5 ms·

But the first source you quoted, the Atlantic article [0], quotes Graeber describing economies which don't depend on money or barter: > Communities of Iroquois

But the first source you quoted, the Atlantic article [0], quotes Graeber describing economies which don't depend on money or barter: > Communities of Iroquois Native Americans, for instance, stockpiled their goods in longhouses. Female councils then allocated the goods, explains Graeber. Other indigenous communities relied on “gift economies,” which went something like this: If you were a baker who needed meat, you didn’t offer your bagels for the butcher’s steaks. Instead, you got your wife to hint to the butcher’s wife that you two were low on iron, and she’d say something like “Oh really? Have a hamburger, we’ve got plenty!” Down the line, the butcher might want a birthday cake, or help moving to a new apartment, and you’d help him out. > On paper, this sounds a bit like delayed barter, but it bears some significant differences. For one thing, it’s much more efficient than Smith’s idea of a barter system, since it doesn’t depend on each person simultaneously having what the other wants. It’s also not tit for tat: No one ever assigns a specific value to the meat or cake or house-building labor, meaning debts can’t be transferred. > And, in a gift economy, exchange isn’t impersonal. My original reply in this thread was to mention that there have been functioning societies that don't use money. I was replying to a post that couldn't imagine such things. Maybe I'm misunderstanding why you brought up barter economies? I'll have to get back to your first Nick Szabo reference, it doesn't format readable in the browser I'm in front of at the moment (overlapping text). The second link, the blog post, seems to discuss the history of money as opposed to alternatives (like the Iroquois and gift economies mentioned above). [0] https://www.theatlantic.com/business/archive/2016/02/barter-society-myth/471051/ https://www.theatlantic.com/business/archive/2016/02/barter-...

zizee 5y ago
This "gift economy" sounds someone trying to put a nobel spin on a debt based economy. I bet in many cases if someone got a reputation for not reciprocating "gifts" they'd soon find themselves not receiving anything. Hardly a gift. And why are people "hinting" at things in this economy, and why this is presented as something different from a direct request. How often have you come across people "hinting" at what they really want, when really they are demanding. Sounds like something out of a cliche mobster scene, "lovely tanks you have there Colonel, it would be a shame for anything to happen to them". > No one ever assigns a specific value to the meat or cake or house-building labor, meaning debts can’t be transferred. If the bakers wife were to "hint" to the butcher that their friend could do with some extra "iron", whilst simultaneously saying "did you enjoy those scones i gave you" (wink), then the debt is transferred. We can pretend that it wouldn't have happened, but people are people the world over. Some would be nice and help others because they like to help, others would use what leverage they have to get ahead in life. This gift based economy just sounds like a passive aggressive debt based economy, and it doesn't sound real.
- mikem170 5y ago
  > This "gift economy" sounds someone trying to put a nobel spin on a debt based economy. I saw that same connection myself. Gifts, aka favors, aka "you owe me one", aka debts. > This gift based economy just sounds like a passive aggressive debt based economy, and it doesn't sound real. I brought this up initially (near the top of this thread) in response to someone who couldn't imagine an economy without without money. Such things have existed, as per anthropologists.
- zizee 5y ago
  Weird, I thought i deleted this comment. I deleted it because I took the time to read the article mentioned above a bit closer. I believe it was arguing that gift-based economies were the origin of debt based economies (aka money) instead of money originating from bartering. Stupidly I had misunderstood what was being written, and then I attacked that imagined position by making the same argument as they were actually making :facepalm:
samatman 5y ago
> Communities of Iroquois Native Americans Had wampum https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wampum https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wampum Which was absolutely used as trade goods between Iroquois bands, between the Iroquois and other natives, and between the Iroquois and settler colonialists. Standardized trade goods, portable and of a broadly recognized value: in other words, money. Money which was good enough that the English, being kept short of coin by the Crown, adopted it for their own internal trade. Leading to the expression "shelling out", and the slang term "clams" for the dollar. Single Iroquois bands may not have done much if any internal trade, but the same is true of my nuclear family. I would expect some wampum changed hands for things like marriages, though I don't have a source on that and it might not be true in this specific case.
- mikem170 5y ago
  Like I said, the original post I replied to seemed to say they couldn't imagine the dishes getting done without money: "He wants everyone to suddenly stop using money. If that happened, who would wash the dishes?" I'm fairly certain the Iroquois didn't need to trade wampum with other bands to get the dishes washed? Just like you said you don't need to pay someone in your family to do the dishes, families (and friends, and Iroquois villages, etc) help each other without needing money. I didn't say that one can construct a modern economy without money, just that the dishes could still get washed, like a lot of other small scale transactions, in response to someone who may have thought that such things are not possible. Are you trying to prove me wrong, that humans cannot possibly organize activities amongst themselves without wampum of some sort? You mentioned families doing things for each other, which might be a better example than I brought up. (I do appreciate the discussion though, I've learned a couple things along the way. But I'm not sure if we disagree, or are going on tangents.)
  - kalenx 5y ago
    I think scale is the key here. You can do that within a family, you might do that within a village, perhaps in some perfect circumstances you will be able to do that within a group of a few 1000's people, but never at the scale of our societies. It's not about the type of society or people, it really has to do with the number. You'll have a much harder time convincing someone to work for someone else he doesn't know at all...

