/lit/ - Literature

>>20354905
Nazis aren't welcome on this board, you're allowed to discuss Marx and fiction only!

>>20354911
Even Marxists like discussing Schmitt. I don't understand why OP's thread keeps getting deleted. It's on topic and it's following the rules.

>>20354911
Xi is greatly influenced by Schmitt. Dumbass neolib who thinks pedophilia is the ultimate protest against capital while simultaneously being an action that reinforces it.

>>20354918
Nah dude I’ve come across plenty of Marxists who refuse to talk about him because le evil nazi. With that mindset Adorno needs to be off topic completely too, as should be anyone else who achieved anything of note who was one. Kinda throwing the baby out with the bathwater on this one.

lmao jungerfag btfo.

>>20354905
My Agamben thread was deleted too
There's more merit to discussing political texts that shed light on our contemporary world than literature that shed light on the personal world, as that has been discussed to death

>>20354918
No they don't. They refuse to even entertain the thought of reading anything by a nazi, no matter how much he is studied in academia.

>>20354920
>Xi is greatly influenced by Schmitt
Yikes

>>20355005
They're even deleting Agamben threads? Are the jannies working (pro bono, of course) for Big Pharma now?

Bump

>>20355023
Who is Chantal Mouffe?

>>20356558
Nobody.

So why is Schmitt antagonistic to liberalism? now for real and specifically?

What's Schmitt's work on anti-liberalism? Can anyone give the quick rundown?

>>20355062
China in general is really influenced by Schmitt and Leo Strauss for some reason. I believe there are much more expansive and updated editions on these thinkers in mandrin than even in german or english.

>>20356962
Politische Theologie

>>20354905
>against liberalism.
was he against classical/neo-liberalism or whatever american liberals are supposed to be.?

>>20354905
I saw a thread on Patrick Deneen's "Why Liberalism Failed" deleted the other day. Guess mods just don't like people discussing books and the ideas in books.

I'd say something about Schmitt but I don't know him at all.

>>20357351
they've finally got tired of thinly veiled /pol/ threads.
hooray

>>20357363
Cringe. They did it to all the lit threads too. Banned the best posters. But enjoy reddit

>>20357363
Authors and their works are very related to literature. It is disingenuous to claim that the earnest discussion of certain authors and their works is not the subject matter of this board (and hence deserves censorship) simply because the ideas espoused by those authors or their works run counter to your belief system. Especially when on-topic discussions on this board are so sparse. Eat shit.

>>20357351
I've noticed this a few times too. I want to do a post on Deneen but there's little point if the thread is just going to be deleted before i can discuss it with anyone.

>>20354944
Banned. And it looks like anyone who posts lit now will join him

>>20357303
>>20356962
China's fascination with Schmitt comes from his works' powerful critique of liberalism, which stems from two primary threads. China's favorite part relates to the ways in which the liberal state undermines its political identity by refusing to make a distinction between friend and enemy, instead positing that all internal conflict can be de-politicized, or solved via either organization or acceptable compromise (this represents liberalism's political theology).
While this is ostensibly a secular doctrine founded in reason, the notion that man can be placed in a state that will avoid politicization (formation into groups that exclude others and defend their way of life, violently if necessary) is at its core an essentially religious/axiomatic belief (hence Schmitt's use of the word "theology"). So political groups that form internally, on their own faith or axiomatic beliefs that run counter to liberalism, have no less right to exist, and will fight to defend themselves from the liberal's universalist proselytizing.
This opens into the second part of Schmitt's critique of liberalism, namely that it is a universalist political theology, but before that it is worth noting briefly that Schmitt probably believed the liberal theology to be too hollow and too milquetoast to ever be able to fully stamp out political group formation (which might be taken to be part of human nature to Schmitt), and without an appeal to a higher value beyond oneself would likely be doomed to deal with constant insurgency of this sort even if it achieved a global hegemony.
Anyway, as a universalist political theology, and less appealing to China (that follows its own version of a universalist political theology), ascendant liberalism (perhaps even its existence) negates the possibility of Schmitt's idea of a legitimate international order. Schmitt's legitimate order recognizes an international right to declare war (in order to protect the political group). This leads to the idea that no war is unjust, and so outside nations can approach these wars from a realpolitik framework (e.g., to maintain the balance of power and hence relative stability). To Schmitt this means that international conflicts will be short and relatively humane (e.g., separate civilian targets from military targets). Looking at the subsequent breakout and conduct of the WW2 might bring this into doubt, but it is probably arguable for Schmitt.
A universalist political theology, especially liberalism, will necessarily bring its theology into war; one side will be just and one will be unjust. This not only makes realpolitik impossible but enables total war as conflict becomes ideological rather than political.

>>20357303
no it isn't.

>>20354918
Is he discussing Schmitt or just using it as an excuse to discuss /pol/shit?

>>20354905
>who deleted the thread
tranny jannies

>>20358059
I’m op of this thread but not of the others. I actually want to discuss him but people like you assuming anything even vaguely right wing is /pol/ are your own brand of disingenuous reactionary. At least you’re not a janny.

>>20357345
I don't think those existed when schmitt was writing.

>>20358157
Neo/Ordo-liberalism has been kicking around since the 30's. It just didn't gain prominence until the 70's.

>>20357692
Good post. Don't know what it has to do with China though

>>20357692
no. Schmitt just says political terminology stems from theological notions.
That’s it.

>>20355023
>hey refuse to even entertain the thought of reading anything by a nazi
What about Heidegger? Marcuse, Petrovich, Sartre, Marleu Ponty etc etc

>>20356910
Fundamentally religious (anthropological) reasons. All political disagreement is anthropological in the last analysis (paraphrasing TCotP) - it is a disagreement over notions of what "man" is/ought to be. In the simplest believes terms - Leo Strauss' notes on TCotP shed some light on this - Schmitt believes that human life is "serious" and/or ought to be "taken seriously." And he finds liberalism in all its forms to oppose this position.

>>20358998
see them recoil when they are reminded of his affiliation and how he thought a german national socialistic workers party was essential for his philosophy.
Sadly too great to be ignored.

Same goes for the Nazis Heidenberg and Max Planck.

>>20357670
>Banned.
Thank god.

Bump

>>20359394
>antijungerfag the sadist
Why post here when you hate lit?

>>20360389
Not everyone who dislikes you is the same person

>>20361206
Best threads on lit and only one sperg ever complained

>>20357363
How the fuck are they /pol/ threads? I bet you're a Marxist faggot who also hates liberalism too, is it a sin to talk about books that criticize it?

>>20361394
It's not. It's the sperg who hates jungerposter