically leftoids in spirit, degenerate and rotten to the core. the economic part of libertarianism is pretty solid but what they don't get is that no one is going to respect their """axioms""" if they fail to deliver the goods to the masses. we need to start with the nation, not with the community of atomised individuals, and work together in order to achieve a more flat distribution of income not for the sake of it but to endow every white family with basic resources so they may flourish. the ideal mix is libertarian market policy + social democratic redistributive policies (yes, I know you cannot divorce distribution from the functioning of the market but in practice we have to agree on something in between the two extremes, we shouldn't fetishize the market) + conservative cultural policy and ideology. what converted me was your standard set of revolutionary conservative literature - Schmitt, Voegelin, Strauss (although he was not strictly a conservative, but still insightful), Nietzsche, Junger, Spengler, Heidegger, Dugin, Mishima, Evola (didn't like him), add to that some fascist theory from Gentile, Mussolini and Mosley. at some point all libertarians start to wonder "why the fuck are my policies not implemented when they're so logical and good?". the answer - nobody gives two fucks about logic, logic won't feed the starving, won't help the poor, won't heal the sick. you need to give the people something in exchange for your economic policies, that would be sensible redistribution and sense of belonging to the nation. if you're a libertarian and you want a painless transition from libertarianism to more realistic forms of politics read two classics of Austrian school - von Wieser and Hayek - as well as Pareto. they were not dogmatic in their free market apologetics, Wieser was pretty much a protofascist (his Law of Power is basically Nietzsche projected onto the social plane), Pareto was a huge influence on Mussolini and Hayek - despite his reservations - was pretty much a classical conservative.

did he misunderstand socialism? if I understand him correctly, socialism and liberalism are equally utopian projects to Schmitt as both attempt to reduce government to mechanical administrative activities and bureaucracy, the only difference between them is that liberalism seeks to achieve this result within the boundaries of capitalism whereas Marxists postpone this bureacratization of politics until after classes dissipate (withering away of the state). but why exactly is that bad? I for one would be delighted at the prospect of politics disappearing from my life and reducing politics to basic administrative functions. so either
>we simply like conflict in politics (improbable explanation)
or
>the friend-enemy distinction has to be drawn along the lines of class distinction
in which case Schmitt is just regurgitating Marx. so yes, in a bourgeois society the state must sometimes transcend the boundaries of constitutional order because it is a bourgeois state however in high communism contradictions of social life that give birth to the friend-enemy distinction would cease to be and the state would wither away. am I missing something?

*solves politics*
how did he do it, lads?