シュミットというのは中国でももてはやされているけど・・・すごいねえ。エルチャニノフによれば、プーチンの「保守的転回」に大きな役割を果たしたのは「1918年から1933年までのドイツにおける保守革命」で、具体的にはシュペングラー、シュミット、ユンガー、ニーキシュの名が挙がっている（独訳74~77頁）。彼らの著作自体、2000年代以降のロシアで争って読まれたという。 https://t.co/HkXREa82bM
— hhasegawa (@hhasegawa) February 24, 2022
Schmitt offered two big ideas that resonated with Russian conservative thinking about domestic political order.First, Schmitt argued that only a genuinely sovereign leader, able to act outside the law and the constitution—to declare an exception, as he phrases it—could ensure lasting political order.Schmitt’s second big claim is that the fundamental distinction that defines the political is that between friend and enemy. The idea that a political community could be defined by identifying its enemy—its Other—seemed attractive for many Russian thinkers during a search for identityFinally, to come back to your original question, Schmitt’s international theory envisages a world divided into ‘Great Spaces’, essentially spheres of influence dominated by a Great Power.the liberal international order in this way of thinking is not a benign system that can be easily accommodated or reformed, but a threat to Russia’s existence as a fully sovereign power.The Russian tragedy—at least in the view of liberals like me—is that the search for order under Putin was based on a fundamentally flawed theoretical premise, i.e. the Schmittian view that political order can only be produced in opposition to liberal values.On the international scale, the argument of Russian conservative thinkers is simple. The liberal world order is neither liberal, nor global, nor an order, but is a Western imperialist project that produces chaos.Consequently, even when Russia breaks the rules blatantly—as in its intervention in eastern Ukraine in 2014—it is still convinced that it is engaged in an order-producing act.
たしかに、中国やプーティンに都合の良さそうな思想ではある。
0 件のコメント:
コメントを投稿