TIL: Contrary to popular conception, non-monetary societies did not mainly rely on barter as a means of trade, but relied on gift economics and sometimes debt.
TIL: Contrary to popular conception, non-monetary societies did not mainly rely on barter as a means of trade, but relied on gift economics and sometimes debt.
From wikipedia:
Contrary to popular conception, there is no evidence that societies relied only on barter before using money for trade.[73] Instead, non-monetary societies operated primarily along the principles of gift economics, and in more complex economies, on debt.[74][75][76] When barter occurred, it was usually between strangers or would-be enemies.[77]
You're viewing a single thread.
Yup. Capitalism is built on a foundation of lies.
The other thing I think may just be straight up a pro-capitalist-propaganda myth is "homesteading." Honestly, do we have any evidence that that has ever happened in human history? It seems like every extample a Libertarian (with a capital "L") might come up with is actually an example of theft of land. From either indigenous peoples or from pre-capitalist land owners.
How is capitalism built on this "lie"?
Because they dont like it.
Money is just a representational tool for value. A service rendered might make you in-debted to the person and you will have to render a service in return to get out of it. No money is involved, but if a person rendered you a big service and you return the favor with a small service, it might make the other person less inclined to help you again in a big way.
The introduction of something that represents a value is a logical step when keeping track of debt. Be it salt, cows, labor or even money.
Gift economies are of course probably hotly debated topics. I'd love to see a multi-year experiment that allocates a large area to a group and lets them try out such an economy. I don't know how they will interface with the real world to get good (medicine, electricity, ...) or if it will just throw them back into the dark ages and they'll have to progress from there.
Have you never had a friend group? Like that's a dead-ass simple 'study' of a gift economy. Sometimes someone pays for lunch, sometimes someone pays for beer, sometimes someone brings weed or bakes cookies or sings a song. Everyone helps everyone else out. Each according to their need, based on their ability. Or is that not something you're familiar with, because if not, you need better friends.
Yes, and then there’s the one who always receives gifts but never contributes. The free rider problem is present even at this tiny scale. Reputation takes care of it, generally, when the friend group decides to stop hanging out with the non-reciprocal individual.
I haven’t heard of any proposal that could scale up a reciprocal economy like this up to a city of thousands (let alone millions). The issue is Dunbar’s number: our brains simply cannot track relationships with thousands of people.
First part was good and got the point across. The personal attack at the end was unnecessary.
I'm not terribly sure what your response has to do with my comment in particular. I'm not sure why you responded to me and not the OP. I guess just because that first line of my comment agreed with OP?
Whatever the case, do you have a significant other? Kids? Parents? Is your relationship with any of them as transactional as what you're describing?
"Happy 18th birthday, Jimmy. I wanted to let you know that the total cost for services rendered in the course of your raising comes to," *hands Jimmy an invoice, "$227,261.63. Would you like to pay that in a lump sum or do you need to discuss a payment plan?"
It's understandable if you've spent your whole life in capitalism to not really be able to think outside of that particular box, but I recommend looking into it. I can't say I'm terribly well-read on the subject, but I think a book worth reading on the subject is Charles Eisenstein's Sacred Economics (which is available to read for free online.) If you want something a little more hard-core, there's Kropotkin's "The Conquest of Bread". Both of those will probably speak pretty well to the question of whether a gift economy can coexist with things like modern technology. (Spoiler: Those works definitely argue it can.)
I'm not terribly sure what your response has to do with my comment in particular.
Yup. Capitalism is built on a foundation of lies.
Whatever the case, do you have a significant other? Kids? Parents? Is your relationship with any of them as transactional as what you're describing?
You may be surprised to know that not everybody grows up in a nice family. You further be surprised to find out that some parents have children so that they can be taken care of later in life - I take care of you, you take care of me. There are children paying rent to their parents right this moment.
The further away the relationship, the more quid pro quo comes into play. The fact that there are some people who do not require some kind of compensation (love, hugs, material good, money, ...) for some actions, doesn't mean that won't require it for others. People can have unconditional love for another person and still demand payment or compensation from another.
I’m not terribly sure what your response has to do with my comment in particular.
Yup. Capitalism is built on a foundation of lies.
This thread is specifically about one of the lies in question. And I gave another example. You don't seem to be arguing that those lies aren't indeed lies, so if I'm understanding your arguments correctly, what you're trying to get at is that neither "barter was a thing before money" and "homesteading is a thing that actually happens/happened" are "foundational" to pro-capitalist thought and "the foundation" of capitalist ideology is instead something along the lines that "quid pro quo and keeping score are human nature and money is just an abstraction thereof". Yes?
I'm saying that I find the existence of counterexamples (as well as the whole "gift economies were the norm before money" thing, and that capitalism has existed for a great minority of the time anatomically-modern humans have been around) a compelling reason to be skeptical of that stance.