4 ms·

The article doesn't make many comments about efficiency. Achieving an empire through forced labor is different than doing it efficiently.

Demiurge 13y ago
Could you say labor is forced if you have a choice between starvation and labor? If such is the case, I wish I wasn't forced to work for money in this society and then exchange it for goods and seek out the most favorable deal.
- eloisius 13y ago
  There's a big difference between being compelled by the laws of nature and being forced by the bidding of another man.
  - rayiner 13y ago
    The situation with the Incas was that, without the force coordination necessary to conduct agriculture in the mountains, everyone would die. Where does that fall on the nature versus man spectrum?
    - eloisius 13y ago
      Oh, no argument against that really. It still falls under the compelled by another man side of the spectrum, but I've long held the belief that collectivist forms of society were necessary in more primitive times. Only with technological progress are we capable of stronger individualism. I only mean to answer the question, "Could you say labor is forced if you have a choice between starvation and labor?"
    - icambron 13y ago
      The Inca used forced labor to build temples and roads and provide food and other goods to the military. Cooperative farming can certainly become more efficient with additional infrastructure like irrigation and food storage, but I find it hard to believe that the tradeoff here is starvation vs massive cleptocratic absolute monarchy. It went way beyond the need to grow food cooperatively. And in fact, the only way that you would end up with all of this labor available for armies and temples and so on is by generating large food surpluses, so it's clear they weren't on the boundary of starvation. How did I work, I wonder, before there was an emperor? That said, we currently use money to build roads and provide food and other goods to the military, which we fund through taxes. Taxes are just a more nuanced, easier-to-administer form of "provide x% of your labor to the central authority". The evil part here is the absolute monarchy that makes self-interested decisions about what to do with that labor, but the Inca were hardly alone in that respect.
marcosdumay 13y ago
The hard to cultivate terrain where the Inca prospered already tells enough about efficiency. Ayway, it's easier to organize efficiently an economy based on a dozen of stable products with well known necessities than it is to organize one on our times. Also, an ecomomy being efficient does not make it a good one to live under.

Demiurge 13y ago

Could you say labor is forced if you have a choice between starvation and labor? If such is the case, I wish I wasn't forced to work for money in this society and then exchange it for goods and seek out the most favorable deal.

eloisius 13y ago
There's a big difference between being compelled by the laws of nature and being forced by the bidding of another man.
- rayiner 13y ago
  The situation with the Incas was that, without the force coordination necessary to conduct agriculture in the mountains, everyone would die. Where does that fall on the nature versus man spectrum?
  - eloisius 13y ago
    Oh, no argument against that really. It still falls under the compelled by another man side of the spectrum, but I've long held the belief that collectivist forms of society were necessary in more primitive times. Only with technological progress are we capable of stronger individualism. I only mean to answer the question, "Could you say labor is forced if you have a choice between starvation and labor?"
  - icambron 13y ago
    The Inca used forced labor to build temples and roads and provide food and other goods to the military. Cooperative farming can certainly become more efficient with additional infrastructure like irrigation and food storage, but I find it hard to believe that the tradeoff here is starvation vs massive cleptocratic absolute monarchy. It went way beyond the need to grow food cooperatively. And in fact, the only way that you would end up with all of this labor available for armies and temples and so on is by generating large food surpluses, so it's clear they weren't on the boundary of starvation. How did I work, I wonder, before there was an emperor? That said, we currently use money to build roads and provide food and other goods to the military, which we fund through taxes. Taxes are just a more nuanced, easier-to-administer form of "provide x% of your labor to the central authority". The evil part here is the absolute monarchy that makes self-interested decisions about what to do with that labor, but the Inca were hardly alone in that respect.

marcosdumay 13y ago

The hard to cultivate terrain where the Inca prospered already tells enough about efficiency. Ayway, it's easier to organize efficiently an economy based on a dozen of stable products with well known necessities than it is to organize one on our times. Also, an ecomomy being efficient does not make it a good one to live under.