/lit/ - Literature

>>18211007
Carl Schmitt was 5'3"

The reduction of democracy to 'voting' and liberty makes any mature discussion difficult. Any politics rooted in the demos is democracy: Fascism and Communism are both democratic systems, we are all democrats. Only truly wealthy people are consistently anti-democratic.

>>18211007
He's anti-liberal, not anti-democratic. Is this post bait?

>>18211007
>TIL

>>18211048
What? It's just the potential beginning of a discussion of illiberal democracy. Deal with your brainrot ffs.

i read
>Politische Theologie
>Der Begriff des Politischen
and kinda dont care to read more of him.

>>18211055
Then the answer is yes.

>>18211067
What? Any discussion contrary to your sentiments is bait?

We can align with democracy against the true enemy: pantheism.

>>18211066
Theorie des Partisanen is good

>>18211007
You walk up to a scholar of political theory at any of the major universities in the United States and make this exact statement.
They tell you that fascism and communism are not democracy, and that only liberal democracy is democracy. They also politely inform you that you are getting dangerously close to apology for the enemies of democracy.
How do you respond?

>>18211007
so he was an anti-romantic Rousseau?

>>18211468
i list the thousands of crimes of the CIA that i have memorized by heart until they call security to have me removed from the premises

>>18211487
OP's position is false but leads to a basic truth.

>>18211493
That's very silly. Try again.

>>18211468
Send them a package.

>>18211007
Do I have to read anything specific before Schmitt to understand him?

>>18211579
The Greeks.

>>18211537
shut the fuck up nigger

https://youtu.be/N-OArgBcBRk

>a dictatorship can be a democracy, if the leader represents the will of his people.
And I’m sure such a leader would never lie to or manipulate anyone to convince them he is. Also, democracy is definitely what you get when there’s only one option to choose from

>>18213099
Please read before posting.

>>18211007
>a dictatorship can be a democracy, if the leader represents the will of his people
This is true, but nobody uses this definition so it still makes sense to call him anti-democracy

>>18213104
Please explain how having just one option to choose from in an election constitutes a democratic choice

Didn't he mean dictatorship in the Roman sense?

Read the Tocqueville thread. Schmitt's idea of democracy is very similar.
Democracy is a providential relation, the formation of a new species. Even where democracy may appear as a great sham something like voting acts as a force of neutralisation, which is itself the forming of a new ground of law.
No matter how destructive and lost man becomes in this, especially with pantheistic feeling, there remains the force of the elements and a theological nomos. What is so difficult to capture in an image of democracy, and what is so tyrannical in its presence, is the dissipation of all law and strength which only seems to increase its power.

>>18213206
"When he uses the word democracy, he does not at all have in mind the mass democracies of the large, modern, industrialized states. He means the political domination of the liberal middle class, the classes moyennes, the class of bourgeois culture and bourgeois property. During the nineteenth century, however, the dissolution of the old society and the development of contemporary mass democracy took place in an unremitting fashion and with great rapidity. As a result, precisely that domination of the liberal bourgeoisie and its culture was eliminated. The liberal bourgeois was never a revolutionary for long. In the nineteenth century, at least in times of crisis, he often stood very insecurely between the traditional monarchy and the socialist proletariat, and in Bonapartism and the bourgeois monarchy he formed peculiar alliances."

>>18213218
"The question of what the politically revolutionary bourgeoisie has to do with the art of Wordsworth or Walter Scott, for example, became all too obvious. In such cases, the French critic avails himself of the claim that here the political movement has "disguised" itself as a revolution in literary style. This explanatory device is entirely characteristic of the sociological and psychological thought of the nineteenth and twentieth centuries. In particular, the economic conception of history employs it in a rather naive fashion when it speaks of the religious or artistic disguise, reflection, or sublimation of economic conditions. Friedrich Engels has provided a paradigmatic case of this phenomenon in his characterization of the Calvinist dogma of predestination as a religious disguise for the relentlessness of the capitalist struggle of competition. But the tendency to see a "disguise" everywhere goes much deeper than this. It does not merely correspond to a proletarian disposition, but is rather of more general significance. To a great extent, all ecclesiastical and state institutions and forms, all legal concepts and arguments, everything that is official, and even democracy itself since the time it assumed a constitutional form are perceived as empty and deceptive disguises, as a veil, a façade, a fake, or a decoration. The words, both refined and crude, in which this is encompassed are more numerous and forceful than most of the corresponding idioms of other times; for example, the references to "simulacra" that the political literature of the seventeenth century employs as its characteristic shibboleth. Today the "backstage" that conceals the real movement of reality is constructed everywhere. This betrays the insecurity of the time and its profound sense of being deceived. An era that produces no great form and no representation based on its own presuppositions must succumb to such states of mind and regard everything that is formal and official as a fraud. This is because no era lives without form, regardless of the extent to which it comports itself in an economic fashion. If it does not succeed in finding its own form, then it grasps for thousands of surrogates in the genuine forms of other times and other peoples, only to immediately repudiate the surrogate as a sham."

>>18211031
kek

>>18213099
>>18213104
>>18213128
is how the conversation in >>18211468
would go.

>>18211007
>Schmitt is commonly portrayed as an anti democratic thinker but that's not true.
I don't know what you're reading where you'd get confused on the essence of his criticism of parliamentary governance

>>18213099
> Also, democracy is definitely what you get when there’s only one option to choose from
Yes, it's the "general will"... you can argue over the procedurally correct way to get that

>Carl Schmitt wasn't opposed to democracy
correct, he doesn't even go as far as to advocate totalitarianism despite common consensus
>he merely thought that parliamentary liberal democracy isn't the only form of democracy
correct, but he goes even further to state that liberalism harms democracy
>Also, he thought that a prerequisite for a functioning democracy is ethnic homogeneity.
this is too reductionist. it would be better to say democracy requires homogeneity amongst citizens.

>>18211038
>Any politics rooted in the demos is democracy: Fascism and Communism are both democratic systems, we are all democrats. Only truly wealthy people are consistently anti-democratic.
Okay Heidegger.

>>18211468
I answer that democracy is a failed experiment and fascism and communism in many ways represented the people, not oppressed them.

>>18211007
Classical feudalism is peak democracy and you can't prove me wrong

>>18211468
i spit in his face and tell him that neoliberal scum will be first up against the wall

>>18215083
It's literally correct though, previous systems cared nothing for 'representing' the people. It's why reactionaries and fascists don't truly get along.

>>18213099
As we all know, these are things that can't happen when the leader is voted in.

Fucking actual literal brainlet reddit piece of shit.

>>18213128
>democratic choice
You've already presumed that democracy is about 'choice'. You seriously need to read more, you filthy americunt.

>>18215730
On the contrary, it's what democracy defines itself against.

>>18211007
>and a dictatorship can be a democracy

>>18216806
Literally not even a hot take, I love it when you faggots reveal your complete ignorance. This is literally what Rousseau argues for.

there is no such thing as the will of the people

>>18216816
but if the people choose a different dictator. then its not a dictatorship

>>18216827
>people choose
DEMOCRACY =/= VOTING

AMERICAN RETARD

>>18216818
yes there is

Bump

>>18211007
B

>>18216818
dumbass retard the people's will is that pussies like you shut the fuck up.

>>18211007
>I'm not a fascist, I just don't believe in voting and only want an ethnostate

Oh fuck off

>>18219959
Those are not prerequisites for fascism.
Ignorant retard.

>>18220032
>those are not prerequisites for fascism
Lol you should try telling that to the fascists on the site