>>797416The absolute last thing you want to happen to your enemy is for them to shatter into a million pieces with some of those pieces actually being historically progressive. Sun Tzu said this.
>>797440By this logic the immense and far-reaching measures taken by not just the Catholic church but also the entire aristocracy are irrelevant because Peasants either rebel "because peasants" or they don't "because whatever". There are clearly no other factors effecting rebellions, and ending association with a church that enforces serfdom as a necessary and natural part of society so you can be lead by guys who think serfdom should be destroyed is actually… le bad. Because… it just is, okay?
>"banner of protestantism" is reactionary banner for princes and clergy and merchants and bourgeoisieProtestantism could sometimes be historically progressive and stand as a banner for the peasantry, the merchants and the bourgeoisie. It could also act as a reactionary banner for princes and clergy. When Protestantism was, at its worst, roughly equal in reactionary-ness.. ism… to the Catholic church and, at its best, a historically progressive force depending on the specific sect, then how is that not historically progressive? To be clear, I am not a religious person in the slightest. I am an anti-theist and religion as a whole is obviously reactionary and evil. I am simply talking about the effect of the Reformation in the context of the world that it happened in, and yes it was historically progressive. And to reiterate, Protestantism stopped being historically progressive by the late 17th century at the absolute latest.