Was Protestantism a reactionary movement?

[Kuciwalker]

Hell, che, by your definition OBL is a radical, not a reactionary

[Imran Siddiqui]

Kuci, I think he's using revolutionary as a stand in for radical.

[chequita guevara]

Originally posted by Imran Siddiqui

It may have been theologically reactionary, but its effect on Europe was revolutionary, and the way it was used by its adherents was revolutionary.

Its effect and what its adherants did has not bearing on anything. You judge a philosophy by its writings and arguments. This is the problem I have with people who say that the followers of X didn't do that. The followers don't matter, the creators of the movement do.

You judge a historical phenomenon, the rise of protestantism, by its effects in the real world. This is while I say that the USSR wasn't communist (and it never claimed to be), I do accept that they were Marxists. A movement is what its followers make it. Christianity sucks not because of Christ's teachings, but because Christians suck. Protestants were revolutionary because they overthrew feudalism and established capitalism.

[chequita guevara]

Originally posted by Kuciwalker
They're not mutually exclusive. In fact, to be reactionary it almost has to be a revolutionary force, because it's extremely opposed to the status quo.

Being opposed to the status quo isn't enough to make something revolutionary. If Protestanism sought to re-establish the Roman Empire and slavery, then it would have been a reactionary movement.

OBL is a reactionary because he seeks to turn back the clock from global capitalism to a clerical-feudal system. He seeks to re-establish the rule of an old class, not overthrow an existing class by a new class.

[Giant_Squid]

The whole question assumes that there's a linear universal progress from one (worse) way of life back in the old days to another (better) one today, and that everyone has to take one side or the other and follow it to the letter.

The fact that a movement (like Protestantism) can espouse values that we would associate with modern times (like individualism and not bowing to a corrupt authority that wants to tell people how to think) and yet do so under the justification of a return to the past and hold other very old ideas just proves that isn't so, no matter how tidy Marx wants to make things look.

So nyah.

[chequita guevara]

Originally posted by Giant_Squid
no matter how tidy Marx wants to make things look.

Which only goes to illustrate how little you understand Marx.

[Ben Kenobi]

What? No Menno Simons?

Perhaps because he's a pacifist, and a protestant, and because he refutes your argument, eh?

[Ben Kenobi]

EDIT: They were trying to return to a literal (or at least more literal) interpretation of the Bible, feeling that the RCC's sacrements etc. that were not in the bible had messed up the faith. Of course it's reactionary.

True, but consider this, if the Protestants are reactionary, does that make the Catholics Progressive?

[Ben Kenobi]

The fact that Cromwell set up a nasty dictatorship in its name doesn't detract from the act that even Cromwell was a revolutionary. England's government under Cromwell was the first time that the bourgoiesie established its primacy over aristocracy. It was the overturning of the rule of one class by a new class. That's the definition of revolution.

Somewhat. Which is why Menno Simons took a completely different outlook, to restore the spiritual aspect in pacifism, rather than militaristic revolution, as had occurred under some of the Anabaptists.

Sure, you have some of these groups succeed, but in the end, it was the groups that were able to appeal to the people through spiritual means that survived, while the purely revolutionary forces withered. Nothing to sustain the vine.

[Kuciwalker]

Originally posted by chegitz guevara
OBL is a reactionary because he seeks to turn back the clock from global capitalism to a clerical-feudal system. He seeks to re-establish the rule of an old class, not overthrow an existing class by a new class.

Protestants are reactionary because they sought to turn back the clock (as they saw it) on Christianity and return to an earlier, "purer" form.

[Kuciwalker]

Originally posted by Ben Kenobi
True, but consider this, if the Protestants are reactionary, does that make the Catholics Progressive?

No, it makes them conservative, since they were defending the status quo.

[Ben Kenobi]

Christianity sucks not because of Christ's teachings, but because Christians suck.

Considering that their churches have lasted 500 years, that means the Communists must suck harder.

[Kuciwalker]

That doesn't say much for Christianity

[Ben Kenobi]

No, it makes them conservative, since they were defending the status quo.

But they repudiated their innovations, and adopted many of the reforms called for by their critics. That to me, doesn't seem a conservative approach.

[Kuciwalker]

Then they're conservatives giving in to reactionaries