Was Protestantism a reactionary movement?

[Tripledoc]

Originally posted by Dr Strangelove
For some odd reason the people of France do not seem to have been very appreciative of the efforts of the Roman Catholic Church on their behalf. Perhaps the fact that all of the high places in the Catholic Church were reserved for the sons of aristocracy and that the monasteries were often pilfered for their benefit might be one explanation. The Anglican Church did indeed re-open the hospitals and poor houses, but like the Catholic Church quickly fell subject to graft and corruption as most of the management positions went to the aristocrats. I might also add that in the absence of significant understanding of the nature of diseases the sick and poor were probably better off not being in hospitals.

I don't know about that. In fact is has been showed that taxation in the middle ages actually raised food productivity. The farmers had to give one tenth of their produce to the Church who then in turn handed it out to the poor.

With the expropriation of Church lands, and the collectivization of individual farms into grazing grounds for sheep - many farmers were left destitute.

Those who did not starve to death were forced into crime to survive.

For instance during the reign of Henry the 8th 78.000 people were beheaded.

During the reign of Elizabeth 400 were hanged per year.

Records show that In Somersetshire during one year 40 persons were executed, 35 were branded with fire, 37 were whipped.
According to the notar howver only one fifth of criminals were ever charged , due to the people's "foolish compassion." Conditions were not different in other counties.

The demand for wool was due to the rise of the Mercantilism. The idea that the wealth of the nation depended on accumulated gold.

Like Marx said the wealth of the nation is inversely propertional to the wealth of the population.

[Kidlicious]

Originally posted by Kuciwalker


Yes there is.

Take the set of all possible policies. Evaluate how well each one will work. Whichever will work best, is the optimal policy. Duh.

Conservative policies only benefit a specific group. It might be best for someone, but not for everyone.

[Kidlicious]

Originally posted by Imran Siddiqui

I thought these were exactly the kind of policies made by Hoover.

Nope. Hoover was a Demand Side President, he increased government spending to a level never seen before.

The spending was for business. That's not demand side. Jeez, you are unbelievable with this stuff.

The US had big taxation and social services in the second half of the 19th century?

By the time 1980 rolled around no one had any idea of what a small government was.

Nonsense, the people who did just didn't have political power.

[Spiffor]

There is no such thing as a policy that is best for everyone. Every policy has its losers and its winners. To favour the interests of someone at the expense of the interests of someone else is actually the first step to be involved in politics.

Besides, the conditions under which a policy is run (demographics, ecconomics, collective attitudes, international relations etc.) change permanently, so it's not like there is one set of policy that deserves to be carved in stone.

And the definition of "best" is completely subjective anyway.

Ergo, there is no single "best policy", and thus, reactionaries, conservatives and progressists alike only defend a policy that they think will better serve the objectives they aim at.

[Kidlicious]

Originally posted by Imran Siddiqui

Not exactly, since his policies were a turning back to pre-New-Deal economic conceptions.

Not true! The Reagan Administration did not want to take way all New-Deal stuff and return to no federal government oversight. They wanted to reduce the size of federal government by eliminating what they believed were wasteful bureaucracy.

[Imran Siddiqui]

The spending was for business.

No, not really. The Reconstruction Finance Corporation was a precursor to New Deal like demand side work programs.

Jeez, you are unbelievable with this stuff.

The truth is pretty shocking, I admit.

Nonsense, the people who did just didn't have political power.

When the government is invading in every spectre of life and a movement comes around say, wait, we don't mind government getting bigger, but this is getting absurd was fairly new at the time.

[Kidlicious]

Originally posted by Spiffor
There is no such thing as a policy that is best for everyone. Every policy has its losers and its winners. To favour the interests of someone at the expense of the interests of someone else is actually the first step to be involved in politics.

I think you are considering the interests of the priviledged, and I'm not.

[Kidlicious]

Originally posted by Imran Siddiqui

The spending was for business.

No, not really. The Reconstruction Finance Corporation was a precursor to New Deal like demand side work programs.

Actually the RFC was a precurser to the New Deal supply side programs. Which is one reason the New Deal didn't stimulate the economy.

Nonsense, the people who did just didn't have political power.

When the government is invading in every spectre of life and a movement comes around say, wait, we don't mind government getting bigger, but this is getting absurd was fairly new at the time.

It may have seemed like that to you, but no.

[Kidlicious]

Originally posted by Dr Strangelove
Ahhh! Karl Marx, probably one of the most respected scholars in the field of historical political science. NOT!! I doubt that Karl Marx did that much in the way of research.

The reason he isn't respected isn't because he didn't do research. Can you guess the real reason?

[Spiffor]

Originally posted by Kidicious
I think you are considering the interests of the priviledged, and I'm not.

Indeed I do. The priviledged are people too.

[Kidlicious]

Originally posted by Spiffor

Indeed I do. The priviledged are people too.

The interests of the priviledged are not the interests of everyone. If they don't have the same interests as everyone then those interests should not be considered.

[Kidlicious]

Originally posted by Tripledoc


I don't know about that. In fact is has been showed that taxation in the middle ages actually raised food productivity. The farmers had to give one tenth of their produce to the Church who then in turn handed it out to the poor.

With the expropriation of Church lands, and the collectivization of individual farms into grazing grounds for sheep - many farmers were left destitute.

Those who did not starve to death were forced into crime to survive.

For instance during the reign of Henry the 8th 78.000 people were beheaded.

During the reign of Elizabeth 400 were hanged per year.

Records show that In Somersetshire during one year 40 persons were executed, 35 were branded with fire, 37 were whipped.
According to the notar howver only one fifth of criminals were ever charged , due to the people's "foolish compassion." Conditions were not different in other counties.

The demand for wool was due to the rise of the Mercantilism. The idea that the wealth of the nation depended on accumulated gold.

Like Marx said the wealth of the nation is inversely propertional to the wealth of the population.

You have a good understanding of this subject.

[Kuciwalker]

Originally posted by Kidicious
Conservative policies only benefit a specific group. It might be best for someone, but not for everyone.

A conservative is someone who supports the status quo (or rather, the current policies, which happen to cause the status quo). If the current policies are the optimal policies, than a conservative's policies would be the optimal policies and anyone else's policies would be regressive. If we used to have the optimal policies, and then regressed, a reactionary who wanted to return to those optimal policies would be progressive.

[Kuciwalker]

Originally posted by Spiffor
There is no such thing as a policy that is best for everyone. Every policy has its losers and its winners. To favour the interests of someone at the expense of the interests of someone else is actually the first step to be involved in politics.

That doesn't mean there isn't one best policy overall.

Anyway, the point is that a reactionary can support better policy, and a liberal can support worse policy. The terms simply have to do with the relation of whatever policy the person supports to the historical sequence of policies.

[Kuciwalker]

Originally posted by Kidicious
The interests of the priviledged are not the interests of everyone. If they don't have the same interests as everyone then those interests should not be considered.

They are PART of everyone.

The workers' interests are not the same as the interests of everyone. Ergo, the workers' interests should not be considered.