Podcast Summary
Philosophers under Pressure: Dewey and Gramsci during the Early 20th Century: Two philosophers, John Dewey and Antonio Gramsci, sought solutions to political and social issues during the early 20th century, a time of great transition and upheaval. They approached the problem from different perspectives, reflecting the immense pressure on philosophers to prevent the consequences of war and instability.
The early 20th century was a time of great transition and upheaval in the world, and philosophers during this period were under immense pressure to come up with solutions to the major political and social issues of the time. With the backdrop of revolutions, world wars, and the questioning of the legacy of the Enlightenment, these thinkers were tasked with figuring out how to prevent the consequences of war from threatening the existence of the human race. The job was particularly challenging because liberal capitalist democracy, which had long been considered the gold standard for structuring societies, seemed to consistently lead to dictatorship, bloodshed, and political instability. Two philosophers, John Dewey and Antonio Gramsci, arrived on the scene during this time and approached the problem from different perspectives. They were part of three major branches of political discussion during this period: the liberal tradition, the Marxist tradition, and the fascist tradition. Ultimately, their work reflected the immense pressure and weight of history that was placed on them to find answers to the pressing political and social issues of the time.
The Emergence of Liberalism and its Critique during the Enlightenment: Liberalism emerged as a dominant political philosophy during the Enlightenment, contrasted with pre-liberal thought, and its philosophical foundations were later critiqued by scholars like Carl Schmitt, shaping modern political thought.
During the enlightenment era, liberalism emerged as a dominant political philosophy, contrasted with pre-liberal thought. Liberalism determined political legitimacy through reason and individual rights, while pre-liberal societies relied on methods like divine revelation, tradition, and authoritarianism. Fast forward to the 20th century, and philosophers like Carl Schmitt critiqued liberalism, not the modern political cliche, but the philosophical foundation of the enlightenment. Schmitt's critique of liberalism is crucial as it influenced subsequent political philosophy up to the present day. Understanding these critiques and their historical context is essential for grasping the evolution of political thought.
From Theological Interpretation to Liberalism: The Enlightenment marked a shift from religious to secular reasoning in politics, leading to the rise of liberalism and its principles, but also prompting criticisms and calls for new ways of thinking
During the Enlightenment, there was a shift from pre-liberal societies relying on theological interpretation for political decisions to a new focus on reason and secular scholarship. This transition led to the rise of liberalism and its principles such as limited government, equality, freedom of expression, and democracy. However, Carl Schmidt, a critic of liberalism, argued that the most dangerous political ideology is the one that is currently popular. He aimed to bring about a new post-liberal way of thinking politically, viewing liberalism as a promise of a better world but also recognizing its potential limitations and dangers. It's important to remember that while liberalism brought about significant progress, it's not without its criticisms and challenges.
Critique of Liberalism's Promises: Despite liberalism's goals of peace, tolerance, and separation of powers, political instability, dictatorships, and bloodshed have persisted throughout history, according to Carl Schmitt's critique.
Liberalism, as a political philosophy, was created with the goal of solving historical political problems through new ways of conducting politics. It introduced concepts like separation of powers, religious and political tolerance, and consumerism as a unifying force. However, as Carl Schmitt argued, the reality did not live up to these hopes. Despite liberalism's intentions, political instability, dictatorships, and bloodshed continued to occur throughout history. Schmitt saw a significant gap between liberalism's promises and its actual impact on the world. He criticized the liberal belief in the toleration of difference, arguing that it was an unrealistic expectation for people with extreme political differences to coexist peacefully. Schmitt's critique of liberalism challenged its fundamental assumptions and highlighted the complexities of implementing a political philosophy in the real world.
Irreconcilable political differences: Liberalism's belief in peaceful coexistence and compromise may not be enough for irreconcilable political differences. Force may be necessary to address conflicts where one group's existence is based on the destruction of another.
While the liberal belief in the ability to coexist and find reasonable compromises through open debate is appealing, it may not be a realistic solution for all political differences. According to Carl Schmitt, there are irreconcilable differences that cannot be solved through rational debate alone. These differences can lead to serious political conflicts where force may be necessary. Liberalism may provide a peaceful illusion, but history shows that there are instances where rational debate fails to solve deep-rooted political differences. It's essential to acknowledge that there are political groups whose existence is based on the destruction of others, and liberal political philosophy may not be enough to address these conflicts.
The Dilemma of Liberal Societies: Accept Destruction or Act Like a Dictator?: Liberal societies must acknowledge the need for decisive action and the potential role of a sovereign in maintaining order and security, even if it goes against their values.
Rational debate may not be sufficient to solve significant political issues. Liberal societies, which value open dialogue and the protection of individual rights, are faced with a dilemma when confronted with hostile political beliefs or authoritarian regimes. According to Carl Schmitt, there are only two choices: accept the destruction of liberalism or use the power of the state to silence opposition. This second option, which liberals dread, involves temporarily acting like a dictator to maintain order and security. Although liberals strive to eliminate the concept of a sovereign, Schmitt's argument is that society sometimes needs the ability to make decisive decisions swiftly. The liberal fear of authoritarianism, he believes, has led to the taboo of the idea of a dictatorship, even though it may be necessary for a healthy society. Liberalism, despite its efforts to remove the sovereign from the political process, still relies on the sovereign's power, albeit through various forms of normativism. Schmitt critiques liberalism for ignoring society's need for a sovereign and for creating an illusion of a sovereign-less political process.
The Illusion of Sovereignlessness in Liberal Democracies: Schmitt argues that while liberal democracies may appear to be sovereignless due to their adherence to normativism and constitutions, the reality is that the sovereign always reappears during crises to take decisive action.
According to Carl Schmitt, the belief in normativism and the constitutions that come with it as a safeguard against authoritarianism in liberal democracies is an oversimplification of the complexities of politics. Schmitt argues that no set of rules can account for every contingency and that trying to normativize political decisions can weaken a society's ability to adapt and defend itself in a crisis. However, Schmitt also points out that even in liberal societies, temporary extra-constitutional power is recognized as necessary during existential crises. Thus, the sovereign, or the ability to take decisive action, never truly disappears from the political process. The liberal political process, in Schmitt's view, creates an illusion of sovereignlessness, but the reality is that the sovereign always reappears when needed.
Liberalism's Illusion of Freedom: Despite appearances, liberalism does not eliminate the potential for authoritarian rule, as argued by Carl Schmitt.
According to Carl Schmitt, liberalism does not completely remove the sovereign from the political process. While constitutions and other legal documents may prevent authoritarian actions during periods of normalcy, they do not eliminate the potential for authoritarian rule. Schmitt argues that modern societies have a grand illusion of liberalism, which masks the underlying authoritarianism with window dressing. Liberalism, in Schmitt's view, is an impossible utopian fantasy. It's important to note that this is just the beginning of the ideas presented in this discussion, and there is much more to explore. So, if you have the time, consider listening to the next episode to delve deeper into these concepts. In summary, while liberalism may present a facade of freedom and equality, it does not eliminate the potential for authoritarian rule.
