Was Protestantism a reactionary movement?

[molly bloom]

Re: Was Protestantism a reactionary movement?

Originally posted by Tripledoc
Take three leading protestants of the time of Reformation. Luther, Calvin and Cromwell. It seems to me that they were quite harsh.
Cromwell imposed a cruel dictatorship. Calvin took his guilt-trip to excessive ends leading to mass hangings of 'sinners'. Luther of course was an ardent nationalist. Especially the publication of a Bible written in German lead to other nations following suit.
They all wanted to return to a supposedly purer form of Christianity.
It can also be said that Protestantism was an important factor in the development of Capitalism, which it has turned out was simply a shortlived inter-regnum between feudalism and Communism.

Cromwell was quite some time after the Reformation. He was also not a theologian/religious thinker in the way that Calvin or Luther was.

His dictatorship for all its bloodshed, was not for personal aggrandizement nor was it especially bloody- you'll find atrocities committed in Continental Europe to match and surpass anything which occurred in the English Civil Wars, or the war against the Irish, or the Scots.

Capitalism or at least the pre-conditions for capitalism, existed in Renaissance Italy, the same place that saw the invention of aids to capitalism such as double entry book keeping, and was home to banking houses who were happy to lend money to various European rulers.

In some respects Protestantism was reactionary- Luther's attitudes towards the Jews and peasantry are grotesquely reactionary, and the status of women which had been improving to a great degree under Catholicism, suffered setbacks.

[Kidlicious]

Originally posted by Tripledoc
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.

Not really. Artisans had no responsibility to each other or anyone else, except for rules that they set for the guild. For example, an artisan could simply decide that he didn't want to do that work anymore. That's just like a capitalist deciding that he didn't want to employee his workers anymore.

[Spiffor]

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

"Reactionary" is defined as challenging the status quo in order to go back the past.
"Progressive" is defined as challenging the status quo in order to go forward to the future.

"Progressive" doesn't necessarily mean the society will get better if the progressive policies are implemented. It just means the policies are new, and expected to be better by their supporters.

"Liberal" has nothing to do with both words. A liberal believes in individual freedoms. The word "liberal" as it is used in the US twists the original meaning beyond recognition... The European meaning of the word twists it but a little less ("liberals" here are the free-marketeer nutcases)

[Tripledoc]

Originally posted by Kidicious
Artisans had no responsibility to each other or anyone else, except for rules that they set for the guild. For example, an artisan could simply decide that he didn't want to do that work anymore.

Are you sure that a member could just leave the guild. I think that if the artisan had no other responsibilties than the rather complex rules that the guild would demand, that at least he would have the self-interest defined from the fact that his sons would usually follow in the same footstep as him, taking up the same trade.

The break up of the power of guilds was perhaps a very important factor in creating the conditions for the capitalist to attract workers to his benefit.

The social disruption that protestantism was either a symptom of, or a leading cause of, would then serve to propel otherwise stable and rewarding employment towards a buyers market as regarding to labor.

[Tripledoc]

Re: Re: Was Protestantism a reactionary movement?

Originally posted by molly bloom
Cromwell was quite some time after the Reformation. He was also not a theologian/religious thinker in the way that Calvin or Luther was.

His dictatorship for all its bloodshed, was not for personal aggrandizement nor was it especially bloody- you'll find atrocities committed in Continental Europe to match and surpass anything which occurred in the English Civil Wars, or the war against the Irish, or the Scots.

How does all of this preclude the influence of Protestantism on the British isles?

Capitalism or at least the pre-conditions for capitalism, existed in Renaissance Italy, the same place that saw the invention of aids to capitalism such as double entry book keeping, and was home to banking houses who were happy to lend money to various European rulers.

Yet, these loans were not used to invest in new capital, but rather used as expenditure in war. Usually the result would be inflation and subsequent starvation - also the loans were rarely repaid in full - the British King was famous for that.
So the banking business was hardly an influence in creating the preconditions for capitalism - insofar that the money was not lent to capitalists.

[Kidlicious]

Originally posted by Tripledoc
Are you sure that a member could just leave the guild.

He could not leave the guild and practice his trade independently, but I don't believe that he was obligated to society to stay in the guild. He stayed in the guild for his own self-interest.

The break up of the power of guilds was perhaps a very important factor in creating the conditions for the capitalist to attract workers to his benefit.

The social disruption that protestantism was either a symptom of, or a leading cause of, would then serve to propel otherwise stable and rewarding employment towards a buyers market as regarding to labor.

