Help me understand this commies

...

Yep

yes retard did you.

give an arguement and educate me then, this from what i nderstand is fundamental to marxism so it shouldnt be to difficult to prove.

Well this fucker BTFO op so hard he didn't even reply to him

wont let me(phone) but ill address it here, its bullshit pagansm did not produce christianity in anyway thats retarded, when chistianinty was spreading through pagan regions it basically said we will do that thing you want as long as you convert to christianity. Paganism did not dialectically produced Christianity, it was conquered then influenced by it.

Christianity didn't "halt capitalism", there's influences within christian (and almost all religious doctrine, of any religion) that is against individual faults leading to 'greater disaster'; when religion is solidly in the hands of the status quo and the powerful, this is exactly the same as providing an ideological backdrop for the capitalist invidiualist perversion of systemic (economic) issues being invisible and everything just being about individual sins, original sins and the flaws of each human within the system that leads them to their fate.

The Church in Europe was an oddity if seen through the lense of economics, but on one layer up on the abstraction of capitalist class economics (or rather, one layer down - ignore the bullshit and look at the resources and power), it was essentially a weird professional class sustaining their own power and resource consolidation, while engaging in primarily resource and wealth control and extending their influence (as is natural) into the political realm of society.

The church owned land. The priest class, was an economic class that also provided a theory behind the present conditions (and justified it), it would be more appropriate (though anchronistic) to see the church as a 'capitalist endeavor').

They were realtors, and wealth managers. That's it. (keep in mind this is back in the ages when people couldn't even read for the most part… nobody 'read' any version of the bible, because they couldn't - either because it wasn't in their language, or because they couldn't read period… this weird modern defense of the church has no relevance to the actual historical church. It was a bunch of jackasses defending whatever power system was in place, for their own position within it, and pretty much entirely keeping the 'masses' in ignorance with the fear of god, hell and damnation. If they didn't support the King/The Rich/The Current Order in the Current Year - that was what the 'church' was.)

*it was conqured and by it and influenced it.

But there were socialist movements in Britain. Are you trying to figure out why capitalist institutions didn't become Marxist?

What is ruling ideology? What is false consciousness?

the church was acting in the interest of the feudal lords who regularly suppressed capitalism. Hence things like expelling the jews who were starting to gain power through their growth of monetary wealth once they started collecting on their debts.

They didn't suppress capitalism, they just wanted their own monopoly on wealth extraction and control. Capitalism is essentially an extension of feudalism. It's more abstracted, has another layer of separation, but that's it. If anything you could say in the realm of responsibility the modern day capitalist system has less perceived responsibility implied than monarchies (and that is not to make a defense of monarchies).

Market liberation might have been at some point a historical necessity in certain areas (though clearly the development of soviet states shows that industrialization and technology are not at all dependent upon such an economic system), but all it does is recreate the exact same system it rebelled against.

A revolutionary capitalist, is just a minor lord pissed off that someone else owns the field. That's a summary of "capitalist" vs "royals". They're the same shit, and they always were.

also

huh really makes you think

I know that they're just extensions of it, though under somewhat different terms.

I'm not even gonna go and discuss this, but in the end capitalism crushed feudalism, hasn't it? So what exactly is your point?

no what i saying is both of those things are the superstructure not the base(ruling ideology and false consciousness). i am saying that in order to change the base you must first and foremost change the superstructure because the superstructure has are more dominant ruling in determining the base.

there the superstructure though(the church) there ties to the base are for the most part irrelevant because everyone is tied to the base and work for there own interests, the people have to first be changed before you can change the base or it is rejected and does not go anywhere.

To change the superstructure you need to raise consciousness within a group, a movement, that then understand the concept - and commit to changing the base.

In other words, they need to realize and understand the concept of a base and a superstructure, and all the manipulation that is in play to move the marker, and yet still have them focus obsessively and primarily on the economic base.

Raising awareness about base superstructure is not to get people to make their life about writing books on changing the superstructure, it's for them to be immune to the superstructure and the carrots handed out as well as the whiplashes dealt, as they unquestionably and unyieldingly strive to change the base.

my point is that the superstructure has a more dominating role in shaping the base then vise versa. the churchs influence of christianity led the people to reject capatilism and only through enlightenment(again super-structure) was this changed.

