COPYWRITE INFRINGEMENT

[hazard]

Juxtaposed to the eve of the bourgeois revolution was the protestant reformation. No coincidence. And what was the protestant reformation but the worst case of copywrite infrinbgement inthe history of humanity? Let me elaborate.

So Luthur staples his ninety five theses (feces) to the cathedral. A long list of stupid complaints that were later indorctrinated as rules into the "new" christianity. What is strange about this so called reformation is the reasoning, the so called reasoning behind it, that being "greed and corruption" in the church, was also to be the tamplate for all subsequent christian sects. So, instead of one church greedy and corrupt we got a dozen churches now greedy and corrupt. Except each subsequent heathen chapter of christianity is necessarilly MORE greedy since they base their greed on the so called greed of the original church, cite this greed as a reason to flock converts, and then inflict that pagan sects (baptist, presbyterian, anglican, pentecostal, etc) own brand of greed upon it. The first case of copywrite ninfringement here is the least obvious. That is the use of greed as a conversion tactic in order to subjegate the converts to each heathen christian branches own type of greed. So, protestents "rip off" the greed of the original church TWICE, first as a conversion tactic and second as a source of income. Of course, as a good catholic boy, I don't see any greed in the original church. However, to avoid pissing of the protestant pagan heathan godless dipshits, I will allow the premise that the original church WAS greedy if only to prove that they RIPPED OFF the original church TWICE.

The rest of the copywrite infringements are simple to go over. I mean what the fuck. The same God. The same Christ. The same symbols ( fish, loaves, cross, etc ). The same Heaven. The same Hell. The same Holy Book. The same sacraments (communion, marriage, confirmation, etc). The same rituals, such as mass. The same holidays, like easter. EVERYTHING IS EXACTLY THE FUCKING SAME!!! Stupid fucking protestant idiots. And this list don't stop neither.

AS for the connection to the bourgeois revolution, I will save for additional posts. Clearly, the standrad corporation also copies the formula of the original church with a symbol and a product and a sale and a seller. Greed in the original church that is only corrected by a thousand years of worsening greed? Protestants are fucking stupid, and I blame the capitalist regime on their stupidity. The pope, whoever he was in 1690 or whatever date it was, should have sent in the Jesuits to massacre Luthur and his greedy little buddies to save the world from protestantism and capitalism alike.

[MiDnIgHtMaRaUdEr]

This would score about a 0.02 on the whogivesashitometer.

[hazard]

now MIdnIghITruNNeR, or however the fuck you spell your name, are you saying this because you are a capiltalist stooge or a protestant heathan?

for a communist should be interested in the source of their enemy, capitalism, and how it should be dealt with accordingly because of its origin

[MiDnIgHtMaRaUdEr]

It really doesn't matter if protestantism is "copyright infringment" or not. Its all bullshit in my book, so who cares?

[hazard]

I think that if we go to the cause of capitalism, protestantism, we can all learn something that can be used to destroy capitalism. so far I ahve some ideas but am merely attempting to see whether or not my theory of protestantism and capitalism as being interrelated can be proven. the first step is proving that protestantism is a greed based iinfringement upon what would be considered, today, copywrited material.

[Guest1]

sounds like national socialism to me, adolf.

[hazard]

what sounds like that? protestantism? capitalism? who are you referring to as adolf? luthur?

[synthesis]

Juxtaposed to the eve of the bourgeois revolution was the protestant reformation.

Not really. They were about two hundred years apart.

[hazard]

well, the american and french revolutions were both bourgeois revolutions and the american revolution took place in 1776 while the french was in 1789. unless you are refferring to phase two of the revolution, the industrial revolution, which was essentially bloodless.

I think the first phase was the protestant reformation, which would really make a lot more sense out of the inherent greed of capitlaism and its exploitation, in a definitive way, of the working class.

[Guest1]

I'm referring to you as Adolf. He also used Socialist propaganda to blame Capitalism on a religion. We all know how Socialist he turned out to be.

Also, protestantism came about as a result of the beginnings of the rise of the middle class in europe. the rise of this new class began to eat away at the Uber-Church structure, and as a result, we ended with splinter groups. Hopefully, the next revolution will eat away at the Multiple-Church structure too. Multiple-Mosque and Synagogue too. All of it.

