Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

The greatest mystery of the Inca Empire was its strange economy (2012)

io9.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

121–130 of 153 posts

Re: The greatest mystery of the Inca Empire was its strange economy (2012)

#121

Post by lostlogin »

dsizzle wrote: post #115
wpietri wrote: post #105

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Why's that? It's clear they recognized various things as valuable. And that the Spanish told them they wanted gold. But money is special: it's a unit by which all economic value is measured, and it's universally swappable for any other kind of value.

It's possible, in principle, that this "transaction" was the first of its kind in Inca civilization and only happened to involve gold because that's what the Spanish wanted. But since gold is the quintessential commodity currency and has much of its value tied to others' valuing it [1], I think the burden of proof is on the claim they didn't have money. (And that's even before considering this famous anecdote -- one…

I get the feeling from this and your previous post that you're associating something having value with it being traded or used as money? Value and currency. Am I wrong? I know that the majority of my possessions have very little monetary value (maybe even zero) but a lot of value none the less. Judging by the small understanding of the Imca I have, they placed a lot of value in a lot of non material things and also in material things that weren't readily tradable. A lot about the Inca isn't understood - their record keeping/message system for example, quipu. And these were made of string. A lot of their artifacts have been preserved in deserts and glaciers, allowing very fragile things to be recovered. Quite apart from first hand accounts, I would think that unless something major has been overlooked that is right in front of everyone, money didn't exist.

Re: The greatest mystery of the Inca Empire was its strange economy (2012)

#122

Post by ahomescu1 »

soperj wrote: post #85
ahomescu1 wrote: post #70

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Well, theoretically, workers own the means of production in communism, but that's now how it happened in practice. In practice, the Party owned everything, and its high ranking members were effectively nobility. Workers in communism were nothing more than indentured servants.

That seems a best a very bad caricature of what happened in the Soviet Union. What's happening in Communist China now?

After thinking about it, I feel like the comparison to China deserves a discussion. China moved away from pure communism a long time ago, and basically implemented a form of capitalism-on-communism. They're now arguably the most dog-eat-dog capitalist country in the world, very far from a worker's paradise that communism is supposed to be.

A more fair comparison would be to North Korea. They're still old-school communist, and really not doing well.

Re: The greatest mystery of the Inca Empire was its strange economy (2012)

#123

Post by ahomescu1 »

int_19h wrote: post #100
ahomescu1 wrote: post #70

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Well, theoretically, workers own the means of production in communism, but that's now how it happened in practice. In practice, the Party owned everything, and its high ranking members were effectively nobility. Workers in communism were nothing more than indentured servants.

> In practice, the Party owned everything, and its high ranking members were effectively nobility. The concept of nobility implies hereditary transfer of privileges, which was not the case in Soviet system. It was certainly easier for children of Party bureaucrats to get their own spot, but it was not guaranteed to them, they could lose it at any time, and "commoners" could get into the ranks (and it was not somethin…

I'll agree they were not hereditary, but that was not the point. The point is that there was a privileged upper class minority ruling over the commoners, which completely goes against a basic communist principle, the classless society. They violated one of their fundamental principles.

Re: The greatest mystery of the Inca Empire was its strange economy (2012)

#124

Post by mercurial »

ekianjo wrote: post #110
mercurial wrote: post #43

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Basically the Russians weren't fighting to keep the Nazis from invading, but were focused on a counter-invasion. The thesis of Icebreaker [1], a controversial history book by an ex-GRU officer, is that Stalin was planning an invasion of Germany right when Operation Barbarossa happened. However, his interpretation is disputed by most historians. What is certain is that the Red Army was caught with its pants down and…

> Contrast this with the dismal performance of French and British troops during the Battle of France. Contrast this with the millions of people who died in Germany and Japan because of that determination (or should I say their rulers' determination!), without avoiding the final outcome at all. The French government understood very fast they were completely behind and were going to lose and they did the right thing to…

> Contrast this with the millions of people who died in Germany and Japan because of that determination (or should I say their rulers' determination!), without avoiding the final outcome at all. The French government understood very fast they were completely behind and were going to lose and they did the right thing to avoid a massacre which would have prevented nothing.

