del.icio.us
Digg
Facebook
The Lesson of Carl SchmittTranslated by Greg Johnson
We met Carl Schmitt in the village of Plettenberg, the place of his birth and retirement. For four remarkable hours we conversed with the man who remains unquestionably the greatest political and legal thinker of our time. “We have been put out to pasture,” said Schmitt. “We are like domestic animals who enjoy the benefits of the closed field we are allotted. Space is conquered. The borders are fixed. There is nothing more to discover. It is the reign of the status quo . . .”
Schmitt always warned against this frozen order, which extends over the Earth and ruins political sovereignties. Already in 1928, in The Concept of the Political
He also continues the “realist” manner of analyzing of politics and the state, in the tradition of Bodin, Hobbes, and Machiavelli. Equally removed from liberalism and modern totalitarian theories (Bolshevism and fascisms), the depth and the modernity of his views make him the most important contemporary political and constitutional legal theorist. This is why we can follow him, while of course trying to go beyond some of his analyses, as his French disciple Julien Freund, at the height of his powers, has already done.[2]
The intellectual journey of the Rhenish political theorist began with reflections on law and practical politics to which he devoted two works, in 1912 and 1914,[3] at the end of its academic studies in Strasbourg. After the war, having become a law professor at the universities of Berlin and Bonn, his thoughts were focused on political science. Schmitt, against the liberal philosophies of the Right, refused to separate it from politics.
His first work of political theory, Political Romanticism
Schmitt distinguishes “dictatorship” from oppressive “tyranny.” Dictatorship appears as a method of government intended to face emergencies. In the Roman tradition, the dictator’s function was to confront exceptional conditions. But Machiavelli introduces a different practice; he helps to envision “the modern State,” founded on rationalism, technology, and the powerful role of a complex executive: this executive no longer relies upon the sole sovereign.
Schmitt shows that with the French jurist Jean Bodin, dictatorship takes to the form of a “practice of the commissars” which arose in the sixteen and seventeenth centuries. The “commissars” are omnipotent delegates of the central power. Royal absolutism, established on its subordinates, like the Rousseauist model of the social contract which delegates absolute power to the holders of the “general will” set up by the French revolution, constitutes the foundation of contemporary forms of dictatorship.
From this point of view, modern dictatorship is not connected with any particular political ideology. Contrary to the analyses of today’s constitutionalists, especially Maurice Duverger, “democracy” is no more free of dictatorship than is any other form of state power. Democrats are simply deceiving themselves to think that they are immune to recourse to dictatorship and that they reconcile real executive power with pragmatism and the transactions of the parliamentary systems.
In a fundamental study on parliamentarism, The Crisis of Parliamentary Democracy
This liberal bourgeois ideology deceives everyone by viewing all political activity according to the categories of ethics and economics. This illusion, moreover, is shared by liberal or Marxist socialist ideologies: the function of public power is no longer anything but economic and social. Spiritual, historical, and military values are no longer legitimate. Only the economy is moral, which makes it possible to validate commercial individualism and at the same time invoke humane ideals: the Bible and business. This moralization of politics not only destroys all true morals but transforms political unity into neutralized “society” where the sovereign function is no longer able to defend the people for whom it is responsible.
By contrast, Schmitt’s approach consists in analyzing the political phenomenon independently of all moral presuppositions. Like Machiavelli and Hobbes, with whom he is often compared, Schmitt renounces appeals to the finer feelings and the soteriology of final ends. His philosophy is as opposed to the ideology of the Enlightenment (Locke, Hume, Montesquieu, Rousseau, etc.) and the various Marxian socialisms as it is to Christian political humanism. For him, these ideologies are utopian in their wariness of power and tend to empty out the political by identifying it with evil, even if it is allowed temporarily—as in the case of Marxism.
But the essence of Schmitt’s critique relates to liberalism and humanism, which he accuses of deception and hypocrisy. These theories view the activity of public power as purely routine administration dedicated to realizing individual happiness and social harmony. They are premised on the ultimate disappearance of politics as such and the end of history. They wish to make collective life purely prosaic but manage only to create social jungles dominated by economic exploitation and incapable of mastering unforeseen circumstances.
Governments subject to this type of liberalism are always frustrated in their dreams of transforming politics into peaceful administration: other states, motivated by hostile intentions, or internal sources of political subversion, always emerge at unforeseen moments. When a state, through idealism or misunderstood moralism, no longer places its sovereign political will above all else, preferring instead economic rationality or the defense of abstracted ideals, it also gives up its independence and its survival.
Schmitt does not believe in the disappearance of the political. Any type of activity can take on a political dimension. The political is a fundamental concept of collective anthropology. As such, political activity can be described as substantial, essential, enduring through time. The state, on the other hand, enjoys only conditional authority, i.e., a contingent form of sovereignty. Thus the state can disappear or be depoliticized by being deprived of the political, but the political—as substantial—does not disappear.
