"We know that exchange is just one more activity that humans do, but, historically, in the thousand of years context, it was not fundamental. We could argue th

"We know that exchange is just one more activity that humans do, but, historically, in the thousand of years context, it was not fundamental. We could argue that in the palaeolithic the social organization had little to do with markets. We could argue that in the neolithic, the social organization was, in most cases, hierarchical and top-down." ~~~~~~~~~~~ you've made a bold statement but somehow eluded an argument. how is exchange (i.e., trade) not a fundamental human activity? two people meet, one has something other wants, and vice versa. what do they do? ignore the situation? scheme about how to steal from the other? fight? or do they trade? even in a hierarchical, pre-historic society, do the two just stare each other down, groping for a way to get what they covet without harm to themselves? i might be wrong here, but might you be mistaking exchange (trade) for markets, and markets for capitalism, in an effort to strike at the underpinnings of capitalistic markets? or am i missing the crux of a valid but hidden argument?