Discussing the Surprising Friendship between Alexandre Kojeve and Carl Schmitt and their Views on Colonialism

Discussion
Alexandre Kojeve-Carl Schmitt Correspondence and
Alexandre Kojeve, "Colonialism from

Perspective"
a European
Edited and Translated by Erik De Vries

Carleton University
This introduction has two

purposes. First, it provides some background con
cerning the little-known, and perhaps surprising, friendship between Alexandre

Kojeve and Carl Schmitt. Second, it outlines the importance of their correspon
dence and, especially, the lecture Kojeve gave at Schmitt's invitation in 1957,
for an understanding of Koj eve's thought as less systematic and more ambigu
ous than the reading English-speaking students often give it. Because Kojeve,
particularly during his lifetime, published nothing as overtly political as Schmitt
did, these documents add more to our understanding of Koj eve's thought than
to that of Schmitt.
At first glance, the friendship between Alexandre Kojeve and Carl Schmitt
seems improbable. When they began corresponding in 1955, Schmitt was some
thing of an academic pariah; in 1933, the legal scholar had joined the Nazi Party,
publicly declared his anti-Semitism, was later interrogated (but not charged) at
Nuremberg, and retired from his post at the University of Berlin in 1946. After
his famous lectures on Hegel's Phenomenology ended in 1939, Kojeve joined
the Resistance (Auffret, 1990, pp. 270-71; Sombart, 1998, p. 71). After the
war's end, he woundup in the French ministry of economic affairs, where he
worked until his death in 1968. Schmitt's anti-Semitism was sufficient to divide
him permanently from other scholars with whom he had been friendly, including
Franz Neumann, Otto Kirchheimer and Carl Joachim Friedrich (Schwab, 1993,
p. 301). We can probably also count among them Leo Strauss, who did not
Editorial note
The journal has permitted the use of notes in these articles because the two authors can no
longer make changes in their work and because the articles have been edited by a third person.
Translator'
s note
I gratefully acknowledge the kind assistance of Kirsten Nellen in translating the most difficult
of Kojeve's unusual German passages, and of Piet Tommissen and George Schwab, who provided
corrections to the translation. I would also like to thank Charlotte Masemann both for her translation
of Latin phrases and her advice throughout the production of this translation. Any remaining errors
are mine.
interpretation, Fall 2001, Vol. 29, No. I

92 Interpretation
resume his friendly correspondence with Schmitt after the latter failed to reply
to aletter in 1933 (Meier, 1995, p. xvii).
How Kojeve was able to look past such a monumental obstacle as Schmitt's
anti-Semitism is unclear, but we do know that he owed Schmitt a considerable
debt. Kojeve's Esquisse d'une phenomenologie du Droit, completed in 1943,

relied largely on Schmitt's argument, in his Concept of the Political,
presented
that the friend-enemy distinction is the primary political division (Kojeve, 1981,
p. 144). For Schmitt, establishing this distinction as primary was meant to pre
serve the possibility of a serious political theory by overcoming liberalism's
tendency, particularly when combined with democracy, to obscure and neutral

ize the political, that is, the possibility of battle to the death against an enemy
(Schmitt, 1996, p. 23). Kojeve's use of the friend-enemy distinction in the Es
quisse echoes his earlier insistence, in his Introduction a la lecture de Hegel,
on the anthropogenetic battle for recognition as the lens through which Hegel's
Phenomenology must be read. In both instances, the human capacity to risk life
for purely nonbiological reasons engenders a historical and political world with
meaning not reducible to the universal satisfaction of biological desires (Kojeve,

1973, p. 143).
By 1955, when Kojeve and Schmitt began corresponding, western Europe

had been astonishingly transformed by the Marshall Plan and the creation of the
European Economic Community. If Kojeve's "universal and homogeneous
had arrived, neither did the the political have the force
state"
not yet concept of
it had had in Weimar Germany. In 1932, Schmitt had written:
If the different states, religions, classes and other human groupings on earth should
be so unified that a conflict among them is impossible and even inconceivable and
if civil war should forever be foreclosed in a realm which embraces the globe, then
the distinction of friend and enemy would also cease. What remains is neither poli
tics nor state, but culture, civilization, economics, morality, law, entertainment, etc.
If and when this condition will appear, I do not know. At the moment, this is not
the case. And it is self-deluding to believe that the termination of a modem war
would lead to world peace . . .

(Schmitt, 1996, pp. 53-54)
With IV
politics"
the advent of "Point (discussed in Kojeve's letter of May

2, 1955, below), in western Europe after World War II, it became clear to both
men that while the political had already nearly vanished, states had also not
been replaced by Kojeve's "universal and homogeneous state,"
or Schmitt's
state"
"administrative (Verwaltungsstaat) (Schmitt, 1980, p. 11). What had ap

"empires"
peared instead were groupings of states allied in engaged in competi
tion stripped of the political.
Both the correspondence and the presentation Kojeve gave in Dusseldorf in

1957 at Schmitt's invitation shed some light on the thought of both men on the
nature of the twilight world they were observing. In both Der Nomos der Erde
Discussion: Koj eve -Schmitt, Colonialism 93
im Volkerrecht des Jus Publicum Europeaum (1974, first published in

1950)
and Land and Sea (1954b), Schmitt argued that the exhaustion
of exploitable
lands by seafaring empires under
nineteenth-century colonialism had rendered
the historical distinction between land and sea obsolete; colonial "taking"
(Neh-
"grazing"
men) had given way to a global (Weiden). Kojeve's Dusseldorf
speech, his response to Land and Sea, lays out his plan for the new European
Empire's domination of the Mediterranean basin
nialism"
with a policy of "giving colo
which resembles nothing so much as a kind of European Marshall Plan
for North Africa. The plan Kojeve advocated in Dusseldorf reflected his own
administrative project within the French government's Direction des Relations

Economiques Exterieures (D.R.E.E.). An unpublished, posthumous report of
Kojeve's administrative career describes both his
advocacy of a unified Euro
pean economic and the
policy dismantling of trade barriers, particularly for the
agricultural products of third world countries. In his Dusseldorf lecture, Kojeve
reveals the explicitly political grounds for this "giving colonialism": the inhabit
ants of the former European colonies in Africa are clients, but "poor
clients,"
Kojeve tells his audience, are "bad, or even dangerous, clients."
This last admission illustrates Kojeve's ambiguity concerning history's ca
pacity to determine or attenuate political action. Until at least 1939, Kojeve read
Hegel through the lens of the master-slave dialectic, binding history both to the
slave's work and to the master's willingness to risk life for the sake of recogni
tion; the universal recognition accorded to citizens at the end of history rendered
both master and slave and, therefore, risk and work obsolete.By recogniz
ing the serious possibility of mortal danger from the global working class during
a period in which he also claimed that warfare is obsolete (see Kojeve's letter
of July 11, 1955, below), the postwar Kojeve severed the bond between the
master's risk and history; if the latter had ended, the former remained possible.
Man's capacity to risk life after history's end receives two distinct interpreta
tions in Kojeve's postwar works. The first interpretation appears in the well-
known addition to the second edition of the Introduction in the form of the
"Japanized" suicide"
posthistorical man, perpetually capable of "gratuitous in

"re-animalization"
stead of the (Kojeve, 1968, p. 437) Kojeve had posited as
the only possible outcome of history's end in the first edition.
According to this interpretation, posthistorical man's capacity for mortal risk

is gratuitous and therefore apolitical. If posthistorical man's choice between re-
animalization and gratuitous suicide is determined, as Kojeve suggests in the
Introduction, by his willingness to be satisfied by the recognition the universal
and homogeneous state provides him, then the gratuitousness of the latter option
lies in the impossibility of achieving recognition through action. The kamikaze

pilot Kojeve uses as an example in 1959 has been replaced in our time by the
suicide bomber, and, perhaps, in the near future, a radical wing of anti-WTO
"formal"
protesters: the value for which he perishes (or risks perishing) is rather
than historical; that is, any success is temporary, and will be forgotten once
94 Interpretation
overcome. Posthistorical men cannot negate the universal and homogeneous
state because it is formless (see Schmitt's letter of Dec. 14. 1955, below) and
will not play the enemy.

There is, in contrast, nothing formal or gratuitous about the risk from the
in Kojeve's Dusseldorf lecture. In 1950, Kojeve had written
clients"
"dangerous
to Leo Strauss that those dissatisfied by the posthistorical brand of recognition
"sick" up"
are instead classified as and are simply "locked (Strauss, 2000, p.
255). There is difference between the merely sick and the dangerous,
a world of
however. His recognition of this difference suggests that the later Kojeve re
mained open to (if not convinced of) Strauss's alternative to his own position:
that the human capacity for meaningful political action is rooted in nature rather
than in history and therefore survives history's end.
A note on the text
The original letters and lecture from which this translation is taken are in German, in which all
nouns are capitalized. Consequently, the liberties Kojeve frequently, but unpredictably, takes with
capitalization in his French writings (with such terms as Master and Slave. Justice, State, etc.) do
not appear in this translation.
The correspondence and Kojeve's Dusseldorf speech below have been translated directly from
Piet Tommissen's meticulously annotated edition (Tommissen, 1998). While Kojeve was forbidden
to publish the lecture himself, a French translation has since been published in two parts (Kojeve,
1980; Kojeve, 1999), although some passages from the original German text were omitted from it.
I have included those passages here, but enclosed them in square brackets.
I have made minor corrections in the few instances where there were obvious typographical
errors in the Tommissen edition and have noted these. All notes are mine. Round and square brack
ets are Schmitt's and Kojeve's; curly ones ({ }) are editorial and appear in two types of instance:
where there is some uncertainty about the original text (owing to difficulties in reading Kojeve's
handwriting) and in cases where I have provided the original German word because of ambiguities,
puns, etc. Italicized text was underlined in the original letters.
Alexandre Kojeve-Carl Schmitt Correspondence

Paris, 2/V/55
Dear Professor!
Thank you very much for kindly sending your extremely brilliant Nomos
essay.1
I had already been made aware of it and read it in the November issue of
Politik."
"Gemeinschaft und Rereading it was a useful pleasure. To say every
thing essential in 10 pages is an extraordinary performance!
Of course I have something to say about it, but it is impossible to do so in a
letter. On the whole, however, I am fully in agreement.

With to your "last
questions"
respect . in short, I would answer something

like this:
itself"
"taking"
1) "in there is (certainly since Napoleon) no longer any (all
related attempts have failed)
Discussion: Kojeve-Schmitt, Colonialism 95
us"
2) "for (i.e. for "absolute knowledge") is

there only "producing"!
now
itself"
but "for
3) consciousness (for instance US/USSR) there is also "di
vision."
The goal is unfortunately! homogeneous distribution. Whoever in his

last."
hemisphere attains it first will be "the The
Americans'
"Point
IV"2
will
"distribute"
more slowly than the agreement between the USSR and China, etc.
But in the
world"
"worldly there is more to distribute. Thus a concrete prognosis
is difficult!
Most respectfully,
Faithfullv,
(s)
1. Schmitt, 1953.
2. President Harry Truman's Point IV was introduced in his inaugural speech on January 20,
1949, as "a bold new program for making the benefits of our scientific advances and industrial
for improvement and growth of underdeveloped
areas,"
progress available the namely, in Western

Europe. It marked an important advance over the provisions of the European Recovery Program
(the Marshall Plan), which focused on economic recovery through direct financial transfers, but not
on technology transfer.
Plettenberg (Westphalia)
9/5 55
Dear Mr. Kojeve,
I am risking sending you the accompanying document the first information
I received about you seven years ago (summer 1948). Your letter of the 2nd of
Schnur'
May, which Dr. conveyed to me, gives me the courage to take this risk.
Otherwise I would have to fear that you would subsume me under Leon Bloy's
categories,2
if you saw a card such as this. Everything crucial appears on page
215 of your Introduction a la lecture de Hegel/ I do not know if Dr. Schnur

God"
correctly conveyed to you what the Hegelian "take on [Gott-Nahme] is

"atheist,"
for me. Many have portrayed Hegel as and we certainly all know
Judgement."4
Bruno Bauer's amusing "Trumpet of the last But this point of

yours on page 215 would have to change all present philosophy, if the philoso
phers who, in the course of the academic division of labor, administer the legal
"Philosophy"
right to the firm were really to interrogate you. I do not, however,
"taking"
share your opinion that has ceased since Napoleon, and that today
there is only production (grazing {geweidet}). There remains only destruction
{ausgeweidet} . The earthly God, who now only gives and no longer takes be
cause he creates from Nothingness, creates Nothingness first of all before every
thing, from which he creates, i.e. takes.
hardly interest
May I, at the same time, send you a printed essay
Festschrift3
which will
you for other reasons (it has to do with a for Ernst Jiinger's 60th
96 Interpretation
birthday) in which, however, a remark is reported, for which I recognize, on the
modem earth, no other competent judge than you, Mr. Kojeve.
Faithfully,
(s)
1. At Iring Fetcher's suggestion, Roman Schnur, a legal scholar, introduced Schmitt to Kojeve,
althoughKojeve had already been aware of Schmitt's work, according to evidence gathered by
Tommissen (1998, pp. 57-63). Kojeve's 1943 Esquisse dune phenomenologie du droit uses the
friend-enemy distinction Schmitt first presented in his 1933 edition of Die Begriff des Politischen,
translated by George Schwab as The Concept of the Political (Schmitt, 1996).
2. Leon Bloy (1846-1917) was a passionate convert to Catholicism and a poet. It is unclear to
which categories Schmitt is referring here.
3. This page of Kojeve's Introduction a la lecture de Hegel interprets pp. 476-77 of the Hoff-
meister edition of Hegel's Phdnomenologie des Geistes; 678 (p. 412) in the Miller translation
(Hegel, 1977). In this passage, Kojeve starkly presents his view of Hegel as atheist: "Briefly, Man
who seeks to understand himself thoroughly and completely as Spirit cannot satisfy himself except
with an atheistic anthropology. And this is why Schicksal, the Destiny of all Theology, of all Reli
gion, is, in the final analysis, atheism. In theism, Man becomes conscious of himself. But he
...
does it in the mode of Vor-stellung [re-pre-sentation]. That is, he projects himself outside himself,
vor'
"stellt sich [re-pre-sents himself), and, no longer recognizing himself in this projection, he
believes that he is in thepresence of a transcendent God. And it is thus that Hegel could
say that
the only difference between his Science and Christian Theology consists in the fact that the latter
is a Vorstellung, while his Science is a Begriff, a developed concept. In fact, it is enough to over
come the Vorstellung, it is enough to grasp [be-greifen], to know or to understand what was
pro-
jected, it is enough to say ofMan everything the Christian says of his God in order to have the
Science."
atheistic anthropology which is at the foundation Hegel's
4. Bruno Bauer, 1841; translated into English by Lawrence Stepelevich (Bauer, 1989).
5. Mohler, 1955. Schmitt's contribution appears on pp. 135-67 (Schmitt, 1955).
Pans, 16/V/55
Dear Mr. Schmitt,
Thank you very much for your letter, the accompanying card, and the Jiinger
essay, which I have just read.

