Dictionary of Arguments


Philosophical and Scientific Issues in Dispute
 
[german]

Screenshot Tabelle Begriffes

 

Find counter arguments by entering NameVs… or …VsName.

Enhanced Search:
Search term 1: Author or Term Search term 2: Author or Term


together with


The author or concept searched is found in the following 6 entries.
Disputed term/author/ism Author
Entry
Reference
Democracy Böckenförde Brocker I 782
Democracy/Böckenförde: representative democracy is not only the form required in the territorial state for technical reasons, but also the form superior to direct democracy for reasons of legitimation theory (BöckenfördeVsRousseau). See Legitimation/Böckenförde. BöckenfördeVsDirect Democracy: For him, the idea of an undistorted determination of the will of the people, which is not influenced by procedures, is misleading because it ignores the reality of political contexts for action. Even in the case of direct-democratic decisions on the merits, it depends on the respective procedures. In any case, it requires the organization of domination. (1)
Decision/Böckenförde: all political decision making depends on procedures.
Brocker I 783
Democracy/People/Schmitt/Böckenförde: Böckenförde uses Carl Schmitt's idea that democracy refers to the people as a political community. (2) Unity/People/Hermann Heller/Böckenförde: with Heller, Böckenförde comes to the thesis: a unit of effect and action that unites a group of people comes about through organizational processes that only align, coordinate and bring the multiple human actions and behaviors into a certain pattern of action in a certain way. (3) The state authorities (Heller speaks of "governing bodies" ((s) source not given)), which in a sense precede the many. (4)
This means that in democracy the people can only rule by means of a ruling organization.
Power/Hermann Heller/Böckenförde: Heller: "Every organization needs (...) an authority and all exercise of power is subject to the law of small numbers; always those who update the organizationally united power performances must have
Brocker I 784
some degree of freedom of choice and thus democratically unattached power." (H. Heller, quoted (5)) Problem: those in power must be accountable to the people and bound to democratic control. (6)
Democracy/Böckenförde: is a demanding form of order in so far as it is based on conditions that precede the constitution and are not self-evident.
People/Böckenförde: must be supported by "homogeneity" i.e. there must be a "similarity" that "can be given by common religion, common language and culture, common political confession". (7)
Homogeneity/BöckenfördeVsSchmitt: Böckenförde does not see homogeneity as a counter term to plurality as Carl Schmitt represented it in National Socialism. (See Democracy/Schmitt).
VsBöckenförde: after criticism of his choice of words, Böckenförde changed the concept of "similarity" to that of "commonness". He writes an explanatory note on this. (8)
Relative homogeneity/solution/Böckenförde: the socio-economic differences must not be so extreme that irreconcilable conflicts of interest arise. Therefore, the state has a moderating function in market relations. See Citizens/Böckenförde.


1. Ernst-Wolfgang Böckenförde, Staat – Verfassung – Demokratie. Studien zur Verfassungstheorie und zum Verfassungsrecht, Frankfurt/M. 1992 (zuerst 1991), p. 382-386
2. Ibid. p. 332
3. Ibid. p. 386
4. Ibid. p. 387
5. Ibid. p. 387
6. Ibid. p. 388
7. Ibid. p. 333
8. Ernst-Wolfgang Böckenförde „Demokratie als Verfassungsprinzip“, in: Josef Isensee/Paul Kirchhof (Hg.) Handbuch des Staatsrechts der Bundesrepublik Deutschland, Bd 2. Heidelberg 2004 p. 461, FN 106
Tine Stein, „Ernst-Wolfgang Böckenförde, Staat – Verfassung- Demokratie“, in: Manfred Brocker (Ed.) Geschichte des politischen Denkens. Das 20. Jahrhundert. Frankfurt/M. 2018

Böckenf I
Ernst-Wolfgang Böckenförde
State, Society and Liberty: Studies in Political Theory and Constitutional Law, London 1991
German Edition:
Staat, Gesellschaft, Freiheit. Studien zur Staatstheorie und zum Verfassungsrecht Frankfurt 1976