You mean the very material and mundane death, sacrifice and rebellion and massive conflict, was this changed? You think the 'enlightenment' and the revolutionary era was just a 'change in argument'? …

Yes this is exactly what im saying the superstructure must change before you change the base, therefore the superstructure has a dominant role in the shaping of the base and the bases main role is to maintain.

superstructure:
art,family,culture,religion ,philosophy,ideology,law,media,politics,science and education.

No i am saying it is a change in the above mainly culture though, followed the enlightenment. ergo superstructure dominantly shapes the base then vise-versa.

Well that's the point of the image in the OP, no?
And yet still, no. Don't get me wrong, I'm not against counter-propaganda, but the propaganda itself must focus on the base not the accentuations of the 'sides created' within the superstructure, to maintain the base they spawned off of…

Let's skip all this, though, trash that shit, all of it… let's go with your plan.

Changing the superstructure, primarily. How would go about this, without focusing on the material base? Who owns the media? Who controls vast portions of the web, surveils it and has their little injections and oddity 'censorship' popping up everywhere?

Who owns the newspapers? Who decides what gets promoted, and what gets attemped quelched, completely? Sure as fuck isn't you and I, no?

Now, for counter-culture, propaganda, what would unify people the most? Relations to the base that cannot be denied (povery, focusing on economic issues - a description of the base as it is, economic and work relations, etc.), and what (if you just want to change the 'super structure' itself, within its own parameters, as I can't see what else you're suggesting) would play right into the current base? Trying to create a counter side to the superstructure's propaganda, within its own paradigm, on its on premise.

yes because the change in the superstructure led to the revolution capitalist revolution the changing of the base.

Superstructure arises out of the material conditions and the ruling institutions. It is entirely a product of them. Any counter propaganda would need to attack the base, even in its propaganda, and be more like a 'reality check' in the superstructure of the current system - not a 'counter within the superstructure'.

the people with the organisation do the changing, look at university and the complete dominance that idpol is having over it, look at multiple online newspapers and internet entitys that talk about and spread it.

the people work in these companies and can change the superstructure by utilisiing them, essentially a new ideological group(superstructure) uses these corperations influence(base) to spread there ideas to influecnce the rest of the superstructure. that is basically what marx did with engel isnt it. now imagine that in a large scale similar to what idpol ideologies are doing and its influence on the superstructure. thats is how you make the change.

No… the oppression of people, the lack of necessities and the general despair, in addition to one part of the capitalist class (very much in line with the feudal systems of the day) feeling they weren't 'free enough' to exploit others, that happened to coincide and ally up with the despair of the masses who were dying as they had nothing, lead to a revolt against the reigning monarchs and royalties, which then lead to a change in the superstructure.

The only exception from this being some of the actors of agency within them - they realized and saw all this and were more or less immune to the indoctrination, but that had nothing to do with 'changing the superstructure first', that has more to do with reaching an agreement within a revolutionary group and keeping a cool state of mind on what has to be done next.

This idea of changing the superstructure first and foremost will have you forever writing novels and fictions and future visions for what 'could' be the state of mankind, but ignoring revolutionary theory and any notion of actually seizing the state, via either electoral means or otherwise (depending on where you are); and shitting on any notion of the step that gets us from here - to there.

It just results in bullshit like "Well golly gee… I guess that's just how us humans are, oh well."

It'll result in nothing. Ever.

wahat im saying is you mut first influence he superstruture to create the new ideology then you use the base to influence the superstructure but it all starts with the superstructure.

No, Marx was actively engaged in radial communist and worker's movements seeking actual - physical - change to their conditions.

if it wasnt for the use of engels factory it would have died.

Unless you're talking about some telepathic godlike powers to alter the way people think, then no. You must describe the base, and bring understanding to what creates the superstructure that people are engaged in.

You innoculate people from the propaganda, and provide a strategy (whatever it may be) for seizing the state, and altering the material conditions of the people, as well as hopefully having a somewhat good plan (that you can elucidate) for what a future society might look like.

Counter propaganda is good. Counter propaganda thinking it has to act within the superstructure, under the rules of the superstructure, to counter the superstructure - but ignores the opportunity to instead describe the base and unravel the whole thing, is not.

that is also the superstructure

But there were quite a few British Marxists? Also, you even mention the superstructure maintaining the base when you say that Brits rejected Marxism because they saw it as "not British", nationalism being a part of the capitalist ideological superstructure.