The state cannot survive unless it maintains a political monopoly, i.e., the sole power to define the values and ideals for which the citizens will agree to give their lives or to legally kill their neighbors—the power to declare war. Otherwise partisans will assume political activity and try to constitute a new legitimacy. This risk particularly threatens the bureaucratic states of modern liberal social democracies in which civil war is prevented only by the enervating influence of consumer society.
These ideas are expressed in The Concept of the Political
Under no circumstances can politics be based on the administration of things or renounce its polemical dimension. All sovereignty, like all authority, is forced to designate an enemy in order to succeed in its projects; here Schmitt’s ideas meet the research of ethologists on innate human behavior, particularly Konrad Lorenz.
Because of his “classical” and Machiavellian conception of the political, Schmitt endured persecution and threats under the Nazis, for whom the political was on the contrary the designation of the “comrade” (Volksgenosse).
The Schmittian definition of the political enables us to understand that contemporary political debate is depoliticized and connected with electoral sideshows. What is really political is the value for which one is ready to sacrifice one’s life; it can quite well be one’s language or culture. Schmitt writes in this connection that “a system of social organization directed only towards the progress of civilization” does not have “a program, ideal, standard, or finality that can confer the right to dispose of the physical life of others.” Liberal society, founded on mass consumption, cannot require that one die or kill for it. It rests on an apolitical form of domination: “It is precisely when it remains apolitical,” Schmitt writes, “that a domination of men resting on an economic basis, by avoiding any political appearance and responsibility, proves to be a terrible imposture.”
Liberal economism and “pluralism” mask the negligence of the state, the domination of the commercial castes, and the destruction of nations anchored in a culture and a history. Along with Sorel, Schmitt pleads for a form of power that does not renounce its full exercise, that displays its political authority by the normal means that belong to it: power, constraint, and, in exceptional cases, violence. By ignoring these principles the Weimar Republic allowed the rise of Hitler; the techno-economic totalitarianism of modern capitalism also rests on the ideological rejection of the idea of state power; this totalitarianism is impossible to avoid because it is proclaimed humane and is also based on the double idea of social pluralism and individualism, which put the nations at the mercy of technocratic domination.
The Schmittian critique of internal pluralism as conceived by Montequieu, Locke, Laski, Cole, and the whole Anglo-Saxon liberal school, aims at defending the political unity of nations, which is the sole guarantor of civic protection and liberties. Internal pluralism leads to latent or open civil war, the fierce competition of economic interest groups and factions, and ultimately the reintroduction within society of the friend-enemy distinction which European states since Bodin and Hobbes had displaced outwards.
Such a system naturally appeals to the idea of “Humanity” to get rid of political unities. “Humanity is not a political concept,” writes Schmitt, who adds:
The idea of Humanity in doctrines based on liberal and individualistic doctrines of natural Right is an ideal social construction of universal nature, encompassing all men on earth. . . . which will not be realized until any genuine possibility of combat is eliminated, making any grouping in terms of friends and enemies impossible. This universal society will no longer know nations. . . . The concept of Humanity is an ideological instrument particularly useful for imperialistic expansion, and in its ethical and humane form, it is specifically a vehicle of economic imperialism. . . . Such a sublime name entails certain consequences for one who carries it. Indeed, to speak in the name of Humanity, to invoke it, to monopolize it, displays a shocking pretense: to deny the humanity of the enemy, to declare him outside the law and outside of Humanity, and thus ultimately to push war to the extremes of inhumanity.[9]
To define politics in terms of the category of the enemy, to refuse humanitarian egalitarianism, does not necessarily lead to contempt for man or racism. Quite the contrary. To recognize the polemical dimension of human relations and man as “a dynamic and dangerous being,” guarantees respect for any adversary conceived as the Other whose cause no less legitimate than one’s own.
This idea often recurs in Schmitt’s thought: modern ideologies that claim universal truth and consequently consider the enemy as absolute, as an “absolute non-value,” lead to genocide. They are, moreover, inspired by monotheism (and Schmitt is a Christian pacifist and convert). Schmitt claims with good reason that the conventional European conception that validated the existence of the enemy and admitted the legitimacy of war—not for the defense of a “just” cause but as eternally necessitated by human relations—caused fewer wars and induced respect for the enemy considered as adversary (as hostis and not inimicus).
Schmitt’s followers, extending and refining his thought, have with Rüdiger Altmann coined the concept of the Ernstfall (emergency case), which constitutes another fundamental criterion of the political. Political sovereignty and the credibility of a new political authority is based on the capacity to face and solve emergency cases. The dominant political ideologies, thoroughly steeped in hedonism and the desire for security, want to ignore the emergency, the blow of fate, the unforeseen. Politics worthy of the name—and this idea pulverizes the abstract ideological categories of “right” and “left”—is that which, secretly, answers the challenge of the emergency case, saves the community from unforeseen trials and tempests, and thereby authorizes the total mobilization of the people and an intensification of its values.
