Berlin on Joseph de Maistre and Fascism

This is the fourth video in a series on the political thought of Sir Isaiah Berlin, whose work attempted to bridge the divide between varieties of universalism, which tend to lead to totalitarianism, and the particularism that emerged from the backlash against universalism from sources in Counter-Enlightenment, Romantic and reactionary thought. In this video, I discuss Berlin's views of the Counter-Enlightenment thinker Joseph de Maistre, who in Berlin's view anticipated much of modern fascism.
Here is the URL to Berlin's "Two Concepts of Liberty" : cactus.dixie.edu/green/B_Readi... Crooked Timber of Humanity www.amazon.com/Crooked-Timber... Against the Current: www.amazon.com/Against-Curren...

[@73elephants]

I suspect that Isaiah Berlin is too biased to be a reliable witness on de Maistre.

[@skenzyme81]

If de Maistre is the origin point of fascism then fascism cannot be nearly as problematic as postmoderns make it out to be.

[@abhimanyukarnawat7441]

Maistre was right lol

[@terratremuit4757]

Great video! Where did your videos on Carl Schmitt go?

[@willnill7946]

I just discovered your channel. I’m very interested in ideology. I’m going to give these videos a listen

[@---ep6sy]

This is a fine account of Berlin's reading of Maistre, but it is very far from what Maistre was really trying to express in his thoughts. Berlin's reading, despite its seemingly hypermodern interpretation with the evocation of fascism, is actually quite retrograde. If you read analytical works on Maistre coming from a classical liberal position from his death to Berlin's time almost all of them take on the same tone. In the 19th century, it is that Maistre wants to bring in theoretical rule; post-WWI is that Maistre was 'secretly in league' with Bismarck and German Expansionism or faux-Catholic authoritarians like Maurras. Berlin's style of argumentation makes little deviation apart from changing the target of reference. This said it is a brilliant essay, one of the best and most representative of Berlin's inimitable style; unfortunately, it really is a very flawed reading of his subject (one might say like many other intellectual likenesses Berlin has created in his many years of activity).

[@johnnotrealname8168]

While Berlin is the go to, Secondary Source his evaluation of de Maistre seems wanting. He just swats away problems with the liberal status quo and claims de Maistre was wrong for some reason not given.

[@GuyCN]

Okay, Monarchist

[@johnnotrealname8168]

@@GuyCN Thanks that is a very nice compliment.

[@perobusmaximus]

@@johnnotrealname8168 the ancient regime was fascist?

[@johnnotrealname8168]

@@perobusmaximus No, it very much was not.

[@perobusmaximus]

@@johnnotrealname8168 which was the earliest fascist regime?

[@TheShinobidog]

that was great thanks

[@robertflury3349]

A fascist mystic. I guess I'm aware of the genre but he's really a beautiful writer, sort of a Proto Lovecraft. Would the Nazis have considered him a patriarchy?

[@jewberggoldstein7112]

Nothing wrong with Fascism, you should be more worried about capitalism and communism.

[@MU-dn6yq]

@@jewberggoldstein7112 Goldstein 😳👉👈

[@m.rebman7221]

Christianity, Islam, and Judaism are religions of SUBMISSION. That principal of submission is also behind monarchy, fascism and modern, rationalist bureaucratic systems of management. Berlin moved toward pluralism (and something that morphed into multiculturalism in countries like mine, Canada) because of this very observation concerning ideologies of submission; as a Jew himself, he saw the only possibility of minority survival in the pluralist paradigm. The irony is that we are forced to submit yet again, only this time to his preferred vision of the (pluralist) social order. the anti-enlightenment position is, therefore not in any way opposed to a rational rendering of society to meet the requirements of human nature, so called. Berlin is therefore just another rationalized par excellence- nothing more, nothing less. The ideas of de Maistre, seen in this light, are pure flights of fantasy , however clever the may seem.

[@maurinacademy]

There is a way of reading Christianity as not a religion of submission. Check out Berdyaev and Moltmann.

[@m.rebman7221]

@@maurinacademy There are many attempts to escape the commandments of God to follow His law. Burdyaev is an interesting case of someone reacting heavily to the heavy-handedness of the Russian Orthodox Church (a seminal moment occurring just prior to the First World War at Mt. Athos when Tsarist troops removed schismatics from the monastery located there… something I am sure you know about). He was highly critical of political and religious authority, attempting to create an opening for free will that might negate the Law, or allow more open interpretations of that law. I sympathize with Burdyaev and others like him; it is easy to be suspicious of authority when one sees who exercises that authority, but as with all persons of anarchistic and individualist tendencies, one must maintain a certain skepticism. I place him in that group of unfortunate individualists who set the groundwork for the very chaos some (like me) complain about in the contemporary world. Moltmann will have to wait. Thanks for commenting; I do not necessarily hold that (say) Christianity need require submission to worldly institutions, only to God ( the alternative is damnation, after all). Individual choice makes the result of resisting doctrine (political or religious) problematic if the truth has been revealed differently to different persons. But this is just what we want, is it not? - politics and theology as an ongoing process of discussion? There is much more to say on these subjects, but we’ll have to conclude for the moment. Thanks for these podcasts… they are badly needed.🙂

[@keto0303]

@@maurinacademy I would guess those are protestants. Protestantism teaches Christianity without authority and submission to the church. We see how much quicker protestantism degenerated as opposed to catholicism. Although nothing is untouched by liberalism today, protestantism declined much faster. It fragmented, and it set a precedence that if you disagree, you can go and form your own cult or group. This approach ultimately leads to the destruction of the principles. Its similar to liberalism. We see today and during the 20th century that protestant countries are much less religious than catholic countries. Protestants made religion subjective, which leads to atomization, disagreement, and lack of unity. Its the same with liberalism.

[@hubertusvenator5838]

We the traditional Catholics are uninterested in the infidels' perception of the Faith. See 2 Corinthians 6:17. The Catholics and the Infidels cannot coexist. The Creator alone is sovereign. The creatures are mere subjects. The definition of the "Sacred Faith" is found in Sacred Theology, not in dictionaries of the English language. As for levelling society, it contravenes the laws of Nature and of God. Jünger and Sartre were diametric opposites. The Jacobins guillotined Lavoisier. The Catholic nations are founded by papal bulls. Everything that Maistre condemned is anathematised by the Church. The author of this video and Berlin are ignorant of the Faith and are averse to it.

[@konormccracken]

you seem upset

[@zenodotusofathens2122]

Catholicism itself was a revolution overturning society and becoming the new status quo. Islam can make the same argument that you make. You happen to be a Roman Catholic absolutist but there are absolutists among Islam and Hinduism for that matter.
There is nothing particularly unique about. And even in de Maistre's Catholicism had been coming apart at the seams due to the Protestant reformation and its aftermath. Protestants themselves were saying they could not coexist with Catholics as they are infidels as you say non-Catholics are infidels.
Your entire these is self-referential and self-refuting.

[@hubertusvenator5838]

@@zenodotusofathens2122 You are an indifferentist. Your perspective is anthropocentric, worldly, materialistic. Christ is the alpha and the omega. This world is transitory. Like us, it is perishable. It is eternity that matters, not this ephemeral life.

[@zenodotusofathens2122]

@@hubertusvenator5838 And in your world what would you do yo the atheists, Jews, Buddhists, and Hindus to maintain a uniform theology? Would you be content to say they would burn in hell or would you make a material nonemphemeral hell on earth for them?

[@---ep6sy]

Jünger might not be the best representative of Maistre considering that he is a Protestant... You might want to consider a different 'idol' if you are a Maistrean.😂