"Icon" France"1
The "Hegel vient en {"Hegel comes to France"} is really
very priceless and appears to be quite "serious"! I would certainly not have
"subsumed"
you under Bloy: I knew a few of your writings. . . That I dislike
K."
the expression "commentaire existentialiste de {"K.'s existentialist com
extremely2
mentary"} certainly goes without saying. But unfortunately it is gen

erally customary in France. The only truth about it is that I sought (and now am
jour" "existentialist"
again seeking) to reach a "mise a
{"update"} of Hegel. If
"modem,"
"a la
mode"
means as much as then I am in

or even
{"fashionable"}
agreement.
You are, of course, completely correct: everything essential appears

on my
page 215, In my course I spoke of Hegel's anthropo-theism, but I

as you cited.
also emphasized that it has to do not

only with a mortal but really with a dying
(and perhaps already dead) God.
But how few understood that! Besides them, I have only heard it from an
Englishman. In a discussion (which I have lost and forgotten the name of the
publisher) was the sentence: ". . but Mr. K. is human, as the rest of
us."3
Real
"Ver{?}zenheit."4
Anglo-Saxon irony and For nobody (besides me) understood
this sentence either. But it used to be completely different. Heinrich Heine, e.g.,
knew it very well. In the Pariser Tagebuchern5 (page
forgotten!) it goes some
thing like this: "Since I am no longer a Hegelian, it is also well for me. going
Now if somebody comes to me, complains about life, and asksfor help, I say
to him: / am no longer God! Turn to a suitable institution, whose buildings are
bells."
usually equipped with towers and
Yes, what people said about God for thousands of years as it pertained to
people (i.e. to themselves [there we have "existentialism"!!] is over the
really
top. Just to it is difficult that
understand so even after my books only a very
few understand it. And who takes that seriously?!
At the time of my course (i.e. before the war) I always inwardly read
"Stalin"
"Napoleon"
instead of and nevertheless interpreted the Ph.d.G. [In your termi
World" Napoleon"
nology. Stalin = "the Alexander of our =
"industrialized =
World (=
Country) empire].
Now I believe that Hegel was completely right and that history was
already
over after the historical Napoleon. For, in the end, Hitler was only a "new
improved
edition"
enlarged and of Napoleon ["La Republique une et indivisi

ble" Fiihrer"
{'The single and indivisible Republic"} =
"Ein Land, ein Volk, ein
{"One country, one people, one leader"}]. Hitler committed the errors which
you characterize so well on p. 166 (towards the middle)6: now, if Nap. in his
time had done it as well as Hitler, it would certainly have been enough. But
unfortunately Hitler did it 150 years too latel Thus the second world war
brought nothing essentially new. And the first one was just an intermission.
"sublate"
What did Napoleon want? To ["aufheben"} the state as such, in
"society." "total"
favor of And he believed himself able to attain it through a

"total" "total"
victory in the war. (Through this war the state [state =

war-wag
completion"
ing territorial unit] as such is brought "to and is thus "sublated.")

But the Anglo-Saxons want (and could already then) the same thing (cer
tainly with more success). And Marx also meant nothing other than this with
what?!)."
his "Realm of freedom [to do

Who could do it? Are there, then, still States in the real sense of the word,
thus governments which are anything other than administrations and politics
{Politilc](- war) which meant something more than Police. The Americans
"boys"
have never known what war, politics and state mean (the do not die as
soldiers, but are killed as police agents, and, naturally, nobody sees anything
good about that. [But you know all that better than I do]. And Europe is about
to forget this. ("Mourir pour Dantzig"10?!) Africa, Asia? No, as youcompletely

correctly say, history is unique and for these countries it is too late: until they
vie"
attain the famous "niveau de {"standard of living"} of the "American way

98 Interpretation
life"" "armament"
of and thus can think of there is certainly no longer the
opportunity to wage war. The disarmament conference is well on its way to

success!
"state"
When I entered the modem democratic after the war as a bureaucrat
[foreign trade foreign "policy") I thought (only after several yearsl) that there
=
was no longer any State at all. Parliament and government (i.e. the formerly
political structures) maintained the balance so well that neither of the two could
decide, determine or do anything at all. And thanks to this mutual "neutraliza

tion"
of the political the administration could carry out its work unencumbered,
"administer" "grazing,"
i.e. (= organize the to speak your lan
[could] rather
policy."
guage). Certainly there is still a kind of "foreign Domestic politics,

however, no longer exists: everybody wants, of course, the same thing, namely
nothing; for they are, by and large, if not satisfied [befriedigt] at least contented
[zufrieden] [and the most dissatisfied elite is a revolutionary, i.e. political power
only if the masses are discontented]). But this so-called foreign policy has only
one goal: to rid the world of politics (= war). Externally, everything appears to
be "as it used to": armament, alliances, etc. But it is so different that it is clear
rue"
even to the "homme de la {"man of the street"}, who can no longer take
it seriously.
When I had seen (and experienced) that, I understood that the USSR is sim
"modern"
ply a bit more than the others. Here, one could get rid of government
and Parliament without

anything having changed. And in the USSR they were
gotten rid of; the Revolution did not install a new government in place of the
old government, but a new administration.
"fascism"
Government without Parliament is (tyranny). Thus it was at
tempted to set down that Hitler = Stalin. It became clear that it doesn't work.
"Parliament"
Thus a Russian was desperately sought, but not found. But to what
"king"
end a Parliament when there is a (= Regius = State)?! Or, otherwise: to
what end a Parliament when everybody remains quiet
anyway and no danger of
"parliamentary" "king"
revolution exists to be dealt with in a way (or by a
without "Parliament").
"anticommunist"
What do such Russians as may be want? The same as the
"communist"
ones, namely, "to live well and

peacefully."
Only the former think

that the latter want it too fast (Krushchev vs. Malenkov12). But that is not a
political problem, and to that end neither war nor revolution is necessary, nor a
state at all, but just an administration. And there already is one.

"Appeasement"13
So
prognosis"
"World on a Hegelian basis: Disarma

{Endriistung},"
ment {Abriistung} ("without indignation to make a calembour
IV"
{pun}!) "Point politics (for otherwise {?} unemployment in the

division"
USA14) "rational of raw materials and industrial products (= "graz

ing"
without "destruction") in the West equalization of income within each
country and between countries ("underdeveloped countries"15).

"non-Hegelian"
And after 10-20 years, even a will notice that East and West
Discussion: Koj eve -Schmitt, Colonialism 99
not
only want the same thing (in fact, since Napoleon), but do {the same thing}.
"alignment"
Then will be easy.
All of this as "no longer any taking, but only

commentary on my: grazing"
"whimsical"
(with production, which depends on working time, which is a func
"education"
tion of [Bildung], i.e. the possibility of not being bored "at home").
Sea"16
Your "Land and remains.
I everything (of what is

agree with "brilliant"
in it, I will say nothing, for
you certainly know it yourself) except for the question of time. That was true,
but is no longer. And this you say yourself, p. 156.17
Superficially, it something like this:

one could express
"ocean,"
economically, there is longer any but only "inland
no
water"
"Roman"
[One needs the anachronism of Mussolini's Italian foolishness in
the 20th century to believe that the Mediterranean is still a political phenome
non:
today everything is surely "Mediterranean"].
Sea"
strategically, "Land
"sublated"
and has been in Hegelian way in
a
"air": but a war would never be "pulled out of the

air,"
and nobody likes an

"attacker"
anymore anyway. And

only want and are able to "de where all
fend"
themselves, there is no longer any history and thus no

"Alexander."
Please forgive the long and confused letter. But I also wanted to put
my
. . .
considerations"
"competent"
"timely before a judge. Faithfully,
(s)
1. Tommissen identifies Kojeve's subject here as Dufrenne, 1948.

2. Reading dusserst where Tommissen's edition reads dussert.
3. In English.
4. Illegible in the original, according to Tommissen's edition.
5. I was unable to find any work by Heine by this title, although Kojeve may be referring to
a collection of Heine's Paris articles, since published as Pariser Berichte 1840-1848 (Heine, 1979).
Tommissen's view is that the quote is not Heine's; nonetheless, the sentiment is. In a letter from
April 15, 1849, Heine writes, "In manchen Momenten, besonders wenn die Krampfe in der Wirbel-
saule allzu qualvoll rumoren, durchzuckt mich der Zweifel ob der Mensch wirklich ein zweybei-
nigter Gott ist, wie mir den selige Professor Hegel vor funfundzwanzig Jahren in Berlin versichert
hatte ... ich bin kein gottlicher Bipede mehr (Heine, 1982, p. 112). ("In certain moments,
especially when the cramps rumble all too agonizingly through my spine, the doubt crosses my
mind whether man really is a two-legged god, as the late Professor Hegel assured me twenty-five
years ago in Berlin 1 am
... no longer a divine biped.") From Nov. 3, 1851: ". Hegel m'avait fait . .
croire que j'etais un Dieu! J'etais si fier de ma divinite, je me croyais si grand que, quand je passais
par la porte Saint-Martin ou Saint-Denis, je baissais involontairement la tete, craignant de me heurter
''
contre l'arc c'etait une belle epoque, qui est passee depuis longtemps . . .
(Heine, 1972, p. 146).
(". . . Hegel made me believe I was a god!divinity, I believed myself so great
1 was so proud of my
that, when I passed through the door of Saint Martin or Denis, I involuntarily lowered my Saint
head for fear of hitting myself on the arch it was a belle epoque, which is long gone. ") . . .
history,"
6. This error, according to Schmitt, is to respond to the contemporary "call of gener
ated by the dialectic between land and sea, with "the old answer": "While people believe themselves
to be historical and stay with what was once true, they forget that a historical truth is only true
once."
"policy"
7. Kojeve's meaning throughout is ambiguous, since Politik means both and "poli
policy,"
tics"; Aussenpolitik is translated here in its common English usage as "foreign whereas
100 Interpretation
policy,"
Innenpolitik, having no real meaning if translated as "domestic is translated below as "do

politics."
mestic
"Police"
8 The word appears in brackets immediately after the German word Polizei here.
9. In English.
Dantzig?"
10. "Mourir pour was the headline of an article in the May 4, 1939, edition of Paris-
based L'Oeuvre by Marcel Deat (1894-1955), then a socialist and pacifist, but, from 1941, a collab
orator in the Vichy government as founder of the Rassemblement National Populaire. In the article,
Deat argued that the matter of the Polish corridor did not concern French peasants. I am indebted
to Tommissen for identifying the source of this quotation. See also Cointet, 1998, especially pp.
146-48.
11. In English.
12. Georgi Malenkov (1902-1988) was chosen by Stalin to replace him as Communist Party
leader and prime minister on the latter's death in 1953, which Malenkov did, for ten days. Nikita
Krushchev (1894-1971), who was second secretary of the party, persuaded Politburo members to
split the two posts. They agreed, and Krushchev became party secretary, while Malenkov took the
post of prime minister, significantly less power. On February S, 1955, Krushchev
a position with
ousted Malenkov, installing Nikolai Bulganin (1895-1975) as prime minister. At the time Kojeve
wrote this letter, Krushchev had taken a staunch anti-Western position, and would thus have
ap
peared an unrepentant Stalinist (and hence "communist"). Malenkov, on the other hand, had advo
cated a foreign policy of reconciliation with the West and a shift in domestic economic policy
away from heavy industry towards consumer goods (thus playing, in Kojeve's terminology, the
"anticommunist"). In fact, Krushchev proved to be anything but a loyal Stalinist, as evidenced by
speech"
his 1956 "secret denouncing Stalin's practice of political persecution; moreover, his concil
iatory foreign policy came to resemble Malenkov's almost immediately after the latter's ouster
(Marantz, 1975).
13. In English.
14. Partially illegible in the original, according to Tommissen's edition.
15. In English.
16. Kojeve is not referring to Schmitt's eponymous book Land und Meer (Schmitt, 1954b), but
toSchmitt's essay in the Jiinger Festschrift (Schmitt, 1955).
17. Here Schmitt discusses the radical separation of the technological {die Technik) from the
thought."
normative standards of criticism and from "dialectical-historical
26/5/55
Dear Mr. Kojeve,
11/51
I received your letter of on a journey in southern Germany: I will
answer it from Plettenberg after my return (next week); today just this confirma
tion of receipt and I certainly understand "K. remains hu

the assurance that
man."2 IV"
That "Point is our constitution is confirmed to me here every single
day; I flee from the overcrowding of the streets back into my shelter.
At the same time I would like to send you a print of the 2nd edition of my
harmless little pamphlet, "Land und Meer"3; forgive me for daring to submit to
you a world-historical observation which was told to a girl (my daughter
young
Anima): however, it is actually in the East- West
essay4
presupposed and is hence

forgivable.
Many thanks for the abundance of your thoughts and the stimulation I re
ceived in your last letter!

