historical_precedent
Differences
This shows you the differences between two versions of the page.
Both sides previous revisionPrevious revisionNext revision | Previous revision | ||
historical_precedent [2020/07/23 19:04] – freeworlder | historical_precedent [2021/08/04 06:11] (current) – external edit 127.0.0.1 | ||
---|---|---|---|
Line 1: | Line 1: | ||
====== Historical precedents for a moneyless economy ====== | ====== Historical precedents for a moneyless economy ====== | ||
- | Historical precedent for moneyless or tradeless communities is sparse in terms of evidence, but there is ample reason to believe that primitive human societies were cooperative by default and operated an [[explicit_vs_implicit_trade|implicit trade system]]. In his influential book, //Debt: The First 5000 Years//, anthropologist David Graebar writes: | + | Historical precedent for moneyless or tradeless communities is sparse in terms of evidence, but there is ample reason to believe that primitive human societies were cooperative by default and operated an [[:explicit_vs_implicit_trade|implicit trade system]]. In his influential book, //Debt: The First 5000 Years//, anthropologist David Graebar writes: |
- | //"The refusal to calculate credits and debits can be found throughout the anthropological literature on egalitarian hunting societies. Rather than seeing himself as human because he could make economic calculations, | + | //"The refusal to calculate credits and debits can be found throughout the anthropological literature on egalitarian hunting societies. Rather than seeing himself as human because he could make economic calculations, |
- | In recent history, the Iroquois in North America were probably the best example of moneyless, egalitarian communities. In his book //A People' | + | {{ : |
- | //"In the villages of the Iroquois, land was owned in common and worked in common. Hunting was done together, and the catch was divided among the members of the village. Houses were considered common property and were shared by several families. The concept of private ownership of land and homes was foreign to the Iroquois | + | //"In the villages of the Iroquois, land was owned in common and worked in common. Hunting was done together, and the catch was divided among the members of the village. Houses were considered common property and were shared by several families. The concept of private ownership of land and homes was foreign to the Iroquois.// |
- | "A French Jesuit priest who encountered them in the 1650s wrote: 'No poorhouses are needed among them because they are neither mendicants nor paupers...Their kindness, humanity and courtesy not only makes them liberal with what they have but causes them to possess hardly anything except in common." | + | |
- | “Children | + | //"A French Jesuit priest who encountered them in the 1650s wrote: 'No poorhouses are needed among them because they are neither mendicants nor paupers…Their kindness, humanity |
- | Gary Nash also describes the Iroquois' culture | + | // |
- | "[They had] no laws and ordinances, sheriffs and constables, judges and juries, or courts or jails—the apparatus of authority in European societies—were to be found in the northeast woodlands prior to European arrival. Yet boundaries of acceptable behavior were firmly set. Though priding themselves on the autonomous individual, the Iroquois maintained a strict sense of right and wrong...He who stole another’s food or acted invalourously in war was “shamed” by his people and ostracized from their company until he had atoned for his actions and demonstrated to their satisfaction that he had morally purified himself.”// | + | Gary Nash also describes the Iroquois' |
+ | |||
+ | //"[They had] no laws and ordinances, sheriffs and constables, judges and juries, or courts or jails—the apparatus of authority in European societies—were to be found in the northeast woodlands prior to European arrival. Yet boundaries of acceptable behavior were firmly set. Though priding themselves on the autonomous individual, the Iroquois maintained a strict sense of right and wrong…He who stole another’s food or acted invalourously in war was “shamed” by his people and ostracized from their company until he had atoned for his actions and demonstrated to their satisfaction that he had morally purified himself.”// | ||
+ | |||
+ | In his book, // | ||
+ | |||
+ | //" | ||
+ | |||
+ | {{: | ||
+ | |||
+ | //" | ||
+ | |||
+ | //" | ||
+ | |||
+ | //" | ||
+ | |||
+ | It's important to note that, although almost every occurrence of moneyless societies later ceded to monetised economies, it demonstrates that, without predatory interference and scarcity, humans tend to organise themselves in this way. Presumably, within a prevailing culture of sharing, and without the rigours of accounting, it's the easiest way of organising. | ||
- | In his book, The Next Copernican Revolution, Troy Wiley writes: | ||
- | //" |
historical_precedent.1595531073.txt.gz · Last modified: 2021/08/04 06:11 (external edit)