Liberal conceptions of politics see the Ernstfall merely as the exception and “legal normality” as the rule. This vision of things, inspired by Hegel’s teleological philosophy of history, corresponds to the domination of the bourgeoisie, who prefer safety to historical dynamism and the destiny of the people. On the contrary, according to Schmitt, the function of the sovereign is his capacity to decide the state of the exception, which by no means constitutes an anomaly but a permanent possibility. This aspect of Schmitt’s thought reflects his primarily French and Spanish inspirations (Bonald, Donoso Cortès, Bodin, Maistre, etc.) and makes it possible to locate him, along with Machiavelli, in the grand Latin tradition of political science.
In Legality and Legitimacy (1932),[10] Schmitt, as a disciple of Hobbes, suggests that legitimacy precedes the abstract concept of legality. A power is legitimate if it can protect the community in its care by force. Schmitt accuses the idealistic and “juridical” conception of legality for authorizing Hitler to come to power. Legalism leads to the renunciation of power, which Schmitt calls the “politics of non-politics” (Politik des Unpolitischen), politics that does not live up to its responsibilities, that does not formulate a choice concerning the collective destiny. “He who does not have the power to protect anyone,” Schmitt writes in The Concept of the Political, “also does not have the right to require obedience. And conversely, he who seeks and accepts power does not have the right to refuse obedience.”
This dialectic of power and obedience is denied by social dualism, which arbitrarily opposes society and the sovereign function and imagines, contrary to all experience, that exploitation and domination are the political effects of “power” whereas they much more often arise from economic dependency.
Thus Schmitt elaborates a critique of the dualistic State of the nineteenth century based on the conceptions of John Locke and Montesquieu aiming at a separation between the sphere of the State and the private sphere. In fact, modern technocracies, historically resulting from the institutions of parliamentary representation, experience interpenetrations and oppositions between the private and public, as shown by Jürgen Habermas. Such a situation destabilizes the individual and weakens the State.
According to Schmitt, it is this weakness of the democracies that allowed the establishment of one party regimes, as he explains in Staat, Bewegung, Volk [State, Movement, People].[11] This type of regime constitutes the institutional revolution of the twentieth century; in fact, it is today the most widespread regime in the world. Only Western Europe and North America preserved the pluralist structure of traditional democracy, but merely as a fiction, since the true power is economic and technical.
The one party state tries to reconstitute the political unity of the nation, according to a threefold structure: the state proper includes civil servants and the army; the people are not a statistical population but an entity that is politicized and strongly organized in intermediate institutions; the party puts this ensemble in motion (Bewegung) and constitutes a portal of communication between the state and the people.
Schmitt, who returns again and again to Nazism, Stalinism, theocracies, and humanitarian totalitarianisms, obviously does not endorse the one party state. He does not advocate any specific “regime.” In the old Latin realist tradition inherited from Rome, Schmitt wants an executive who is both powerful and legitimate, who does not “ideologize” the enemy and can, in actual cases make use of force, who can make the state the “self-organization of society.”
War thus becomes a subject of political theory. Schmitt is interested in geopolitics as a natural extension of politics. For him, true politics, great politics, is foreign policy, which culminates in diplomacy. In The Nomos of the Earth (1951),[12] he shows that the state follows the European conception of politics since the sixteenth century. But Europe has become decadent: the bureaucratic state has been depoliticized and no longer allows the preservation of the history of the European people; the jus publicium europaeum which decided inter-state relations is declining in favor of globalist and pacifist ideologies that are incapable of founding an effective international law. The ideology of human rights and the vaunted humanitarianism of international institutions are paradoxically preparing a world where force comes before law. Conversely, a realistic conception of the relations between states, which allows and normalizes conflict, which recognizes the legitimacy of will to power, tends to civilize the relationship between nations.
Schmitt is, along with Mao Tse-Tung, the greatest modern theorist of revolutionary war and of the enigmatic figure of the partisan who, in this era of the depoliticization of states, assumes the responsibility of the political, “illegally” designates his enemies, and indeed blurs the distinction between war and peace.[13]
Such “a false pacifism” is part of a world where political authorities and independent sovereignties are erased by a world civilization more alienating than any tyranny. Schmitt, who influenced the constitution of the Fifth French Republic—the French constitution that is most intelligent, most political, and the least inspired by the idealism of the Enlightenment—gives us this message: liberty, humanity, peace are only chimeras leading to invisible oppressions. The only liberties that count—whether of nations or individuals—are those guaranteed by the legitimate force of a political authority that creates law and order.
Carl Schmitt does not define the values that mobilize the political and legitimate the designation of the enemy. These values must not be defined by ideologies—always abstract and gateways to totalitarianism—but by mythologies. In this sense, the functioning of government, the purely political, is not enough. It is necessary to add the “religious” dimension of the first function, as it is defined in Indo-European tripartition. It seems to us that this is the way one must complete Schmitt’s political theory. Because if Schmitt builds a bridge between anthropology and politics, one still needs to build another between politics and history.
[1] Carl Schmitt, The Concept of the Political, trans. George Schwab, expanded edition (Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 2007)—trans.
