The Partisan vs. The Militant: The Janus-Face of Maoist Politics

Öz

This study explores the juxtaposition of Carl Schmitt’s partisan and Alain Badiou’s militant as political subjects by revealing their foundational reliance on Mao Tse-tung’s ideas. Central to this discussion is the influence of Mao’s revolutionary praxis, which serves as an unexpected common point between these two opposing theorists. The dual events of the Chinese Revolution and the Cultural Revolution that set Mao’s role as a partisan warrior for Schmitt and a militant of mass movements for Badiou present us with a complicated picture. The study argues that the role of violence in Schmitt’s and Badiou’s theories provides the key to moving beyond a superficial comparison between the two thinkers. To that end, the study first presents Schmitt’s reading of Mao. By focusing on Theory of the Partisan, his justification for violence is analyzed through a detailed examination of its destructive logic, militaristic form, and its ultimate purpose of reproducing the state’s power. In contrast, the examination of Badiou’s Maoist roots reveals a militant subject that embodies universalist and transformative politics by employing the subtractive logic of violence. This, the study argues, creates new political possibilities that challenge existing structures without succumbing to state-centric paradigms. By situating Mao’s thought within the broader discourse on violence and political subjectivity, the study demonstrates how historical and theoretical legacies continue to shape contemporary debates on the nature and purpose of politics. Ultimately, it contributes to political theory by delineating the distinct yet interconnected roles of Schmitt’s partisan and Badiou’s militant, while highlighting Mao’s enduring relevance.

Anahtar Kelimeler

• Alain Badiou
• Carl Schmitt
• Mao Tse-tung
• the Cultural Revolution
• the partisan
• the militant.

Partizan Karşısında Militan: Maocu Siyasetin Janus Yüzü

Öz

Bu çalışma, birer siyasal özne olan Carl Schmitt’in partizanı ve Alain Badiou’nun militanını, Mao Tse-tung’un düşüncelerine dayalı temellerine işaret ederek karşılaştırmalı olarak incelemektedir. Tartışmanın merkezinde bu iki karşıt kuramcı arasında beklenmedik bir ortak nokta olarak ortaya çıkan Mao’nun devrimci pratiğinin etkisi yer almaktadır. Mao’nun rolünü Schmitt için bir partizan savaşçı, Badiou içinse bir kitlesel hareket militanı olarak şekillendiren Çin Devrimi ve Kültürel Devrim olayları bize karmaşık bir resim sunmaktadır. Bu çalışma Schmitt ve Badiou’nun kuramlarında şiddetin rolünün incelenmesinin bu iki düşünürün yüzeysel bir karşılaştırmasının ötesine geçecek bir anahtar olduğunu öne sürmektedir. Bu amaçla, çalışma öncelikle Schmitt’in Mao okumasını sunacaktır. Partizan Teorisi’ne odaklanarak, Schmitt’in şiddeti meşrulaştırması biçimi, yıkıcı mantık, askeri biçim ve nihai hedef olan devletin iktidarının yeniden üretilmesi üzerinden detaylı olarak irdelenecektir. Öte yandan, Badiou’nun Maoist köklerinin incelenmesi şiddetin eksiltici mantığını kullanarak evrensel ve dönüştürücü bir siyaseti benimseyen bir militan özne ortaya çıkaracaktır. Çalışma, bunun, devlet-merkezli paradigmalara teslim olmadan var olan yapıları sarsacak yeni siyasal olasılıklar yarattığını tartışmaktadır. Çalışma, Mao’nun düşüncesini şiddet ve politik özne üzerine daha geniş bir söylem içinde konumlandırarak tarihsel ve teorik mirasların, siyasetin doğası ve amacı üzerine güncel tartışmaları nasıl şekillendirmeye devam ettiğini göstermektedir. Sonuç olarak, çalışma Mao’nun kalıcı geçerliliğini vurgularken, Schmitt’in partizanı ile Badiou’nun militanı arasındaki belirgin ancak birbirine bağlı rolleri tanımlayarak siyasal teoriye katkı sunmaktadır.

Anahtar Kelimeler

• Alain Badiou
• Carl Schmitt
• Mao Tse-tung
• Kültür Devrimi
• partizan
• militant.

Kaynakça

1. Badiou, Alain (2003). Saint Paul: The Foundations of Universalism. Trans., Ray Brassier. Stanford: Stanford University Press.
2. Badiou, Alain (2005). “The Cultural Revolution: The Last Revolution.” positions: east asia cultures critique, 13(3): 481-514.
3. Badiou, Alain (2005b). Being and Event. Trans., Oliver Feltham. New York: Continuum.
4. Badiou, Alain (2007). “One Divides Itself into Two.” Lenin Reloaded: Towards a Politics of Truth. in Sebastian Bugden, Stathis Kouvelakis, and Slavoj Žižek (eds.). Durham: Duke University Press.
5. Badiou, Alain (2007b). The Century. Trans., Alberto Toscano. Cambridge: Polity.
6. Badiou, Alain (2008). “The Communist Hypothesis.” New Left Review, 49: 29-42.
7. Badiou, Alain (2009). Theory of the Subject. Trans., Bruno Bosteel. New York: Continuum.
8. Badiou, Alain (2009b). Logics of Worlds: Being and Event 2. Trans., Alberto Toscano. New York: Continuum.

