131214840-Carl-Schmitt

Page 93
Hochland (July 1925); W. Lambach, Die Herrschaft der 500 (Hamburg, 1926); Ernst
Müller-Meiningen, Parlamentarismus (Berlin, 1926). On the perspective of Oswald
Spengler, see the summary and overview by Otto Koellreutter, Die Staatslehre Oswald
Spenglers (Jena, 1924). From the extensive literature on the "corporations"
(berufsständischen) problem see Heinrich Herrfahrdt, Das Problem der
berufsständischen Vertretung (Berlin, 1921), and Edgar Tatarin-Tarnheyden,
"Kopfzahldemokratie: Organishe Demokratie und Oberhausproblem," Zeitschrift für
Politik, 15 (1926), 97ff.; Heinz Brauweiler, Berufsstand und Staat (Berlin, 1925), and his
"Parlamentarismus and berufsständische Politik," Preussische Jahrbücher, 202 (1925),
and the critical discussion by Carl Landauer noted above. On the particular difficulties of
parliament in relation to the modern economy, see Heinrich Göppert, Staat und
Wirtschaft (Tübingen, 1924).
5. [Tr.] Schmitt's reference is not specific. Cf. Jacob Burckhardt, Briefe, ed. Max
Burckhardt (Basel: Schwabe & Co., Verlag, 1949–63), 5 vols.
6. [Tr.] Moisei Ostrogorski, La Démocratie et l'organisation de partis politique (Paris:
Calmann-Lévy, 1903); Seymour Martin Lipset, ed., Democracy and the Organization of
Political Parties (New Brunswick, N.J.: Transaction Books, 1982). Hillaire Belloc and
Cecil Chesterton, The Party System (London: Stephen Swift, 1911); Robert Michels,
Soziologie des Parteiwesens (Leipzig: Alfred Kröner Verlag, 1926), and Political
Parties (New York: Free Press, 1962).
1—
Democracy and Parliamentarism
1. [Tr.] On German political thought in the last century, see James J. Sheehan, German
Liberalism in the Nineteenth Century (London: Methuen, 1982), and Heinrich A.
Winkler, Preussischer Liberalismus und deutscher Nationalstaat (Tübingen: Mohr,
1964). A fierce controversy was set off in 1980–1981 by Geoffrey Eley and David
Blackbourne, Mythen deutscher Geschichtsschreibung (Berlin: Ullstein, 1980).
Blackbourne and Eley attacked the thesis of a German Sonderweg: that while all other
European countries (especially England) had become more democratic in the course of
the nineteenth century, Germany took a "special route" to modernity—a modern industry
but a feudal state and political system. While the authors' intention was at least partly to
criticize the supposed genius of English political development, which some German
historians hold up as a standard by which German historical development should be
measured, the Blackbourne-Eley thesis echoes Carl Schmitt. They, like Schmitt, have
discovered an identity between "democracy" and "liberalism" in nineteenth-century
political thought, which they are unwilling (on supposedly different grounds) to admit.
Winkler, whom they charge with equating the advance of the bourgeoisie and the
development of democratic forms, has rightly answered: "None of the German historians
criticized by Blackbourne and Eley would have thought to blur the distinction between
'liberals' and 'democrats.' " Winkler, ''Der deutsche Sonderweg: Eine Nachlese," Merkur,
8 (1981), 793–804. Cf. Winkler's careful distinction of political currents in nineteenthcentury
German political thought and politics in his Preussischer Liberalismus, 22ff. and
93.
2. [Tr.] Ranke "feared the democratic and revolutionary tendencies within the nationalist
Create PDF with PDF4U. If you wish to remove this line, please click here to purchase the full version