Brocker I
Manfred Brocker
Geschichte des politischen Denkens. Das 20. Jahrhundert Frankfurt/M. 2018
Democracy Kelsen Brocker I 132
Democracy/Kelsen: For Kelsen, modern democracy can only be realized as parliamentary democracy.(1) But Kelsen's position for parliamentarism is not a dogmatic position either; it is the observation of a civilizing process of increasing division of labor and social differentiation.(2) This functional theory of the parlamentary system explicitly opposes Kelsen's "fiction of representation".(3) >Parlamentary System/Kelsen.
Brocker I 132/133
Kelsen sees the competition between democracy and autocracy as central. Democracy itself strives for "leadershiplessness".(4) Kelsen explains the existence of democratic ideology predominantly in social psychology. He describes popular sovereignty as a "totem"(5), a mask that the norm-subjected people put on in order to at least in rituals stand out from the actors actually exercising power and to exalt themselves. Kelsen, on the other hand, like Weber, regards domination as necessary, which is why one only has to ask oneself the question how it is to be structured. In Kelsen's eyes, democracy necessarily goes hand in hand with a certain world view, which assumes an unrecognizable absolute truth and absolute values and therefore also considers the "foreign, contrary opinion at least possible"(6). Only this allows democracy to be open to changing majorities and makes the minority position bearable.
Brocker I 135
KelsenVsSchmitt/KelsenVsSmend/Llanque: Kelsen is mainly seen as the author who can clearly be counted among the supporters of parliamentary democracy among the majority of democracy-critical state teachers of the Weimar Republic (Groh 2010)(7). He has published sharp criticisms of opponents in this debate, including Rudolf Smend and Carl Schmitt. Some also consider Kelsen to be the clearest opponent of Schmitt (Diner/Stolleis 1999(8); Dreier 1999(9)).
Brocker I 139
SchmittVsKelsen/HellerVsKelsen: Kelsen was accused of emptying democracy of content and degrading it to a procedural concept (Boldt 1986(10); Saage 2005(11)).


1. Hans Kelsen, »Vom Wesen und Wert der Demokratie«, in: Archiv für Sozialwissenschaft und Sozialpolitik 47, 1920/1921, 50-85 (Separatdruck: Tübingen 1920). Erweiterte Fassung: Hans Kelsen, Vom Wesen und Wert der Demokratie, Tübingen 1929 (seitenidentischer Nachdruck:Aalen 1981), S. 25
2. Ebenda S. 29
3. Ebenda S. 30
4. Ebenda S. 79
5. Ebenda S. 86
6. Ebenda S. 101
7. Kathrin Groh, Demokratische Staatsrechtslehrer in der Weimarer Republik. Von der konstitutionellen Staatslehre zur Theorie des modernen demokratischen Verfassungsstaates, Tübingen 2010 8. Dan Diner & Michael (Hg.) Hans Kelsen and Carl Schmitt. A Juxtaposition, Gerlingen 1999
9. Horst Dreier »The Essence of Democracy: Hans Kelsen and Carl Schmitt Juxtaposed«, in: Dan Diner/Michael Stolleis (Hg.), Hans Kelsen and Carl Schmitt. A Juxtaposition, Gerlingen 1999, 71-79
10. Hans Boldt, »Demokratietheorie zwischen Rousseau und Schumpeter. Bemerkungen zu Hans Kelsens ›Vom Wesen und Wert der Demokratie‹«, in: Max Kaase (Hg.), Politische Wissenschaft und politische Ordnung. Analysen zur Theorie und Empirie demokratischer Regierungsweise, Festschrift für Rudolf Wildenmann, Opladen 1986, 217-232.
11. Richard Saage, Demokratietheorien: Historischer Prozess, Theoretische Entwicklung, Soziotechnische Bedingungen. Eine Einführung, Wiesbaden 2005.


Marcus Llanque, „Hans Kelsen, Vom Wesen und Wert der Demokratie“, in: Manfred Brocker (Hg.) Geschichte des politischen Denkens. Das 20. Jahrhundert. Frankfurt/M. 2018


Brocker I
Manfred Brocker
Geschichte des politischen Denkens. Das 20. Jahrhundert Frankfurt/M. 2018
Liberalism Schmitt Brocker I 166
Liberalism/Schmitt: From classics of liberalism - Guizot, Bolingbroke, Montesquieu, Hegel, von Mohl and others - Schmitt abstracts the "metaphysical system" (1) of liberalism: the balanced constitutional state that clearly distinguishes executive and legislative branches, measures and laws and also sees parliament itself as a "in itself" (2) differentiated party landscape. In 1923 Schmitt speaks of a "relative rationalism": of parliamentary and discursive procedures of decision-making, which in German liberalism have been transformed since Hegel and von Mohl into a "doctrine of an organic mediation" (3) of political opposites. Classical liberalism and parliamentarianism lived, according to Schmitt, in the constitutional monarchy from the opposition of legislature and executive. With the "participation of the representatives of the people in the government" (4), however, the classical balancing of power and law, command and law, executive and legislature has ceased and the plenum of parliament has degenerated into a "facade" (5). Already with Condorcet (6), an author of the French Revolution, he dates a reversal of the liberal balance of powers and a turn to "absolute rationalism".
Brocker I 170
Liberalism/Schmitt: one can refrain from an ideological classification - for example of Rousseau, Marx or Sorel - if one assumes Schmitt's ideal type of "liberalism as a consistent, comprehensive, metaphysical system" (7). Böckenförde pro Schmitt: The distinction between early liberalism (before 1789) and later "organic" liberalism since German Romanticism, Hegel and von Mohl, was stimulating (Böckenförde 1961)(8).
VsSchmitt: Schmitt's anti-liberal and nationalist interpretation of Rousseau's volonté générale is controversial (9).