I was more thinking in terms of low troop morale and lack of aggressivity of (in particular) French high command.

A contrario, German troops, although outclassed both on the Western and Eastern fronts by the end of the war, managed a fighting retreat in mostly good order, even mounting a daring counter-offensive in the Ardennes in 1944 which caught Allied troops flat-footed.

> And besides, in Germany and Japan people were forced into fighting until the end (even teenagers in Germany), it's not like it was the "nation in arms" or something. Nobody wants to lose their life on purpose.

You are thinking of the Volkssturm, which had a relatively minor impact on the war, and only existed for a few months. On the other hand, regular German units did not collapse and disintegrate under pressure, when they could simply have surrendered to the Allies (at least on the Western front). As for Japanese units, just read about the battle of Iwo Jima. I'm not aware that Japanese units on the island were more "forced to fight" than any other body of troops, but still fought almost to the last man, in spite of their poor physical condition.

Re: The greatest mystery of the Inca Empire was its strange economy (2012)

#125

Post by lostlogin »

bobbydavid wrote: post #118
dsizzle wrote: post #117

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It may be that the Inca never used gold as currency, but it would be hard to substantiate that claim, I would think. The reason the Spanish valued it as currency is not because of some quirk of the Spanish, however -- it's univerally a good currency (though not the best). Unlike bartered goods or services, gold is readily divisible and transportable, transfers without any skill, and stores indefinitely.

Incidentally, so is salt.

Not unrelated, Salinas de Maras. If you're going to Cusco, make the side trip. It's fascinating. http://breakoutofbushwick.org/a-visit-to-the-salinas-de-mara...

Re: The greatest mystery of the Inca Empire was its strange economy (2012)

#126

Post by lostlogin »

seanmcdirmid wrote: post #113
IsThisObvious wrote: post #79

Earlier quoted context omitted.

How is paying me money any different if my only option if I quit was live on the streets and starve?

Monopoly on means of survival is effective slavery. People in early agricultural societies didn't exactly have many choices.

This is the argument behind the movements for a living wage. However this is now, no early agricultural society, just first world shining light capitalism. http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Living_wage

Re: The greatest mystery of the Inca Empire was its strange economy (2012)

#127

Post by lostlogin »

soperj wrote: post #88
mseebach wrote: post #78

Earlier quoted context omitted.

"Explaining why communism always fail without faulting communism even slightly" is a very rich genre. It is also disingenuous in failing to consider the single most likely (by way of Occam's razor) cause of communism's failure, which is the ideology itself. But to apply some historical facts to the theory: From its founding, the Cheka was an important military and security arm of the Bolshevik communist government. I…

What is labelled as communism doesn't always fail, see China, Venezuela, Cuba.

Does anyone see them as really being communist? Some are a smidge closer than others I suppose. By the same measure, those that are labeled democracy have failed fairly often as well. And those that succeed are often just as far off the label as China is off its. How many democracies have a large turn out with anything even approaching 50% of the population voting for the winning group?

Re: The greatest mystery of the Inca Empire was its strange economy (2012)

#128

Post by nhaehnle »

mseebach wrote: post #78
nhaehnle wrote: post #69

Earlier quoted context omitted.

But almost every implementation of Marxism in recent history involved totalitarianism and ignored the part about decentralization of power post-revolution. I recently came across a very interesting thought, which is that this observation (which I also believed until coming across that thought) is induced by a kind of selection bias. The original article in which I encountered this thought is here: http://www.pieria.c…

"Explaining why communism always fail without faulting communism even slightly" is a very rich genre. It is also disingenuous in failing to consider the single most likely (by way of Occam's razor) cause of communism's failure, which is the ideology itself. But to apply some historical facts to the theory: From its founding, the Cheka was an important military and security arm of the Bolshevik communist government. I…

"Explaining why communism always fail without faulting communism even slightly" is a very rich genre.

