24-11-2004 20:37									#31
	Got spare money?

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

	24-11-2004 20:37									#32
	Full PM-box? Change here!

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

	24-11-2004 20:42									#33
	Support Apolyton buy from Amazon

quote: Originally posted by Imran Siddiqui quote: 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.

	24-11-2004 20:45									#34
	Inflate your Upload Space

quote: 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.

	24-11-2004 20:49									#35
	Support Apolyton, buy Civilization: The Boardgame

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.

	24-11-2004 20:52									#36
	Support Apolyton, buy Call to Power 2

quote: 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.

	24-11-2004 22:13									#37
	Support Apolyton, buy Galactic Civilizations

What? No Menno Simons?

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

	24-11-2004 22:15									#38
	Enter the AD-FREE zone

quote: 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?

	24-11-2004 22:17									#39
	Put an end to popups!

quote: 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.

	24-11-2004 22:18									#40
	Enter the AD-FREE zone

quote: 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.

	24-11-2004 22:18									#41
	Lose 30 kilos (of popups)

quote: 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.

	24-11-2004 22:19									#42
	Get a bigger avatar today!

quote: 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.

	24-11-2004 22:19									#43
	Help yourself to an AD-FREE life

That doesn't say much for Christianity

	24-11-2004 22:20									#44
	Support Apolyton, buy GURPS/ Alpha Centauri

quote: 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.

	24-11-2004 22:21									#45
	Increase the size of your Attachments

Then they're conservatives giving in to reactionaries

	24-11-2004 22:21									#46
	Remove this text

quote: That doesn't say much for Christianity

Protestants perhaps.

Says nothing about the Catholics.

	24-11-2004 22:22									#47
	Support Apolyton, buy Civilization: The Boardgame

quote: Then they're conservatives giving in to reactionaries

Really? Conservatives can make intelligent changes to the status quo?

Whudathunk.

	24-11-2004 22:23									#48
	Support Apolyton, buy Civilization: The Boardgame

quote: Originally posted by Ben Kenobi Protestants perhaps. Says nothing about the Catholics.

Catholics >>> Protestants

	24-11-2004 22:29									#49
	Enter the AD-FREE zone

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

As I wrote before, when you study histoical phenomena, you must look at their effects. The effects of the Protestant movement was revolutionary, regardless of the fact that they sought to return Christianity to an imagined earlier form. They did not seek to reestablish pre-feudal society, so while their theology may have been reactionary, they took this reactionary ideology and used it for revolutionary ends.

Furthermore, I don't necessarily accept that their ideology was all that reacionary. The key ideological component of Potestanism is the direct connection of worshipper and god, without an intermediary. Even in the days before the Church was institutionalized, the relationship of a Christian to God was mediated through his community. Christians did not have a direct relationship to God.

	24-11-2004 22:30									#50
	Support Apolyton, buy Galactic Civilizations

quote: Originally posted by Ben Kenobi Considering that their churches have lasted 500 years, that means the Communists must suck harder.

Get back to me in three hundred years. Christianity faced crises without being destroyed, even if they were on the retreat. Communism is just in a retreat right now. We aren't defeated forever.

	24-11-2004 22:34									#52
	Support Apolyton buy from Amazon

quote: Furthermore, I don't necessarily accept that their ideology was all that reacionary. The key ideological component of Potestanism is the direct connection of worshipper and god, without an intermediary. Even in the days before the Church was institutionalized, the relationship of a Christian to God was mediated through his community. Christians did not have a direct relationship to God.

Sure they did, through the Holy Spirit. One God in three persons.

Now, what I think you mean here is the rejection of the magisterium, which is another question entirely, the idea whether it was necessary for the magisterium to interpret scripture, those sorts of things.

Back in the primitive church, they will affirm the role of a magisterium, to interpret, and to teach others, but they will not say that they are the only ones qualified to understand God.

Hebrews refutes this, in saying that Christ is our priest, in the sense of the Jewish priesthood, he has entered the temple, and through him we know God the father.

	24-11-2004 22:36									#53
	Got spare money?

quote: Communism is just in a retreat right now. We aren't defeated forever.

Defeated by whom?

	24-11-2004 22:37									#54
	Support Apolyton buy from Amazon

quote: Originally posted by Ben Kenobi Defeated by whom?

Our own mistakes and criminal misdeeds, mostly.

	24-11-2004 22:41									#55
	Support Apolyton buy from Amazon

Rome never repudiated Christianity.

	24-11-2004 22:44									#56
	Remove this text

quote: Originally posted by Kuciwalker Rome never repudiated Christianity.

They would have if Mehmet II hadn't died suddenly.

	24-11-2004 23:48									#57
	Remove this text

quote: Originally posted by Kuciwalker No, the Church being conservative doesn't rule out Luther being reactionary. And hell, I'd say that Luther wasn't "progressive". He was trying to return to a literal interpretation of the Bible! NWIH is that better for society. Just look at the Puritans.

I disagree. Luther himself cannot be reduced to a simple advocat of "back to the roots". That's why the process he launched or at least influenced heavily is called reformation, not restauration as for example the time after 1815 (in a completely other context of course).

And btw, even if a simple "back to the roots" can still mean relative progress. If the church is corrupt and you want to go back to have a church free of corruption it can easily be called progress compared to the time when corruption was high.

	24-11-2004 23:54									#58
	Support Apolyton, buy Galactic Civilizations: Deluxe Edition

Reactionaries aren't necessarily not progressive, and liberals are not necessarily progressive.

	25-11-2004 01:35									#59
	Support Apolyton or Terrorists Win

Regarding the argumant that protestantism meant the overthrow of one class of people, the feudal lords, by another, the city burghers.

That is probably true for the cites on both sides of the English Channel and The Hanseatic cities on the Baltic coast.

However, what of the merchant city republics in Northern Italy, such as Venice and Genova - They were at least nominally Catholic.

Was it not so that the reason merchant cities in Europe came under the sway of early capitalists, that their economic structure was based on the advanced art of shipbuilding, which required entirely new forms of ownership of the facilities of production.

	25-11-2004 02:04									#60
	Support Apolyton buy from Amazon

quote: Originally posted by Tripledoc Was it not so that the reason merchant cities in Europe came under the sway of early capitalists, that their economic structure was based on the advanced art of shipbuilding, which required entirely new forms of ownership of the facilities of production.

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