1. Carl Schmitt, Die geistesgeschichtliche Lage des heutigen Parlamentarismus, in: Bonner Festgabe für Ernst Zitelmann zum fünfzigjährigen Doktorjubiläum, München/Leipzig 1923, 413-473. Separatveröffentlichung in der Reihe: Wissenschaftliche Abhandlungen und Reden zur Philosophie, Politik und Geistesgeschichte, Bd. 1, München/Leipzig 1923. Zweite, erweiterte Auflage 1926. S. 45.
2.Ebenda S. 51
3. Ebenda S. 58 4. Ebenda S. 62
5. Ebenda
6. Ebenda S. 57
7. Ebenda S. 45.
8. Ernst-Wolfgang Böckenförde, Die deutsche verfassungsgeschichtliche Forschung im 19. Jahrhundert. Zeitgebundene Fragestellungen und Leitbilder, Berlin 1961.
9. Ingeborg Maus, Über Volkssouveränität. Elemente einer Demokratietheorie, Berlin 2011.


Reinhard Mehring, Carl Schmitt, Die geistesgeschichtliche Lage des heutigen Parlamentarismus (1923), in: Manfred Brocker (Hg.) Geschichte des politischen Denkens. Das 20. Jahrhundert. Frankfurt/M. 2018.

Schmitt I
Carl Schmitt
Der Hüter der Verfassung Tübingen 1931


Brocker I
Manfred Brocker
Geschichte des politischen Denkens. Das 20. Jahrhundert Frankfurt/M. 2018
Method Schmitt Brocker I 171
Method/VsSchmitt/Schmitt: according to Rudolf Smend, in his paper on parliamentarianism Carl Schmitt is guilty of a short circuit of word and deed. (1) ((s) See also confusion of word and object). Even today Schmitt's parliamentary script is still regarded as an idealistic short-circuit of idea and institution. See the review by Otto Kirchheimer (2) and Hans Rothfels (3).
Parliamentarism/VsSchmitt: (...) a distinction must be made between the political science diagnosis of "structural change" (from liberal parliamentarism to the "party state" of "mass democracy") and a normative and philosophical discussion of principles.


1.Rudolf Smend,»Verfassung und Verfassungsrecht« (1928), in: ders., Staatsrechtliche Abhandlungen, Berlin 1955, 119-276. S. 153
2. . Otto Kirchheimer,(zus. mit Nathan Leites), »Bemerkungen zu Carl Schmitts ›Legalität und Legitimität‹« (1933), in: ders., Von der Weimarer Verfassung zum Faschismus, Frankfurt/M. 1976, 113-151. S. 113
3. Hans Rothfels, »Rezension von Carl Schmitt, Die geistesgeschichtliche Lage des heutigen Parlamentarismus (1926)«, in: Historische Zeitschrift 142, 1930, 316-319. S. 319.

Reinhard Mehring, Carl Schmitt, Die geistesgeschichtliche Lage des heutigen Parlamentarismus (1923), in: Manfred Brocker (Hg.) Geschichte des politischen Denkens. Das 20. Jahrhundert. Frankfurt/M. 2018.

Schmitt I
Carl Schmitt
Der Hüter der Verfassung Tübingen 1931


Brocker I
Manfred Brocker
Geschichte des politischen Denkens. Das 20. Jahrhundert Frankfurt/M. 2018
Parliamentary System Smend Brocker I 171
Parliamentarism/SmendVsSchmitt/Smend: Question: Is Carl Schmitt's criticism of parliamentarianism (1) descriptive and normative? Does the writing jump into party politics from the analytical observer's perspective? SmendVsSchmitt: Rudolf Smend aptly spoke of "conceptual realism": the original ideology was "only a moment of integration"; the belief in the exclusive meaning of ideology was "rationalism or (as with Carl Schmitt) conceptual realism" (2). Smend meant by that a short circuit of word and thing. Hans Rothfels (3) and Otto Kirchheimer (4) immediately took up the critical dictum, and Schmitt's parliamentary paper is still regarded today as an idealistic short-circuit of idea and institution. An institution does not have to fall with its initial idea, as marriage does not with love.