[2] Cf. Julien Freund, L’Essence du politique (Paris: Sirey, 1965), and La Fin de la Renaissance (Paris: PUF, 1980).
[3] Carl Schmitt, Gesetz und Urteil. Eine Untersuchung zum Problem der Rechtspraxis [Law and Judgment: An Investigation into the Problem of Legal Practice] [1912] (Munich: C. H. Beck, 1968) and Der Wert des Staates und die Bedeutung des Einzelnen [The Value of the State and the Meaning of the Individual] (Tübingen: J. C. B. Mohr [Paul Siebeck], 1914)—trans.
[4] Carl Schmitt, Political Romanticism, trans. Guy Oakes (Cambridge, Mass: The MIT Press, 1985).—trans.
[5] Carl Schmitt, Die Diktaur: Von den Anfängen des modernen Souveränitätsgedankens bis zum proletarischen Klassenkampf [The Dictator: From the Origins of Modern Theories of Sovereignty to Proletarian Class Struggle] (Berlin: Duncker & Humblot, 1921)—trans.
[6] In his Preface to the French edition of The Concept of the Political: Carl Schmitt, La notion de politique (Paris: Calmann-Lévy, 1972).
[7] Carl Schmitt, The Crisis of Parliamentary Democracy, trans. Ellen Kennedy (Cambridge, Mass.: The MIT Press, 1986). See also Carl Schmitt, Political Theology: Four Chapters on the Theory of Sovereignty [1922], trans. George Schwab (Cambridge, Mass.: The MIT Press, 1986)—trans.
[8] Carl Schmitt, Theory of the Partisan: Intermediate Commentary on the Concept of the Political, trans. G. L. Ulmen (New York: Telos Press, 2007)—trans.
[9] Cf. The Concept of the Political, 53–54—trans.
[10] Carl Schmitt, Legality and Legitimacy, trans. Jeffrey Seitzer (Durham, N.C.: Duke University Press, 2004)—trans.
[11] Staat, Bewegung, Volk: Die Dreigleiderung der politischen Einheit [State, Movement, People: The Three Organs of Political Unity] (Hamburg: Hanseatische Verlagsanstalt, 1934)—trans. It concerns a series of studies on one-party states, primarily Marxist, that appeared in 1932.
[12] Carl Schmitt, The Nomos of the Earth in the International Law of Jus Publicum Europaeum, trans. G. L. Ulmen (New York: Telos Press, 2006)—trans.
[13] Cf. “The Era of Neutralizations and Depoliticizations” [1929], trans. Matthias Konzett and John P. McCormick, in the expanded edition of The Concept of the Political—trans.
An interest in Carl Schmitt
Hoy se cumplen 25 años de la muerte de Carl Schmitt. ¿Qué se puede decir sobre el interés por Schmitt a 25 años de su muerte? Compartimos algunas reflexiones “prácticas” para un “buen” uso de la obra del jurista, de manera que siga resistiendo al tiempo como lo ha hecho hasta ahora.
Vivere è sempre scegliersi dei modelli: esempi che incarnino ciò che vogliamo essere e che ci indichino la rotta. Il nostro modello è da sempre l’ardito. In questa scelta c’è certamente la gratitudine e l’ammirazione verso persone in carne ed ossa che, nella Grande Guerra e nel periodo immediatamente successivo, hanno dato anima e corpo alla Nazione. Ma c’è anche e soprattutto la percezione nitida che c’è qualcosa, nella mentalità ardita, che ancora oggi ci parla, che si innalza sopra le contingenze, che illustra un metodo e uno stile ancora oggi attualissimo.
