No, it isn’t. Like what do you even mean?
Protestantism has no inherent stand on the mode of production, it has no inherent stance on any non theological issue. The only thing that defines “Protestantism” as a distinct set of beliefs is the three solaes. Faith, scripture and grace.
Saying Anabaptists are more capitalist because of their belief structure than Opus Dei (who did religious neoliberalism in Spain) is just an absurd notion. There are hundreds of protestant denominations with their own kinds of brain worms, some of them even don’t suck entirely.
What I mean is that it arose and became dominant in the wake of Capitalism’s rise in western political theaters. Catholicism has historically been hand-in-glove with feudal lords and curbed the expansion of economic liberalism, a few examples you are probably familiar with:
-Papal bulls regulating colonial trade along national lines
-Catholicism’s protections of trade guilds
-Catholicism rejected the sanctity of free trade and the profit motive (i.e. Weber’s “protestant work ethic”)
-Catholicism held large swaths of land and infrastructure which resisted market privatization
-Catholicism’s condemnation of usury and credit systems
All of the above led to not only nations adopting Protestantism in order to escape the limitations imposed on them by the Holy See, but also for capitalists to enthusiastically and materially lend their support to protestant movements leading to the critical mass required to cement the schism.
I agree the explicit, theological distinction between Catholicism and Protestantism is not one of economic modes of production, but I don’t think it is hard to see why historically Capitalism and Protestantism grew to power and prominence, while influencing and supporting each other, during the same centuries. Protestantism provided the necessary “grey-areas” to allow for capitalism to flourish in Europe compared to the Catholics who were institutionally reluctant to ingest capitalism’s rise. The manifold denominations means that essentially, Protestants can have whatever religious rules they want (just start another denomination whenever you need to change the rules). On top of that, the feudal monarchs of Europe were quick to identify their common ground with the Vatican; both feudalism and Catholicism were having to suppress revolutionary upstarts.
No, it isn’t. Like what do you even mean? Protestantism has no inherent stand on the mode of production, it has no inherent stance on any non theological issue. The only thing that defines “Protestantism” as a distinct set of beliefs is the three solaes. Faith, scripture and grace.
Saying Anabaptists are more capitalist because of their belief structure than Opus Dei (who did religious neoliberalism in Spain) is just an absurd notion. There are hundreds of protestant denominations with their own kinds of brain worms, some of them even don’t suck entirely.
What I mean is that it arose and became dominant in the wake of Capitalism’s rise in western political theaters. Catholicism has historically been hand-in-glove with feudal lords and curbed the expansion of economic liberalism, a few examples you are probably familiar with:
-Papal bulls regulating colonial trade along national lines
-Catholicism’s protections of trade guilds
-Catholicism rejected the sanctity of free trade and the profit motive (i.e. Weber’s “protestant work ethic”)
-Catholicism held large swaths of land and infrastructure which resisted market privatization
-Catholicism’s condemnation of usury and credit systems
All of the above led to not only nations adopting Protestantism in order to escape the limitations imposed on them by the Holy See, but also for capitalists to enthusiastically and materially lend their support to protestant movements leading to the critical mass required to cement the schism.
I agree the explicit, theological distinction between Catholicism and Protestantism is not one of economic modes of production, but I don’t think it is hard to see why historically Capitalism and Protestantism grew to power and prominence, while influencing and supporting each other, during the same centuries. Protestantism provided the necessary “grey-areas” to allow for capitalism to flourish in Europe compared to the Catholics who were institutionally reluctant to ingest capitalism’s rise. The manifold denominations means that essentially, Protestants can have whatever religious rules they want (just start another denomination whenever you need to change the rules). On top of that, the feudal monarchs of Europe were quick to identify their common ground with the Vatican; both feudalism and Catholicism were having to suppress revolutionary upstarts.