Yours,
(s)
Discussion: Kojeve-Schmitt, Colonialism -101
1. Schmitt almost certainh means Kojeve's letter of 16/5.

2. Kojeve's original reads, "Kojeve rests
human"
(in English).
3. Schmitt, 1954b.
4. Schmitt's essay in Mohler, 1955.
Paris, 28/V 55
Dear Mr. Schmitt,
many thanks for your letter and the
friendly transmission of your "Land und
Meer."
I read the little book with great happiness: it is a great art to formulate
important questions clearly and simply!
I already told you that I am completely in agreement with you concerning

"elements."
the past, with respect to the And now I see that our opinions about
the future are also less different than one could believe on the basis of the
Jiinger essay.
Your answer to my letter interests me extraordinarily:

today there are very
few people who still know what state and politics (and thus "history") are, or
rather, were.
Yesterday I spent the entire day in bureaucratic discussions with Englishmen

and Americans about "Convertibility"': that was a good illustration, as much of
"Land-Sea"
the contrast as of the anachronistic exploitation of the "lecons de

l'Histoire"
{"lessons of history"}!
one2
{?}2
Really {?} the philosophy (or the "wisdom") epochs where the
danger of anachronism for nonphilosophy becomes real.
Most respectfully,
Faithfully,
(s)
"Convertibility"
1. is in English. Under the agreement reached at Bretton Woods in 1944, mem
"convertible"
ber states were to make their currencies at fixed rates into the U.S. dollar, itself
convertible to gold. In practice, this only happened at the end of 1958. France was never an enthusi
astic participant in Bretton Woods because it placed the onus for keeping exchange rates fixed on
non-U. S. members (a fault which led to the agreement's collapse when the U.S. dollar became
overvalued during the period 1968-71). See Bordo, 1994.
2. Partially illegible,. according to Tommissen's edition.
Plettenberg
7/6/55
Dear Mr. Kojeve,
"state,"
it is all over with the that is true; this mortal God is dead, nothing
can be changed about that; the present-day, modem administration-apparatus of
Dasein" "state" "government"
the "care of is not in Hegel's sense, not (I do not
know if you were able to follow, from Paris, the grotesque (on both sides)
102 Interpretation
comedy which played itself out in Gottingen because of the minister of educa
arts' Seven"
tion and a parody-reprise of the "Gottingen of 1837); no longer

capable of war or the death penalty; and hence also no longer capable of making
history. Nonetheless, I grant that you are correct. I am, however, of the view
next3
that for the stage the magni homines {great men} now major homines
{greater men} are concerning themselves with disputations of Grossraum4;
Grossraum, i.e. a planning-space suited to the dimensions of today's and tomor
row's technology [Technik]. I do not consider our Earth, no matter how small
it may have become, to be a planning unit not by a long shot; and I even
"Grossraum"
leave open if it ever can become one. have, for me, the
does not
"small-space"
Klein- I
sense of a contrast to { Raum} (which {say} only in passing
and glancing backward), but the sense {which is} a plurality and, therefore,
enables meaningful enmity, and is hence justifiably historically noteworthy of
an opposition unity of the world, i.e. against the assumption that the cycle
to the
of time is already over. That is what I do not believe. Le cercle n'est pas encore
parcouru {The circle has not yet been travelled}. The contemporary world-dual
ism (of east and west, or land and sea) is not the final dash for unity, i.e. the
end of history. It is, rather, the bottleneck through which the road to new "up-
to-date"
magni homines {great men} leads. I am thus looking for the new no-
mos5
of the Earth, a geo-nomy; this does not arise from the dictate of a lord of
the world, into whose hands a few Nobel prize-winners maneuvered power; it
from "match
powers."
arises a tremendous, reciprocal of
I am writing that in all directness in answer to the questions of both your

letters (of 16/5 and 28/5), because I cannot withhold my answer from you. I
know how misleading every such discussion is today, but it would be wrong if
"taking"
I were not to speak to you bluntly. I fear (and see) that the has not yet
ended. Recently I asserted (in a radio discussion for the Frankfurt broadcaster):
man remains a son of the Earth. I will send you the discussion as soon as it
appears.
I am eagerly looking forward to your Hegel book. It ought to appear in

German. It is outrageous that the German public takes no notice of the Introduc
tion a la lecture de Hegel. But you will experience the truth of Goethe's expres
sion:"I already know the dear Germans: first they are silent; then they carp; then
eliminate"7
they (sic: twice in August 1816, namely in Riemer and in Zelter) a

nice 5-stage law. I have, therefore, advised a German publisher (Eugen Dieder-
ichs) to consider the possibility of a German edition. I personally no longer get
involved in such matters; but my gratitude for your Introduction was too strong,
and is still too strong, for me simply to have been able to remain silent.
Faithfully,
(s)
1. Franz Leonhard Schluter (1921-1981), a member of the Free Democratic Party, was ap
pointed education minister in the 1955 parliament of Lower Saxony. The Senate of the Georg-
August University of Gottingen publicly opposed the appointment on the grounds that Schluter was
a Nazi defender. Premier Heinrich Hellwege (1908-1991) appointed a committee to investigate the
allegations, but Schluter resigned four days later, long before the committee reported. See Marten,
1987.
2. In 1837, Emst August
(1771-1851), King of Hanover, rescinded the 1833 constitution. Seven
faculty members at the University
of Gottingen, including the brothers Jacob (1785-1863) and
Wilhelm (1786-1859) Grimm, protested and were subsequently dismissed.

3. Reading ndchste here where Tommissen's edition reads ndchse.
"Grossraum."
4.
space,"
roughly translatable as "great appeared in German legal scholarship,

including Schmitt's beginning in the 1920s. Joseph Bendersky provides an account of the context
in which the term acquired currency (Bendersky, 1983, pp. 250-61).
"law" "norm,"
5. Although is crudely translatable as
nomos or Schmitt insists on a more precise
meaning of the term. For Schmitt, nomos is a founding order directly tied to the division of territory.
See Schmitt, 1974, pp. 36-48.

Raum"
6. Schmitt's "Gesprach iiber den Neuen was broadcast on Hessische Rundfunk on April
12, 1955. It was published, together with the text of another broadcast, as Gesprach iiber die Macht
und den Zugang zum Machthaber; Gesprach uber den Neuen Raum (Berlin: Akademie Verlag,
1994). The passage Schmitt cites here appears on p. 64.
kenn'
7. The actually reads, "Denn die lieben Deutschen
passage ich schon: erst schweigen sie,
dann makeln sie, dann beseitigen, dann bestehlen, und verschweigen
sie."
("For I know the dear

Germans: first they are silent, then they carp, then eliminate, then steal and conceal.") The passage
appears identicalh in a letter of August 9, 1816, from Goethe to Carl Friedrich Zelter (Riemer,
1833, p. 298) and in Riemer's own report of a dinner speech by Goethe on August 29, 1816 (Riemer,
1841, p. 719).
Paris, 11/VII55
Dear Mr. Schmitt,
please forgive me for only today answering your last letter (of 7/VI). I was
travelling on business, then much work in the office (Sicily, Brussels, Tunisia,
Morocco).
"state."
It pleases me that we think the same about the modern so-called I do
not, however, understand how you can speak nonetheless of a coming

political-
"conflict." hat1
For me, Molotov's cowboy is a symbol of the future.

military
But as I have mentioned a philosopher, and a Hegelian in addition, may
not play the prophet.
"dualism"
And is there nowadays really, then, a of East and West? I believe
in "Land and
Sea"
rather than in the directions of the compass. But here, too, it
is significant that war fleets belong to the past.
Be that as it may, I am very looking forward to your future works.

much
Thankyou very much for your intervention in the matter of the translation
be ready, wrote to my pub
of my book. Kohlhammer Publishing appeared to
lisher, but since then I hear nothing more of it, not even from the translator, Mr.
Fetscher.2
hand, I aletter today from America a New York

On the other received
lecturer from Israel (J. Taubes3) who writes to me that his Hegel lectures "a la
Kojeve"
have interested the students there very much.
Faithfully,
(s)
104 Interpretation
1. Viacheslav Mikhailovich Molotov (1890-1986), foreign minister from 1939-1949 and
1953-1956, in fact remained an ardent Stalinistall his life; he was openly hostile to Krushchev and
was expelled from the Communist Party's Central Committee in 1957 after attempting, with others,
to remove Krushchev Of Molotov's cowboy hat, alas, I could find no trace.
as first secretary.
2. The translation Hegel: eine Vergegenvartigung seines Denkens. Komentar

appeared as zur
Phdnomenologie des Geistes (Kojeve, 1958).

3. Jacob Taubes (1923-1987) was a Judaist scholar and lifelong admirer of Schmitt. Taubes
struggled for most of his adult life with Schmitt's anti-Semitism, and, while he corresponded with
Taubes'
Schmitt, only met him in in 1978. In 1967, at

person request, Kojeve gave a lecture at the
Free University of Berlin. Taubes writes, "I asked him where the voyage was going now from
Plettenberg.'
Berlin (he had come to us directly from Peking). His answer: 'to I was astonished,
although I was somewhat used to surprises from Kojeve. Kojeve continued: For where must one
travel to in Germany? Carl Schmitt is surely the only one worth talking to. That stung me. For I had
denied myself a visit to Carl Schmitt, and somehow envied Alexander Kojeve his uninhibitedness in
Schmitt"
associating with Carl (Taubes, 1987, p. 24; see also Mohler, 1995, pp. 116, 120-22. 253).
Paris, 1/VIII 55
Dear Mr. Schmitt,
25/VII1
thank you very much for your friendly letter of and for sending me
the ballads, which were as funny as they were sharp-witted, of Erich Strauss
anyway?).2
(who is he, Lines such as

verdreckt"3
"Hylisch chthonisch und {"Hylic, chthonic and filthy"}

Morgenstern.4
are worthy of a
For me, it is self-evident that revolutions have become just as impossible as
wars. Both are waged precisely by states, which no longer exist!
Revolutions, like wars, belong, in my opinion and in your terminology, not

to division, but to taking. And you will certainly agree, if I add, with Hegel,
that taking is only political insofar as it takes place on the grounds of prestige
and for prestigious ends. Otherwise surely even animals could wage war and
the slave capture in Africa in the 19th century was also a war? On the other
"take"
hand, Athens certainly did not have much to from Sparta (and vice versa)
"hegemony,"
except for i.e. precisely prestige.
It pleases me, in any case, that I misunderstood you (for which I apologize,
however). It was certainly the only point on which I believed there to be a
difference of opinion between us.
I recently in an automobile accident and am sitting with a broken arm

was
in Paris, instead of being in Yugoslavia as I had anticipated. Thus it will please

me very much to see your daughter. I am writing to her in this context.
Mr. Fetscher writes me to say that you have recently spoken about me to
professors and students: many thanks!

Faithfully,
(s)
1. This letter is missing.

Strauss"
2. "Erich is Schmitt's poetic pseudonym.
3. The ballads Schmitt sent in the missing letter fortunately also appear in Mohler, 1995, p. 192.
4. Christian Morgenstern (1871-1914), satirical poet and student of philosophy.
Plettenberg
14/XII 55
Dear Mr. Kojeve,
for months since August I have been wanting to write to you, just to
express my gratitude to you for having kindly entertained my daughter, Anima,
in Paris, about which she wrote me an enthusiastic report. I have, however, been
frequently distracted during these last months, and only today do I again find
the opportunity. Certainly it is a question which has long occupied me and
which I would like to put to you, as an observant reader and one who has
"Introduction."
worked through your That it is in this capacity that I eagerly
await your Hegel book and, at the same time, in a German edition, is under
stood. It would also interest me whether the translation
by Dr. Fetscher is pro
ceeding well and if it will appear soon.
Now my modest question: it concerns the concept of enemy in Hegel, and

"enemy"
particularly the word in the section about the "unhappy conscious

ness,"
p. 168 in
Hoffmeister, p. 581 of your Introduction (Le Moine, Le
Pretre1
{The Monk, The Priest}; what do the asterisks *** there mean??2). It has to do
with the expression: the
enemy in his most characteristic
[eigensten] (a few
form.3
lines later: in his typical [eigentumlichen]) Who is this enemy? is it
possible that he shows himself precisely in the animal functions? What does he
seek there?
Salus,"4
In my booklet "Ex Captivitate on page 89/90 in a remark about the

"enemy,"
a verse (from Theodor Daubler5) is quoted:
The enemy is our own question in form.

