No it isn’t. There’s a reason the same concept of assigning value to some agreed upon thing, and then exchanging those things for goods and services has come up in just about every time a civilization gets big enough and advanced enough for bartering to get too complicated.
Everything else that surrounds that core concept is a complexity added on top that isn’t inherently necessary to the core concept of money.
It didn’t happen in Andean civilizations like the inca and they became pretty advanced and were able to move goods across vast distances. They weren’t bartering either, they lived under a sort of communism where the people of a community shared there produce while giving a bit up to the state which would warehouse some of it for hard times and give the rest to nobles.
I don’t think meso American civilization had money either.
The concept of money isn’t natural, it’s just very viral as it spreads across trade routes, so it easily spread to all old world civilizations, which people mistakenly assume is all civilization.
Meso American civilization did have money in the form of cacao beans though, and they were largely producing for exchange (there was even a merchant strata), arguably to a higher degree than even feudal societies in Europe. Money doesn’t have to be slips of paper, it can be just another commodity (for the longest time in the western world those being gold, silver, copper, etc).
It also wasn’t communistic in any way unless you subscribe to the belief that communism is when government does stuff. The “giving a bit up to the state” a tributary system that isn’t unique to Meso America, it’s purpose not being to “distribute according to the need” but crisis management and self-stabilization.
Also, while money as a whole isn’t natural, it develops naturally as a necessity for commodity production.
When I was talking about it’s communist nature I meant more the Andean civilizations. They were communist in the sense that ownership of the means of production (land) was held in common by a community or commune, in the Andean case an ayllu . Labor was organized around reciprocity and obligations to your community, and the state rather than around the market and exchange within the community. You can read more about it here
Also I was wrong about them paying tribute / taxes with produce to the state, they didn’t. They were required to work for the state / nobles a set amount each year as there tribute.
It is my understanding that meso america also had similar communal ownership, and that system is what groups like the zapatistas are harkening back to.
Also, while money as a whole isn’t natural, it develops naturally as a necessity for commodity production
Not necessarily, the inca didn’t have money but they were still able to produce commodities like cloth.
No it isn’t. There’s a reason the same concept of assigning value to some agreed upon thing, and then exchanging those things for goods and services has come up in just about every time a civilization gets big enough and advanced enough for bartering to get too complicated.
Everything else that surrounds that core concept is a complexity added on top that isn’t inherently necessary to the core concept of money.
It didn’t happen in Andean civilizations like the inca and they became pretty advanced and were able to move goods across vast distances. They weren’t bartering either, they lived under a sort of communism where the people of a community shared there produce while giving a bit up to the state which would warehouse some of it for hard times and give the rest to nobles.
I don’t think meso American civilization had money either.
The concept of money isn’t natural, it’s just very viral as it spreads across trade routes, so it easily spread to all old world civilizations, which people mistakenly assume is all civilization.
Meso American civilization did have money in the form of cacao beans though, and they were largely producing for exchange (there was even a merchant strata), arguably to a higher degree than even feudal societies in Europe. Money doesn’t have to be slips of paper, it can be just another commodity (for the longest time in the western world those being gold, silver, copper, etc).
It also wasn’t communistic in any way unless you subscribe to the belief that communism is when government does stuff. The “giving a bit up to the state” a tributary system that isn’t unique to Meso America, it’s purpose not being to “distribute according to the need” but crisis management and self-stabilization.
Also, while money as a whole isn’t natural, it develops naturally as a necessity for commodity production.
When I was talking about it’s communist nature I meant more the Andean civilizations. They were communist in the sense that ownership of the means of production (land) was held in common by a community or commune, in the Andean case an ayllu . Labor was organized around reciprocity and obligations to your community, and the state rather than around the market and exchange within the community. You can read more about it here
Also I was wrong about them paying tribute / taxes with produce to the state, they didn’t. They were required to work for the state / nobles a set amount each year as there tribute.
It is my understanding that meso america also had similar communal ownership, and that system is what groups like the zapatistas are harkening back to.
Not necessarily, the inca didn’t have money but they were still able to produce commodities like cloth.