9. Badiou, Alain (2010). The Communist Hypothesis. Trans., David Macey and Steve Corcoran. London: Verso.
10. Badiou, Alain (2013). Philosophy and the Event. Trans., Louise Burchill. Massachusetts: Polity Press.
11. Badiou, Alain (2015). “Creative Nonfiction: A Lecture-Performance by Alain Badiou.” https://www.leapleapleap.com/2015/03/creative-nonfiction-a-lecture-performance-by-alain-badiou/ accessed 30.12.2024.
12. Badiou, Alain (2018). Can Politics be Thought? Trans., Bruno Bosteel. Durham: Duke University Press.
13. Barbour, Charles (2006). “Exception and Event: Schmitt, Arendt, and Badiou.” After Sovereignty: On the Question of Political Beginnings. in Charles Barbour and George Pavlich (eds.) London: Routledge. 83-96.
14. Boncardo, Robert (2020). “‘Periodise and Pass Beyond’: Maoism as Marxism’s Third Period in Alain Badiou’s Theory of the Subject.” Reform, Revolution, and Crisis in Europe: Landmarks in History, Memory and Thought. in Bronwyn Winter and Cat Moir (eds). New York: Routledge. 129-147.
15. Bonefeld, Werner (2016). “Authoritarian Liberalism: From Schmitt via Ordoliberalism to the Euro.” Critical Sociology, 43 (4-5): 747-761.
16. Bosteel, Bruno (2005). “Post-Maoism: Badiou and Politics.” positions: east asia cultures critique, 13(3): 575-634.
17. Critchley, Simon (1999). “On Alain Badiou.” Theory & Event 3 (4).
18. Goodson, A. C. (2004). “About Schmitt: Partisans and Theory.” CR: The New Centennial Review, 4 (3): 1-7.
19. Hallward, Peter (2003). Badiou: A Subject to Truth. London: University of Minnesota Press.
20. Hooker, William (2009). Carl Schmitt’s International Thought: Order and Orientation. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
21. Liu, Kang (2011). “Poeticizing Revolution: Žižek’s Misreading of Mao and China.” positions: east asia cultures critique, 19 (3): 627–51.
22. Marcuse, Herbert (1969). “Interview with Pierre Vianson-Ponte.” Le Monde, https://www.marxists.org/reference/archive/marcuse/works/1969/interview.htm Accessed on December 20, 2024.
23. Moreiras, Alberto (2005). “Beyond the Line: On Infinite Decolonization.” American Literary History, 17 (3): 575-594.
24. Müller, Jan-Werner (2003). A Dangerous Mind: Carl Schmitt in Post-War European Thought. New Haven: Yale University Press.
25. Phelps, Hollis (2013). Alain Badiou: Between Theology and Anti-Theology. Durham: Acumen.
26. Power, Nina (2006). “Towards an Anthropology of Infinitude: Badiou and the Political Subject.” The Praxis of Alain Badiou. in Paul Ashton, A. J. Barlett, and Justin Clemens (eds.) Melbourne: re.press. 309-338.
27. Scheuerman, Bill (1991). “Carl Schmitt and the Nazis.” German Politics and Society, 23: 71-79.
28. Schmitt, Carl (2004). The Theory of the Partisan: A Commentary/Remark on the Concept of the Political. Trans., A. C. Goodson. Michigan: Michigan State University Press.
29. Schmitt, Carl (2005). Political Theology: Four Chapters on the Concept of Sovereignty, Trans., George Schwab. Chicago and London: The University of Chicago Press.
30. Schmitt, Carl (2006). The Nomos of the Earth in the International Law of the Jus Publicum Europaeum. Trans., G. L. Ulmen. New York: Telos Press Publishing.
31. Schmitt, Carl (2007). The Concept of the Political. Trans., George Schwab. Chicago: The University of Chicago Press.
32. Toscano, Alberto (2006). “Can Violence be Thought: Notes on Badiou and the Possibility of (Marxist) Politics.” Identities: Journal of Politics, Gender and Culture, 5 (1): 9-38.
33. Toscano, Alberto (2008). “Carl Schmitt in Beijing: Partisanship, Geopolitics and the Demolition of the Eurocentric World.” Postcolonial Studies, 11 (4): 417-433.
34. Toscano, Alberto (2009). “Partisan Thought.” Historical Materialism, 17 (3): 175-191.
35. Tse-tung, Mao (1965). “On Contradiction.” in Selected Works of Mao Tse-tung, vol. 1. Oxford: Pergamon Press. 311-347.
36. Tse-tung, Mao (1965). “On Practice.” in Selected Works of Mao Tse-tung, vol. 1. Oxford: Pergamon Press. 295-309.
37. Türk, Duygu (2013). Öteki, Düşman, Olay: Levinas, Schmitt ve Badiou’da Etik ve Siyaset. Ankara: Metis Yayınları.
38. Werner, Wouter (2009). “Rereading: Theory of the Partisan.” Amsterdam Law Forum, 1 (2): 126-131.
39. Wright, Colin. (2008). “Event or Exception? Disentangling Badiou from Schmitt, or, Towards a Politics of the Void.” Theory & Event 11 (2).