Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
While the achievements of the Inca Empire are impressive, they were the products of an agrarian society with a totalitarian political structure. They were in no way a true socialist society. And the principles of modern socialism are not based upon monetary wealth at all. They are based on the idea that control of a society's resources should belong to the people as a whole. Monetary wealth in our society is a significant social resource. Monetary wealth was not a social resource of the Inca Empire. But there was also no socialist conception that the resources of that society belonged to the society as a whole. Resources were controlled, completely controlled, by the rulers of the Empire. The vast labor supply was a resource the rulers utilized.
That is what Harrier said.
It is great if you and I are stating the same thing.
Just because they did not use coins does not mean they did not have a system of barter and trade to obtain the items that they needed in exchange for other items or services.
This wonderfully "advanced" civilization had to have some way to compensate the temple priests that performed the human sacrifices, you know. (roll eyes).
20yrsinBranson
A system of barter and trade is exactly for what Harrier is advocating.
Technically the states without Medical marijuana are the southern states.
I wish the Dems or the Repubs were the party of No when it comes to the Federal Government.
In the midst of the Democrat government shutdown and the upcoming debt ceiling debate(for which President Obama still refuses to negotiate), why don't consider what it would be like if the central element that these issues revolve upon - money - did not exist?
Consider the Inca Empire - which consolidated a vast territory in western South America and developed a wealthy and strong civilization that lasted for nearly 100 years(before the evil white man - came across the Atlantic).
They were a society that succeeded without a means of commerce or an artificial trading medium. No Federal reserve, no progressive tax, no markets, no Wall Street, no requirement to "fund" the government with cash.
The article suggests that they may have been a true socialist society - due to the "tax" being paid in labor for the state - in exchange for which all that was needed was provided.
However, the principles of modern socialism are based upon monetary wealth and control of the means of producing that wealth.
Without money, socialism really can't exist.
So, what are your thoughts?
Could the United States or any developed western nation successfully transform itself into a cashless society and prosper like did the Incas?
A system of barter and trade is exactly for what Harrier is advocating.
A system of barter ans trade is still putting value on things.
If something is in short supply, the value of it is higher. If there is a lot of something the value is lower.
Basically you are making corn, or cocoa, or baskets, into a monetary unit.
While the Incas may not have had cash, they obviously used Llamas as currency.
How can they look so cute, and be so mean?
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
- came across the Atlantic). 
