higurashihougi wrote: KoTeMoRe wrote:And replace it with the Preacher? That be something yo.
They are designed to suit the taste of bourgeoisie class and the bourgeoisized secular aristocrats. These "new" priests cannot outcompete with the authority and power of the secular nobles, and are less likely to intervene with the rich merchants' business affairs. But they still have the theocratic tools and power to monopolize and enslave the working class, to prevent the working class from rebelling against the bourgeoisie and nobles.
Yet the preachers are businessmen themselves the US example of Megachurches and call 0800 donations are far more potent than the basic proximity service than the regular churches offer. And in many ways, albeit totally anachronistic in quality, they fulfill a very important role in the community. Visibility. That's gone with the Privacy of protestantism.
Protestant Movement crippled the power of the Church and let secular power step in. But because it had bourgeoisie characteristic, it did not carry out complete social reform to fully benefit the poor citizens. The newly risen bourgeoisie still used the Church to propagate bullshit superstitions blah blah bleh... until today.
It takes times for the working class to further topple all the religious supersititions made by the rulers... but at least the Church power was weakened after the Protestant Movement.
It didn't cripple anything again. Historically protestantism just replaced the former power. In Germany up to this day you have to pay ecclesiastic taxation. The problem is that there was no "working class then". Peasantry is an amorphous entity. The "real" working class aka the daily callers in the Middle Age, people without land and profession, would be lumpen proletariat at best. So these people's uprisings would be :
1. Land centered.
2. Protectionist with a very big local focus.
There's no religious "superstition" for a 16th century German. He's never seen or heard anything else. Christianism is the norm. Superstition (check the etymology) is when you choose to believe something albeit people show you that's wrong and more plausible explanations exist. So there IS NO WAY to fight "superstition", or Christianism, because there's no centralized state which would act as counter with laws and education. Those who tried that (Byzantium, Ottoman Empire) had all their religion enshrined. So you would be educated by the "state" but to love thy God.
KoTeMoRe wrote:Yes a hero that led an uprising for his own personal profit? Remember what the 1525 uprising was? A common peasant and daily caller uprising like Europe had seen all along its medieval history because of the manse system in Western Europe. Remember how it ended? It ended because Muntzer was way too hardcore even for his own followers. His social reform idea was all good, too bad it was to complete the Opera Dei. In a sense, if you take the beheadings and jibberish from ISIS, Muntzer was your Al Baghdadi without a beard spiced with a little Trotsky.
At least he aimed for a complete social reform to benefit the lower class and aimed to built an utopian society, unlike the half-assed Protestants you are talking about. Muntzer's "theological idea" has many progressive and revolutionary viewpoints, in some rare cases it is quite close to atheism.
1525 peasant uprising is an remarkable event in that time, and in many countries (including mine) it was considered as an icon for the struggle of the peasants against the feudal landlords.
The uprising ended because the noble lords and bourgeoisie class sent an army there and crushed them.
Muntzer failed to convince the Communal Companies of Thuringia that the complete overhaul of the social structure in Thuringia would lead to a "better world". NO ONE wanted to redistribute land acquired. Even the Peasant Companies understood that once they took those areas for their use, nothing would impede other companies (or the Noblemen) to crush them. It's simply the Pandora Box complex. If you start something you can't handle in the long run, you better simply not start it. This is something the Germans would do time and again with mixed results.
]quote="KoTeMoRe"]Eheheh, ok you didn't got the memo, so I'll explain once more to you. The Fact that the Church would posses land, was due to the decay and dislocation of the Western Roman Empire. The Titles granted by the Roman Empire were recovered by the only institution that survived and that's the Church of Rome. Those possessions would endure mainly because the church was also among the only place when you could be given an education, therefore, being able to manage vast arable land. This made them collude with the temporal power, which is quite normal, think about who owned those manses before the Church. It were Roman noblemen. Once again, One third of the land is of the Church, thing about the rest of it, who owns it, and you'll see who wanted a piece of the Church...
What I see is the struggle between religious aristocrat aka the Church and secular aristocrats.[/quote]
The problem is that the Church as the Aristocrats weren't on the same page, nor were the same. And this was mostly a regional power struggle. In Italy the Church would be very progressive in the second Italy (just above the papal states) think of Urbino or Perugia. Very corrupt in the Papal states (with some exceptions notably Rome's Normal Orders would be a good counter to their hierarchy). In northern Italy the Church would struggle with the local population, thus would be rather meek, while in lower Lombardy and Tuscany the Church would work hand on hand with the Nobles as their "cultural watchdog". Then you had special cases like the Venetian Republic which would see virtually NO CHURCH inflexion or the Southern church totally devoted to promote a kind of "italianism" before the Nationalist Era against both the Moors and the Spaniards.