Ernst Niekisch è la figura più rappresentativa del complesso e multiforme panorama che offre il movimento nazional-bolscevico tedesco degli anni 1918-1933. In lui si incarnano con chiarezza le caratteristiche - e le contraddizioni - evocate dal termine nazional-bolscevico e che rispondono molto più ad uno stato d'animo, ad una disposizione attivista, che ad una ideologia dai contorni precisi o ad una unità organizzativa, poiché questo movimento era composto da una infinità di piccoli circoli, gruppi, riviste ecc. senza che ci fosse mai stato un partito che si fosse qualificato nazional-bolscevico. E’ curioso constatare come nessuno di questi gruppi o persone usò questo appellativo (se escludiamo la rivista di Karl Otto Paetel, "Die Sozialistische Nation") bensì che l’aggettivo fu impiegato in modo dispregiativo, non scevro di sensazionalismo, dalla stampa e dai partiti sostenitori della Repubblica di Weimar, dei quali tutti i nazional-bolscevichi furono feroci nemici non essendoci sotto questo punto di vista differenze fra gruppi d’origine comunista che assimilarono l’idea nazionale ed i gruppi nazionalisti disposti a perseguire scambi economici radicali e l’alleanza con l'URSS per distruggere l'odiato sistema nato dal Diktat di Versailles. Ernst Niekisch nacque il 23 maggio 1889 a Trebnitz (Slesia). Era figlio di un limatore che si trasferì a Nordlingen im Reis (Baviera-Svevia) nel 1891. Niekisch frequenta gli studi di magistero, che termina nel 1907, esercitando poi a Ries e Augsburg. Non era frequente nella Germania guglielmina - quello Stato in cui si era realizzata la vittoria del borghese sul soldato secondo Carl Schmitt - che il figlio di un operaio studiasse, per cui Niekisch dovette soffrire le burle e l’ostilità dei suoi compagni di scuola. Già in quel periodo era avido di sapere ("Una vita da nullità è insopportabile", dirà) e divorato da un interiore fuoco rivoluzionario; legge Hauptmann, Ibsen, Nietzsche, Schopenhauer, Kant, Hegel e Macchiavelli, alla cui influenza si aggiungerà quella di Marx, a partire dal 1915. Arruolato nell’esercito nel 1914, seri problemi alla vista gli impediscono di giungere al fronte, per cui eserciterà, sino al febbraio del 1917, funzioni di istruttore di reclute ad Augsburg. Nell’ottobre del 1917 entra nel Partito Socialdemocratico (SPD) e si sente fortemente attratto dalla rivoluzione bolscevica. E' di quell’epoca il suo primo scritto politico, oggi perso, intitolato significativamente Licht aus dem osten (Luce dall’Est), nel quale già formulava ciò che sarà una costante della sua azione politica: l’idea della "Ostorientierung". La diffusione di questo foglio sarà sabotata dallo stesso SPD al cui periodico di Augsburg "Schwabischen Volkszeitung" collaborava Niekisch. Il 7 novembre 1918 Eisner, a Monaco, proclama la Repubblica. Niekisch fonda il Consiglio degli Operai e Soldati di Augsburg e ne diviene il presidente, dopo esserlo già stato del Consiglio Centrale degli Operai, Contadini e Soldati di Monaco nel febbraio e nel marzo del 1919. Egli è l’unico membro del Comitato Centrale che vota contro la proclamazione della prima Repubblica sovietica in Baviera, poiché considera che questa, in ragione del suo carattere agrario, sia la provincia tedesca meno idonea a realizzare l’esperimento. Malgrado ciò, con l’entrata dei Freikorps a Monaco, Niekisch viene arrestato il 5 maggio - giorno in cui passa dal SPD al Partito Socialdemocratico Indipendente (USPD). lI 22 giugno viene condannato a due anni di fortezza per la sua attività nel Consiglio degli Operai e Soldati, per quanto non abbia avuto nulla a che vedere con i crimini della Repubblica sovietica bavarese. Niekisch sconta integralmente la sua pena, e nonostante l’elezione al parlamento bavarese nelle liste della USPD non sarà liberato fino all’agosto del 1921. Frattanto, si ritrova nel SPD per effetto della riunificazione dello stesso con la USPD (la scissione si era determinata durante la guerra mondiale). Niekisch non è assolutamente d’accordo con la politica condiscendente dell’SPD - per temperamento era incapace di sopportare le mezze tinte o i compromessi - ed a questa situazione di sdegno si aggiungevano le minacce contro di lui e la sua famiglia (si era sposato nel 1915 ed aveva un figlio); così rinuncia al suo mandato parlamentare e si trasferisce a Berlino, dove entra nella direzione della segreteria giovanile del grande sindacato dei tessili, un lavoro burocratico che non troverà di suo gradimento. I suoi rapporti con L'SPD si deteriorano progressivamente, per il fatto che Niekisch si oppone al pagamento dei danni di guerra alla Francia e al Belgio e appoggia la resistenza nazionale quando la Francia occupa il bacino della Ruhr, nel gennaio del 1923. Dal 1924 si oppone anche al Piano Dawes, che regola il pagamento dei danni di guerra imposto alla Germania a Versailles. Niekisch attaccò frontalmente la posizione dell’SPD di accettazione del Piano Dawes in una conferenza di sindacalisti e socialdemocratici scontrandosi con Franz Hilferding, principale rappresentante della linea ufficiale.
