April 02, 2004

It takes a Facist to understand politics. Alan Wolfe explains the current infatuation of some leftists with Carl Schmitt and how his views on politics influence both the left and right (especially the right). [via A&LD]

I meant to post this three days ago but I didn't found the time to do it. And, yes, I'm a A&LD junkie.

posted by Zemat 20 years ago
  • Schmitt had an explanation for why conservative talk-show hosts like Bill O'Reilly fight for their ideas with much more aggressive self-certainty than, say, a hopeless liberal like Alan Wolfe. Funny an autjor referencing himself in the third person.
  • Zermat I, too, am an A&LD junkie. Thanks for sharing the needle.
  • In your fasce, Machiavelli!
  • This is strange - I have read none of the theorists in discussion, but I thought Gramsci was anti-authoritarian? The article compares him to Lenin. Maybe I'm totally wrong. Most of the leftist discussion of power is a critique of unequal power relations. So I could see where they would like this guy if he said "Hey, we have to talk about power" - but stop liking him at the point where he says (if he does - pure ignorance here) "Power is good". Anyone to enlighten me? Or are you condemning me to have to wade through the excrutable language abuse that is modern social theory on my own? I promise to cite you in my orals ;)
  • Please don't say "excrutable" in your orals.
  • Guilty as charged - I have my own form of language abuse, and that is happily charging ahead with only semi-familiar words and running the risk of mis-spelling/pronouncing/using them. (Though I like to think of it as a kind of language S&M). This time I believe I melded "excruciating" and "excretable" (not in the OED - have I made it up too?) - and "inscrutable" too - which does evoke the right sense of torture/distaste/confusion I experience when trying to read some post-modern theory. I am sure that their grammar, spelling and usage is impeccable; the writing is still stomach-turning. The fact that what they are talking about barely makes any sense should be all the more reason to write clearly about it, since the content isn't simple. Nor is it just me - I read only a few sentences of one book aloud to my class and all agreed that it made no sense. Which is a shame - I think the book in question had some interesting ideas drowned in a badly spiced sauce of literary theory.
  • How about "execrable"? (abominable, detestable). "Rebarbative" (repellant, unattractive) may also be of some use in describing the sort of text you mention.
  • That's it! "execrable" - also "Expressing or involving a curse; hence, of an imprecation: Awful, fearful. Obs." No - I don't like "rebarbative" at all - too much like its own definition, I'm afraid. You have to make a bad face to say it.
  • I can't help to think about "execrable" being some sort of scrable played by death row inmates.
  • Ok, scrabble is with double 'b'. But you get the point.
  • Mybe you are right, jb, seems that Gramsci can't be called authoritarian. But I would need to dwell into his prison work to identify clearly his stance. He maybe was figthing italian fascism in favour of socialism and democracy. But must communists used democracy only as a staple world against despotic capitalism.
  • I think we have Gramsci to thank for the current popularity of the word "hegemony".
  • Not Chinese history?
  • (Sorry - I was being silly :) But cool - I didn't know there was Russian google, or that I had the characters loaded on my machine. Now I just have to learn Russian)