Was Protestantism a reactionary movement?

[Kidlicious]

Originally posted by Ben Kenobi


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

Of course not. They're conservative.

[chequita guevara]

Originally posted by Kuciwalker
Reactionaries aren't necessarily not progressive, and liberals are not necessarily progressive.

Fixed.

[Kidlicious]

Originally posted by 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.

I think when you talk about social forces you have to assume that things are more tidy than they are. That doesn't mean that you are recognizing false social forces, it just means that your model doesn't fit reality perfectly, and no model can.

[Tripledoc]

Originally posted by Kidicious


Not only new forms of ownership but new relationships between owners and workers. Capitalists needed some justification for exploiting workers.

Yes. Equipping a band of knights or foot soldiers could be done in a dispersed manner by individual artisans.

The building of fortresses was often done by unskilled peasanst who were employed as forced labour.

Building a naval or merchant ship is much more of a team effort and requires that you assemble skilled workers in one place.

I recall that Romani Prodi gave an interview where he explained that in Venice they were capable of building one gallay per day.

[Imran Siddiqui]

if the Protestants are reactionary, does that make the Catholics Progressive

Nope... you can have a reaction to conservatives as well. Whoever is in the status quo really.

when you study histoical phenomena, you must look at their effects

No... you look at the theories in determining what type of phenomena it is. Effects of the followers is irrelevent.

Even in the days before the Church was institutionalized, the relationship of a Christian to God was mediated through his community.

It depends on which sect you are talking about. Many of them pre-Catholic Church believed in a direct relationship to God.

[Kuciwalker]

Originally posted by chegitz guevara
Fixed.

Bull****. There's obviously some optimal set of policies, at which point liberalism can only make things worse and conservativism is the best policy.

[Kidlicious]

Originally posted by Tripledoc
Yes. Equipping a band of knights or foot soldiers could be done in a dispersed manner by individual artisans.

The building of fortresses was often done by unskilled peasanst who were employed as forced labour.

Building a naval or merchant ship is much more of a team effort and requires that you assemble skilled workers in one place.

I recall that Romani Prodi gave an interview where he explained that in Venice they were capable of building one gallay per day.

That's true, but what I was getting at was the difference in relationship between capitalist and worker and feudal lord and peasant. The capitalist had no obligation to his employees. The feudal lord was obligated by God to take care of his serfs. Protestantism justified the new relationship between capitalist and his employees with its idea of individualism. This wasn't tempered until the secularization of western culture. Now the capitalist has some obligation to his employees although things are still changing.

[Kidlicious]

Originally posted by Kuciwalker
Bull****. There's obviously some optimal set of policies, at which point liberalism can only make things worse and conservativism is the best policy.

No there isn't.

[chequita guevara]

Originally posted by Imran Siddiqui

when you study histoical phenomena, you must look at their effects

No... you look at the theories in determining what type of phenomena it is. Effects of the followers is irrelevent.

Let's see, one of us studied to be a social scientist, the other is studying to be a lawyer . . . which one knows more about the subject? Not the lawyer wannabe!

[Kidlicious]

Che,

What type of social science did you study?

[Imran Siddiqui]

one of us studied to be a social scientist, the other is studying to be a lawyer . . . which one knows more about the subject?

*cough* Majored in Political Science... graduated in it with honors.

PWNED .

What, do you really think that most lawyers in training study "Pre-Law" in college?

[Kidlicious]

You told us before that it was econ Imran.

[chequita guevara]

Originally posted by Kidicious
Che,

What type of social science did you study?

Poli Sci, History, Econ, & Sociology

[Kidlicious]

That's a very well rounded study of social science.

[Tripledoc]

Originally posted by Kidicious
Protestantism justified the new relationship between capitalist and his employees with its idea of individualism.

I wonder what the Protestant attitude towards guilds was.

If the theory that protestantism advocated individualism, also in the economic sphere, then it must be shown in litterature or sources that Protestantism was against guilds.

I define a guild as an organisation of artisans or skilled workers based in a local area whose goal is to maximise collective profit by preventing competition - internal or from the outside.