Please be clear on what you mean by "failure".

For Russia itself, communism was actually very successful economically speaking: Their economy grew more quickly than the average for other, non-communist countries that were at Russia's level of development.

With this aside, and going back to what we were talking about (i.e. state violence and repression), your point is a rather weak one. During and in the aftermath of revolutionary phases, there tends to be violence. You yourself conceded that these measures were eliminated and/or scaled down in Russia without outside intervention once things had settled down.

This kind of thing has nothing to do with economic organization and can be found in capitalism as well. Just look at what's been going on in the Middle East and Egypt in particular. Those are far from being communists, and yet the cleaning-up after a coup d'etat was quite brutal.

Re: The greatest mystery of the Inca Empire was its strange economy (2012)

#129

Post by stormbrew »

mseebach wrote: post #78
nhaehnle wrote: post #69

Earlier quoted context omitted.

But almost every implementation of Marxism in recent history involved totalitarianism and ignored the part about decentralization of power post-revolution. I recently came across a very interesting thought, which is that this observation (which I also believed until coming across that thought) is induced by a kind of selection bias. The original article in which I encountered this thought is here: http://www.pieria.c…

"Explaining why communism always fail without faulting communism even slightly" is a very rich genre. It is also disingenuous in failing to consider the single most likely (by way of Occam's razor) cause of communism's failure, which is the ideology itself. But to apply some historical facts to the theory: From its founding, the Cheka was an important military and security arm of the Bolshevik communist government. I…

For that to fit occam's razor I think you need to demonstrate that communist societies actually suffer a higher rate of failure than any other -ism. Most nation states fail. You might even be right to say that most of them fail in short order. The French alone have been through 5 republics in the last couple of centuries.

The simplest explanation, imo, is that power accretes in all civilizations, perhaps moreso in ones that face internal strife or hardship, and that power structures eventually collapse. Regardless of economic or political system.

And from another angle, if a capitalist society fails, is the most likely explanation also the ideology itself? And if both ideologies are to blame for their failure, what's left?

Re: The greatest mystery of the Inca Empire was its strange economy (2012)

#130

Post by mseebach »

nhaehnle wrote: post #128
mseebach wrote: post #78

Earlier quoted context omitted.

"Explaining why communism always fail without faulting communism even slightly" is a very rich genre. It is also disingenuous in failing to consider the single most likely (by way of Occam's razor) cause of communism's failure, which is the ideology itself. But to apply some historical facts to the theory: From its founding, the Cheka was an important military and security arm of the Bolshevik communist government. I…

"Explaining why communism always fail without faulting communism even slightly" is a very rich genre. Please be clear on what you mean by "failure". For Russia itself, communism was actually very successful economically speaking: Their economy grew more quickly than the average for other, non-communist countries that were at Russia's level of development. With this aside, and going back to what we were talking about…

Communism fails when it needs to imprison its own citizens on a massive scale for dissent. It fails when it needs to build walls to keep people in.

> You yourself conceded that these measures were eliminated and/or scaled down in Russia without outside intervention once things had settled down.

Oh, I conceded no such thing. The Cheka existed until 1922, but it didn't disappear, it was reorganised into the NKVD which later became the KGB. Both changes represented a step up, not down, in ruthlessness and brutality.

> During and in the aftermath of revolutionary phases, there tends to be violence.

You have to break some eggs to make an omelette. This is not something you shrug off as a regrettable but necessary fact of life, it's a huge and important argument against revolutions.

> This kind of thing has nothing to do with economic organization

Yes, it has everything to do with economic organisation, because the evidence strongly suggests that you need to violently force people to live under such organisation.

Post reply on HN