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.
del.icio.us
Digg
Facebook
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.
Somos ante todo soldados, pues servimos al ideal del gran renacimiento europeo, una causa imperiosa, pura y difícil como lo son nuestras banderas. Soldados, porque rechazamos toda forma de solución reformista del sistema dominante que, por la vía de los compromisos electorales y políticos, la búsqueda de prebendas y la farsa parlamentaria, asegure la autorregulación y el reciclaje permanente de las "élites" (?) corruptas y el mantenimiento del sistema plutocrático.
Translator’s Note: When liberalism becomes “a foul tyranny masking an evil and anonymous dictature of money” (the basis of Jewish supremacy), everything is inverted and perverted, so that even our word “socialism” is tarnished, associated as it now is with Washington’s Judeo-Negro regime. I thought it appropriate, therefore, to post something that reminds readers of how we once defined this term. The following is a short excerpt from Maurice Bardèche’s Socialisme fasciste (Waterloo, 1991). — Michael O’Meara
Aparato central de la ideología moderna del progreso y del igualitarismo individualista, y medio por el cual se instaura una policía del pensamiento así como la destrucción de los derechos de los pueblos.
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. 
Primera en aparecer, en 1776, bajo la forma de la Declaración de Independencia, la versión americana de la ideología de los derechos humanos hace más hincapié en la busqueda por el hombre de la felicidad, en el derecho del individuo a resistir a toda soberanía que obstaculizaría su "libre árbitro" y su placer, que en los derechos políticos del ciudadano. La Constitución americana refleja esta concepción del Estado de Derecho: los gobernantes tienen por principal objetivo la garantía de los derechos humanos. La finalidad asignada a la política es permitir que los hombres gocen, en seguridad, de sus bienes. Tal filosofía, que se inspira directamente en los hédonistas anglosajones y en los topicos del Segundo Tratado de Locke, presenta ya los fundamentos doctrinales del Estado benefactor occidental moderno, para el cual la gestión de la "felicidad pública" (common good) prevalece sobre la dirección política del destino de la nación. En este sentido, si la Revolución francesa fue fundadora de una "nación", la Revolución americana lo fue de una "sociedad", instancia despolitizada, dónde lo cotidiano y no la historia pasa a ser, como dice Baudrillard, el "destino social".![[Abbildung]](http://www.dhm.de/lemo/objekte/pict/haushofe/index.jpg)
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!
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:
De laatste dagen lezen we in de pers dat de prijzen voor bewerkte levensmiddelen in ons land het afgelopen jaar dubbel zo duur zijn geworden als in de ons omringende landen. Dat de prijzen van basisproducten stijgen, is een open deur intrappen. Terwijl de elite de bevolking wijs tracht te maken dat het leven best wel goedkoop is geworden door het globalisme, ervaart iedereen die van een gemiddeld inkomen leeft dat het elke maand een beetje moeilijker wordt om rond te komen. We willen dan nog niet eens spreken over de honderdduizenden die zelfs niet meer rond komen en in de armoede zijn beland. Terwijl er elke dag een paar honderd mensen hun werk verliezen en daardoor de koopkracht bij die groep fors afneemt, laat de politieke elite de prijzen van voedingsmiddelen escaleren. Dit getuigt van een stuitende afstand tussen de politieke elite en de massa. Dit getuigt bovendien van een ongelooflijke kloof tussen politiek dienstbaar zijn aan het volk en de massa en de dienstbaarheid aan kleine groepen van economisch en financieel machtige individuen. Het getuigt van een wil om de klassentegenstellingen steeds verder op de spits te drijven en zo de tegenstellingen die het kapitaal heeft georganiseerd weg te kunnen stoppen. Want inderdaad, als men klassentegenstellingen aanwakkert door het sociale klimaat te doen verrotten, door afdankingen en escalerende consumptieprijzen, alleen dan kunnen de bestaande elites hun macht consolideren. Het is de verdeel-en-heers-politiek van het kapitaal en het is paradoxaal genoeg ook het cement dat liberaal links gebruikt om volksbelang ondergeschikt te maken aan klassenbelang, waar de slogan 'alles wat ons verdeelt, verzwakt ons' de politieke uiting van is. Waarbij de links-liberale analyse omtrent 'wie is ons' duidelijk maakt dat liberaal links net zo goed als de liberaal-democratische elite uitgaan van een model van conflict en geweld. De enen gebruiken het geweld van het geld om hun doelstellingen te verwezenlijken, de anderen gebruiken straatgeweld en maatschappelijk geweld, gepleegd door randgroepen die vaak ingevoerde mensen omvatten, om de droom (en voor ons de grootste nachtmerrie) van een multiculturele, globalistische maatschappij in stand te kunnen houden.