German6
To this verse, a gifted young who was at Harvard for three years,
said to me recently: The USA has no enemy because it has no form [Gestalt].
An important problem. May I ask you to try to read those pages 89/90 (in the
section: Wisdom of the Cell) once attentively? I do not know if you own the
booklet Ex Captivitate Salus. If not, it will be a special delight for me to send

it to you immediately.
"dictatorship"
It is generally as with the question of the possibility of a in

the system of Hegelian philosophy the question whether there can be an "en
For:
emy"
in Hegel at all. either he is only anecessary passing stage of negation,

or invalid and insubstantial. Of the animal functions, it means (p. 168) that they
itself."
would be "something which is invalid in and for
I would be sincerely grateful for a line on this theme, while I am not impa
tient, for I know that you are occupied with much work.
Faithfully,
(s)
106 Interpretation
Recently the book by Nuremberg (and social-democratic) editor, Beyer,

a
appeared about Hegel's time in Bamberg as an editor; biographical, under the

Logik"7
title "Zwischen Phanomenologie und (Hegel as "coward"). If it interests
you, I will send it to you.
Priest,"
Monk, The
1. "The these are Kojeve's own titles for these paragraphs, which appear in
225 and 226, respectively, of Miller's translation of the Phenomenology (Hegel, 1977).
2. The passage cited (Kojeve, 1958, p. 583) is not part of Kojeve's Introduction proper, but an
appendix to it, showing his schema of the structure of Hegel's Phenomenology of Spirit. The aster
isks are part of Kojeve's numbering system.

"characteristic."
3. See Hegel. 1977, 223 and 225; Miller translates both terms as
4. Schmitt, 1950.
5. Theodor Daubler (1876-1934),poet. His most famous work, Das Nordlicht (1910), a poem
of lines, was much revised during his lifetime. Schmitt's fascination with Nordlicht went
30,000
back to 1912; in 1916 he published a commentary on the poem (Schmitt, 1991).
6. According to Tommissen, this is Hans-Joachim Arndt, later professor of political science in
Heidelberg. Amdt met Jacob Taubes (see note 3 to Kojeve's letter of 1 l/VII/55 above) at Harvard
Taubes'
in 1948. description of the encounter appears in Taubes (1987), p. 23 and pp. 67-68.
7. Beyer, 1955.
Paris, 4/1 56
Dear Mr. Schmitt,
thank you very much for your letter of 14/XII and please forgive the late
reply: I was, until recently, in Tunis because of the negotiations about the cus
toms union (which turned out very well). And now it is about Morocco. .
Before I answer your letter, I would like to wish you a good new year.
Perhaps have the opportunity to meet personally?

we will
Of the publication of the German edition of my old book I know nothing:
Dr. Fetscher has not written me in a long time. I do not even know if all
difficulties have been overcome. .
The old book is also to appear in America, but I do

not know anything
precise about that either. And as far

book is concerned, it is still always
as the
a project. I have certainly written about a thousand pages, but all of this is
only
exercise."
a "preparatory Anyway, for six months I have no longer worked on

it: no time. Still, I think about it now and again and matters are
gradually becom
ing clearer.
I do not know your "Ex captivitate

salus"
and would like to read it, like

everything that flows from your pen.
The book about Hegel's time in Bamberg would also interest me, but I really
do not want to burden you with it. I will
surely have the opportunity to see it
here somewhere.
Now, the enemy question:

form"
The "enemy in his characteristic is certainly the devil, more precisely
functions."
the Christian devil, who also appears in the "animal For Hegel ("for
us"
"invalid"
or "in itself") these functions are because man negates them, and
is only man and not just an animal as this negation alone. For, while the
consciousness"
"unhappy (i.e. religious man, more precisely Christ) appears as

slave before death and the risk of life in the struggle for recognition (his human
itself"
reality and honor) and avoids the struggle, "for what is animal is not
"invalid" "diabolical."
but powerful, i.e.

One can thus say the following:
The real enemy is the enemy to the death: he can kill and be killed, is thus
"form."
body and thus, if one likes, If one is prepared to kill him (i.e. if one is
"invalid"
prepared to risk one's own life), then the enemy is [nichtig] and can
(at least as enemy) be destroyed. If, however, one is afraid of the enemy, then
"diabolical" "master"
he becomes and thus "powerful": he is the and one is his
"slave"
(at least insofar as one does not flee from him into "another world").
be enemy in Hegel Yes

all,"
"Whether there can an at you ask. As always:
and No.
Yes, insofar as. and as long as there is a struggle for recognition, i.e. his
tory. World history is the history of enmity between peoples (which does not
"fight"
exist at all among animals: animals for something, not out of enmity).
insofar as (= struggle for recognition) has been

No, and as soon as history
"sublated" "moment"
in Absolute Knowledge. Thus enmity is, after all, only a

(of
"Logic,"
of the i.e. of human speech. The fulfilled reason of the wise man
Absolute Knowledge) also speaks (in the Phen. of S.) about the (past) enmity,
but the wise man never speaks out
of enmity, nor to enemies. Or, expressed
differently: enmity is sublated, i.e. destroyed, in mutual recognition; but one can
only really recognize a [former] enemy, so that the enmity is also preserved
(sublated) in the recognition, although in a sublimated (sublated) form.

Hegel takes us this far. Now one could perhaps ask oneself, if in about
500 years the speech of the wise man (Hegel) about enmity will still be under
"enemy," "state,"
stood. Already today only a few understand what the words

"against"
"war," "history"
mean. Most are all this and in this respect they still
understand, to a certain extent, what it means. But if all this really disappears,
one will perhaps no longer understand what that meant. Then there will also be
"wisdom."
no Hegelian And as long as enmity still exists, there is still a wisdom

"for" "against," "about"
For then or and only

in Hegel's sense. one speaks only
something . with my best wishes,
Faithfully,
(s)
108 Interpretation
Plettenberg
1 1/5/56
Dear Mr. Kojeve,
"Hegelian"
I certainly understand your language and there is, for me, no

greater satisfaction than to read your explanations about Hamlet in your letter
'
of 5/5 I am eternally grateful to you for it, as well as for the passage on p. 253
of your Introduction, a passage which I have long known and meditated. But I
Hekuba"2
am still not clear about the tragic in Hegel. My small essay "Hamlet or
is only a lecture, which had a particular theme (Hamlet = James, i.e. the intru
sion of the historical present of 1600 in the play) as content. I did not want to
take up the general problem of the tragic in the lecture. I did, however in
Excursus 2 want to speak of the state. Please note the passage on p. 65, lines
6-12 at the top in the book "Hamlet or Hekuba"! The state puts an end to the
hero-tragedy after Hegel; Philosophy of Right 93

218; and at 93 (hero-W:
the addition in Lasson3), 359 on barbarism; in 218 it says: "In the time of
barbaric.
ancients"
heroes (see the tragedies of the etc. Shakespeare is thus still
Nonetheless, is Hamlet an "intellectual"? I find that the play is split in an obvi
ous way: Part I (including up to the death of Polonius) is a revenge play, Part
2 a street ballad [Moritat]. Only in Part I does the father's ghost appear. What
does that mean? In Part 2 he has disappeared without a trace, is simply no
longer mentioned. The tragic thing does not lie in the play, but outside it, in
"coincidentally"
reality. It is splendid that you say: James 1 only died a natural
death. Correct.
I do not want to write more today, but to thank you for your letter and to
express my best wishes for your health. The notification that you are not feeling
healthy distresses me very much. I had attempted, for several weeks, to organize
a lecture for you at the Rhein-Ruhr Club in Dusseldorf. This club not to be
confused with the heavy-industrial Industrie Club in Dusseldorf has mainly

mid-sized industry and independent entrepreneurs as members, is very exclusive
Briining4
and a good platform, of which, e.g. (the former Reich Chancellor, now
Schmid5
in the USA), Carlo (my namesake, a social democrat) and others have
made use. The Club has asked me to ask you if you would be prepared to
deliver a lecture (with discussion), perhaps about the problem of the underdevel
regions6
oped or another (not purely philosophical) theme. Would you really

consider it or is it pointless to pursue this idea: please write me that in all
openness and sincerity. For me it would be a particular joy to procure a platform
(if also a modest one) in Germany for you in this way, and for me personally,
the possibility of getting to know you and to have a discussion with you.
Please forgive this attempt to see you personally; it stems from a lively wish
to thank you personally and to continue our discussion; there is, moreover, the
endeavor to make your name known in Germany and to introduce your Hegel
interpretation to the scholastic mediocrity of the modern
university business, or
at least to make an attempt at it. A lecture in Dusseldorf would perhaps stir up

more attention than a lecture in a university city, which today stand together
exchange"
under the aegis of "cultural and have become hotbeds of conformity
without ideas.
So will you send me a word about whether it suits you if I pursue the Dussel
dorf plan, perhaps for this fall or winter?
Yours sincerely,
(s)
"play,"
Hamlet is jeu {game}, street ballad, on the edge of comedy, except
at both intrusion points [Einbruch-Stellen] .
1 . This letter is missing.
2. Schmitt, 1956.
3. Hegel, 1921. In the passage at 93, Hegel considers hero-law as possible only in the state of
nature, i.e. where there are no existing ethical institutions. Schmitt was particularly interested in the
critical moment of action which precedes and grounds these institutions, and thus differentiated
between Verfassung (constitution) and Verfassungsgesetz (constitutional law), and the corresponding
powers of verfassunggebende Gewalt and verfassungsgesetzgebende Gewalt the power which cre
ates a constitution, and which issues constitutional laws, respectively. See Schmitt (1965), pp. 75
ff. and 98. The full sentence at 218 "In heroic times, as
reads, we see in the tragedy of the ancients,
the citizens did not feel themselves injured by wrongs which members of the royal houses did to
Realm,"
(Hegel, 1967, p. 140). Section 359 appears under the heading "The Germanic
another"
one
which is, in Hegel's descriptions, divided into two realms, one mundane, and the other "a world of
beyond."
Before the advent of the state (360), both are externally barbaric (pp. 222-23).
4. Heinrich Briining (1885-1970) was leader of the Catholic Center Party, and Chancellor of
Germany from 1930 to 1932, when he was replaced by Franz von Papen (1879-1969). He escaped
to the United States in 1934 and held an appointment at Harvard University from 1937 to 1952. In
1951, he returned to Germany, where he taught political science at the University of Cologne (Man-
nes, 1999, p. 14).

5. Carlo Schmid (1896-1979), German professor of law and political science, translator of
Baudelaire into German, and, from 1949-1972, a sitting member of the Social Democratic Party in
Germany.
here in English.
regions"
6. "Underdeveloped appears
Paris, 21/5 56
Dear Professor,
thank you much for your friendly letter of 11/V, as well as for the
very
invitation of the Dusseldorf club. In principle I would be pleased to give a
lecture there. Because I am, however, ill for the moment, I cannot, unfortu
could foresee something for January
nately, promise anything firm. Perhaps one
or February 1957?
theme: "underdeveloped seems to me to be very good. On
The
Marx
"Hegelian"
I could perhaps also make

interpretation of
this occasion my
known: what was the proletariat in the 19th century has become the "under
everything that follows from that,

developed"2
in the 20th, with as theory and
practice.
110-
Interpretation
On the tragedy problem in Hegel:

intellectuals."
1. I believe that Hegel himself did not see the "tragedy of the
"orthodox."
Yet I believe that my interpretation is

2. If I understand Hegel correctly, a citizen is de facto, also always a bour
"master" "mythical"
geois (the real [Herr] belongs in the prehistory): either
"aristocrat" "bourgeois"
as or as actual (rich or poor). If it is so, then the state
"authority"
(= each actual state where the "struggle for recognition)
replaces the
master"
puts an end to the tragedy: precisely because there is no "actual in the

can however only be death-
masters"
state (more precisely: because the "real
worthy criminals). I agree with this. Yet I believe that there are (or can be)
"bourgeois,"
people in the state (and thanks to the state) who are not on the
"intellectuals"
simple grounds that they are not citizens. These are precisely the
(and monks??) who live (or at least would like to live) in an autonomous ("im
mune") Republique des Lettres. And in this republic there are also tragedies.
3. Your interpretation
of tragedy (as "history") is, in my opinion, certainly
compatible withHegelian (somewhat "Marxist") interpretation. Roughly

the
thus: there is also an actual "struggle for
recognition"
in the state. Not only

"classes"
between individuals, but between (to speak with Marx). Thus there
"tragic historical
situations."
are also Only Hegel and Marx would notice that

