Summarizing Schmitt’s ideas

[Anonymous No.21610270]

>Something is political only if it makes a clear distinction between who is your friend and who is your enemy
>Find your friend and make him help you to destroy your enemy by telling him the features of your enemy
>However liberalism tries to depoliticalize the world by saying that trade, peace, and aspiration of the people are the biggest virtues
>This creates “tyranny of value” that indirectly discredit and demonize other ideas
>To combat this “tyranny” is to combat liberalism coz if the foundation is being destroyed, the superstructure soon will be vanished.

[Anonymous No.21610282]

>>21610270
Schmitt is not just a few choice chapters of "The Concept of the Political"

[Anonymous No.21610325]

>>21610270
Where did you get this from? I don't recognize anything you have said but vague terms that were used in his English translation. The friend-foe distinction is the means by which the State uses to legitmize a decision and course of action. It is not at all as you have outlined at all. If a State, which is the outward expression of a single ethnic group of people is unable to deciede this then it has rendered itself illegitamate and needs replaced with one that has legitmacy.

[Anonymous No.21610331]

>>21610270
You can pull different things from Schmitt, and much of his work was critiques of some of the fundamental weaknesses of the liberal democratic tradition. You can either read that as an argument against liberal democracies, period (which is how the right generally takes him) or as someone who recognizes problems with liberal democracies, but doesn't argue against them (where you see the left using him, although the left doesn't use him as much, although this book does).

The key things to Schmitt are a few important concepts: the state of the exception and the concept of the political.

To Schmitt, the two most important entities within a democratic state are the state itself and the leader of that state. He argues that protecting the state is the ultimate goal, and this responsibility lies in the sovereign, and the sovereign is the person who decides what he terms "the state of exception" -- the moment at which the sovereign chooses to move outside the rule of law in order to protect the state. This is clearly fairly autocratic, but he conceives of this type of autocracy as existing within and even superseding a democratic state.

His other key contribution is "the concept of the political" which broadly describes the idea that "politics" extends to anything in which the friend/enemy distinction exists. That's almost common sense today, but you can generally read it justify the state acting in all realms, because the state has authority over the political, and the political is defined by conflict, not context.

[Anonymous No.21610364]

>>21610325
>If a State, which is the outward expression of a single ethnic group of people is unable to deciede this then it has rendered itself illegitamate and needs replaced with one that has legitmacy.
But wouldn't that mean a conflict in which the sovereign would be forced to choose? He might make the decision to move outside the rule of law and destroy you for threatening the state. That's the Dark Brandon scenario.

[Anonymous No.21610387]

>>21610331
>He argues that protecting the state is the ultimate goal, and this responsibility lies in the sovereign, and the sovereign is the person who decides what he terms "the state of exception" -- the moment at which the sovereign chooses to move outside the rule of law in order to protect the state.

On this he also makes the clear distinction between an individual who is appointed by the state to protect it when an exception arises, the Commissary whom does not hold sovereignty as they are produced to resolve the exemption and one whom arises from the situatation and declares it an exception. Thus the later having sovereignty.

Furthermore he need not move outside the law in a traditional sense but that it may be that a situation arises where the current corpus of law can not adaquately resolve the issue. This is what is meant by the exception, when typical law is unable to resolve an issue.

[Anonymous No.21610411]

>>21610364
>the sovereign would be forced to choose?

That is a simple way of discovering who holds sovereignty. In its most crudest and base form the Sovereign, he who holds sovereignty, can mean he who choses to supercede the law and make a decision on both what is the exception, this meaning when the law can not resolve an issue, AND how the exception should be resolved. One who has the authority to make a decision and when it needs to be made.

That being said, im a layman in this and much of his work has not been translated in to English. Hence I have to learn German. Hope that helps.

[Anonymous No.21610559]

>>21610270
This is just pseud shit. The only thing that matters in this world is money and power. If you don't have either of those, you're nothing. If you're not developing the skills to acquire those things - you are nothing. Either learn the rules of society or die. Simple as.

[Anonymous No.21610562]

What are the most relevant thinkers that influenced Schmitt's writings? I have seen a few times that Weber is referenced.
I'm working through a plan to get into political philosophy and I thought about at least the basics: Aristotle, Machiavelli, Hobbes, Rousseau, Kant, before getting to Schmitt. Leo Strauss might be interesting too (like his takes on Plato's and Aristotle's political philosophy, Machiavelli's).

[Anonymous No.21610689]

>>21610559
Why are you here then???

[Anonymous No.21611059]

>>21610562
That's a good question. I've read most of what Schmitt has written, wrote two articles and I can't really think of a single big name outside of new right wing figures such as Adrian Vermeule, Curtis Yarvin and (Charles?) Haywood.
>>21610270
That's not really encompassing even 1/3 of his most famous ideas, let alone his entire work.
Nomos of the Earth deals with a formation of a new political order that will destroy Nomos itself and any and all identity and boundary between states, peoples, cultures and civilisations. Political Theology deals with the secularisation of Christianity and creation of secular religions of socialism and liberalism as Christianity without theology and eschatology. Crisis of Parliamentary Democracy deals with the idea that liberalism and democracy in fact have absolutely nothing to do with each other and that liberalism is generally speaking not democratic at all, but technocratic and rule of class over masses. You described some ideas in Concept of the Political which as its main point drives that liberalism is still political and that man cannot escape politics lest he stops being man, but that liberalism is phenomenal at using a smokescreen of "neutral ' language to cover up the political. His essays on war offer a magnificent critique of what the UN has become, while Three Concepts of Juristic Thought might be my favorite, as I am a lawyer myself which delves deep into three fundemental ways of approaching law as such and how such thinking manifests in legal practice and legislation.

[Anonymous No.21611294]

>politics kinda just uses religious terminology draped in new clothes.

[Anonymous No.21612276]

>>21610282
Fpbp