This is the same everywhere, While the church wields power it is also often the only remedy to Aristocracy, while sometimes it's the contrary. For a XXIst century mind those are unacceptable, but then there was nothing else...
The Medieval Catholic Church is effectively a member of the aristocrat feudal class and they exploited the working class like all other kinds of aristocrats.
They're in covert competition rather than being the same.
KoTeMoRe wrote:Now back to 1525 revolt, what were the top claims? Death penalty, more communal land, Secularization of Church land, Primacy of the Local Prince over the population, less taxation... (cfr the 12 Articles). Tis funny, we have the Nobility reinforced in most cases and the Church weakened? What do you think this is?
Death penalty ? What is the problem of that issue ?[/quote] The peasants wanted the death penalty to be dropped. While themselves were massacring Noblemen...don't you see the issue? Furthermore without death penalty how are you going to punish in the XVIth century serious offenders. That would mean creating local jails...and you know what they say about Jails...you must use them or the jails would use you...
More communal land ? Why not ?
Who's going to pay for those and how? Was that status going to be protected or the land would be re-bought? Think of how the Enclosures in England worked? Communal land was re-acquired little by little until the 18th century...then it was in the hands of a few. That's how market economy works.
Secularization of Church land ? For me the Church is effectively religious aristocrat and I have no tear to shed for the downfall of an aristocrat.
See above, Ecclesiastic land insured
some food relief for the poor. medicinal gardens and preservation of ecosystems. That's the same actually with Forestae, reserved for the Noblemen. The biodiversity was protected by the fact the hunts were rather few, they also allowed for pig fattening. The Medieval ecosystem and economy is way more diverse. Redistribution of arable land happened around the end of the Xth century till the XIth with very bad results because of the inherent cost and generally poor agricultural techniques. In 2 centuries researchers think that almost a quarter of European forests were razed for cultures...think about today and think about western Europe vs Eastern Europe. It's fact that peasants don't give two shits generally about their ecosystem.
Less taxation ? Is there any problem ?
By virtue of suppressing the Church capitation, there's indeed less taxation. Guess who gets to keep its revenue stream?
KoTeMoRe wrote:On of the leading protestant complaing about Roman Césaro-Papism was that it was a foreign force conspiring against local interests. UP to the 20th century in the freaking US, the papist scare (Hello JFK, Italian and Irish Immigrants) was based partly on that. Rome pulls the strings.
I don't care if you criticize them and I don't care a shit about them. Just like I don't care about a f*king thug on the street and I don't care if you call the police to arrest him.
PRoblem is that there was no Police in the streets, just thugs, one pretending to be love you, the other just calling you his bitch. You obviously like it rough. The point is that the revolt is romanticized in the Germany because it had the premisses of a proto-nationalist uprising coupled with a poor-peoples "revolution". However, the real deal is that it was simply wanton violence from people that weren't brighter than two oxes. Hence the utter general failure and the largely local successes. The Revolt was in line with at least 10 such revolts since the mid XVth century. Only this time something remained. That was "Protestantism".
KoTeMoRe wrote:However they would ask for all ecclesiastic land to be secularized. Ergo to be taken from the Church and the taxation in favor of the church to be decided by communal authorities. So basically after plundering the church the communes would dissolve the local congregations and then decide if they would pay the dîme to the dissolved congregations...Yay, that's not spoliation, it's Protestantism.
What is so bad about secularization of Church assets ? I don't feel sad for the downfall of an religious aristocrat aka the Church.
What's to stop those people from stripping everyone from their land if they can't compete? In an extensive agricultural system, people would need "more land and more hands" what's to say that this wouldn't happen down the line. Those whose yields go down, simply vindicate on those who have better yields. That's textbook Italian Mezzogiorno. That's how "Mafia" started. As a tool to keep everyone in check. Historical perspective is something Communists should always have, that's what defines Communism. Sometimes Marx should have let it go. Engels calling Muntzer a pro-Communist was far fetched. It's not because someone takes arms against the powerful that he's truly revolutionary or his actions are to be condoned. There have been a lot of conservative uprisings in Europe. Conservatism can sound very progressive depending which school of thinking you pick to follow. That's how naturalism works. And that's how Muntzer thought, spice that with a trickle of religion and perpetual purification.