"situations"
these absolutely tragic, for there is
are not always a revolutionary
(i.e. more precisely bloody) escape from them.
Faithfully,
(s)
1. In English.
2. In English.
Vanves, 30/XI 56
Dear Professor,
lately you had the kindness to plan a lecture for me in Dusseldorf. In the
meantime, as you know, I was ill. Thus I could unfortunately not give a firm
acceptance. Now it appears that I will be coming, for several weeks, to see
friends in Germany, in January 1957.
I would be very happy if I could meet you on this occasion. Perhaps that
could be combined with the lecture in Dusseldorf? It would suit me particularly
well if I could hold this lecture between the 10th and the 20th of January.
With many thanks in advance, faithfully,
(s)
5/12 56
Dear Mr. Kojeve,
I am very happy about your letter of 30/XI; first of all because of the news
that you are healthy again, and secondly at the prospect getting to know you
personally. I am available to you during all of January 1957; only on the evening
of January 21st I have a lecture at the Technical College in Aachen. I can also
come, at any time, to Dusseldorf, or wherever you would like. Plettenberg is a
dreadful hole of small steel industry and is difficult to reach in the winter: the
analogy with Machiavelli's refuge in San Casciano does not, unfortunately, ex
tend to the beauty of the landscape. Therefore it is more practical if we meet in

a larger city.
I have communicated with the Rhein-Ruhr-Club. Due to the break in discus
sions over the summer it is uncertain whether a lecture for the middle of January
be successfully organized. Time is a little bit tight, because the winter
can still
program has already been established. Still, I want to do my best. I will keep
you posted about it. If I can be useful to you in any other way for your journey
to Germany, it will be a genuine pleasure.
Sincerely,
(s)
Plettenberg (Westphalia)
23/12 56
Dear Mr. Kojeve,
may I ask you, in haste, for some information regarding the planned lecture
in Dusseldorf? The board of the Rhein-Ruhr-Club asked me to ask you about
the theme: could you link your ideas with a current theme: the Suez Canal, or
French colonial policy, or something of the kind? The Club would like to hold
the lecture in the middle of January, but fears that, with the shortness of time,
not enough listeners will come if the theme does not have a current aspect.
I would be eternally happy if the lecture came about. Naturally, in a city

such as Dusseldorf, the larger share of important listeners is in great demand;
hence our concern. I am sending you as an example an invitation to the previous
lecture. Could send the information about yourself (a few bio

you immediately
graphical notes, as in the accompanying sample) which will be printed with the
general invitations?
Please forgive the haste! I give you my best wishes for the coming year and
hope that we meet in January in Dusseldorf!

Ever faithfully,
(s)
112 Interpretation
Vanves 24/XII 56
Dear Professor,
many thanks for your letter, which I have just received. Enclosed some bio
graphical notes: some of these can certainly be deleted.
Countries"1
We previously considered the theme of "Underdeveloped (how

does one say that in German, by the way?). It seems to me to be very current.
Such as:
up."
The title could, nonetheless, be somewhat "spiced

The problem of the underdeveloped (?) countries [or (?)] so-called "colonial
ism" "Euro-African"
[and the idea].
Still, I must, as a bureaucrat, naturally be very careful and deal with "princi
ples"
rather than concrete questions.
Personally, I put no value on a large public. But I understand that the Club
is interested in it.
In any case I thank you very much for your efforts in the matter.
I will be extraordinarily happy to get to know you personally and to speak
with you.
With best wishes for the New Year,

Faithfully,
(s)
PS: I assume that the Club will cover the travel costs? Or what are the arrange
ments?
"Underdeveloped" "
1. In English; reading where Tommissen's edition reads "Unterdeveloped
Vanves, 23/1 57
Dear Professor,
I would like to thank you most sincerely, once again, for the extremely
friendly and nice reception in Dusseldorf.

I hope that you will decide after all to come to Paris. The city is really
agreeable and beautiful.
power1
I read the booklet about in the train as always, with great satisfac
tion. I am in full agreement with the content.
On this occasion I would like to ask you to convey to your daughter the most
cordial greetings.
As far as the publication of my lecture is concerned, I must unfortunately

refrain from doing so for now: at the urgent advice of my superiors! I hope that
the RR-Club will understand that.
Koch2
At the same time I am writing to Mr. to express my thanks and to
apologize.
With respectful and

friendly greetings,
Faithfully,
(s)
1. Schmitt, 1954a. See also note 6 to Schmitt's letter of 7/6/55 above.

2. Then president of the
Rhein-Ruhr-Club, Justus Koch (1891-1962) had acted as a defense
counsel for Paul Komer, Goring's permanent deputy, in the "Ministries Case"
at the Nuremberg
Military Tribunals (Trials of War Criminals, 1997, p. 10).
Plettenberg 31/1 57
Dear Mr. Kojeve,
many thanks for your letter of 23/1 ! For me it the most important thing is
that you not regret your
trip to Dusseldorf. Once I disregard the personal benefit
I took from it myself, I must above all state that your name has now become
effective for at least 20 young, intelligent Germans. That seems to me to be a
good result. Besides, I hope that you repeat this attempt in Germany under better
external conditions and that this Dusseldorf experiment did not, at least, have a
deterrent effect.
I can hardly open a daily newspaper without immediately finding articles in

it on the theme of your lecture. Perhaps, however, you also received an impres
Schacht1
sion of the difficulties one encounters today with a German public. Dr.
wrote me a longer letter; he just travelled to Munich, where he celebrated his
80th birthday. I am sorry that he was not there, for despite his advanced age he
often makes very interesting comments in the discussion. Also Mr. Kaletsch of
companies,2
the Flick whom I met the following Friday, was sorry not to have
incident.3
heard the lecture. He was occupied with the unfortunate de Menthon

But I find, asI already said to you, that the young people who heard you were
the most important. From my "Gesprach iiber die Macht und den Zugang zum
Machthaber"
you will have understood the hidden pessimism which fills me
lost,4
towards everyone who participates in power. A friend in power is a friend

Adams,"5
as it goes in the "Education of Henry and from the "Re-Education of

Schmitt"6 doubled.7
Carl I would also like to add: A foe in power is a foe

That the lecture cannot be published is regrettable, if also understandable.
For me, the personal meeting with you remains a great moment of the autumn
"Introduction"
letters becomes,
my life. The reading of your of your
of and
because of it, a discussion of immediate liveliness.

I remain, with best greetings and wishes,
ever sincerely faithfully,

(s)
114 Interpretation
Song of the old man of the Mosel 1957
humanity is now
being integrated
the mosel is being canalized
the sacrament remains turned around
the laity remains without the chalice
hidden remains the dear god

pot8
the whole world becomes a melting

the automatic becomes global
the laity takes veronal

Alexandre Kojeve
to commemorate the discussion
over Palatinate wine in Dusseldorf
C.S.
1. Hjalmar Schacht (1877-1970): Banker and politician. President of the Reichsbank (Imperial
Bank) 1923-1930 and 1933-1939, member of Hitler's cabinet 1935-1943. He resigned as finance
minister in 1937 after a feud with Hermann Goring (1893-1945) over economic policy, but re
mained a cabinet minister without portfolio until 1943. While he espoused the Nuremberg Laws,
Schacht opposed the invasion of Poland, was in contact with resistance groups from 1940 onward,
and conspired in the failed coup attempt against Hitler in July 1944. He was arrested and imprisoned
for these activities shortly afterward, but escaped execution. Schacht was tried by the International
Military Tribunal at Nuremberg in 1946, and ultimately cleared (Fischer, 1995; Peterson, 1954).
2. Konrad Kaletsch (1898-1978) was a high-ranking executive of the Flick companies begin
ning in 1937. In 1947, he and five other Flick executives were tried in one of three Nuremberg
trials directed against corporations on charges of employing Jewish slave labor. Kaletsch was found
not guilty, although three of his colleagues (including Flick president Friedrich Flick) were con
victed and served prison time (Jung, 1992).

3. I was unable to uncover what this incident was. This is probably Francois de Menthon (1900-
1984), France's chief prosecutor at the Nuremberg trials in 1945-1946, as well as resistance leader
and justice minister for France's provisional government from 1943-1945.
lost"
4. "A friend in power is a friend appears here in English.
5. Adams, 1995, p. 107.
6. In English.
doubled"
7. "A foe in power is a foe appears here in English.
pot"
8. "Melting appears here in English.
Vanves 12/11 57
Dear Professor,
thank you very much for the amusing poem.
Although it seems that the good laity does not even need Veronal. I have
recently experienced something completely remarkable in this field with so-
"politicians."
called
Perhaps you will decide on a trip to Paris after all: it would make me very
happy !
With respectful greetings,
Faithfully,
(s)
Paris 4/IV 60
Dear Professor!
Thank you for the Werte,1
very much
friendly transmission of Tyrannei der
which I, as always, read with great interest and satisfaction.
I hope that we will soon have the opportunity to talk.
With respectful greetings,
Faithfully,
(s)
1. Schmitt, 1979.
Colonialism from a European Perspective

Alexandre Kojeve
Ladies and Gentlemen!

Before I begin my lecture, I would like to thank the Rhein-Ruhr-Club most
sincerely for the friendly invitation.

And then I would also like to apologize for my poor German. It is, however,
a joy to give a lecture in Hegel's language. But my German leaves much to be
desired, and therefore I must ask for a good deal of indulgence.
Finally, I would like to repeat what Mr. Koch already said to you. Namely,
that everything that is said here is my
opinion, own which I present, throughout,
not as a French bureaucrat, but exclusively as private citizen [if also as a former
Heidelberg].'
student at
I would also like to remark that in my lecture I very consciously and deliber
ately want to avoid anything which is in any way political or could appear to
be so. I intend radically to depoliticize all the concepts I discuss, above all the
concept of so-called colonialism. Thus I will examine and deal with all problems
from a political-economic [national- okonomi-

purely economic, exclusively
schen] perspective.
"capitalism"
The word was coined in the 19th century, and Karl Marx gave
this concept a precise, economic meaning.

very specifically
"capitalism"
Marx understood by an economic system characterized by the

"capitalist"
following. First: the economy is an industrialized economy. Second:

the industrial means of production belong, in this system, not to the physically
(with the help of these of the population, but to a
laboring means) majority
"leading," "guiding"
so-
as well as economically minority or elite of
politically
called capitalists. Third: this system is set up so that the working majority, the
116-
Interpretation
"proletariat,"
so-called derives absolutely no advantage from the technical prog
"rationalization"
ress of industrialization, or, if you like, of the of production.
The progress of industrial technology increased the labor yield, the "produc
tivity"
as it is called today. It thus creates a surplus value from labor. This

value"
"surplus was not, however, paid out to the working mass, but was re
tained by the capitalist minority. Thus the working majority of the population
remained, in spite of technical progress, at the same standard of living, which
was, moreover, a minimum for subsistence and thus could absolutely not be
lowered. In contrast, technical progress permitted a constant increase in the capi
talist minority's income.
income"
I say deliberately: "increase in and not in standard of living. For
just as there is a minimum for subsistence, there is also a maximum for living
[Lebensmaximum] , or, let us just say a living optimum which is not surpassed.
"leading"
And this optimum had already been attained by the minority long
before industrialization. Marx called it very good, moreover, and said so even
in his scientific works.
Thus, in fact only a very tiny part of the capitalist surplus value was con
"invested"
sumed. Almost everything was and thus served the further progress,
"perfection"
i.e. the constant expansion and [?] of industrialization or rational
ization of the national economy.

"capitalism"
However, as I have mentioned, the Marx has in view was set
up so that the working majority absolutely did not profit from this progress.
And while they did not become poorer in absolute terms (which was completely
impossible anyway), they did become so relatively: the difference between
{their income and} the combined income of the elite became ever greater.
From this Marxist theory of capital formation and surplus value, Marx him
self and the so-called Marxists of the 19th century derived the well-known social
Revolution"
and political consequences. The so-called "social was prophesied
as a historical necessity. It was said: capital formation founded on surplus value
destroys the social equilibrium; the entire system will thus collapse sooner or
later. And this violent collapse of capitalism was called "social

revolution."
Now, it can be ascertained, without further ado, that the Marxist soothsayers
erred. For precisely in the really capitalist countries, there was no "social revolu
tion."
[And today not a single serious person seriously asserts that there is still
any possibility for such a revolution in these countries.]

