The common motivation behind capitalism and communism

[Anonymous]

Background

Capitalism originated in Europe during the Middle Ages and Renaissance, gaining prominence in the 18th and 19th centuries with the Industrial Revolution. It's characterized by private ownership, free markets, and profit-seeking. The Enlightenment influenced its ideas, and the Industrial Revolution marked a shift toward industrial capitalism with factories and wage labor. Economists like Adam Smith supported minimal government intervention. In the 20th century, capitalism evolved with mixed economies, and the Cold War highlighted its contrast with communism. Today, globalization and technology continue to shape capitalism, posing challenges like inequality and environmental issues.

——

Communism emerged as an idea in the 19th century, notably with Karl Marx and Friedrich Engels. It envisions a classless society where the means of production are collectively owned, aiming to eliminate social inequality. The Russian Revolution in 1917 led to the establishment of the first communist state, the Soviet Union.

In a simplified sense, communism seeks to eliminate private ownership, promote equality, and create a society where resources are shared. However, practical implementations have faced challenges, and by the late 20th century, many communist states underwent significant changes or collapsed. Despite this, communism has left a lasting impact on political and social thought.

——

Communism and capitalism both play roles in shaping gender equality through feminism.

Capitalism can influence feminism by affecting economic opportunities and reinforcing gender roles. Feminists within capitalist systems often advocate for equal pay and opportunities to address these inequalities.

Communism aims for a classless society and collective ownership, providing a foundation for addressing gender equality. The idea is that by eliminating economic disparities, communism can contribute to breaking down gender-based inequalities as well.

In essence, both systems can impact feminism: capitalism prompting calls for equal economic opportunities, and communism striving for broader societal equality that includes gender.

——

Rome

Before the Punic Wars, men in ancient Rome were highly esteemed for fulfilling virtues such as courage, loyalty, and military prowess. Being a skilled soldier and demonstrating bravery on the battlefield were paramount. Men were recognized and rewarded based on their adherence to these virtues, contributing to their social standing and honor within Roman society. This emphasis on martial virtues reflected the importance placed on military success and valor in the pre-Punic Wars era.

Following the costly Punic Wars, especially the Second Punic War, there was a notable shift in the role and influence of women in ancient Rome. With many men lost in battles, women found themselves assuming more responsibilities in both the household and broader society.

The absence of a significant number of men created opportunities for women to manage family affairs, including financial matters. Widows often took charge of family estates, making important decisions in the absence of their husbands. This increased participation in economic matters gradually expanded the influence of women beyond traditional domestic roles.

Furthermore, the societal upheavals caused by the Punic Wars prompted a reevaluation of gender roles. Women began to gain more recognition for their resilience and contributions during times of crisis. This shift laid the groundwork for a gradual expansion of women's influence and status in Roman society, although full equality remained a distant goal.

In summary, the aftermath of the Punic Wars marked a period of increased responsibilities and recognition for women in Roman society, as they stepped into new roles and gained a greater foothold in various aspects of life.

——

Once women gained financial power, the standards for what a man had to be increased significantly. Women were no longer "awarded" based on good conduct like a man (such as being a good soldier); instead, they were essentially acquired with fame and money. Consequently, the elites started accumulating vast amounts of wealth, engaging in overspending, and so on. They overspent to the extent that they no longer had sufficient funds to pay their soldiers. The demise of the Roman republic was imminent until Caesar declared himself emperor, by directly compensating his troops with a substantial amount of money obtained from the spoils of war.

[MrOracle]

Capitalism is the default system of trade/commerce, and has been around LONG before the Middle Ages.

The whole concept of capitalism is that one person wants something a second person has, and if they agreed on a trade that they both feel is acceptable, the trade took place. Otherwise, it didn't. Eventually the concept of money came about - which is just a more universal and portable store of value - so that trade didn't have to be a direct trade of items or labor, but the concept is the same.

If you want a smartphone or a pair of shoes or whatever, you either pay the asking price, try to negotiate a better price, try to find another seller with a better price, or you choose not to buy at all. As a seller, if you price your goods or services too high, fewer people will buy them, and that might be great for an expense, durable luxury item, and terrible for a perishable commodity item, so you will need to lower your prices to be able to sell.

This system provides the most choice and the best range of services at the best prices for the most people.

Here’s the problem: under Capitalism, a relative few people will be extremely wealthy, and some will be poor because they are either unable or, more likely unwilling to provide a high level of value to the world. And so people think it's unfair that some can drive a Ferrari while others can only drive a used Ford, or a bicycle, or even wall, and they think Communism is better because it makes everyone equal. What they don't realize is that the way Communism makes everyone equal isn't by bringing everyone up to a high level - it brings everyone down to the bottom. Under Communism, EVERYONE WALKS, and no one has Ferraris, Fords, or bicycles.