We don't think the superstructure determines the base. Neither really "determines" the other, they're in a dialectical relationship. The base is the dominant partner in that relationship.

We've already been over this. The ideological superstructure maintains the base. The British working classes may fall in line with capitalist ideology. That is what the superstructure's main purpose is, to maintain the base.

You want me to prove that our consciousness is shaped by material reality? This isn't obvious and immediately observable? Do you want me to prove that water is wet to you as well?

How is that in any way relevant to what was being argued and discussed, at all? Also the communist movements across the world were not dependant on such, regardless of whether one individual within the movement was. Ridiculous.

That's an observation of the base, acting against the superstructure's dogmas and trying to kill off its entire paradigm…

The superstructure isn't just "ideas", it refers to the dominant ideological and social institutions of that society.

Except the church was still demonizing wealth even though the revolutions. The church lagged behind the growth of the bourgeoisie class.

What the fuck are you even trying to say? That changes to the economy are caused by changes in human nature?

nationalism is not part of capitalism, it exists long before it and the end goal of capitalism would be globalism and the loss of borders effectively anyway. and yes your right there where a few marxists but they where essentially booted from the partys and society as whole.

i know and i disagree. i am open to being convinced otherwise though.

there have been an explosion of trots in the labour party recently all of them are mainly coming from the universitys there are being influenced by the politics, media, culture and philisophy(superstructure) that is being spread there. that is an attempt of the superstructure take to take control of the state and shape the base. i am saying you take control of the superstructure before you even try and take control of the base becuase it is way more successful to do so and history has proven it. as i said the superstructure has the more dominant shaping the base, and the base maintains it and shaping the superstructre is a more minor role.

no i said change in the superstructure, never brought up human nature outside of the fact if you want to change the base you must convince the people that the change is in here interest(obviously).

lol no.

It was essentially an invention of the 19th century. It didn't exist in feudal Europe, where kingdoms were viewed more or less as the property of the king and his lords and social divisions were primarily religious.

That's modern capitalism, capitalism being an ever changing system in constant motion. It spawned nationalism because there was an ideological need to tie the lower orders to the state with the dismantling of feudal relations. The fall of feudalism and the rise of the nation-state were directly related.

I seriously doubt it.

Once again, superstructure isn't just fucking ideas. Even then, the base created those ideas. You can't have opposition to capitalism without capitalism existing in the first place. History isn't on your side, counter-culture was a complete failure and always has been.

true and then they fell in line, look when the revolution happened they took the superstructer(the law, politics, education etc) and then the base. the superstructer has a more dominant role in shaping the base.

If you're talking about people's interest in their material wellbeing then you're not making a superstructure argument.

You seem to be running with the rather false conclusion that the superstructure is any kind of idea in society.

Nationalism is created by private property and resource concentration… borders are made by these things.

Nationalism in the sense of modern day nation states are not the same as the concept of 'nations' in the more regional-ethnic sense (which is not what is being appealed to, even while racist, by modern day style nationalism - as they reject the basic idea of that sort of 'nation' (which would involve sharing an economy, and living in the same region, being able to communicate, etc. having little to nothing to do with ethnicity) - and fully embrace the nationalism of the nation state, an entirely feudal->capitalist creation)

You're using the term 'nationalism' ahistorically, and applying a current understanding of it to an idea or a notion of community solidarity but ignoring the conditions behind it and applying the modern day scarecrow (and capitalist nation state diversions from material conditions) definitions.

Nationalism as you know it today is entirely a part of capitalism, it was used and still is used as a tool to set one part of people up against another, that they (the capitalist class) are now abandoning this tool as they achieve more global control and a global capitalist class consciousness - against everyone else, does not bring validity, to it.

If you'd brought it up, nationalism - that is, as some sort of 'civic development' and 'community solidarity and equality for all, that we have achieved so far', then maybe I'd agree with you - because that sort of "nationalism", most certainly doesn't belong in capitalism, but given your response to that poster - I feel fairly confident in assuming you mean entirely nationalism in the thoroughly capitalist understanding of it.

That the master no longer requires that specific toy, does not make it less of a toy.

What the fuck are you talking about.

