Jump to content
Felix Hoenikker

Schmitt K

Recommended Posts

File Name: Schmitt K

File Submitter: Felix Hoenikker

File Submitted: 02 Nov 2013

File Category: Critiques

Resolution: Latin America

 



It's a critique of liberal utopianism as well as Cap Bad affirmatives and K affs that claim to change the nature of politics. Enmity is at the core of our existence, the only question is how do we regulate and direct violence, doing otherwise pushes it underground and causes swings to the right. It's an argument that's fallen out of popularity but I think is ripe for a comeback and some of these cards are the best you'll find to roll with Schmitt against these affs.

Zizek/Rev K 1NC.. 2
Derrida/Etc K 1NC.. 8
Liberalism/Policy K 1NC.. 13
2NC Stuff (Liberalism/Policy K) 19
Link – Liberalism... 21
Link – Liberalism/Civil Society. 22
Link – Moderation/Hearts and Minds. 24
Link – Parliamentary Democracy. 26
Link – Democracy/Human Rights. 28
Link – Human Rights. 29
Link – Human Rights. 30
Link – International Law.. 32
Link – Radical Democracy. 34
Link – Radical Democracy. 35
Link – Demo K Affs. 36
Link – Derrida/Undecidability. 37
Link – Agamben/Divisions Inevitable. 38
Link – Communist Revolution.. 39
Link – Revolution/AT Perm... 40
Division Inevitable. 41
Impact – Extinction.. 42
Impact – Extinction.. 44
Impact – Total War. 44
Impact – Permanent Universal War. 47
Impact – Booms. 49
Impact – HR-->Extermination.. 50
Alt – Conflict as Vocation.. 51
Alt – Lines in the Sand.. 53
Alt – Affirm Division.. 56
Alt Solvency – Divisions Good.. 58
Alt Solvency – Ethics/The Other. 59
AT Alt --> Violence. 60
No Enmity --> No Politics. 61
AT Rethinking.. 62
AT Ontology First 63

 



Click here to download this file

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

aka "nazi k"

 

 

EDIT

 

"Schmitt presented himself as a radical anti-semite and also was the chairman of a law teachers' convention inBerlin in October 1936,[16] where he demanded that German law be cleansed of the "Jewish spirit" ("jüdischem Geist"), going so far as to demand that all publications by Jewish scientists should henceforth be marked with a small symbol."

 

idgaf about negative rep - imo it's fundamentally offensive that anyone would read arguments by him

  • Upvote 4
  • Downvote 4

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

aka "nazi k"

 

 

EDIT

 

"Schmitt presented himself as a radical anti-semite and also was the chairman of a law teachers' convention inBerlin in October 1936,[16] where he demanded that German law be cleansed of the "Jewish spirit" ("jüdischem Geist"), going so far as to demand that all publications by Jewish scientists should henceforth be marked with a small symbol."

 

idgaf about negative rep - imo it's fundamentally offensive that anyone would read arguments by him

 

Two cards that I cut for this. The underlining is gone but I'm sure you can deal with it. I'm also fairly certain (?) that the file up for discussion answers that too.

 

It's also fundamentally offensive to me whenever somebody reads Kagan against me, but that doesn't mean I go and flame threads selling 'heg good' files. In debate we strive to answer arguments objectively. Try to bring that into the rest of your life.

 

Not a reason to refuse to engage the argument – this card is explicit

Minca and Rowan 13 (Claudio Minca, Cultural Geography Department, Wageningen University; Rory Rowan, Department of Geography, Royal Holloway, University of London, The trouble with Carl Schmitt, Political Geography, Available online 15 February 2013, http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.polgeo.2013.01.004, accessed 5/12/13, ~tc)

Perhaps this implicit resistance to a fuller engagement also reflects the discipline's relative historical unease with the relationship between Nazism and German geopolitics, and German Geography in general; a relationship almost entirely neglected by disciplinary debates in postwar Anglophone Geography, with little analysis of its inner tensions and complex legacies – for example, in the forgetting of Walter Christaller's relationship with the Nazis (see: Barnes & Minca, in press). If Nazi spatial theory unquestionably marked a catastrophically dark hour for German Geography, this should be a cause for persistent remembrance and critical interrogation, rather than a reason to avoid engagement, in order to better understand what was thought and its relation to what was done, both within the discipline and beyond. Whilst such a study may start from Ratzel and Haushofer, still largely unavailable in English, it would benefit from a broader sweep of other influential spatial theorists, including Carl Schmitt, whose work occupies a unique position, both within and without Nazi spatial thought.