But while it is no longer possible to deny these facts seriously today, it is
possible to interpret them falsely. One could assert that Marx erred in his predic
tion because the theoretical foundations of these predictions were false. [And
that was actually very often.] But, in my opinion, such an interpretation
asserted
is not
only false in itself, but also dangerous. For Marx erred, in fact, not be
cause he was theoretically wrong, but rather right.
For how did this error, certainly generally recognized today,
actually come
about? It was not that there was no revolution in the West, although the capital-
ism Marx described continued to exist there. It was also not because of this that
Marx erred, because (as one liked to assert in the last century) absolutely noth
ing like the capitalism he described existed. In fact, Marx erred, first of all,
because in his time capitalism was exactly what he said it was, and secondly,
because this capitalism resolved its economic defects or, if one likes, "contra
dictions"
discovered and described by Marx. Namely, in the direction Marx
"revolutionary" "dictatorial,"
himself indicated. To be sure, not in a and but in
a peaceful and democratic way.
Marx and the Marxists really erred in only one way. They assumed that
shortsighted,2
capitalists were exactly as naive and as unwise and blind,

exactly
as the bourgeois political economists and intellectuals generally, who believed
"refuted"
themselves to have Marxist theory in books of varying thickness.
Now, had it really been so, Marx would certainly not have erred in this way.
"anti-Marxist"
But it was, in fact, not this way. The capitalists published the
books, sometimes even (as young students) read them, but they did exactly the
opposite of what could be drawn from these books. Namely, they rebuilt capital
ism in a Marxist way.
To put it briefly, the capitalists saw exactly the same thing as Marx saw and
said [although independently of him, and with some delay]. Namely, that capi
value"
talism can neither progress, nor even exist, if the "surplus produced
through industrial technologies is not divided between the capitalist minority

and the working majority. In other words, the post-Marxist capitalists under
stood that the modem, highly industrialized capitalism of mass production not
only permits, but also requires, a constant increase in the income (and of the
standard of living) working masses. And they behaved accordingly.

of the
In brief, the capitalists did exactly what they ought to have done according
revolution"
to Marxist theory in order to make the "social impossible, i.e. unnec

"Marxist"
essary. This reconstruction of the original capitalism was accom
plished more or less anonymously. But, as always, there was a great ideologue
here, too. He was called Henry Ford. And thus we can say that Ford was the
only great, authentic Marxist of the 20th century. [All other so-called theorists
"Romantics"
were, more or less, who, moreover, distorted the Marxist theories
apply them to noncapitalist relations, i.e. precisely to

in order to economic sys
tems Marx did not have in view.]
Nevertheless, after Ford fully consciously did what advanced capitalists had
intellectual
already done before him, more or less unconsciously, along
came
Employment,"3
theorists who developed Fordist ideas under the name "Full in
a learned language incomprehensible to the average person; and they were so
successful in this that it became really difficult to understand that it had to do

with Fordist ideas, which were properly Marxist and therefore, as soon as they
were realized, actually refuted pseudo-Marxist theories.
Be that as it may, the fact is that today, the capitalism described and criticized
Marx, i.e. old-style capitalism, which created investment capital by artifi-
by
118-
Interpretation
daily limiting working class to the minimum for subsistence,

the income of the
no longer in any industrialized country

exists except for Soviet Russia. Where
"socialism" "communism"
it is, moreover, called if not [, but demonstrates the

same sociopolitical (police-related on the one hand, and revolutionary on the
other) side effects as the European capitalism of the 19th century. In full confor
mity with Marxist theory. For, from this theory's perspective, it does not matter
whether the surplus value is invested by private individuals or state bureaucrats.
It is only important that the capital -forming surplus value is calculated such that
the working masses are kept close to the minimum for subsistence.]
II
Now, ladies and gentlemen, what I have said is absolutely not new. [These
are plainly truisms today.] And you will
certainly ask yourselves why I am
"capitalism"'
speaking about it. All the more because my lecture is not entitled
"colonialism."
but
Now, I have spoken about Marx and Marxist capitalism, as well as its peace
"political,"
ful and democratic if you like overcoming, because, in my opin
ion, this old-style capitalism has not been so totally and finally overcome as
appears at first glance. Indeed, not only because it continues to exist in Soviet
Russia (and in the so-called satellites) under the more or less correct name
"socialism,"
but also because it unfortunately also lives on in the West,
"colonialism"
where it is also called today.
Marx himself, however, had only western Europe in mind. And in his time
that was also fully justified. It is less justified, however, that even today many
of those who repeat or who criticize him have the same world view as an ancient
Roman political economist might have had. Except that the United States of
terrarum"
North America are also included in this "orbis {"earthly globe"}.
In reality, however, after the 2nd World War in any case, the so-called
world"
"Western is absolutely no longer just European or Euro-American. It is

also, and perhaps even predominantly, at least in the long term, African and
Asian.
Now, when this World is looked at as a whole, i.e. as it really is, it is not
difficult to see that the Marxist definition of capitalism is very well suited to
"logically,"
this world, and indeed with all the consequences which follow i.e.
"actually," "necessarily."
not only but also
Indeed, we see that nowadays the most important means of production be

longs to a Euro- American minority which alone profits from technological prog
ress, as it expands this minority's income from year to year, while the Afro-
Asian majority does not become poorer, to be sure, in an absolute sense (which
is certainly physically impossible), but does become relatively more impover
ished. At the same time, it is absolutely not true that this is a matter of two
economically divided systems. For there is a vigorous economic interaction be

tween Euro- America and Afro- Asia. But the system is constructed such that the
one, smaller part becomes richer every year through it, while the other, larger
one absolutely never raises itself above the absolute minimum for subsistence.
In other words: in no industrialized country except for Russia today is

"proletariat"
there a in the Marxist sense, i.e. really poor classes of the popula
tion who can only just subsist and have no real affluence. [In the so-called
"capitalist"
countries everybody is, more or less, equally rich and not poor; for
everybody there lives in relative, to be sure affluence.] But if one takes the
real world as a whole, however, then one immediately sees a gigantic proletariat,
precisely in the true Marxist sense of this word. And because it has to do with
an economic unit, i.e. an economic system, one can thus
certainly say that there
value"
is also a "surplus in the Marxist sense of the term, which in its totality
only reaches those countries which, alone, govern the industrial means of pro
duction.
The way in "surplus
value"
which this is obtained and retained is, from the

economic perspective, completely irrelevant. It is important only that this sur
plus value contributes to the capital accumulation in the industrialized countries.
And thus one can, although not calmly and confidently, nevertheless still say
"capitalist,"
that the modern Western economic system is also completely in the
Marxist sense of the word.
Nonetheless, an important difference, not only in the psychologico-political,

but also in the economic respect, exists between the system where the surplus
value is extracted from the working masses within the country and that where
this surplus value is taken in other countries. And this difference can be termino-
logically fixed if the concepts capitalism, socialism and colonialism are defined
in the following way. By capitalism we can understand the classic, European
capitalism of the 19th century, i.e. the system where the surplus value is ex
tracted within the country and is invested by private persons. By socialism (I

do not mean the theoretical socialism, which existed nowhere yet, but the system
which exists today in the Sovietized countries), by Soviet socialism will

actually
be understood that system in which the surplus value, is, just as in capitalism,
raised within the country, but where this surplus value is invested by the state.
"colonialism"
indicate the system where the surplus value,

Finally, the word will
as in capitalism, is not invested by the state, but privately, but where it is raised
not inside but outside of the country.
then, that does

These definitions immediately indicate, real capitalism not
exist anywhere anymore, as well as that colonialism is still related to this van
ished capitalism. Thus one understands how it is that contemporary Marxists
take a position on colonialism which is analogous to that which Marx took up

On the one hand, they establish that {the difference}
against classic capitalism.
between the Afro-Asian majority and the Euro-American minority is constantly

expanding; on the other hand, they infer from this that this system, because of
120 Interpretation
this lack of equilibrium, will collapse. In addition, they assume, like Marx, that
they are the only ones to make these observations and to draw these conclusions
from them, whereas the present-day colonialists, in contrast, will be just as blind
and stupid as the capitalists were in Marx's day.
Now, were it really thus, the neo-Marxists could certainly be correct in their
prediction concerning capitalism. And it is for precisely this reason that I said,
at beginning
the of my lecture, that it would be extremely dangerous to interpret
falsely the facts that Marx's prediction with respect to capitalism went wrong.
"contradiction"
[For we saw that capitalism did not collapse, although its re
vealed by Marx In reality

continued to exist. there was no social revolution
in the West, because Western capitalism itself eliminated this contradiction, in

"economy"
a peaceful, democratic way, reconstructing its
at that, while in a
"Fordist"
way. And] From this historical fact one can logically draw only one
conclusion: namely that, in order to prevent the collapse of colonialism, this
colonialism will have to be reconstructed in a rational way, which is analogous
to the way in which the capitalists before, around and after Ford reconstructed
the old capitalism.
Ill
The situation is quite peculiar and, in a certain way, disturbing. In old capital
"Marxist"
ism, the contradiction was actually and actively overcome in practice

"Fordist"
by capitalists themselves. Only after this did the new scientific theory
Employment4
of so-called Full emerge, and states, in accordance with the already-
existing economic system, only adjusted later. In contemporary colonialism,

however, the situation is perfectly reversed. There are already many good theo
retical works about the problem (as, for example, in the context of the United
statements5
Nations); there are also positive governmental and programs (such

as, for example) President Truman's famous "Point IV"6). But the practitioners
of the economy take a reserved, even sceptical position and behave as if the
whole business has nothing to do with them, because it has to do with a so-called
political problem.
Now it is certainly a political problem and perhaps even the political problem
of the 20th century. But, as has been mentioned, I would like to disregard that
completely. And that all the more so, since the problem is undoubtedly and
even, perhaps, above all an economic problem. For, to put it colloquially, i.e.
appropriately: poor clients are bad clients, andif the majority of a firm's clients
are poor, i.e. bad, then the firm itself is a bad firm in any case, not a sound
one, but particularly not when the firm, in order to avoid going bankrupt, must
expand every year. And not one person will be surprised if such a firm goes
"nobler"
bankrupt one fine day. [Expressed in language, this simple assertion is
[?]."
called the "law of But it remains true today nonetheless.]
Thus one must

really ask the question today: how can colonialism be eco
"Fordist"
nomically reconstructed in a way, so to speak? On the face of it, there

are three conceivable methods, and all three have already been suggested.
trade."7
First, one can work on the famous "terms of That is, in good German,
one can pay more for goods, i.e. mainly raw materials, produced by the underde
veloped countries than has been the case until now. The purpose is to stabilize
the prices of raw materials, and to do so at a level which not only allows the
exporting countries to live, and not only to live securely, but also to live continu
ally better, just as the importing countries continually live better. In other words:
modern colonialism could do the same thing as old capitalism did, namely, to
understand that it is not only politically, but also economically advantageous
not to pay as little as possible for labor, but as much as possible. That was the
agreements."8
real purpose of the much-discussed "Commodity Well, they were
much discussed, anyway, and in many languages, too [: five months at the
Havana conference of '47, four months in the GATT in Geneva in '54]. And
all countries were finally ready for it. It was all the more pleasant when it
was established that there were underdeveloped people in the underdeveloped
countries who could absolutely not understand why, for example, oil produced
in the Middle East should cost almost half as much less than oil in Texas. Or
also why, if there were a so-called world union, precisely these raw materials
would go for almost nothing at all, while industrial prices would change rela
tively little. And so on. So, as has been mentioned, all countries were in agreement
in Geneva. But: one country was against it and, what is more, on "principled
grounds."
But that was enough. And thus nobody speaks about it for the mo
USA.
more.9
ment any For the only principled country was called the
Secondly, one could proceed directly. One could, namely, collect the surplus
value from raw materials and anything else colonial, as before, but not invest it
in the already industrialized and rich countries, but in the underdeveloped, poor
countries in which the surplus value is being extracted anyway. And this could
SUNFED,10
be done by world organizations suited something of the

to it: or
kind. This has also already been much discussed: for years, and "internation
"noble"
[Although not exactly as I have just done, but in a way, as it

ally."
meant that the industrialized countries were to come to the aid of the underde
in that were to be financed by an international investment

veloped ones, they
institution. And then everybody was finally (I mean after 5 years of studies and
without exception in agreement to find, altogether, $250

conferences) .
countries. But
million, and to put it at the disposal of all
the underdeveloped
the sum has still not been found

probably because it is so very small ]
And it is still being spoken about . in the United Nations!
Thirdly, one can proceed directly, not internationally, but nationally instead.
industrialized country can extract the colonial surplus value with
That is, a given
the one (indeed, the right) hand, as all industrialized countries do nowadays, but
hand invest this surplus value, or even more than
with the other (thus the left)
1 22 Interpretation
that, in one or more underdeveloped countries. Now, if such a country really

invests the entire surplus value, or even more than that, in this way, one can, to
be sure, no longer speak of colonialism in the conventional sense. For then one
is certainly, defacto, longer taking anything, and is even giving something.

no
And when the country in question spends far more than is collected by it, then
it must even really be called anticolonialist.
As far as I know, this third method is applied by only two countries today,
namely by France and by England. As far as France is concerned, no matter
how high one calculates the extracted colonial surplus value to be, i.e. including
the markup for French goods, preferential tariffs, etc., nonetheless it emerges
that, since the war, France invests five to six times more in its colonies and
former colonies than these colonies and ex-colonies supply in surplus value.
And while I know the corresponding English figures less precisely, I do know
that about the same is true for England.
To summarize the contemporary situation in the Western world, one can thus
say the following:

"principled"
First: the stronghold of colonialism is in Washington;
Second: all industrialized countries are de facto colonial except France and
England.
IV
I certainly do not need to bring to anybody's attention that what has just
been said should be taken cum grano salis {with a grain of salt}. Or, in German:
irony"
it was a joke. But the philosophers call such a joke "Socratic (which,
moreover, can be more or less successful). In other words: my lecture is, at root,
"pedagogical."
meant seriously and wayis, in one or another,
What is meant seriously is that the real problem of our time and of our world
is not political, but economic colonialism. For in general political colonialism
no longer exists at all. Only a very few countries today are still under a truly
"regime."
colonial And even if, because of these, local difficulties exist or could
arise, then the whole Western world will certainly not be destroyed by them.
This colonialism is no longer a world problem. In my opinion, however, eco
nomic colonialism is a world problem and a mortal danger.
What is also seriously meant is that not only is it possible to conduct colo
nialism without having colonies, but that, in fact, all industrialized countries
less11
more or
unconsciously are colonialist, in the sense that these countries
alone derive advantage from technological progress in that they become richer
every year, while the backward countries remain exactly as poor as before, and
therefore become relatively poorer every year.
What is seriously meant, finally, is that the problem cannot really be solved
as long as the practitioners of economics continue to stand aside. Modern colo

"Ford"
nialism requires a new collective just as urgently as the old capitalism
needed many Fords, who emerged spontaneously at the time. I mean people
who produced for a mass market, which they created themselves only when
they increased the wages, i.e. the production costs, for economic reasons, with
out expecting that the state would only create this mass market for theoretical
or political reasons.
All of this seems to me to be the law of the contemporary world. In Greek:

the nomos of the Western Earth.
I just read, in one of the wittiest and most brilliant essays that I have ever
read, that the ancient Greek nomos develops from three roots: from taking, from
division and from grazing, i.e. from use or consuming. And that seems to me
to beabsolutely right. But the ancient Greeks did not know that the modem
nomos also has a fourth, perhaps central, root, namely giving. This root of the
socio-political and economic law of the modern Western world escaped the
ancient Greeks: maybe because they were a small heathen people, and not a
great Christian power? Who knows?