How the fuck was the Church dominant in that situation?

man its getting hard to keep up.

the christianity is not the church the church is an institutional manifestation of christianity, i is said chrisitianity halted as in the people belief that the people has that wealth was evil halted capitalism more then the church. then th enlightenment(people) conquered the supersstructer and changed the base.

i mean nationalism as in the concept of a land essentially owned by the people of the nation, so yea ok i can kinda see how nationalism was a capitalist tool but capitalism destined to get rid of borders wants it interferes with production so i mean i think it would be more accurate to say capitalism appropriate the concept of nation state then calling it a capitalist concept.

*once it interferes

You guys are all responding with basic theory instead of explaining the mechanism by which material reality reality creates the immaterial. That is what OP is asking for. Allow me.

Christianity was, and is, an ever-changing product of contemporary reality. It does not change things but rather adapts to changes that are occurring in reality.

Consider the beginning of Christianity. Christianity began as one of many jewish doomsday cults which arose in response to Titus sacking Jerusalem and destroying Solomon's temple. It spread initially among displaced jewish populations in the Eastern Roman Empire, notably in Alexandria where the sizable resident jewish population was in an economic conflict with the rising peasant population of Egypt. The shape of this primordial Christianity was thus established by the economic reality of the Eastern Roman Empire.

Christianity spread along Roman roads and aboard Roman ships throughout the Greek-speaking East and took hold in communities that were on the economic fringe. To accommodate the fact that many of the prospective converts were not themselves jewish, and thus uncircumcised, the basic tennets of jewish law were abandoned, thus allowing for a greater ease of conversion. Here we see Christianity fundamentally change itself for the first time, and it did so in respone to the real issue that non-jews were not circumcised.

Early Christianity was not truly monotheistic. It recognized the existence, and even the power, of other gods. Accepting the divinity of "gods" such as Domitian and Commodus allowed Christians to not be killed. That changed when Constantine I legalized Christianity as part of a military strategy. When it later became the official religion of the empire it began to transform into a true monotheistic religion, although the pantheon of saints in the Orthodox and Catholic traditions reflects its past.

For the sake of brevity, fast forward to contempory Christianity. It would be completely unrecognizable to an early Christian, because it has so dramitically changed over the course of time. Modern Christianity very much reflects the material reality of the contemporary world. Gone are the mandates for poverty. Instead, the wholely capitalist notion that God expects his followers to be economically prosperous is prevalent. Deacons pass collection plates. Political activism reflects the economic influence of consumer christians, where before christians were expected to "render unto Caesar that which is Caesar's."

You should be able to see that your Christianity has not shaped the world at all. Instead, it has itself been shaped and reshaped endlessly by the changing reality of the peoples who have claimed it.

is the picture above inaccurate, i don't think it is but if it is tell me how. define the superstructure.

Again: seems to me that, in the end, it is feudalism that has been rejected, while capitalism is still alive and dominant. So what is your point?

It is no coincidence that the nation-state emerged in the wake of the rise of capitalism. The nation-state of Great Britain arose as the bourgeoisie in the House of Commons became more powerful than the aristocrats in the House of Lords. France became a nation-state when Louis XVI was beheaded. Wherever feudalism falls to capitalism, nation-states rise.

what do you mean, appropriate? The nation state is a creation of the french revolution. During the Napoleonic Wars the German and the Russian elite would coin an essentialist nationalism as a reply to the civic nationalism paraded by the French. The superstructure isn't a conspiracy or a tool, it's just how the different classes justify their interests.

The founding fathers were atheists and pantheists because the "christian" superstructures in their days were the same as the current muslim superstructures of saudi arabia. You can't attack king saud from a muslim point of view because you do not have a dozen of universities of islamic law in your protection, as a muslim burgher.

Yes, it is critical theory bullshit.

Immaterial concepts that arise out of and serve to legitimize the material realities represented in the base.

Not at all. The first nation-state in Europe was Spain in 1492 when Aragon and Castile united under a legal framework following the Grenada War.

Is that Gurifisu cosplay?

interesting, before it start
I'm not Christian just to clarify, i was merely using an example that seemed to damage the superstructure vs base framework.

i think theres alot of truth and what your saying but i think there are a few holes i need to clarfyed.

Consider the beginning of Christianity. Christianity began as one of many jewish doomsday cults which arose in response to Titus sacking Jerusalem and destroying Solomon's temple. It spread initially among displaced jewish populations in the Eastern Roman Empire, notably in Alexandria where the sizable resident jewish population was in an economic conflict with the rising peasant population of Egypt. The shape of this primordial Christianity was thus established by the economic reality of the Eastern Roman Empire.