But it will take time... redstar.

[hazard]

well, if what you say is true, I am sorely mistaken. I will retract my atempt to make this a political issue and stick it on a strict religious theme.

im not sure if a I agree with the summary you present in your midde paragraph, so I'll just leave it as it is

[Misodoctakleidist]

Hazard "your" theory is a copyright infringment of Max Weber's.

[hazard]

who in fucks name is max weber's?

brb

[hazard]

okay, I ran that name and he is actually arguing in exact opposite of my position. which makes sense, since he wrote only about a hundred and fifty years after the reformation. weber is a short sighted and over emphasized dimwit who is a godless pagan, a heathen and a rip off artist supporter.

[Misodoctakleidist]

Weber argues that protestantism, particularly calvinism, promote what he called 'the spirit of capitalism'. He claimed that the reason eastern economies hadn't reached the ccapitalistic stage first was becuase of their religion. Weber tried to argue that protestantism caused capitalism much like you are saying, he believed that he had proof that culture could influence economics but his theory is as you say "short sighted".

[kylie]

Originally posted by [email protected] 30 2003, 11:10 AM
weber is a short sighted and over emphasized dimwit who is a godless pagan, a heathen and a rip off artist supporter.
Er not really, he was one of the most influential writers after the enlightenment, up there with Karl Marx. Both politically, his theories being based in and supporting Liberalism, and in terms of how research is carried out.

[Misodoctakleidist]

I have to disagree with Weber's argument that calvinism was the catalyst for capitalism, technological inovations enabling mass production was the catalyst for capitalism and it's hard to see how calvinism really had any major effect on this, it's also hard to see how things would have been any different without the influence of calvinism.

I think the 'spirit of capitalism' didn't exsist amongst the woring class at the time of the industial revolution, they worked for one reason and only one reason, because they had to. The working class all knew that capitalism was unfair and hated it so it's hard to see how any kind of ideological justification, let alone calvinism, has any effect on them. The only ideological purpose calvinism could have served would have been to justify capitalism amongst the bougoirsie but the bougoirsie hardly care about justification anyway.

[Guest1]

you have to understand that the bourgeoisie hadn't really risen completely yet. They were simply peasants who went into business. Many of them failed, many of them were killed by the aristocracy, but in the end a new class was created.

To characterize this revolution as "evil" or "greedy" is pointless, because it was necessary, and left-wing at that time. I say left wing because it sought to spread wealth amongst a greater group of people than Feudalism allowed for. To deny that is counter-productive. It is not our place to deny that Capitalism is better than Feudalism, baut rather to say we want to spread the wealth even further, through Communism.

The true greed was with those fighting Capitalism at the time, because those elements were purely reactionary. The majority of those who fought it of course, were the aristocracy. The only reason any peasants stood against it was religion, tradition, not because they somehow saw how unfair the system was. They didn't have the capability of seeing it as unfair at the time, we are talking about a concept that had never existed before. The concept of capital, the concept that wealth can be created. That you don't have to own land to have it. That you don't have to be born with it. Working to make money, rather than working to simply get basic amounts of food and a little shelter, was taboo.

You must not burden yourself with a good life on earth, because you should be humble and you will be rewarded in the after-life. That was the general mood amongst most peasants who opposed Capitalism. Purely reactionary. Very much docile. If you read Dante's inferno, it is an example fo how horrible this view is. The inner circle of hell, the worst hell, is reserved for traitors who betray their Lord. The Lord of the fiefdom. This of course, was a clear attack on the bourgeoisie who were beginning to leave their fiefdoms and join the cities that were beginning to be built. In some places, the peasants overhtrew the Lords, who were attempting to ban leaving your fiefdom.

Even Marx didn't have the gall to characterize that revolution as evil. He simply considered it a different revolution in the evolution of the class system, which brought us closer to abolishing it. Without it, it wouldn't even be possible to attain class consciousness to a level where we join up and fight for Communism. It's not possible. You can't be blinded enough to the good that the bourgeoisie did to actually call the revolution fueled by greed. It was not. It was fueled by a genuine desire to be independant of the Lords and toss them out. It was fueled by a thirst for freedom. What the result was, is completely different.