Changes

Neoconservative [[globalism|globalist]] ideas on foreign policy have their roots on the writings of renegade Trotskyists Max Shachtman and James Burnham in the 1940s and 1950s, while on domestic policy they derive their [[authoritarianism]] from the writings of [[Nazism|Nazi]] [[jurisprudence|jurist]] Carl Schmitt during the same period.

Neoconservative [[globalism|globalist]] ideas on foreign policy have their roots on the writings of renegade Trotskyists Max Shachtman and James Burnham in the 1940s and 1950s, while on domestic policy they derive their [[authoritarianism]] from the writings of [[Nazism|Nazi]] [[jurisprudence|jurist]] Carl Schmitt during the same period.

Burnham and Shachtman were American Trotskyists who had clashed with [[Leon Trotsky]] in 1939-40 on the issue of whether the international workers' movement should support the [[Soviet Union]] in the event of a Nazi attack. Trotsky said it should, while Burnham and Shachtman said it should not. Both Burnham and Shachtman abandoned [[Marxism]] in the 1940s (ostensibly) and entered the [[conservative]] movement. In fact, they never really abandoned the idea of "[[Permanent Revolution]]", they just reshaped it to make it look more "conservative": the [[one-world government]], for them, wouldn't come through the USSR or through workers' revolution, but through American [[internationalism|internationalist]] and [[imperialism|imperialist]] foreign policy. Burnham explicitly wrote:  

Burnham and Shachtman were American Trotskyists who had clashed with [[Leon Trotsky]] in 1939–40 on the issue of whether the international workers' movement should support the [[Soviet Union]] in the event of a Nazi attack. Trotsky said it should, while Burnham and Shachtman said it should not. Both Burnham and Shachtman abandoned [[Marxism]] in the 1940s (ostensibly) and entered the [[conservative]] movement. In fact, they never really abandoned the idea of "[[Permanent Revolution]]", they just reshaped it to make it look more "conservative": the [[one-world government]], for them, wouldn't come through the USSR or through workers' revolution, but through American [[internationalism|internationalist]] and [[imperialism|imperialist]] foreign policy. Burnham explicitly wrote:  

<blockquote>A World Federation initiated and led by the United States would be, we have recognized, a World Empire. In this imperial federation, the United States, with a monopoly of atomic weapons, would hold a preponderance of decisive material power over all the rest of the world. In world politics, that is to say, there would not be a balance of power.<ref>James Burnham, ''The Struggle for the World'' (Toronto: Longmans, 1947), 190, 210.</ref></blockquote>

<blockquote>A World Federation initiated and led by the United States would be, we have recognized, a World Empire. In this imperial federation, the United States, with a monopoly of atomic weapons, would hold a preponderance of decisive material power over all the rest of the world. In world politics, that is to say, there would not be a balance of power.<ref>James Burnham, ''The Struggle for the World'' (Toronto: Longmans, 1947), 190, 210.</ref></blockquote>

As regards domestic policy, the neoconservatives' advocacy for the aggressive curtailing of freedom and [[civil liberties]] has its roots to the ideas of a self-proclaimed post-war ally of American imperialism, Carl Schmitt, who before the war had been a Nazi jurist for Hitler. The proponent of the theories of "state of exception" and "unitary executive power" (which, according to Schmitt, "frees the executive from any legal restraints to its power that would normally apply"), during the [[Weimar Republic]] Schmitt had advocated for the imposition of a Presidential dictatorship by [[Paul von Hindenburg]], then after 1933 he willingly offered his services to Hitler and produced legal theories that justified Nazi invasion of neutral countries, infamously proclaiming "woe to the neutrals".<ref>https://edisciplinas.usp.br/mod/resource/view.php?id=2252381</ref> Schmitt called for an imposition of an open dictatorship of a system aligned to the needs and interests of [[big government]] and [[corporation|corporations]] against the people. He argued that the massacre of large numbers of people without due process of law signifies the creation of a new world order of law and justice.<ref>https://davidarthurwalters.wordpress.com/tag/neoconservatism/</ref>

