A lot of us academics who want to theorize “the political” don’t really understand the subject. Why do self defining radical academics turn to that fascist bastard Carl Schmitt? It’s Agamben’s fault, right? My guess is that Schmitt is just another tool in the toolbox used to cudgel “liberals.” Some people don’t mind getting their hands dirty.
About politics, though, Schmitt was wrong. Politics is not, as he thought, defined by the friend-enemy distinction. Take for instance this article in today’s NYT, which suggests instead that politics is based upon the enemy-enemy distinction. In this case, we’re talking about the tacit common interest between Israel and Hamas against Salafi radicals.
“Uniting” would be the wrong word because the enemy of your enemy can still be your enemy. The friend-enemy distinction remains the law of war, which is both connected to and separate from the law of politics, which is based on cooperation, compromise, and the common interest between enemies, or on what that bastard Karl Marx called “haggling” in his essay on “The Jewish Question.” These, of course, are “liberal” principles.
Like “class struggle,” “resistance” and “axes of resistance” is just another cynical slogan with a limited shelf-life. You never really believed any of that hokum, did you? Speaking of fascism, you think the left would have learned that a long time ago with the Molotov-Ribbentrop pact.