Is this not the people, creating a religious(superstructure) means to survive the current economic oppression they live under and then later through history evolving to conquer the superstructure and coexist with the base. not changing the base but simply living within it correct? now another commentor im about to address believes that the superstrctor is a means to immaterially justify the base which in this case you are correct but im saying is in order to change the base your would first need to conquer these institutions and the superstructure(at least concur enough of the superstructor that you can effect change the base with little resistance) before you can then change the base. such as the enlightment when they took control of state, education etc prior to taking the means of production, this then forces the other institutions within the superstructure to conform as they are maintained by the superstructure.

There wasn't even a omni national contract theory worded out yet in the 15th century. + the Catalonian language speakers of what used to be Aragon don't consider themselves fellow Castilians to this day. Franco tried to enforce an essentialist Spanish nationalism throughout the country and he failed. I must conclude that you are either a.completely bananas or b.talkin out of your ass. Which is the case?

i dont think this is entirely accurate, i said in another post that some instituions will arive to surviver and therefore legetimise the current base, but the change in the people by utilising the superstructure is absolutely nessasery and comes first before taking the means of productions.

This is because you need the power of the superstructure and the superstructure ability to spread ideologie, collectivise and most importantly its power in order to change the base.

christ the whoreson carpenter and his (lumpen-)craftsmen friends bitching about pharisees and sadducees and taxes do not require an anachronistic titus explanation. your rising egyptian peasants in conflict with jews is complete delirium. pls stahp1

What you are saying is more in line with popular marxist thought, but I would challenge it. You can not take control of a superstructure that is designed to support the existing base. It can only be obliterated and replaced with another that reflects the current reality.

of course you can, you just take control of it via infiltration like how idpol is taking control of academia and slowly taking control of the corperate world, and it is working remember just what 8 years ago that shit was basically un heard now days there bullshit is literally fucking everywhere and holds real power you can take control of these and once you take control of the superstructure enough to take the base the rest will be forced to submit or disappear as they are maintained through the base.

the base you now control

Idpol hasn't "taken over". It's being used by the institutions in the superstructure to bolster the base which furthers it's cultural supremacy. It's of no threat to the base. Take the recuperation of radical feminism, which was grounded in solid class analysis, and how it's been neutered into a movment which seeks to create more CEO's just with female genitalia.

Not at all. Christianity and the other doomsday cults did not offer any greater security for their followers. Quite the contrary. Instead, they served as a reaction to changes that had already taken place (the sack of the temple, the decrees of Gaius Caesar, the conflict between urban jews and peasants in Alexandria, etc.). They also provided a convenient narrative that justified the jewish revolts that followed.

You do not. Military power is a material reality, not simply a function of a government. The economic powers that be may utilize a governmental army as their own military, but that governmental intermediary is only the legitimization of what is for all practical purposes their own military power. Military conquest thus eliminates the superstructural institutions that justify it.

Idpol has had control of academia since the sixties, and the notion that it is "taking over" the corporate world is laughable. Idpol is not conquering anything. What is happening is that the corporate world is increasingly using it to distract people from real issues. Idpol is a corporate tool, not its master.

I don't know what school you were in eight years ago, but when I first went to university twenty years ago it was already fucking everywhere. Check out some of the TV shows from the 90s. Shit was constantly in people's faces.

It is not conscious. It can control nothing of its own accord. Look to who wields it.

Good point, by the way.

This. Literally just watch PCU, OP.

Eh, it has always stood on a weak philosophical foundation.

thx

The material condition of the slave society produced Christianity not paganism, what i said is that Base had his own Superstructure before Christianity to maintain the base "paganism", and that Christianity was a new dialectical product of that base
Do you even know how to read nigga ?

...

Who owns the military. government and you can say that the corporates control this via the backdoor but if you control it that becomes irrelevent, do not take the or do to fund your objective and then use it to conquer the base, just nationalize it like many governments have before.

ok so let get this straight,

christianity was a new dialectical product of the slave society base or the "paganism" base?

Do you mean paganism is the superstructure that maintained the slave society base?

Seriously you can write for shit, proof read retard fuck

The people who direct them.

