Wi: money was never invented?
- Thread starter crazy2378
- Start date
Depends how they're used; they can also function as part of a gift economy.
A palace economy like the one the Incas had does not require money, yes, but it’s also a very primitive sort of economy.
As @Jared already said, no money does not make everything free. Everything being free is a state of either very early human stages or a distant utopia. Both barter economies and palace economies can and have evolved impressively. Among their achievements was also the rationalisation of exchange resp. allocation. The question is why and how that (i.e. Money) would be prevented.
Might be that some pretty isolated nation not need money at least locally, but I am pretty sure that Incas must invent money on some point. Hard to imaginate that they can keep economic structure without money to modern day if survive.
Guys, free yourselves from your mental frames for a moment.
Tawantinsuyu in a world where Eurasians never invented money (if butterflies don`t interfere, which they well might): well, hard to imagine for us does not equate difficult to achieve for them.
Looking at the level of organization of the Inca, I would say that is a highly questionable judgment.
Tawantinsuyu surrounded by Spanish and Portuguese colonies, of course, that`s a different piece of cake, but that`s not what the OP asked for.
Tawantinsuyu in a world where Eurasians never invented money (if butterflies don`t interfere, which they well might): well, hard to imagine for us does not equate difficult to achieve for them.
No, they didn`t, that`s just mapping our / your conceptual frame over their actions.
Skallagrim
Banned
The Inca economy is super-fascinating, but the idea that "everything was free there" is complete nonsense. Whatever else we may say, it's not a useful example in this thread. If anything, it proves that "no money" does not mean "free".
Using no money, mandatory labour was the base for the taxation-equivalent. That is: every person had to work for the state, and the state distributed goods directly to the people. That's all very interesting - and do note what we still don't know enough about the details to made good estimations of how flawlessly all this did or did not work - but anyone who thinks that this equates to "stuff is free" is mistaken.
Also, as @Lalli pointed out: at some point, there's going to be money. The Inca economy was an isolated thing. They did engage in barter trade with others, though. Once those others stop accepting barter and want gold (or whatever specie backs money), that will have effects.
Anyway, the basis point here is that whatever means of exchange you use, trade is always value for value. Nothing is free. The idea that "no money" makes things "free" is preposterous. And holding up the Inca economy as some sort moneyless utopia when it was in reality more of a pseudo-theocratic aristocracy where the elite controlled the state, the state monopolised food distribution, and the vast share of the population could be gang-pressed into forced labour or face starvation... well, that's a bit silly.
I never said everything was free in Tawantinsuyu, only that they did not use currency in the way we do, in rebuttal to the claim that money was mandatory for a civilization.
Let´s keep things separated.
It was the OP who equated "no money" with "everything is free".
He got a few replies who insisted that money would always come into existence once civilization starts.
To these replies, some people held up the Inca counter-example.
That does not mean that these people - including me - think that in Tawantinsuyu, everything was free. You are most certainly right that it wasn`t, and I subscribe to your description of their economy. I´m not holding it up as a utopia, but as an example of a complex society without money.
I think the OP is really two challenges rolled into one:
a) no invention of money. That does not preclude development of complex civilizations, but it does beg the question of why exactly money isn`t invented ANYWHERE.
b) everything being "free". That, I would say, would either limit us to a stage of pre-neolithic development. Or it would imply projecting us into a sci-fi future a la Star Trek.
Skallagrim
Banned
Fair enough, you're right about this. Best to keep these things separated. I read the replies too much in light of the OP.
Regarding (a), I'm pretty sure that the Inca economy would have its limits. The going theory is that, earlier cultures in the region having been highly vulnerable to starvation, a lot of effort was put into avoiding that. Basically, they were less interested in typical economic activities and more interested in building up an agricultural network. The threat of starvation also fits with the "central planning", which derives from communal effort and justice. The community works to ensure the common food supply, and a (presumably divinely appointed, thus just) elite allocates food equitably. That would result in what we saw historically. That said, it had evidently moved beyond that: by the time the Spaniards showed up, starvation was no longer a threat, the elite didn't share in the labour, and there were evidently "wealthy" families who controlled vast tracts of agricultural land.
I'd say that if such trends were to be extrapolated, the system would not remain viable. In other words: like some others, I believe that this communal, money-less, centrally planned system of collective work and distribution-of-means only works as intended in very local and quite primitive societies (and potentially in very advanced post-scarcity ones, but that hasn't been tested yet).
Long story short: I think the Inca economy was already becoming a relic system by the time the Spaniards arrived, and could not have survived the increasing evolution towards greater complexity and scale in society. Such money-less economies aren't exceptions for nothing. They develop only under specific circumstances. An intermediary means of exchange just makes so much sense under nearly all circumstances that keeping it from existing would be... very hard.
Regarding (b), I'd argue that even in the most primitive times, nothing is free. If you hunt, you expend energy and time. You exchange those for food, which you value more. Is the food you gain "free"? Everything has a cost. The absence of money doesn't mean the absence of value and cost... just as the absence of clocks doesn't mean that time ceases to exist.
Indeed, I imagine that only a post-scarcity situation could render all or most costs negligable. (If you have a replicator with essentially infinite energy etc., the 'cost' of a meal is the time and energy it takes to cross a room and press some buttons-- which is no cost at all for most practical purposes.) Short of a situation like that, however, I think "free" is a word that is used far too... freely.