Fortemente influenzato da Carl Schmitt, e partendo da questa base, Niekisch doveva vedere come nemico irriducibile il liberalismo borghese, che valorizza soprattutto i principi economici e considera l'uomo soltanto isolatamente, come unità alla ricerca del suo esclusivo profitto. l'individualismo borghese (con i conseguenti Stato liberale di diritto, libertà individuali, considerazioni dello Stato come un male) e materialismo nel pensiero di Niekisch appaiono come caratteristiche essenziali della democrazia borghese. Nello stesso tempo, Niekisch sviluppa una critica non originale, ma efficace e sincera, del sistema capitalista come sistema il cui motore è l’utile privato e non il soddisfacimento delle necessità individuali e collettive; e che, per di più, genera continuamente disoccupazione. In questo modo la borghesia viene qualificata come nemico interno che collabora con gli Stati occidentali borghesi all’oppressione della Germania. Il sistema di Weimar (incarnato da democratici, socialisti e clericali) rappresentava l’opposto dello spirito e della volontà statale dei tedeschi, ed era il nemico contro il quale si doveva organizzare la “Resistenza". Quello di "Resistenza" è un'altro concetto fondamentale dell'opera di Niekisch. La rivista dallo stesso nome recava, oltre al sottotitolo (prima "Blätter für sozialistische und nationalrevolutionäre Politik", quindi "Zeitschrift für nationalrevolutionäre Politik") una significativa frase di Clausewitz: "La resistenza è un'attività mediante la quale devono essere distrutte tante forze del nemico da indurlo a rinunciare ai suoi propositi". Se Niekisch considerava possibile questa attitudine di resistenza è perché credeva che la situazione di decadenza della Germania fosse passeggera, non irreversibile; e per quanto a volte sottolineasse che il suo pessimismo era “illimitato", si devono considerare le sue dichiarazioni in questo senso come semplici espedienti retorici, poiché la sua continua attività rivoluzionaria è la prova migliore che in nessun momento cedette al pessimismo ed allo sconforto. Abbiamo visto qual era il nemico contro cui dover organizzare la resistenza: “La democrazia parlamentare ed il liberalismo, il modo di vivere francese e l’americanismo". Con la stessa esattezza Niekisch definisce gli obiettivi della resistenza: l’indipendenza e la libertà della Germania, la più alta valorizzazione dello Stato, il recupero di tutti i tedeschi che si trovavano sorto il dominio straniero. Coerente col suo rifiuto dei valori economici, Niekisch non contrappone a questo nemico una forma migliore di distribuzione dei beni materiali, né il conseguimento di una società del benessere: ciò che Niekisch cercava era il superamento del mondo borghese, i cui beni si devono “detestare asceticamente". Il programma di "Resistenza" dell’aprile del 1930 non lascia dubbi da questo punto di vista: nello stesso si chiede il rifiuto deciso di tutti i beni che l’Europa vagheggia (punto 7a), il ritiro dall'economia internazionale (punto 7b), la riduzione della popolazione urbana e la ricostituzione delle possibilità di vita contadina (7c-d), la volontà di povertà ed un modo di vita semplice che deve opporsi orgogliosamente alla vita raffinata delle potenze imperialiste occidentali (7f) e, finalmente, la rinuncia al principio della proprietà privata nel senso del diritto romano, poiché “agli occhi dell’opposizione nazionale, la proprietà non ha senso né diritto al di fuori del servizio al popolo ed allo Stato”. Per realizzare i suoi obiettivi, che Uwe Sauermann definisce con precisione identici a quelli dei nazionalisti, anche se le strade e gli strumenti per conseguirli sono nuovi, Niekisch cerca le forze rivoluzionarie adeguate. Non può sorprendere che un uomo proveniente dalla sinistra come lui si diriga in primo luogo al movimento operaio. 
Zum Ende des 19. Jahrhunderts klingt ein Zeitalter der europäischen Kultur- und Geistesgeschichte aus, welches zugleich den Wendepunkt zur Moderne darstellt. Auf der Suche nach einem neuen Sinn und einem neuen Halt begibt sich die nun folgende Generation von Künstlern, Dichtern, Denkern und Ästhetikern. Einer dieser Suchenden ist Eugen Diederichs. Er wird den Weg eines Verlegers bestreiten, um auf diese neue Epoche nach seinen Vorstellungen einzuwirken. Im Jahr 1896 gründet er sein Unternehmen in Italien und verlegt kurze Zeit später den Sitz des Geschäftes nach Jena – in die Nähe seines Geburtsortes. Einen Versammlungsort moderner Geister will er begründen. Modern meint bei ihm aber nicht fortschrittlich und sich nach aktuellen Erscheinungen richtend. Bei der Auswahl seiner Autoren und deren Werke wird er nicht fragen, ob diese dem Geschmack des deutschen Lesers entsprechen und zeitgemäß sind, sondern er wird abwägen, inwiefern diese einer neuen Kultur zu gute kommen, die sich nicht nur von Rationalität und Wissenschaftlichkeit vereinnahmen lässt. Eugen Diederichs fragt nicht, was das deutsche Volk lesen will – er möchte jene Bücher darreichen, die seines Erachtens notwendig sind, um dem beginnenden Jahrhundert die richtigen Impulse zu geben. Die Gebiete auf denen er dies tun möchte sind vielfältig: Theosophie, Religion, Bildung und Pädagogik sind nur einige davon. Man kann ihn hinsichtlich seiner Programmatik nicht in eine Schublade stecken. Ob Neuromantiker, konservativer Revolutionär oder Antimodernist – nichts von alledem war er durch und durch, doch sicherlich kann man ihm für gewisse Anschauungen dieses oder jenes Etikett aufdrücken. Eines will er jedoch sein – und so definiert er auch seine eigene Tätigkeit: Kulturverleger. Viele seiner Autoren wollen mit ihrem Verleger reformieren, Neues gestalten, aber auch Altes bewahren. Dass diese Vorstöße nicht alle in die gleiche Richtung zielen versteht sich bei der Menge von verlegten Schriften, die diese Absicht verfolgen, von selbst. Dies kann auch kein Vorwurf an den Verleger sein – selbst wenn jener versucht Gegensätzliches zusammenzuführen. Nach dem 1. Weltkrieg schlägt Diederichs Enthusiasmus und Tatendrang manchmal in Resignation sowie Willen- und Ideenlosigkeit um. Er wird von so manchen verhöhnt und belächelt. Doch im Glauben an das nach seinen Grundsätzen neu zu schaffende Deutschland bleibt er seinen Prinzipien treu.
