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.