While we consider it critical to locate Schmitt's thought in the biographical and political context from which it emerged, we nonetheless do not think that it can be reduced to this context alone. Theory travels, taking on different relevance in different contexts; and Schmitt's work has travelled further and wider than that of most thinkers. It is thus important – important because of his Nazism – to track the trajectories of Schmitt's work. Indeed, we take our cue from the Italian critic Carlo Galli, arguably the world's foremost Schmitt scholar, who refers to himself as a “schmittologist†rather than a ‘schmittian’ (Sitze, 2010, p. xi), arguing that Schmitt's work is a legitimate object of study requiring the same degree of critical analysis as any other thinker – an engagement which does not presume an identification or celebration. Galli (2010, p. 3) suggests that Schmitt's work helps to identify some of the core questions of modern political thought, even if his answers are both ethically and politically repugnant and theoretically inadequate to address a rapidly changing present. It is in the spirit of Galli's ‘Schmittology’ that we consider it possible to approach Carl Schmitt's spatial thought as geographers: neither as advocates nor apologists, but rather as critics who believe that an investigation, sensitive to both the biographical and historical context of his work and its recent academic reception, may be valuable in further understanding the relationship between Nazi spatial ideologies and the wider field of modern political thought and indeed its subterranean resonances with contemporary thought.

 

Exclusion of Schmitt’s thought is uniquely bad

Minca and Rowan 13 (Claudio Minca, Cultural Geography Department, Wageningen University; Rory Rowan, Department of Geography, Royal Holloway, University of London, The trouble with Carl Schmitt, Political Geography, Available online 15 February 2013, http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.polgeo.2013.01.004, accessed 5/12/13, ~tc)

 

While undoubtedly too much recent work on Schmitt (outside Geography) seems oblivious of its political entanglements and deeper inclinations – something unacceptable given his affiliation with a murderous regime – at the same time we wonder if this attitude perhaps has something to do with the mechanisms of reproduction (and accumulation) of academic capital. Gate keeping appears to be crucial in defining the intellectual agenda of the discipline, especially when translation is involved. How else might we explain that fact that neither Ratzel's major opus on Political Geography nor the major works of Haushofer are available in English? This bears on the wider issue of what is deemed to be a legitimate object of study for the discipline and raises fundamental questions about what the study of geography is, can and should be: questions that see issues of academic capital easily spill into those of intellectual boundary setting. A refusal of work on thinkers like Schmitt risks abdicating critical responsibility for serious theoretical engagement with presumed enemies whilst policing the borders of legitimate study on the basis of predetermined categories. In the case of Schmitt we feel this would only serve to neglect the necessary critical task of engaging with contemporary thinkers in other fields who uncritically employ his ideas on space and the political.

Edited by polyvore
  • Upvote 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Also not a single card in here is from Schmitt and the most well recognizes modern Schmittian, William Rasch, has gone to great lengths to situate himself well re: the negative legacy of the philosophy.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

And for some minor addition to this dispute about the ethics of reading Schmitt, a) there is not a single card in this file that is by Carl Schmitt, rather it is all contemporary application of the political theory that he created, b ) contemporary Schmitt scholars both do not wholesale endorse Carl Schmitt, as the evidence someone posted above indicates, and have been quite good (as in the case of any Heidegger critique) of explaining why his philosophy is a criticism of the actions taken by the man Carl Schmitt, c) if you really want to play the game of historical relevance, Carl Schmitt was also one of the chief architects of the Geneva convention and his work was instrumental in the construction of the ICCPR. Sooooooooo....

Edited by Felix Hoenikker
  • Upvote 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...

×
×
  • Create New...