As regards domestic policy, the neoconservatives' advocacy for the aggressive curtailing of freedom and [[civil liberties]] has its roots to the ideas of a self-proclaimed post-war ally of American imperialism, Carl Schmitt, who before the war had been a Nazi jurist for Hitler. The proponent of the theories of "state of exception" and "unitary executive power" (which, according to Schmitt, "frees the executive from any legal restraints to its power that would normally apply"), during the [[Weimar Republic]] Schmitt had advocated for the imposition of a Presidential dictatorship by [[Paul von Hindenburg]], then after 1933 he willingly offered his services to Hitler and produced legal theories that justified Nazi invasion of neutral countries, infamously proclaiming "woe to the neutrals".<ref name="edisciplinas.usp.br">https://edisciplinas.usp.br/mod/resource/view.php?id=2252381</ref> Schmitt called for an imposition of an open dictatorship of a system aligned to the needs and interests of [[big government]] and [[corporation]]s against the people. He argued that the massacre of large numbers of people without due process of law signifies the creation of a new world order of law and justice.<ref>https://davidarthurwalters.wordpress.com/tag/neoconservatism/</ref>

Some have argued that [[neoconservativism]] has been influenced by Schmitt.<ref name="The Return of Carl Schmitt">Legal justification

Some have argued that [[neoconservativism]] has been influenced by Schmitt.<ref name="The Return of Carl Schmitt">Legal justification

In 1934, Schmitt wrote an essay bearing the title: 'The Führer Protects Justice'. In it he defended the crassest form of arbitrary [[fascism|fascist]] justice and most firmly upheld the view that the Führer had the sole right to distinguish between friend and foe:  

In 1934, Schmitt wrote an essay bearing the title: 'The Führer Protects Justice'. In it he defended the crassest form of arbitrary [[fascism|fascist]] justice and most firmly upheld the view that the Führer had the sole right to distinguish between friend and foe:  

<blockquote>The Führer is in earnest over the warnings of German history. That affords him the right and the power to found a new State and a new order ... The Führer is protecting justice from the vilest misuse when, in the hour of danger, he creates justice directly as the supreme authority by virtue of his leader's office ... The office of judge emanates from that of Führer. Anyone ... wishing to separate the two is seeking to put the State out of joint with the aid of justice . . . The Führer himself determines the content and scope of a transgression against the law.<ref>https://edisciplinas.usp.br/mod/resource/view.php?id=2252381</ref></blockquote>

<blockquote>The Führer is in earnest over the warnings of German history. That affords him the right and the power to found a new State and a new order ... The Führer is protecting justice from the vilest misuse when, in the hour of danger, he creates justice directly as the supreme authority by virtue of his leader's office ... The office of judge emanates from that of Führer. Anyone ... wishing to separate the two is seeking to put the State out of joint with the aid of justice . . . The Führer himself determines the content and scope of a transgression against the law.<ref name="edisciplinas.usp.br"/></blockquote>

Schmitt not only supported Hitler's moves in home affairs. Already before the outbreak of the [[World War II|Second World War]], during the preparations for it, he became the leading law ideologist of Nazi Germany's foreign policy. He resisted the 'universalist' claims of the [[League of Nations]] and called instead for the application of the [[Monroe Doctrine]] to Germany and territory in which she had interests. He quoted a statement by Hitler on this subject and commented:  

Schmitt not only supported Hitler's moves in home affairs. Already before the outbreak of the [[World War II|Second World War]], during the preparations for it, he became the leading law ideologist of Nazi Germany's foreign policy. He resisted the 'universalist' claims of the [[League of Nations]] and called instead for the application of the [[Monroe Doctrine]] to Germany and territory in which she had interests. He quoted a statement by Hitler on this subject and commented:  

<blockquote>'That expresses the idea of a peacefully arbitrated (schiedlich-friedlich) demarcation of the major territories in the simplest business-like terms. It eliminates the confusion that an economic imperialism created around the Monroe doctrine by twisting its reasonable idea of territorial demarcation into an ideological claim to global intervention.<ref>https://edisciplinas.usp.br/mod/resource/view.php?id=2252381</ref>'</blockquote>

<blockquote>'That expresses the idea of a peacefully arbitrated (schiedlich-friedlich) demarcation of the major territories in the simplest business-like terms. It eliminates the confusion that an economic imperialism created around the Monroe doctrine by twisting its reasonable idea of territorial demarcation into an ideological claim to global intervention.<ref name="edisciplinas.usp.br"/>'</blockquote>

This theory too rested on the Nazi dogma of the 'Reich'. 'Empires in this sense are the leading and supporting powers whose political idea is radiated over a specified major territory and which fundamentally exclude the intervention of extra-territorial powers with regard to this territory.' Such a division of the world, which would guarantee the appropriate 'major territories' for Germany and [[Japan]], would, in Schmitt's view, mark the start of a new and higher condition of international justice. There would no longer be nation-states, as before, but only 'empires'. The concrete consequences of this Schmitt spelled out in another essay bearing the significant title 'Woe to the Neutrals!' Here it was argued that the concept of major territories implied the abolition of neutrality. So in 1938, Schmitt had penned in advance the 'international' legal apologia for unbridled imperialism: Empires had the "right" to conquer nations. It is this core legal ideology that he rent to the Americans after the war.