KoTeMoRe wrote:Nothing quickly falls nowhere...It's there since the conception. The fact that peasants were played, that's something plausible. Look at the recent "Arab Spring". How quickly did it fell to Islamism and local rich families?
Yes, I also agreed that the peasnts were played. Or in my way of saying, the working class was backstabbed by most the Protestant leaders which were member of the bourgeoisie class and/or secular nobles.
KoTeMoRe wrote:Guess who won and why?
The Protestant Movement has typical bourgeoisie characteristic and of course it is designed to bring victory to the newly-risen bourgeoisie class toghether with its ally, the secular nobilty.
Now this is something Protestants don't like. It's called cross-sectioning.
Let us all take the Lutheran rise to power.
1. He's been said to have printed more than 20000 bibles, books plus about the same number of "manifestos" Who would pay for that? THis is early XVIth century. Luther said he made no money on the work (although we know now he did) but who paid for the initial 500 bibles? Especially as Luther was in "held" in Wittenberg?
2. Who would distribute his bibles, each costing a fortune by then. Often people think the Luther Bibles were for the commoner. While actually they weren't. The Bibles of 22 (New testament) were for the theologians and "bourgeois". The work that had the most impact was the Small Catechism itself costing also a fortune to print since it was done so in at least 2000 copies while Luther was alive.
3. Who would distribute his bibles knowing that Luther was excommunicated without "protection".
4. His number at the Diet of Worms was pretty much for show as part of the diet the Diet had decided to protect him and start a de-Romanization process.
KoTeMoRe wrote:Tis funny that was my point.
Okay ?
KoTeMoRe wrote:Paved the way for a certain new power and secular to boot. And so with a weakened Catholic Church, 4 centuries later a certain Adolf. H. tried to close the deal, eliminating physically when it was possible the remaining priests in Germany. Ergo the Catholic congregations became, because of these anti-catholic uprisings, in the long run, the only opposition to Junkers and Cartels while the Protestant Reform lead to some awful social results especially in the 18th century.
So you prefer a global feudal theocratic dictatorship named Vatican ?
Nothing to do with preference. I'm telling the real story. Which is that a false virtue reveals itself on the long, run making the previous truth, caduc. That's how failing a true reform made a decayed institution the bastion of sanity in Germany. That's how Muslims instead of getting rid of the shackles of their customs, are trying to find sense in them. That's baseline Cavern Myth yo...And as said before, the Vatican was nothing since the mid XIXth century.
I see nothing good from the leadership of Vatican, just like I see nothing good from the leadership of the Protestant Churches.
And what does it have with Adolf Hitler ?
A strong structure within the Lutheran and protestant Church might have stopped that plague from advancing. Something that wasn't possible by the core beliefs of Protestantism...On the same page the Vatican didn't really stopped Mussolini either, but the difference between the two was still preferable to little moustache.
KoTeMoRe wrote:Guys like Thomas Muntzer were self-destructive. They couldn't set with their time, they would enjoy anarchy of the purest form because their idea wasn't so different from Savonarole's perpetual purificaition (revolution) which simply couldn't bear any other fruit but constant infighting. The level of drastic and expedite justice these folks were pushing for was already in contradiction with their own claims.
At least what they were seeking is the destruction of the upper class so that poor citizens and working class can enjoy the benefit of justice and equality. The problem is that they failed to see the correct way to carry out that dream.
[/quote]
Once again, the destruction of the upper class, leads to a new upper class, which in return will start to fight its own. "La révolution dévore ses enfants...". Violence without justice cannot be a form of social engineering. It simply is a placebo. Plaster on a wooden leg. Funny so every revolutionary seems to fail to see the correct way. No matter their education of their past.
That's because people don't understand how things roll.
As for the impact the Catholic Church had on the Locals, it's a mixed bag. It has been pretty schizophrenic. Take Las Casas that would denounce in the strongest terms the work done by his predecessors (especially the fact that initially the children would be taken from their parents to be "taught") and their total lack of input when it came to the state of slavery the locals were put by the "secular power". Then you'd have famed Valladolid controversy that would pit the Church against itself, because it proved that God wasn't Universal (the Church would use for the first time the word primitive for the locals) as these people who seemed the closer to God, didn't knew about it, hence they had no soul. Which Las Casas would arbitrarily counter that they had to be taught the way of the Christ...But the same Las Casas was a former Slave owner and raider who would attack the friars that would oppose the practices.
In a sense the Church did as bad as it did good, but the fact remains that the Church in the Latin American debacle, was subservient to the Secular power. Spain.
Home
Latest images
Register
Log in
higurashihougi