L’accusa più scontata che l’intellighenzia ufficiale lancia contro
Wintergrau liegt auf der Heimat. Eisig fegen frostige Stürme über kahle Felder, darüber ziehen Krähenschwärme hin. Am Horizont versinkt ein matter Sonnenball ins Grau das über die Welt gekommen ist mit dem Fall der letzten Blätter - von ferne kündet Trommelschlag: SCHWERTZEIT bricht an!
In un articolo del marzo 1935 dal titolo “Il nazismo sulla via di Mosca?” apparso sul quotidiano “Lo Stato”, Julius Evola, allora umile pensatore ai margini del fascismo italiano, prendendo spunto dalle vicende occorse il 30 giugno del 1934 in Germania storicamente note come “Notte dei lunghi coltelli” e cioè la decapitazione sanguinosa, da parte della “destra” hitleriana, delle S.A., le Squadre di Assalto di Roehm e di Strasser che volevano – conquistato il potere – che la rivoluzione nazionalsocialista mettesse in opera il programma sociale, la cosiddetta “seconda rivoluzione” - muove una profonda critica alle posizioni espresse da Carl Dryssen nella sua opera “Fascismo nazionalsocialismo, prussianesimo”, considerato da Evola come il testo guida delle volontà dei rivoluzionari delle SA, facenti capo ad Ernst Röhm, nel quale si rintracciava la linea che essi volevano imporre al movimento nazionalsocialista.
Archives de SYNERGIES EUROPEENNES - 1993
Seit der Frühjahrsprospekt meines Verlags versandt ist, hat ein rundes Dutzend Leser angerufen, um zu erfragen, wieso ich gerade die Bücher Carl Schmitts in den Versand aufgenommen habe und warum ich ihn derzeit wieder intensiv lese. Meine Antwort:
Wird heute über die Konservative Revolution gesprochen, fallen den meisten wohl als erstes Oswald Spengler, Ernst Jünger oder Carl Schmitt als zentrale Theoretiker dieses Zirkels ein. Des weiteren Namen wie Stefan George oder Gottfried Benn, welche zuvorderst durch ihre lyrischen Werke bestachen und mit selbigen fester Bestandteil des Literaturkanons sind. Häufig unter den Tisch fällt aber Ernst von Salomon – völlig zu Unrecht.
En Alemania tuvo una triste fama el denominado “Cuestionario”: der Fragebogen. Era un formulario que había que llenar y que comprendía 131 preguntas, las cuales no solamente representaban un sistema de información sobre cada mínimo detalle de la persona, de la vida y de las actividades del interrogado, sino que implicaban un verdadero y propio “examen de conciencia”. La única diferencia estaba en que quien lo solicitaba no era la Iglesia sino el gobierno militar aliado.
Y bien, todo este nucleamiento vio en el nacionalsocialismo no tanto la realización cuanto la traición de sus ideas. Tal como dice von Salomon, el primer serio y gran tentativo del movimiento nacional de provocar un vuelco histórico decisivo partiendo desde lo alto, desde el Estado, fracasó a causa de la existencia de Hitler. Con Hitler, nos agrega, el acento decisivo del nacionalismo se desplazó del Estado al pueblo, a la pura autoridad de la nación como colectividad, y ello fue formulado en el hecho de que para defender una concepción política totalmente opuesta fue utilizada una terminología que se remontaba en gran parte al patrimonio tradicional germano-prusiano.
Ernst Niekisch n'est plus un inconnu: de nombreux ouvrages ont longuement évoqué son itinéraire et ses idées, un certain nombre lui ont été entièrement consacré (1). Le dernier en date, "Ernst Niekisch und der revolutionärer Nationalismus" d'Uwe Sauermann, ne concerne bien sûr qu'une période dans l'engagement intellectuel et politique d'Ernst Niekisch, la période nationaliste révolutionnaire (baptisée à tort "national-bolchévique") qui coïncide avec la période de parution de la revue "Widerstand" ("Résistance") que dirigeait Ernst Niekisch de 1926 à 1934). Ne sont pas concernées la période social-démocrate antérieure à 1926, évoquée dans l'ouvrage de Sauermann pour mémoire, et la période postérieure à la guerre (après 1945, Niekisch, devenu marxiste, occupera un poste d'enseignant à l'Université Humboldt de Berlin-Est).
De l'écheveau apparemment inextri-cable des actions menées et des thèmes développés par Niekisch et "Widerstand", Uwe Sauermann dégage un fil directeur: le nationalisme absolu, inconditionnel, (un-bedingt) professé par Niekisch dès les années 25-26.