One thing I know for certain. Namely, that what has just been said is abso
"division"
lutely no criticism of Professor Carl Schmitt. For his implicitly in

cludes my "giving": if everything has already been taken, one can naturally
receive.12
divide only if some give away what the others I only wanted to point
give"
out that, from the etymological perspective, the verb "to perhaps sounds
thing! Thus
take"
better than the verb "to even if it means practically the same
we say, for example, that we pay our taxes ourselves, and not that they are
taken away from us!

And words have even a much larger meaning than is normally believed. In
the final analysis, after all, man is distinguished from animal by language. And
it is for West
precisely from this linguistic perspective not going at all well our
ern world. The old, taking capitalism, which gave the domestic masses as little
"socialism"
as possible, was rechristened in Russia (at least after it was national
ized). But giving capitalism, which gives the domestic masses as

our modem,
much as possible, has no name. At least, not insofar as it is giving. For

still
"colonialism."
insofar as it is taking, even if only from abroad, it is called And
who does not know this name nowadays? But the very latest thing, I want to
backward countries more than it takes

say giving colonialism, which gives the
from them, is still anonymous. It is, to be sure, only a newborn child [thus small
accordance with the
and weak, but is it not also unusually beautiful?]. But, in
modern Christian custom, a newborn child should be baptized and named [And
that seems to be a good, a smart, custom.]
But named or unnamed the nomos of the modern Western world is, for
me, undoubtedly what I have called, in an improvised and thoroughly bad way,
"law,"
And because this colonialism is all industrialized

"living
124 Interpretation
countries sooner or later, submit to it: particularly, however, those coun

will,
"colonies"
tries which have no so-called to which they give anything, and which
thus abandon themselves to the purest form of taking colonialism, and, more
over normally with an excellent conscience.
Were it really so, then it would be time to ask oneself: in what amount, in
which way, and to whom are the legally-required disbursements to be made in
the framework of giving colonialism? I would just like to take up this question
before I finish.
So first of all: How much should one pay? That is a difficult question and I
would not like to take a position on that generally. I can only remind that the
Nations'
United experts calculated that the entire problem of the underdeveloped
countries could be solved if all the developed countries invested about 3 per
cent of their national revenue in the backward countries. If that is true or not, I
do not know. [I do know, however, that 3 per cent in the United States would
mean a considerable amount. In western Europe, too, that would yield a lot.]
But I know that, independently of the theoretical calculations mentioned, France
has, in fact, invested about 3 per cent of its national revenue in its colonies
annually since the war. Moreover, without being ruined by that . . [But I con
cede that the operative motives there were purely of an economic kind. At least
they were not always so, and not everywhere.].
And, if one might extrapolate the French experience in this area, it appears
colonialism"
that "giving in the Western world as a whole could manage on
about $10 billion. That is certainly a burden, indeed a heavy burden. But the
French example shows that this burden is, by far, not unbearable.
Secondly: How should one give? Now, I have neither time nor the desire to
Agreements.13
speak about Commodity [I would only like to remark sincerely

that I have never succeeded in understanding the grounds for the American
aversion. Thus I personally tend, of course, to see a so-called prejudice in that.

But I could also be wrong.] I must, however, confess that I think our American
Agreements14
friends are right in one respect, namely that Commodity alone
cannot solve the entire problem. Direct contributions would have to be added in
any case. And here the question arises of what should be given in this direct
manner. To this, in fact, two very different even, if one likes, contradictory
answers are given today.
The American direct contributions consisted, until now, almost exclusively

of consumer goods [which are certainly absolutely not primarily of the
Coca-
Cola type, as is sometimes maliciously asserted]. In contrast, the French and
English direct contributions are exclusively on-the-spot investments (in which
consumer goods are not only not given away, but are even
usually sold more
expensively than they cost on the world market). [And I would like to remark,
in passing, that in this respect the Anglo-French method is analogous to that
which Russia is applying in China today.]
It is difficult to say which of these two methods is to be favored. For, on the
one hand, it is, psychologically, decidedly easier to give surplus consumer
away
goods than to invest,
particularly where we are
dealing with investments in
competing firms. And it is perhaps better, anyway, to give something than noth
ing at all. But on the other hand, it must not be forgotten that the industrializa
tion of the backward countries has become a world-myth nowadays and
that,
until now, this myth is being realized in a spectacular outside the
way only
Western world, by which I mean in China. From a long way off, in Europe, it
is hard to see it, but from India, which is closer, one can already see it much
better! [Moreover, I believe that the industrialization of the backward countries
with gigantic populations is just asnecessary as it
be necessary for mass
would
production to raise the
buying power of the domestic masses {;
it} is an eco
nomic necessity. Thus I must confess that I personally greatly favor the English-
French method of on-the-spot investment to the American method of
giving
away readymade goods.]
Thirdly: To whom should one give? For many reasons I believe that, on the
one hand, the international means of aid is by far not the best one, and that, on
the other hand, a regional aid would be, in itself, greatly preferable to national
aid. Even on purely economic grounds.
Namely because there are, still today,
actually natural economic regions. But these regions are, from the perspective
of giving colonialism, not equal.
Let us, to begin with, take the regions, which lie outside the Western world,
the Mongolian empire, first founded
of
by Ghengis Kahn, recently and which
became politically and economically reestablished. There we see, in contrast to

the 200 million relatively industrialized Russians, about 700 million underdevel
"underdeveloped"
oped Asians. I e.: each Russian have to carry 3.5
would peo
ple on his shoulders for many decades. That is a heavy, very heavy burden. But
perhaps still not an unbearable burden [provided, however, that the Russians
continue to follow the course of police-supported consumer asceticism].
Let us then look at the sterling zone. Here things look much worse. For here
"underdeveloped"
each Englishman have to carry about 10

would Asians on his
shoulders. And that would be absolutely unbearable. In spite of the much-prized
"austerity,"15 "ascetic"
British which is, however, decidedly less than Soviet
socialism, and which rests, moreover, on a pure moral-religious and not on a
police [polizeiliche] foundation. Thus it seems that in this region, the future
Anglo-
giving colonialism must be not purely English, but Anglo-Saxon, i.e.
American.
If, however, one also adds India, with Indonesia and Indo-China, to the total
North and South American region, if only partially, in this way one arrives
even
at a per capita burden on the Americains which is proportionately larger than is

126 Interpretation
the burden on the Russians of theChinese. Because however, in the very long
run, the American national product is becoming much higher than the Russian
one, it will thus be possible for America to attain decidedly better results than
life"16
Russia without giving up the "American way of [, which, moreover, is

"austerity,"
not a path of to say nothing of "asceticism"].

least,17
And now, last but not the European region. Like the Mongolian one,
this region also has an old,very old, history. For this region was once called
the Imperium Romanum and economically preserved itself astonishingly viably
and robustly. Indeed, modern historians have established that this economic re
gion would have preserved itself, i.e. reestablished itself, even despite the bar
barian wars, if the Islamic conquest of the Mediterranean, which was the con
necting link of one single economic world, had not converted it into a border
between two worlds, so that for centuries it longer served commercial traffic,
but became almost exclusively a theater of military games.
But people have meanwhile become more serious, more adult; and the time
is certainly not far off where they will no longer play at all. Thus one can
certainly calmly confidently say that the economic conditions of the Medi
and
terranean region's economic unity have been restored. And here one must say
that, from the perspective of giving colonialism, this economic region is a region
which has been blessed by God. For each inhabitant of the industrialized coun
tries north of the Mediterranean only needs to look after one half of an inhabit
ant of the backward southern and eastern countries of this region in order to
attain the same, or even better, results as anywhere else in the whole world.
And half a man per head is, for Europe, no burden at all, but instead is, so to
speak, just stabilizing ballast, which is known to be very useful, but

well which
nonetheless does not make itself felt directly.

Thus one is all the more astonished when one reads in the newspapers that
giving colonialism in the Mediterranean must get its financial resources from
far away. For these resources could in fact be found much farther away, indeed.
For the sums concerned, and which are spoken of, are relatively so small that
europeenne"
they are really "a l'echelle {on the European scale}, even if one
"small" "smallest"
likes to speak, rightly, of or even Europe, in contrast to the
contemporary superpowers.
Europe"
[These sums are all the more natural when in this "small there are
at least two or three countries which must notice that the high rate at which
they are becoming wealthier is economically destabilizing. Thus these countries
would like to become wealthier somewhat more slowly, and they use perfectly
adequate means for that: more importing, reducing tariffs, etc. All of this is,
undoubtedly, very clever and even wise. But it should perhaps not be forgotten
that, in fact, all these resources can serve to improve life
by only a little in a
France"
place where one already lives "like God in [wie Gott in Frankreich]
The really poor members of the economic Mediterranean region will not become
richer in this way. If nothing more serious than this is done, if giving colonial-
ism is not practiced as well, then the southern and eastern Mediterranean clients
will remain, as before, poor clients; and that also means: bad or even "danger
ous"
clients.]
I must
stop here! I have already spoken a lot, as well as long. And I notice
that I have not even begun
my actual lecture. For what was just said was only
an introduction to it.
Thus I must summarize
my lecture very briefly.
The title reads: Colonialism from the European perspective. I should thus
have explained how colonialism looks from this perspective: at least in my
opinion. Now, how does it look to me? Or: how should it, in my opinion, look
in reality? In other words: what should it be?
My answer is the following:
First: it should not be a taking but a giving (if you like: a dividing, or sharing)
colonialism. [And it would be good to find a fitting name for it.]
Secondly: it should not give away readymade goods, but invest productively
on the spot.
Thirdly: as really European giving colonialism it should cover the entire area
(and perhaps only the area) which lies around the Mediterranean and which has
historically proven itself to be a viable economic region; an area which is, how
ever, nowadays only half-covered in my view, adequately by French giving
colonialism.
That can suffice as an outline of my theme. For the actual execution of this
theme, however, I have no more time and I'm very sorry for that!
That all the more so as I have, so far, only stated mere truisms. And that is,
for listeners, always somewhat disappointing. So I must also apologize for that.
But I must confess that I personally have a weakness for truisms, precisely
because they are truths. The original, however, if it is not perfectly brilliant,
always runs the risk of showing itself, sooner or later, simply to be wrong.
And I absolutely wanted to avoid the risk of coming to Dusseldorf at the
friendly invitation of the R-R Club, but stating something false.
1. Text in square brackets appeared in the German text but was omitted from Kojeve's French
version of the text as published in Commentaire (Kojeve, 1980 and 1999).
2. where Tommissen's edition reads durzsichtig.
Reading kurzsichtig
3. In English.
Employment"
4. "Full appears here in English.
5. In Tommissen's edition these two words are illegible, but they appear in Kojeve's own
French translation (Kojeve, 1999, p. 560).

6. In English.
7. In English.
8. In English.
so-
constructed under the
9. Several commodity agreements were subsequently successfully
but all for the rubber com
called New International Economic Order (NIEO) in the 1970s,
except
agreement failed, mainly due to lack of political support (Gilbert,

1996).
modity
Special United Nations Fund for Economic Development was proposed by developing
10. The
alternative to the World Bank, controlled by wealthy states, particularly the
nations in 1952 as an
128 Interpretation
United States. A UN committee was formed and recommended the formation of SUNFED, a $250
million third-world capital fund, in 1953. The third-world states pressed hard, but the United States
ultimately prevailed in 1959 with its compromise solution: the International Development Associa
tion (IDA) offered the third world loans on much easier terms than the World Bank did, but was
run by the World Bank (Nossiter, 1987, pp. 34-37; United Nations, 1953).
11. Reading weniger where Tommissen's edition reads eniger.
12. Schmitt takes up this point in a 1959 essay: "In a world made by people for people and
583).
taking"
sometimes unfortunately also against people man can give without (Schmitt, 1995, p.
Agreements"
13. "Commodity appears here in English.