I am surprised that you have not yet figured out who actually controls the military and the government itself for that matter. The government is not an independent actor; it is a subsidiary.

no it took control in the sixtys as hippie crap, but did not have the infrastructure(programs and such to spread there bullshit effectively) till the 90s and has exploded recently. Also there has been an evolution of the message and more importantly and evolution of what people are willing to accept, more of the for instance identity politics bullshit you here today were basically laughed of in most countries(particularly in europe) as "looney left" nobody took them serouisly. now they are in parliaments and making real influence.

You said yourself that paganism didn't produce Christianity right ?
Then it was the material condition of the people that lead them to invention of christian values and imagery

Judaism is the same thing in the reaction not to the Babylonian religion but to the material condition of that civilization model of production

Here Judaism and Christianity took form not by contraction by the religions that maintained the base but by a material diacritical relationship that give rise to them

do you understand now ?

The government own the military, you take control of state, via the control of education media, etc then you take control of the base.

Am i missing something.

Yes, i get it the poverty makes the new group within the superstructure, it isirrelevent, many new groups appear in poverty and other economic conditions 100s even, DOES NOT CHANGE THE BASE, only a group that collectivises and take the SUPERSTRUCTURE then takes the BASE.

dialectical*

i am going to sleep soon

Yes, the screamingly obvious reality that the government is not an independent actor. It is wholely controlled by the economic elite.

not if you control it, there power is not official which makes it easy to dismiss when your on control.

Poverty is an economic reality. It is a part of the material base.

does not change the base though. you take the superstructure then the base. if you take the means of production and material first you will be rejected.

It IS the base.

ok i think there has been some miscommunication, im saying the 100s groups that come from poverty do not change the base unless one collectivises and takes the superstructure then it changes the base.

The fact that the wealthy have control of the government is the material reality of the base. Workers can't take control without a fundamental change to the base.

do you have to be wealthy to control government, look at jeremy corbyn in the labour party he is not a millionare and pretty much goes out of is way to live the working class experience the only money he makes is from is job as the labour leader £137K a lot true but that just comes with the job, you dont need to be super wealthy.

You need to infiltrate and convert thus taking control of the superstructure.

It absolutely does. Earlier, I mentioned the conflict between urban jews in Alexandria and the rising Egyptian peasantry. In that case, the poor Egyptian farmers began making a substantial profit which allowed them to challenge, and ultimately supplant the urban dominance of Egypt. It did so without a change in the Roman government.

Corbyn doesn't control the government. He's one man in a much larger framework of politicians and bureaucrats whose agenda is a function of the wealthy's interest.

ok im listening, tell me what changed or a source for me to read if you cant be bothered writting it all out.

I would also like to know if you think this is a method that could be used in the 21 century.

he could absolutely take government he has real support and growing. i does lead the labour party.

i am aware the wealthy control it but thatr is not officail so when you take lets say rulling in parliament they can be ignored if you have grassroots support like corbyn

My replies will be slow. I am watching handegg.

Alexandria, which had been a singularly exclusive city in which there was a strict division between Roman citizens, jews that economically dominated the city, and poor Egyptian farmers who were generally excluded from the best neighborhoods and had little effect on policy. As the price of Egyptian grain rose following the expansion of the Roman army, the peasants gained economic power in Alexandria. Over time, the successful Egyptian peasants absorbed other peasants' land and began moving into the city to sell the grain produced by those peasants who worked their land. This resulted in a sea change in the economy of Alexandria.

This is wrong. How do you think the castles and cathedrals were built? With slave labor?

Religion is not all high-minded fluff. There are also dietary, hygiene and animal cruelty laws. Have you opened a Bible?

No. People have done what eventually came to be called mercantilism for thousands of years.

Capitalism already existed before it was named. It didn't "start" in the way that you describe.

Again, the spook of anti-capitalism rears it head.
This is quite wrong. Nation-states emerge out of miltary and then cultural conquest.

Greece is part of Europe.

No…? You know what mercantilism was?

While this is true (capitalism, as a dominant economic system, started in England after the English Civil War in the mid-17th century), over a century before Adam Smith published the first volume of The Wealth of Nations in 1776, the fact that you say
makes me think that you've fallen for some neoliberal meme. It most certainly did have a starting point (at least as a dominant, long-term system) and did start more or less in that fashion.