L'idéologie de "Widerstand" se radica-lise encore dans les dernières années de la République de Weimar. De nouveaux thèmes apparaissent dans un article de Niekisch de septembre 1929 "Der ster-bende Osten" ("l'Est mourant") (p.229), et dans un article de mars 1930 de Werner Hennecke, pp. 231 à 233 (celui-ci, un col-laborateur du périodique "Blut und Boden", est proche du Mouvement Paysan). Ils se-ront repris et développés dans le pro-gramme politique de la résistance alle-mande en avril 1930 (pp. 234/235) (7). Niekisch et "Widerstand" préconisent alors :
Pour Hans Freyer (1887-1969),
Première question: la révolution conservatrice allemande a-t-elle développé des visions d'Europe nouvelles et vraiment spécifiques? Réponse: pas vraiment. Des visions d'Europe très différentes se bousculent dans les corpus théoriques de ceux qu'Armin Mohler compte parmi les représentants de ce courant de pensée, né au cours d'une longue “période axiologique” de l'histoire, soit une période où de nouvelles valeurs se pensent, s'insinuent (lentement) dans les esprits et s'installent dans la société et dans le concert des nations. Les valeurs que représente la “révolution conservatrice” sont des valeurs qui entendent remplacer celles mises en avant pas les formes involuées de christianisme anorganique et par l'idéologie des Lumières, induite par la révolution française. L'idéologie de la révolution conservatrice ne date donc pas de ce siècle. Elle n'est pas tombée subitement du ciel après 1918.
Ex: Nieuwsbrief Deltastichting - N°32 - Februari 2010
Ein Jahrhundert danach kann man sich nur wundern, dass die Zensur Thomas Manns zweiten Roman, "Königliche Hoheit", nicht sofort verboten hat. Der Erbprinz des kleinen Großherzogtums, wo der Roman aus dem Jahr 1909 spielt, kommt mit einer verkümmerten linken Hand zur Welt. Es ist genau dieselbe Behinderung, mit der auch Kaiser Wilhelm II. geboren war, der Berliner Hof gab sich seit Jahrzehnten alle erdenkliche Mühe, diese Schwäche zu kaschieren, auf offiziellen Bildern ist die linke Seite in Halbdunkel belassen.
Decadentie, verval van beschaving, het houdt de mensheid – en in elk geval het bewuste, het denkende deel ervan – al eeuwen in de ban. Het klinkt banaal, maar net als mensen hebben culturen, beschavingen geen eeuwigheidsduur en voelt iedereen bijna met de elleboog aan wanneer wij ons in een opgaande fase of in een neergaande fase van onze beschaving bevinden. Decadentie is een niet eenduidig te vatten fenomeen, er werden ganse boekenkasten over volgeschreven : niet alleen zijn er verschillende vormen van decadentie en verval, economisch, cultureel, demografisch, militair en tenslotte politiek, maar de verschillende vormen kunnen elkaar versterken of de invloed van deze of gene vorm afzwakken. Twee vragen houden geïnteresseerden bezig :
1926 L’uomo come potenza. I tantri nella loro metafisica e nei loro metodi di autorealizzazione magica.
De Spengleriaanse opvatting van de aristocratische cultuur is schatplichtig aan Nietzsche, Julius Evola had er al op gewezen, de Duitse filosoof van Der Untergang zal er nooit van loskomen : “Het ideaal van de mens als een prachtig roofdier en een onverwoestbaar heerser bleef het geloofspunt van Spengler, en referenties naar een spirituele cyclus blijven bij hem sporadisch, onvolmaakt en verminkt vanuit zijn protestantse vooroordelen. De aanbidding van de aarde en de devotie voor de klassen van knechten, de graafschappen en de kastelen, intimiteit van tradities en corporatieve gemeenschappen, de organisch georganiseerde staat, het allerhoogste recht toegekend aan het ras (niet in biologische zin begrepen, maar in de zin van gedrag, van diep ingewortelde viriliteit), dit alles is het fundament van Spengler, waarin volkeren zich in de fase van de cultuur ontwikkelen. Maar eigenlijk is dit alles te weinig… In de loop van de geschiedenis is een dergelijke wereld eerder te vinden reeds als het gevolg van een eerste val. We bevinden ons dan in de cyclus van de “krijgersmaatschappij”, het traditionele tijdperk dat vorm krijgt eens het contact met de transcendente realiteit verbroken werd, en die ophoudt de creatieve kracht van de beschaving te zijn” (39). Oswald Spengler gaat dus in de eerste plaats niet ver genoeg in zijn analyses, en verder haalt hij ook niet de juiste referenties aan. Daarom, schrijft Julius Evola op pagina 11, “komt Spengler ons eerder voor als de epigoon van het conservatisme, van het beste traditionele Europa, die haar ondergang bezegeld zag in de Eerste Wereldoorlog en het ineenstorten van de laatste Europese rijken”.
