What definition of "capitalism" are you using to refer to this as a "capitalist endeavor"? The "return on investment" (as you put it) aspect? Wouldn't, say, a communist make similar justifications? For example: "we provided your education as a child so you'll abide by our directives as an adult."
I don't think buying/selling women was a communist cornerstone.
The reason I say this is a capitalist endeavor is the recognition of an asset (the daughter), the want to see the most return (as large of a bride price as possible), and then seeking to improve the asset through education, travel, and competition to lead to a better selling price.
> I don't think buying/selling women was a communist cornerstone
By default in communist regimes women are by default the regime's means of prosuction, destined to a life of work while kept on a maintenance plan by their masters. So whether they aren't being sold, they are managed like an asset, where low upkeep abd high output is favoured while high maintenance and problematic/opinionated individuals are destined to be written-off sue to their impact on production.
Sorry, I'm not an economist but I'm not seeing a connection. It seems like you just may not like the idea of capitalism and are trying to connect it to something else which you consider to be bad.
Turkmenistan's recent history is as a (Soviet) socialist republic and it ranks very, very low on https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Index_of_Economic_Freedom. I'd need further convincing that this practice is reflective of a culture which embraces capitalistic ideals like free markets and voluntary exchange.
I took the comment to mean that some marriages are an economic exchange, a trade of money for goods, as opposed to an emotional bond of love between people. The specific economic system mentioned isn't super relevant, I'd guess he didn't mean to fit such a literal definition of capitalism.
Surely the attempt to elicit a higher price via marketing is indicative of a capitalist ideal. Under a communist ideal (ie not necessarily a real system that's ever existed on Earth, AFAICT there has yet to be a state that's fully embraced communism; dictatorships don't count) improvement would be sought in order to better the collective good, rather than elicit a particular family's profit.
That a transactional system exists in a dictatorial regime that bears some communistic characteristics doesn't mean that transactional system (bride price) isn't "Capitalist".
> AFAICT there has yet to be a state that's fully embraced communism; dictatorships don't count)
Ah, the classical "no true scotsman" that pops up in every discussion on the virtues of communism.
It's weird how people praising or arguing in favour of communism repeatedly claim that communism never existed, particularly unsavoury and atrocious communist regimes, but somehow every single far-fetched example involving some kind of transaction that has a negative connotation is somehow a prime candidate to represent capitalism.
Agreed. In a communist society you would look out for the greater comunal interest. For example, family would be expected to let their marry to have more children, without expecting anything directly in return, but for the greater good of the people.
