Carl Schmitt's critique of liberal pluralism (of individuals and associatio
ns) was conducted in the name of a different pluralism, a truer pluralism,
according to him, namely, the plural ism of equal and sovereign nation-stat
es. His friend/enemy distinction dictates that conflict is the only legitim
ate model for politics, at least on the international level. By translating
Schmitt's theory of politics as conflict into terms derived from the work
of Lyotard and Luhmann, this article asks whether Schmitt's concept of the
political has any relevance for the contemporary world, especially consider
ing that the liberal pluralism of associations (or social systems) seems to
have carried the day. Such a transposition requires that the modem, horizo
ntal structure of operationally closed (but internally bifurcated) social s
ystems be thought of as sovereign states fiercely fighting to maintain thei
r autonomy. Thus, the common battle fought by the anti-modernist, Schmitt,
the ultra-modernist, Luhmann, and the post-modernist, Lyotard, is the one a
gainst de-differentiation and the expansion of a universalist morality and
economy.