No, the first nation-states were England and then France, both after their bourgeois revolutions. Nationalism arose because there was a need to create new bonds of loyalty to the state after the feudal bonds had been ripped apart.

Yes it was practiced in ancient Babylon. Of course, the Babylonians didn't call it "mercantilism" per se.

Exactly, nobody knows when or where it started. Initially critics derided the "capitalists" because haters gon hate. After a while the word "capitalism" emerged from those previous criticisms; capitalism wasn't officially inaugurated by some grand conspiracy.

That is the Treaty-of-Westphalia definition of a nation-state, which describes something that already existed in places beyond western Europe.

Nationalism historically emerged out of cultural diffusion with nearby societies. It later became a tool of imperialism as well as revolution. However, to someone whose revolution is international in scope, nationalism is viewed as counterrevolutionary (or, in your case, a desperate attempt at self-preservation by the old order).

Read what the Bible has to say about wealth:
answersingenesis.org/contradictions-in-the-bible/root-of-all-evil/

rEAD aLTHUSSER

The Black Acts in English which restricted peasant movement to create a class of people ready for wage labour is a good place to start.

Then the answer to that question is "no."

No, it started in Italy in the fourteenth century with the rise of family banking cartels like the Medici. It then exploded across Europe when Spain and Portugal began colonizing and exploiting the New World and trade along the Indian Ocean.

Venice was capitalist long before England was, although after Elizabeth Stuart and James Stuart sold off royal lands to pay for their wars capitalism was already beginning to supplant feudalism. It just took a while for the Brits to realize it.

The fuck? Yes, we know where and when it started.

Initially, aristocrats derided it as an affront to the concept of divine right.

Whose ass did you pull this shit out of?

What, China? China did everything first. In any case, if you are not going to use an accepted definition for a common term, then you had better provide another working definition.

Horseshit. The other guy had it right. When the king has had his head lopped off, Parliament had better come up with a legal legitimation of its power grab right the fuck now.

Taking half-verses out of context of their books is not "reading the Bible." How many times did Jesus command that his followers give away all of their possessions?

OP, you should read a little bit about the German Peasant Revolution if you think Christianity determined the Feudal society at the time. Read what Martin Luther wrote about the peasants, read some Muntzer, read Engels' book on the topic. Christianity changed RADICALLY at the time, and it was because of the material conditions changing.

It also was not a nation-state until it split with the Ottoman Empire in the 20th century.

Yes. Read Engels but for the love of the immutable laws of historical materialism don't try reading Luther or Müntzer. It should suffice to know Müntzer believed the world belonged to every man (as per genesis) and Luther wrote a pamphlet against "the murderous gangs of the peasants" while supporting your usual ora, labora, protegere elsewhere. They both spend way too much time discussing issues which are of no concern outside of modern day amish communities.

There was a thing called the Silk Road. Arabs, Chinese and Africans traded while Europeans were still outlining their hands in caves.
This "explosion" was actually an invasion by Turkish Moors. The "Age of Exploration" was merely the monarchs inventing new ways (from their perspective) of exploring weak points in the enemy's formations.

There's no fixed point in time, though.

The royal "we," am I right?

This is how they applied the word "capitalism" but isn't the full history of the practice that became associated it.

Keep trolling.

Yet no working definition for capitalism. Didn't surprise me that time.

That is not the only condition under which nations emerge.

Troll harder. The Bible isn't a first-hand account of only Jesus Christ.
Look at Acts 2
They traded their possessions and then divvied up the profits, they did not give them away. They broke bread in houses, meaning that someone had to keep and control those houses. They had meat instead of merely grain and honey. The Apostles did not recommend an ascetic, nomadic lifestyle to the entire society.

Educate yourself.

Here's a working definition of capitalism: a system of private property and wage labor focusing on the production of commodities (items produced for the purpose of exchange on the market) with the purpose of producing a profit.

capitalism is not limited to markets

By any reasonable definition, England qualified and existed many centuries before Spain.

Astonishing that this didn't come up sooner.

Yes, there was. That was not merchantilism, nor was it a function of ancient Babylon.

What the fuck? Where are you getting this bad history from? This is not the ignorance of a kid who has never taken a history class before. This is the warped imagination of someone who got way too serious about reading the Wikipedia while high on meth one night.

Mother of god.

England was not a nation-state. Great Britain was after Charles Stuart was beheaded in 1649.