In het huidige sociaal-economische bestel is het patronaat, samen met diegenen die het financierskapitaal inbrengen en beheren met voorsprong de machtigste partij. Sociaal overleg is gebaseerd op een belangenstrijd waarbij werkgeversorganisaties overleggen met de vakbonden en waarbij uitgegaan wordt van een conflictsituatie met tegengestelde belangen én waarbij de ene partij machtiger is dan de andere. Veel solidarisme komt er in gans dit gebeuren niet aan te pas. In onze visie wijzen we klassenstrijd tussen loonarbeid en het industriële ondernemerschap af, omdat het beide “partijen” van de gemeenschappelijke strijd tegen het internationale woekerkapitaal dat beiden uitbuit afleidt van de kern van de zaak. Zolang er echter aanzienlijke delen van het ondernemerschap deze gemeenschappelijke noodzaak ontkennen en de lasten van de renteslavernij eenzijdig op de loontrekkenden afwentelen, moet sociale strijd op de werkvloer en aan de fabriekspoorten gesteund worden om tot een gemeenschappelijk front van alle scheppende krachten, zowel leidende als uitvoerende, tegen het financierskapitaal te komen. Onder meer daarom zal N-SA zich niet aan de zijde van populistisch rechts (VB, LDD) scharen dat te pas maar vooral te onpas de vakbonden met alle zonden van de wereld overlaadt.
Zusammenfassung
Chiamato a vivere il periodo magico del neo-idealismo sorto all’indomani del primo dopoguerra, Spirito aderì giovanissimo all’attualismo gentiliano, corrente di pensiero dalla quale si distaccò nel corso degli anni Trenta, senza però rinnegare alcuni dei suoi principi di fondo. Dopo essere stato considerato un “divulgatore entusiasta ed un apologeta instancabile dell’attualismo” col suo “Scienza e filosofia”, infatti, delineò quella che è considerata, non a torto, una posizione originale ed autonoma rispetto al pensiero gentiliano, collocandosi, con Guido Calogero, sul fronte della cosiddetta “sinistra attualistica”. Spirito mantenne nella sua analisi il principio gentiliano del “fare” (dell’atto) col chiaro intento di “demetafisicizzarlo” legandolo all’agire fattuale degli uomini che si ha nell’ambito del concreto orizzonte mondano. Spirito, impegnandosi nell’ambito della problematica gnoseologica, giunse a risultati differenti da Gentile e Croce, distanziandosi anche dalla tesi sostenuta dal suo amico Calogero, che sviluppò questo programma in senso etico. Spirito, infatti, grazie ai suoi studi riuscì ad affermare una serie di precetti, tra cui la non inferiorità della conoscenza scientifica rispetto alla conoscenza filosofica; l’impossibilità di sopprimere la scienza nella filosofia e la necessità di stabilire tra loro un’organica collaborazione. Questa sua concezione, che egli stesso definì “attualismo costruttore”, insomma, aveva come scopo di fare “sul serio scienza che sia filosofia e filosofia che sia scienza” in un costante nesso dialettico.