zizee 5y ago

This "gift economy" sounds someone trying to put a nobel spin on a debt based economy. I bet in many cases if someone got a reputation for not reciprocating "gifts" they'd soon find themselves not receiving anything. Hardly a gift. And why are people "hinting" at things in this economy, and why this is presented as something different from a direct request. How often have you come across people "hinting" at what they really want, when really they are demanding. Sounds like something out of a cliche mobster scene, "lovely tanks you have there Colonel, it would be a shame for anything to happen to them". > No one ever assigns a specific value to the meat or cake or house-building labor, meaning debts can’t be transferred. If the bakers wife were to "hint" to the butcher that their friend could do with some extra "iron", whilst simultaneously saying "did you enjoy those scones i gave you" (wink), then the debt is transferred. We can pretend that it wouldn't have happened, but people are people the world over. Some would be nice and help others because they like to help, others would use what leverage they have to get ahead in life. This gift based economy just sounds like a passive aggressive debt based economy, and it doesn't sound real.

mikem170 5y ago
> This "gift economy" sounds someone trying to put a nobel spin on a debt based economy. I saw that same connection myself. Gifts, aka favors, aka "you owe me one", aka debts. > This gift based economy just sounds like a passive aggressive debt based economy, and it doesn't sound real. I brought this up initially (near the top of this thread) in response to someone who couldn't imagine an economy without without money. Such things have existed, as per anthropologists.
zizee 5y ago
Weird, I thought i deleted this comment. I deleted it because I took the time to read the article mentioned above a bit closer. I believe it was arguing that gift-based economies were the origin of debt based economies (aka money) instead of money originating from bartering. Stupidly I had misunderstood what was being written, and then I attacked that imagined position by making the same argument as they were actually making :facepalm:

samatman 5y ago

> Communities of Iroquois Native Americans Had wampum https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wampum https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wampum Which was absolutely used as trade goods between Iroquois bands, between the Iroquois and other natives, and between the Iroquois and settler colonialists. Standardized trade goods, portable and of a broadly recognized value: in other words, money. Money which was good enough that the English, being kept short of coin by the Crown, adopted it for their own internal trade. Leading to the expression "shelling out", and the slang term "clams" for the dollar. Single Iroquois bands may not have done much if any internal trade, but the same is true of my nuclear family. I would expect some wampum changed hands for things like marriages, though I don't have a source on that and it might not be true in this specific case.

mikem170 5y ago
Like I said, the original post I replied to seemed to say they couldn't imagine the dishes getting done without money: "He wants everyone to suddenly stop using money. If that happened, who would wash the dishes?" I'm fairly certain the Iroquois didn't need to trade wampum with other bands to get the dishes washed? Just like you said you don't need to pay someone in your family to do the dishes, families (and friends, and Iroquois villages, etc) help each other without needing money. I didn't say that one can construct a modern economy without money, just that the dishes could still get washed, like a lot of other small scale transactions, in response to someone who may have thought that such things are not possible. Are you trying to prove me wrong, that humans cannot possibly organize activities amongst themselves without wampum of some sort? You mentioned families doing things for each other, which might be a better example than I brought up. (I do appreciate the discussion though, I've learned a couple things along the way. But I'm not sure if we disagree, or are going on tangents.)
- kalenx 5y ago
  I think scale is the key here. You can do that within a family, you might do that within a village, perhaps in some perfect circumstances you will be able to do that within a group of a few 1000's people, but never at the scale of our societies. It's not about the type of society or people, it really has to do with the number. You'll have a much harder time convincing someone to work for someone else he doesn't know at all...