This is true, but I don't think that the idea of individualism was hostile to the guilds. It just justified the actions of the capitalists regarding their employees, where as catholisism didn't. Capitalism was worse for the workers than Feudalism was towards the peasants because the capitalists could just pay a below subsistance wage or just close a factory and such action would be justified by Protestantism.

[Dr Strangelove]

The Protestants of the Refromation weren't reactionary, they were reformist. Martin Luther didn't concoct a primitive form of Christianity, he merely attempted to remove what he thought were corrupt practices. The same can be said of Thomas Cranmer's attempts to remake the Anglican Church. His primary reforms were to remove phony relics, tear down the screens that seperated the clergy from the people, and to translate the service and the Bible into the language of the people.

Calvinists religious philosophy differed significantly in certain areas from the traditions of the other Christian denominations. Their rise in central europe and the British Isles did indeed at times include a revolutionary social agenda. This was certainly true of the Moravians, and the German Ananbaptists. The Puritan forces active during the English Civil War were rather proletarian in their outlook. In essence the English Civil War became a three way struggle between the Royalists, the Parliamentary forces which were largely bourgeoise, and the Puritans which were largely farmers and laborers. Cromwell had originally hoped to form a democratic government, but was unable to reconcile his religious zeal with the fact that much of England just wasn't on his wavelength. Certainly the English Civil War isn't the only example of a revolution gone sour. Anyone up for a little Robspierre?

[chequita guevara]

Dr S posts truth.

[Tripledoc]

Originally posted by Dr Strangelove
The Protestants of the Refromation weren't reactionary, they were reformist. [The] primary reforms were to remove phony relics, tear down the screens that seperated the clergy from the people, and to translate the service and the Bible into the language of the people.

In response to the Elizabethan poverty laws, which were made after the confiscation of Catholic church lands - and the subsequent lack of means of the Church to help the poor - a group of vily protestants had opened a prison specifically for the poor. Should anyone wish to buy them out of this they would simply name a price. If at any time the serf should die no one would be poorer. If anyone would refuse imprisonment they would not recieve any payment.
Of course crime rose to alarming heights.
Read Das Kapital, Book 1, chapter 24, 2. The expropriation of the peasant land.

[FredKarno]

'reactionary' is a lefty word

Therefore 'tis is meaningless. Socialists newspeak rules the world. Howeaver, I am an arch-reactionary to socialist thought, which means they have had an effect upon my brain. Everything rubs off, and I hate socialism even more. How equal am I to you socialists?
You socialists dub other religious people as being reactionary, yet yours is the most profound religion - the most highly evolved ever of the worship of power, thus the destruction of language comes most true with being a part of it.
Which words above no doubt will be thought of as gibberish by you enlightened higher beings that shout 'equality'.

[Kidlicious]

Re: 'reactionary' is a lefty word

Originally posted by FredKarno
Therefore 'tis is meaningless. Socialists newspeak rules the world. Howeaver, I am an arch-reactionary to socialist thought, which means they have had an effect upon my brain. Everything rubs off, and I hate socialism even more. How equal am I to you socialists?
You socialists dub other religious people as being reactionary, yet yours is the most profound religion - the most highly evolved ever of the worship of power, thus the destruction of language comes most true with being a part of it.
Which words above no doubt will be thought of as gibberish by you enlightened higher beings that shout 'equality'.

I see that no amount of intelligent conversation will have an effect on you.

[Imran Siddiqui]

You told us before that it was econ Imran.

Have you never in all your years heard of double majors?

Oh, btw, I also minored in history.

[Imran Siddiqui]

"Progressive" doesn't necessarily mean the society will get better if the progressive policies are implemented. It just means the policies are new, and expected to be better by their supporters.

So you would call Reagan a progressive?

[Kidlicious]

Originally posted by Tripledoc


In response to the Elizabethan poverty laws, which were made after the confiscation of Catholic church lands - and the subsequent lack of means of the Church to help the poor - a group of vily protestants had opened a prison specifically for the poor. Should anyone wish to buy them out of this they would simply name a price. If at any time the serf should die no one would be poorer. If anyone would refuse imprisonment they would not recieve any payment.
Of course crime rose to alarming heights.
Read Das Kapital, Book 1, chapter 24, 2. The expropriation of the peasant land.

Are you sure this isn't Chapter 27?

[Kidlicious]

Originally posted by Imran Siddiqui

"Progressive" doesn't necessarily mean the society will get better if the progressive policies are implemented. It just means the policies are new, and expected to be better by their supporters.

So you would call Reagan a progressive?

What was new about Reagan's policies?