Agreements"
14. "Commodity appears here in English.

15. In English.
16. In English.
least"
17. "Last but not appears here in English.
18. I.e. in luxury.
REFERENCES
Adams, Henry. The Education of Henry Adams. London: Penguin, 1995.

Auffret, Dominique. Alexandre Kojeve: La philosophie, Vetat, la fin de I 'histoire. Paris:
Bernard Grasset, 1990.
Bauer, Bruno. Die Posaune des jungsten Gerichts iiber Hegel den Atheisten und Anti-
christen. Ein Ultimatum. Leipzig: Otto Wigand, 1841.

The Trumpet of the Last Judgement against Hegel the Atheist and Antichrist:
ein Ultimatum. Translated by Lawrence Stepelevich. Lewiston, NY: E. Mellen Press,
1989.
Bendersky, Joseph W. Carl Schmitt: Theorist for the Reich. Princeton, NJ: Princeton
University Press, 1983.
Beyer, Wilhelm Raimund. Zwischen Phdnomenologie und Logik; Hegel als Redakteur
der Bamberger Zeitung. Frankfurt am Main: G. Schulte-Bulmke, 1955.
Bordo, Michael D., et al. France and the Breakdown of the Bretton Woods International
Monetary System.
Washington, DC: International Monetary Fund, 1994.
Cointet, Jean-Paul. Marcel Deat: Du socialisme au national-socialisme. Paris: Librairie
Academique Perrin, 1998.
Daubler, Theodor. Das Nordlicht. Munich and Leipzig: G. Muller, 1910.

Hegel."
Dufrenne, Mikel. "Actualite de Esprit 16 (Sept. 1948): 396-408.
"
Fischer, Albert. Hjalmar Schacht und Deutschlands "Judenfrage. Cologne, Weimar and
Vienna: Bohlau, 1995.
Notice."
Gilbert, Christopher L. "International Commodity Agreements: An Obituary

World Development 24, no. 1 (Jan. 1996): 1-19.
Hegel, G. W. F. Grundlinien der Philosophie des Rechts. 2d ed. Edited by G. Lasson.

Leipzig F. Meiner, 1921.
Hegel's Philosophy of Right. Translated by T. M. Knox. Oxford: Clarendon
Press, 1967.
The Phenomenology of Spirit. Translated by A. V. Miller. Oxford: Oxford Uni
versity Press, 1977.

Heine, Heinrich. Heinrich Heine. Vol. 23, Briefe 1850-1856, ed. Fritz H. Eisner. Berlin:
Akademie-Verlag, 1972.
Heinrich Heine: Sdkularausga.be. Werke, Briefwechsel, Liebenszeugnisse. Vol.
10, Pariser Berichte 1840-1848. Berlin: Akademie-Verlag, 1979.
Heinrich Heine: Gestdndnisse, Memoiren und Kleinere autobiographische
Schriften, vol. 15, ed. Gerd Heinemann. Hamburg: Hoffmann und Campe, 1982.
Jung, Susanne. Die Rechtsprobleme der Niimberger Prozesse dargestellt am Verfahren
gegen Friedrich Flick. Tubingen: J. C. B. Mohr (Paul Siebeck), 1992.
Kojeve, Alexandre. Hegel; eine Vergegenwartigung seines Denkens. Komentar zur Phd-
nomenologie des Geistes. Translated by Iring Fetscher and Gerhard Lehmbruch. Stutt
gart: Kohlhammer, 1958.
Introduction a la lecture de Hegel. 2d ed. Paris: Gallimard, 1968.
Hegel."
"The Idea Death in Translated by Joseph J. Car-
of the Philosophy of
pino. Interpretation 3, no. 2-3 (1973): 114-56.

prophete."
"Ford est Dieu, Marx est son Commentaire 9 (1980): 135-37.

Esquisse d'une phenomenologie du Droit. Paris: Gallimard, 1981.
donnant."
"Du colonialisme au capitalisme Commentaire 87 (1999): 557-65.
Mannes, Astrid Luise. Heinrich Bruning: Leben, Wirken, Schicksal. Munich: Olzog Ver
lag, 1999.
"
Marantz, Paul. "Internal Politics and Soviet Foreign Policy: A Case Study. Western
Political Quarterly 28, no. 1 (March 1975): 130-46.
Marten, Heinz-Georg. Der niedersachsische Ministersturz: Protest und Widerstand der

Georg-August-Universitat Gottingen gegen den Kultusminister Schluter im Jahre
1955. Gottingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1987.
Meier, Heinrich. Carl Schmitt & Leo Strauss: The Hidden Dialogue. Translated by J.
Lomax. Chicago London: University of Chicago Press, 1995.
Harvey and
Mohler, Armin. Carl Schmitt Briefwechsel mit einem seiner Schuler. Berlin: Akademie
Verlag, 1995.
Mohler, Armin, ed. Freundschftliche Begegnungen: Festschrift fur Ernst Junger zum 60.
Geburtstag. Frankfurt am Main: Vittorio Klostermann, 1955.
Nossiter, Bernard. The Global Struggle for More. New York: Harper & Row, 1987.
Peterson, Edward. Hjalmar Schacht: For and Against Hitler. Boston: Christopher Pub
lishing House, 1954.
Jahren
Riemer, Friedrich Wilhelm, ed. Briefwechsel zwischen Goethe und Zelter in den
1796 bis 1832, vol. 2. Berlin: Duncker und Humblot, 1833.
Mittheilungen iiber Goethe, vol. 2. Berlin: Duncker und Humblot, 1841.
Hanseatische Verlagsanstalt, 1933.
Schmitt, Carl. Die Begriff des Politischen. Hamburg:
Ex captivitate salus: Erfahrungen der Zeit 1945/47. Cologne: Greven, 1950, and
Berlin: Duncker & Humblot, 1950.
Sozial- und Wir-
"Nehmen/Teilen/Weiden Ein Versuch, die Grundfragen jeder
Politik 1,
stellen."
vora NOMOS her richtig zu Gemeinschaft und no.

tschaftsordnung
3 (Nov. 1953): 18-27.
Gesprach iiber die Macht und den Zugang zum Machthaber. Pfullingen: Neske,
1954a.
Land und Meer. 2d ed. Stuttgart: Reclam, 1954b.
"Die Geschichtliche Struktur des Heutigen Welt-Gegensatzes von Ost und West:
Knoten.' "
Bemerkungen zu Ernst Jungers Schrift: 'Der Gordische In Freundschftliche

130 Interpretation
Begegnungen: Festschrift fiir Ernst Jiinger zum 60. Geburtstag, edited by Armin
Mohler, pp. 137-67. Frankfurt am Main: Vittorio Klostermann, 1955.
Dieder-
Hamlet oder Hekuba; der Einbruch der Zeit in das Spiel. Dusseldorf: E.
ichs, 1956.
"Nomos-Nahme-Name."
In Der bestdndige Aufbruch. Festschrift fiir Erich
Przywara, edited by Siegfried Behn, pp. 92-105. Nuremberg: Glock und Lutz Verlag,
1959.
Verfassungslehre, 4th ed. Berlin: Duncker & Humblot, 1965.
Der Nomos der Erde im Volkerrecht des Jus Publicum Europeaum. 2d ed. Ber
lin: Duncker & Humblot, 1974.
Legalitdt und Legitimitat. Berlin: Duncker &
Humblot, 1980.
"Nordlicht"
Theodor Ddublers : drei Studien
die Elemente, den Geist und
uber
die Aktualitat des Werks. Berlin: Duncker & Humblot, 1991.

Gesprach iiber die Macht und den Zugang zum Machthaber; Gesprach iiber
den Neuen Raum. Berlin: Akademie Verlag, 1994.
"Nomos-Nahme-Name."
_. In Carl Schmitt: Staat, Grossraum, Nomos, edited by
Gunter Maschke, pp. 573-91. Berlin: Duncker & Humblot, 1995.
_. The Concept of the Political. Translated by George Schwab. Chicago and Lon
don: of Chicago Press, 1996.
University
Schmitt, Carl, Eberhard Jungel and Sepp Schelz. Die Tyrannei der Werte, edited by Sepp
Schelz. Hamburg: Lutherisches Verlagshaus, 1979.
Schwab, George. "Carl Schmitt Hysteria in the United States: The Case of Bill Scheuer
mann."
In Politische Lageanalyse: Festschrift fur Hans-Joachim Arndt zum 70. Geb

urtstag am 15. Januar 1993, by edited Volker Beismann and Markus Josef Klein.
Bruchsal: San Casciano Verlag, 1993.
"Kojeve."
Sombart, Nicolaus. In Schmittiana VI, edited by Piet Tommissen, pp. 64-74.
Berlin: Duncker & Humblot, 1998.
Strauss, Leo. On Tyranny, ed. Victor Gourevitch and Michael S. Roth. Chicago and
London: University of Chicago Press, 2000.

Taubes, Jacob. Ad Carl Schmitt: Gegenstrebige Fugung. Berlin: Merve Verlag, 1987.
Tommissen, Piet. Schmittiana VI. Berlin: Duncker & Humblot, 1998.
Trials of War Criminals Before the Nuernberg Tribunals under Control Council Law
No. 10, vol. 12. Buffalo: William S. Hein & Co., 1997.
United Nations Department of Economic Affairs. Report on a Special United Nations
Fund for Economic Development. New York: United Nations, 1953.

Discussing the Surprising Friendship between Alexandre Kojeve and Carl Schmitt and their Views on Colonialism

Caricato da

Informazioni sul documento

Descrizione originale:

Titolo originale

Copyright

Formati disponibili

Condividi questo documento

Condividi o incorpora il documento

Opzioni di condivisione

Hai trovato utile questo documento?

Questo contenuto è inappropriato?

Copyright:

Formati disponibili

Discussing the Surprising Friendship between Alexandre Kojeve and Carl Schmitt and their Views on Colonialism

Caricato da

Copyright:

Formati disponibili

Discussion

Alexandre Kojeve-Carl Schmitt Correspondence and

Alexandre Kojeve, "Colonialism from

Edited and Translated by Erik De Vries

This introduction has two

cerning the little-known, and perhaps surprising, friendship between Alexandre

interpretation, Fall 2001, Vol. 29, No. I

debt. Kojeve's Esquisse d'une phenomenologie du Droit, completed in 1943,

serve the possibility of a serious political theory by overcoming liberalism's

tendency, particularly when combined with democracy, to obscure and neutral

meaning not reducible to the universal satisfaction of biological desires (Kojeve,

By 1955, when Kojeve and Schmitt began corresponding, western Europe

not yet concept of

it had had in Weimar Germany. In 1932, Schmitt had written:

would lead to world peace . . .

the advent of "Point (discussed in Kojeve's letter of May

been replaced by Kojeve's "universal and homogeneous state,"

"administrative (Verwaltungsstaat) (Schmitt, 1980, p. 11). What had ap

tion stripped of the political.

Both the correspondence and the presentation Kojeve gave in Dusseldorf in

im Volkerrecht des Jus Publicum Europeaum (1974, first published in

administrative project within the French government's Direction des Relations

Kojeve tells his audience, are "bad, or even dangerous, clients."

This last admission illustrates Kojeve's ambiguity concerning history's ca

posthistorical man, perpetually capable of "gratuitous in

stead of the (Kojeve, 1968, p. 437) Kojeve had posited as

the only possible outcome of history's end in the first edition.

According to this interpretation, posthistorical man's capacity for mortal risk

lies in the impossibility of achieving recognition through action. The kamikaze

overcome. Posthistorical men cannot negate the universal and homogeneous

will not play the enemy.

are instead classified as and are simply "locked (Strauss, 2000, p.

than in history and therefore survives history's end.

A note on the text

puns, etc. Italicized text was underlined in the original letters.

Alexandre Kojeve-Carl Schmitt Correspondence

Of course I have something to say about it, but it is impossible to do so in a

letter. On the whole, however, I am fully in agreement.

respect . in short, I would answer something

2) "for (i.e. for "absolute knowledge") is

The goal is unfortunately! homogeneous distribution. Whoever in his

"worldly there is more to distribute. Thus a concrete prognosis

progress available the namely, in Western

if you saw a card such as this. Everything crucial appears on page

215 of your Introduction a la lecture de Hegel/ I do not know if Dr. Schnur

correctly conveyed to you what the Hegelian "take on [Gott-Nahme] is

Bruno Bauer's amusing "Trumpet of the last But this point of

thing, from which he creates, i.e. takes.

birthday) in which, however, a remark is reported, for which I recognize, on the

modem earth, no other competent judge than you, Mr. Kojeve.

essay, which I have just read.

mentary"} certainly goes without saying. But unfortunately it is gen

means as much as then I am in

You are, of course, completely correct: everything essential appears

page 215, In my course I spoke of Hegel's anthropo-theism, but I

also emphasized that it has to do not

usually equipped with towers and

enlarged and of Napoleon ["La Republique une et indivisi

favor of And he believed himself able to attain it through a

victory in the war. (Through this war the state [state =

ing territorial unit] as such is brought "to and is thus "sublated.")

his "Realm of freedom [to do