Kirchheimer revanchierte sich seinerseits durch positive Bezugnahmen auf Schmitt. Nach der Machtergreifung der Nationalsozialisten emigrierte der sozialistische Jude Kirchheimer nach Paris.
Am Die Ehe wurde dort allerdings geschieden. Daneben arbeitete er als Dozent an der American University bis und an der Howard University bis November starb Kirchheimer an einem Herzanfall, als er am Dulles Airport ein Flugzeug besteigen wollte. Er wurde am Kirchheimer wird daher auch dem "linken Schmittianismus" zugerechnet.
Die Weimarer Verfassung betrachtete Kirchheimer nur als Episode. Auch wandte er sich gegen die Auffassung der Frankfurter Schule, nach der der nationalsozialistische Primat der Politik den Monopolkapitalismus in einen Staatskapitalismus verwandelt habe. But Marck could not accept this state of affairs on his dialectical phenomenological standpoint. Consequently, like other dualists, he could find no way out of the crisis in the theory of the State.
In contrast with the entire dialectical development of the theories of the State rooted in the immanence-standpoint, Christian theory has to disclose the internal structural principle of the body politic as it is found in the divine world-order. The elaborate and penetrating analysis of the transcendental structures of reality demanded by the philosophy of the cosmonomic Idea does not belong to the kind of literature that is in vogue among present-day politicians and sociologists.
They have not been devised by man's reason, but are anchored in the divine wisdom exhibited in the world order. The Christian theory of the State has up to now been unable to undertake its task with all its powers. Again and again it has formed a synthesis with immanence philosophy and thereby blunted the point of its Christian basic thoughts, so that after their elaboration the result was often their very opposite. In the structure of the State the factor of constraining power is held to be an intrinsically demonic and radically sinful element.
Wikipedia:Auskunft/Archiv//Woche 08 – Wikipedia
As such it is supposed to remain necessarily caught in a dialectical tension with the Christian commandment of love and the idea of true communion. Especially Emil Brunner in his repeatedly quoted book Das Gebot und die Ordnungen defends this view. He considers it to be a necessary consequence of the essential difference between Roman Catholicism and Protestantism that there is a Roman Catholic but not a really Protestant philosophy of law and of the State. Wherever Protestantism tries to project such a philosophy it has already been affected internally by the Roman Catholic leaven 1.
Roman Catholicism bases its philosophy of the State on the Aristotelian natural law which is not of Christian but of pagan origin. Reformed Christianity cannot recognize any form of natural law and has to accept the State in the latter's peculiar dialectical structure.
In it there is an irreconcilable tension between three factors, viz. For such a theory could not reconcile these dialectical contrasts in the structure of the body politic. It is remarkable here that on his Christian standpoint Brunner necessarily relapses into a synthesis with the State-theories of the immanence standpoint by in principle accepting the dialectical basic problem of the latter.
At the back of this synthetic standpoint emerges the false contrast between nature and grace which already at an early period infected Christian thought. Brunner commits the serious error of confusing the factor of power in the structure of the body politic with the subjective way in which States in the sinful world can abuse their power.
If so, can this statement then not be applied with equal justice to all the other types of societal relationships, inclusive of the Church, in their subjective manifestations? Then the thesis loses any special meaning. Brunner on the one hand derives the power of the body politic from the divine will.
Das metrische System (1790–1875)
This statement shows a serious lack of distinction between the divine structural law and the subjective manifestation of the State which is subjected to this law in sinful reality. This merely proves how much this author's conception of power has been infected by modern irrationalism. That the State-institution cannot be understood from creation without taking account of the fall into sin, must immediately be granted to Brunner.
We shall return to this point in our analysis of the structural principle of this institution. But when Brunner tries to combine this really Biblical-Christian insight with a Humanistic-irrationalistic view of reality, the result must be a complete confusion. This should be clear from all that we have said about such attempts at synthesis. In the present context, however, we consider the typical internal historical form of the State, and such only in its pre-positive , internal structural function, as the foundational structural aspect of the State's radical type.
As such it does not have any factual duration but is a structural condition of any possible body politic, irrespective of its variable societal form. A typically historically founded community like the State implies such a typical historical form as its internal structural basis. And this same statement must be valid for all radical types of historically founded communities.
Their internal unity in multiplicity is not typically founded in a pre-logical aspect of reality. Therefore their structural principle requires an historical organization , a formation , as the original foundation of the internal unity of the societal relationship. In a family we have also discovered the essential structure of a community. But the latter here lacks a form of organization as its typical foundation. The relation between parents and children is that of the bearers of authority to those who are subjected to this authoritative office.
