Because Carl Schmitt was, for a while, an echt Nazi, and a virulent Antisemite, few serious scholars are inclined to call themselves ‘Schmittian’ or to cite him approvingly. It’s more usual to see the thought of Schmitt mined for arguments by Left-critics of liberalism (sometimes with a deliberate attempt at evoking
It's revealing that left critics of liberalism feel the need to go to Nazis like Schmitt and Heidegger for their arguments. The problem is that even on the revolutionary left, violence is a means towards an end, and can't be defended if it fails to promote that end, as it usually does. By contrast, fascists take violence as inherently necessary and desirable
Left (of the Marxist type) critics will insist that capitalism cum liberalism just is inherently violent (so the Gulag, plantation, etc are proper model of capitalism). And so there is a sense that they think that Schmitt actually speaks a truth here.
It's revealing that left critics of liberalism feel the need to go to Nazis like Schmitt and Heidegger for their arguments. The problem is that even on the revolutionary left, violence is a means towards an end, and can't be defended if it fails to promote that end, as it usually does. By contrast, fascists take violence as inherently necessary and desirable
Left (of the Marxist type) critics will insist that capitalism cum liberalism just is inherently violent (so the Gulag, plantation, etc are proper model of capitalism). And so there is a sense that they think that Schmitt actually speaks a truth here.
Agree. It's a short slide from this to "violence is inherent in any kind of social order - the point is to be on the winning side"/