1. Carl Schmitt, Die geistesgeschichtliche Lage des heutigen Parlamentarismus, in: Bonner Festgabe für Ernst Zitelmann zum fünfzigjährigen Doktorjubiläum, München/Leipzig 1923, 413-473. Separatveröffentlichung in der Reihe: Wissenschaftliche Abhandlungen und Reden zur Philosophie, Politik und Geistesgeschichte, Bd. 1, München/Leipzig 1923. Zweite, erweiterte Auflage 1926
2. Rudolf Smend,»Verfassung und Verfassungsrecht« (1928), in: ders., Staatsrechtliche Abhandlungen, Berlin 1955, 119-276. S. 153
3. Hans Rothfels, »Rezension von Carl Schmitt, Die geistesgeschichtliche Lage des heutigen Parlamentarismus (1926)«, in: Historische Zeitschrift 142, 1930, 316-319. S. 319
4. Otto Kirchheimer,(zus. mit Nathan Leites), »Bemerkungen zu Carl Schmitts ›Legalität und Legitimität‹« (1933), in: ders., Von der Weimarer Verfassung zum Faschismus, Frankfurt/M. 1976, 113-151. S. 113.


Reinhard Mehring, Carl Schmitt, Die geistesgeschichtliche Lage des heutigen Parlamentarismus (1923), in: Manfred Brocker (Hg.) Geschichte des politischen Denkens. Das 20. Jahrhundert. Frankfurt/M. 2018.

PolSmend I
Rudolf Smend
Die politische Gewalt im Verfassungsstaat und das Problem der Staatsform Berlin 1955


Brocker I
Manfred Brocker
Geschichte des politischen Denkens. Das 20. Jahrhundert Frankfurt/M. 2018
Parliamentary System Kelsen Brocker I 132
Parliamentary System/Kelsen: If the parliament is seen as a representative of the people, the latter is regarded as pre-determined, since it is only just being organised into a unit capable of action through the work of the parliament and the parties. Ideologically, the idea of representation made sense in the struggle against autocracy and now turns against democracy, if, for example, the model of professional representation is derived from this idea. >Democracy/Kelsen. Kelsen's' assumption that the people do not exist politically before parliamentary unification (cf. >People/Kelsen) is also based on the simple observation that there have practically never been consensus decisions, that the population always differentiates its opinions according to majority and minority (or minorities) and that therefore unification can only be found in the form of compromise.(1)
Brocker I 135
KelsenVsSchmitt/KelsenVsSmend/Llanque: Kelsen is mainly seen as the author who can clearly be counted among the supporters of parliamentary democracy among the majority of democracy-critical state teachers of the Weimar Republic (Groh 2010)(2). He has published sharp criticisms of opponents in this debate, including Rudolf Smend and Carl Schmitt. Some also consider Kelsen to be the clearest opponent of Schmitt (Diner/Stolleis 1999(3); Dreier 1999(4)). KelsenVsRousseau: unlike Rousseau, who rejects parliamentarism (RosseauVsParlamentarismus), Kelsen explains parliamentarism as a form of division of labour.


1. Hans Kelsen, »Vom Wesen und Wert der Demokratie«, in: Archiv für Sozialwissenschaft und Sozialpolitik 47, 1920/1921, 50-85 (Separatdruck: Tübingen 1920). Erweiterte Fassung: Hans Kelsen, Vom Wesen und Wert der Demokratie, Tübingen 1929 (seitenidentischer Nachdruck:Aalen 1981), S. 57
2. Kathrin Groh, Demokratische Staatsrechtslehrer in der Weimarer Republik. Von der konstitutionellen Staatslehre zur Theorie des modernen demokratischen Verfassungsstaates, Tübingen 2010
3. Dan Diner & Michael (Hg.) Hans Kelsen and Carl Schmitt. A Juxtaposition, Gerlingen 1999
4. Horst Dreier »The Essence of Democracy: Hans Kelsen and Carl Schmitt Juxtaposed«, in: Dan Diner/Michael Stolleis (Hg.), Hans Kelsen and Carl Schmitt. A Juxtaposition, Gerlingen 1999, 71-79



Marcus Llanque, „Hans Kelsen, Vom Wesen und Wert der Demokratie“, in: Manfred Brocker (Hg.) Geschichte des politischen Denkens. Das 20. Jahrhundert. Frankfurt/M. 2018


Brocker I
Manfred Brocker
Geschichte des politischen Denkens. Das 20. Jahrhundert Frankfurt/M. 2018