The origin of the term in its prevailing, structurally undefined sense betrays a certain polemical commitment in the conflict between two tendencies in the Humanistic theories of human. This was a conception which in the nature of the case could not contribute anything to clarifying our insight into the structure of the organized societal relationships.
They mean a certain. Jurists preferably understand the term in a functional juridical sense 1. It is therefore understandable that he sharply opposes the identification of organization and ordering. An organism, on the other hand, is characterized by the irrational consciousness of a member's having grown into the whole 3.
Die Geschichte der Standardisierung in Europa
An organism, on the other hand, has grown in the individual himself. This distinction is then applied to the contrast between the law-State and the power-State. This conception is very characteristic of the lack of insight into the internal structure of the State. It again rests on the fallacious way in which the problem of the relation between State and law has been posited. But this levelling way of thought makes it impossible to gain an insight into the internal structural principle of the body politic. An organization of power as the foundational historical form of a radical type of communal structures only acquires its internal determination from its structural coherence with the typical leading function.
It is immaterial whether this schema is functional-juridical, or socio-psychological or a dialectical synthesis of these two. The insight into the internal structural principles is made impossible beforehand, if one tries to approach e. But since the term implies nothing with respect to the typical qualification of the organized communities, it can never signify an ultimate genus of the latter, which indeed is not to be found in the structural temporal horizon of our experience.
For there are different secondary radical types of such communities notwithstanding the fact that all of them prove to be typically founded in the historical aspect. And we have seen that the radical types are the ultimate genera of the structures of individuality. In order to find the radical type of the State, the obvious method is for us to concentrate on those two functions in the structure of the body politic whose mutual relation proved to be the dialectical basic problem in the theories rooted in the immanence-standpoint.
Wildt, Michael 1954-
We cannot possibly believe that in this dialectical basic problem the historical function of power and the juridical function would have been so constantly emphasized, if they did not really have the meaning of radical typical functions of the State-structure. And this supposition appears to be confirmed by the empirical data concerning the realization of the latter. The radical typical and geno-typical structural principle of the body politic cannot be traced apart from its realization in the development of human society.
In this respect we must establish that a real State-institution does not appear before the destruction of the political power concentrated in the primitive undifferentiated tribal and gentilitial organizations.
There is a radical difference between the latter and a real body politic appearing from the undeniable fact that they are incompatible with one another. Wherever a real State arose, its first concern was the destruction of the tribal and gentilitial political power or, if the latter had already disappeared, the struggle against the undifferentiated political power-formations in which authoritative, and private proprietary relations were mixed with each other.
Irrespective of its particular governmental form, the State-institution has always presented itself as a res publica , an institution of the public interest, in which political authority is considered a public office, not a private property.
In this respect there appears to be a fundamental and radical difference between a real body politic, and the ancient Asiatic empires, the Merovingian kingdom and the medieval feudal kingdoms, which lacked the republican character. It is extremely confusing that the term republic is used to indicate a non-monarchical form of government.
In common speech it is unavoidable that the same words have very different meanings. But in the general theory of the State this is indefensible.
- The Dahlia Primer.
- Holden, Lolita, Zivago e gli altri. Piccola enciclopedia dei personaggi letterari (1946-1999) (Filigrana) (Italian Edition)?
- Gettysburg II: We Have Two Countries?
- Bernie Spends a Day at the Zoo;
The erroneous opposition between republics and monarchies is here only caused by the fact that the rise of a real State-institution in Greece and Rome occurred in a non-monarchical form and our political terminology is of a Greco-Roman origin. In addition, the undifferentiated conception of political authority, as the personal property of the rulers, mostly maintained itself in monarchies.
But these historical facts cannot justify a scientific use of the term republic in a sense which has nothing to do with its proper meaning. A real State with a monarchical form of government is by nature a monarchical republic. A kingdom like the Merovingian empire which was nothing but a res regia lacks the character of a real State-institution. Even from a logical point of view this use of the concept State is indefensible since it is contradictory to subsume under one and the same notion characteristics which exclude one another.
It is true that the State belongs to a particular radical type of societal relationships which may also include organized communities of a different geno-type. But in this case the term State may not be applied to this radical type but only to a specific geno-type of the former. The adherents of Max Weber 's ideal-typical method will readily agree that their ideal-typical concept of the State is only applicable to the modern bodies politic. But this by no means implies an abandonment of the historicist prejudice concerning the changeable character of the State's inner nature.
The geno-type State cannot be defined from an historical point of view only, since it is a real structure of individuality, which, as such, embraces the integral horizon of modal experiential aspects.
Related Entstehung einheitlicher Staatsgewalt (German Edition)
Copyright 2019 - All Right Reserved