This theory too rested on the Nazi dogma of the 'Reich'. 'Empires in this sense are the leading and supporting powers whose political idea is radiated over a specified major territory and which fundamentally exclude the intervention of extraterritorial powers with regard to this territory.' Such a division of the world, which would guarantee the appropriate 'major territories' for Germany and [[Japan]], would, in Schmitt's view, mark the start of a new and higher condition of international justice. There would no longer be nation-states, as before, but only 'empires'. The concrete consequences of this Schmitt spelled out in another essay bearing the significant title 'Woe to the Neutrals!' Here it was argued that the concept of major territories implied the abolition of neutrality. So in 1938, Schmitt had penned in advance the 'international' legal apologia for unbridled imperialism: Empires had the "right" to conquer nations. It is this core legal ideology that he rent to the Americans after the war.

Shortly after Nazi defeat, he re-invented himself as an spokesman of American globalism. In "Nomos of the Earth" (1950), he gave the best definition of the principle behind American globalist foreign policy which he supported. Schmitt's formulation rivals Burnham's in cynicism but surpasses it in precision: 'cujus economia, ejus regio'. This is a cynically candid expression of the United States' absolute claim to global dominion; and not by chance is it an up-to-date secular variant on the 1555 Augsburg Convention (cujus regio, ejus religio). In both cases naked power relations are stated as absolute determinants, only now of course at a more advanced stage, hence economic in substance and absolute in all political respects.<ref>https://edisciplinas.usp.br/mod/resource/view.php?id=2252381</ref>

Shortly after Nazi defeat, he re-invented himself as an spokesman of American globalism. In "Nomos of the Earth" (1950), he gave the best definition of the principle behind American globalist foreign policy which he supported. Schmitt's formulation rivals Burnham's in cynicism but surpasses it in precision: 'cujus economia, ejus regio'. This is a cynically candid expression of the United States' absolute claim to global dominion; and not by chance is it an up-to-date secular variant on the 1555 Augsburg Convention (cujus regio, ejus religio). In both cases naked power relations are stated as absolute determinants, only now of course at a more advanced stage, hence economic in substance and absolute in all political respects.<ref name="edisciplinas.usp.br"/>

Being a proponent of war and foreign intervention on the part of [[Nazi Germany]], after the war he advocated, with equal fervor, a policy of interventionism and [[perpetual war]] (or, as he called it, "world-wide civil war") on the part of the [[United States]]. Hence he showed in "Nomos of the Earth" (1950) the ineluctability of the dilemma of isolation or intervention for the U.S.A.:  

Being a proponent of war and foreign intervention on the part of [[Nazi Germany]], after the war he advocated, with equal fervor, a policy of interventionism and [[perpetual war]] (or, as he called it, "world-wide civil war") on the part of the [[United States]]. Hence he showed in "Nomos of the Earth" (1950) the ineluctability of the dilemma of isolation or intervention for the U.S.A.:  

<blockquote>The contradictions stem from the unresolved problems of a territorial development involving an obligation either to set limits to the invasion and to find other major territories beside those recognizing themselves as such, or else to turn back what has hitherto been a war of national claims into a world-wide civil war.<ref>https://edisciplinas.usp.br/mod/resource/view.php?id=2252381</ref></blockquote>

<blockquote>The contradictions stem from the unresolved problems of a territorial development involving an obligation either to set limits to the invasion and to find other major territories beside those recognizing themselves as such, or else to turn back what has hitherto been a war of national claims into a world-wide civil war.<ref name="edisciplinas.usp.br"/></blockquote>

As a short summary, Neoconservatives take their advocacy for [[globalism]], interventionism, [[perpetual war]], [[police state]] and the trampling of citizens' [[civil rights|rights]] from two Trotskyists (Shachtman and Burnham) and one Nazi (Schmitt).

As a short summary, Neoconservatives take their advocacy for [[globalism]], interventionism, [[perpetual war]], [[police state]] and the trampling of citizens' [[civil rights|rights]] from two Trotskyists (Shachtman and Burnham) and one Nazi (Schmitt).