Schmitt’s claim that politics is fundamentally distinct from economics is persuasive due to how Schmitt defines politics, and due to the nature of politics and economics, where politics is always political while economics may or may not turn political. However, Schmitt’s claim that politics is fundamentally distinct from justice isn’t persuasive as discussions of politics always leads to discussions of justice.
Schmitt’s claim of the distinctiveness of politics from economics is grounded by his definition of ‘the political’, where “political actions and motives can be reduced is that between friend and enemy” (p26). This grouping is independent of other antithesis, is decisive, and is inflexible: you can only be either a friend or an enemy. The enemy is hostis in which “extreme case conflicts with him are possible”(p27). The nature of politics, hence involves the potentiality for death, as war is the extreme result of such a dissociation. That in the domain of economics exists no enemies - only competitors (p28), it …show more content…
This is because of the nature of the relationship between Schmitt’s definition of politics, and justice; they are inherently connected. From discussions of the political, the potentiality of war must be considered. Then, discourse on the notion or reality of war must result in ideas of justice. Schmitt says that “ (war) has no normative meaning”(p49), and “there exists no rational purpose……. which could justify men in killing each other”(p49), unless “motivated by an existential threat to one's own way of life” (p49). His belief that there is no such thing as a just war, and the only justifiable case of murder is in self-defense, shows that his formulation of ideas of justice was a direct result of politics. Hence, politics inevitably leads to notions of justice, which makes justice immanent in politics and ergo, not fundamentally distinct from
Schmitt’s claim of the distinctiveness of politics from economics is grounded by his definition of ‘the political’, where “political actions and motives can be reduced is that between friend and enemy” (p26). This grouping is independent of other antithesis, is decisive, and is inflexible: you can only be either a friend or an enemy. The enemy is hostis in which “extreme case conflicts with him are possible”(p27). The nature of politics, hence involves the potentiality for death, as war is the extreme result of such a dissociation. That in the domain of economics exists no enemies - only competitors (p28), it …show more content…
This is because of the nature of the relationship between Schmitt’s definition of politics, and justice; they are inherently connected. From discussions of the political, the potentiality of war must be considered. Then, discourse on the notion or reality of war must result in ideas of justice. Schmitt says that “ (war) has no normative meaning”(p49), and “there exists no rational purpose……. which could justify men in killing each other”(p49), unless “motivated by an existential threat to one's own way of life” (p49). His belief that there is no such thing as a just war, and the only justifiable case of murder is in self-defense, shows that his formulation of ideas of justice was a direct result of politics. Hence, politics inevitably leads to notions of justice, which makes justice immanent in politics and ergo, not fundamentally distinct from