Is that the kind of "fair" you want? With everyone being equally poor and powerless?

Under Capitalism, everyone has the OPPORTUNITY to advance and move up the ladder. Under Communism, there is no ladder - everyone (except the few ruling elite) is born in the dirt and dies in the dirt. And even the ruling elite don't enjoy the lifestyle of a middle class Capitalist.

[love_conquers_lust]

Communism, good intentions paving the pathway to hell.

[captain_voidwalker]

Communism is the lazy trying to exploit the hard working. And it always results on hundreds of thousands of people starving to death because why work hard if you get nothing for your effort.
Capitalism has its faults but at least if gives one thing to everyone. And that 1 thing is opportunity, now not everyone can make something with that opportunity but at least you get a chance.

Communism by contrast takes opportunity away leaving you with nothing

[Peter_Penetrator]

Well put. Don’t forget corruption. Those attempting to escape down right poverty are the ones most susceptible to corruption in order to provide for themselves and their families.

[myTake Owner]

That's nonsense dude. It ignores the history of just how shitty feudal systems were and just how corrupt capitalist systems are.

[Amuere]

Capitalism gives you an opportunity alright, to be a wage slave for the wealthy 🤑

[captain_voidwalker]

Or start your own business and become wealthy yourself.

[myTake Owner]

"Start your own business and become wealthy"

That's idealistic

[myTake Owner]

The premise of capitalism is that the wealthy get more wealthy. Because they have the capital. And depression and misery forces people to work hard for the people with the money

[myTake Owner]

Capitalism would be great IF getting capital was easier.

[captain_voidwalker]

Getting capital is easy you just have to be willing to work hard for it. Stop expecting everything to be handed to you.

[myTake Owner]

Tf? Getting $500k is easy? I'm not talking about opening a lemonade shop

[captain_voidwalker]

Sure it is just cut back on your expenses, work extra hours, or pick up a 2nd job and save for a few years.
Yes it will take sacrifice and hard work on your part, but that hardly makes it impossible. You just have to want it bad enough to put in the effort.

[myTake Owner]

And why's it a bad idea for the government to give people capital instead of wasting money on God knows what. ...

[captain_voidwalker]

Where do you think government gets that capital from?

[myTake Owner]

Who cares

[captain_voidwalker]

Could it be it comes from... taxing the people. So why not just cut the spending and lower taxes. Seems like a more effective idea than having the government doll out money for no reason.

[myTake Owner]

You're an ideolog. Sheep.

[captain_voidwalker]

So I destroyed your argument and you've resorted to name calling. I think I'll put this one in the victory column

[Daffotul]

greed

[AndreaH]

Money

[love_conquers_lust]

On Rome:

https://www.pbs.org/empires/romans/empire/women.html#:~:text=Influence%2C%20not%20power,real%2C%20albeit%20informal%2C%20power.

Law was enforced by the sword. The world was still run by the physically endowed. The original founders could rule based on a Republic because they were like minded and came from similar backgrounds, and the men weren’t dead.

As Rome expanded, they needed troops to hold that which they’d conquered. They used their defeated foes as stand ins. This was how diversity started to undermine the cohesiveness of the empire. As more appeasement kept adding more conquered foes to the mix, infighting increased, rendering the Republic dysfunctional. It necessitated the rise of Caesar, to unite them under one directive disempowering the Republic.

The addition of Germanic people to the North and West combined with increased decadence and greed were why the Western Roman empire fell. It didn’t happen overnight. It was a gradual change that happened over centuries. It’s not like people disappeared. If you didn’t die, all the fall of the Roman empire meant was you changed allegiance.

One could argue women’s increased influence exacerbated the problem in that they too believed acquiring resources, which could include a strong, fierce man, through any means possible was their ticket to a better life. This was usually done through conquering their neighbors. They were imbibing the same lead men were. So it makes sense why it would further contribute to the rise of a Caesar. But, again, that’s conjecture on my part.

This is why I like Centurion. It shows both sides.

On communism and capitalism:

Communism believes all people are created equal. Capitalism believes all people are created unequal. Liberal democracies believe all people have equal rights.

The US is a capitalistic liberal democracy. Our social safety nets are a product of that democracy. Our social nets are kept in check by that same democracy.

[Drewtate]

Nonsense. Women had no postion in the Roman empire. What happened in Rome during the panic wars was that they recruited legionaries from the lower classes to replace numbers and gave them conquered lands as a reward. Rome being an oligarchy was very corrupt and all the lands were taken from average male citizens by the equestrian classes forcing more people into Rome, Rome's army became professional before the 2nd Punic War

[Flatmanlewis]

Not sure what the question is but I can say this: Communism is an abomination and has failed everywhere it’s been tried. Any illusions that it had a benefit to feminism in particular is just outrageous and ignorant to the realities of history.

[Anonymous]

I like your effort but your conclusions are wrong.