Several questions regarding tribes, war, and currency

[Crush]

Ok

I know these are very large topics to cover, but I was hoping someone could validate this with historical evidence of this statement:

"Currencies are an evolution of citizen control methodologies meant to force citizens into war".

Q: During tribal times when there was mostly barter - how did leaders order their men to war without paying them? Can someone give some background on this.

Q: When were lines officially drawn and 'recognized'? I assume it was mainly to keep to keep peace between tribes because the old way was costing too many men to be lost (aka 'money').

Q: We know that currency represents human labour. When did currency start to become used and why?

Q: Was there a time that citizens 'made up their own currency' without gov't involvement.

Q: Later on, we know that there was savings and interest. Even thousands of years ago. We also know that there were 'war bonds' in 1812 and even before then, the wealthy would help fund wars because it would create production for industrialists. That's obviously why they invested.

Like.. if you had to take the state sanctioned fiat currencies today, and study their evolution through civilization, what single, 'underlying' motives/purpose did the state/tribes have for recognizing currency.

 

[ParkCungHee]

Obviously tribal societies very tremendously between themselves, so I'm going to be answering from the perspective of Gaelic tribal warfare.

Q: During tribal times when there was mostly barter - how did leaders order their men to war without paying them? Can someone give some background on this.

They paid them in Kind, rather then in cash. Cattle, Land, Privileges, etc.

Q: When were lines officially drawn and 'recognized'? I assume it was mainly to keep to keep peace between tribes because the old way was costing too many men to be lost (aka 'money').

Q: We know that currency represents human labour. When did currency start to become used and why?

The labor theory of value is hardly universally accepted, but currency was introduced in various societies at different times because they were easier to transport and store than Cattle or Jars of Rice, or what have you.

Q: Was there a time that citizens 'made up their own currency' without gov't involvement.

Cigarettes.

Q: Later on, we know that there was savings and interest. Even thousands of years ago. We also know that there were 'war bonds' in 1812 and even before then, the wealthy would help fund wars because it would create production for industrialists. That's obviously why they invested.

Industrialism, much less and "industrialists" as class was practically unheard of in The United States in 1812.

Like.. if you had to take the state sanctioned fiat currencies today, and study their evolution through civilization, what single, 'underlying' motives/purpose did the state/tribes have for recognizing currency.

Convenience.

 

[Traitorfish]

Q: During tribal times when there was mostly barter[...]

Barter-systems have only ever been observed as a response to the unavailability of currency, and even then tended to revolve around a small number of key commodities (e.g. cigarettes in prison) rather than taking the "I'll give you five chickens for that pig" form usually imagined. In "tribal" societies, distribution of goods generally took the form of one-way transfers, either horizontal (mutual aid) or vertical (tribute and subsidy), the understanding being that people would by whatever means get what was due to them when it was necessary and/or proper. Barter tended to be something that occurred around the edges of societies, between people with no permanent or stable ties to each other, and even then was often steeped in ceremony and tradition which aimed to re-absorb it into the distinctly non-commercial relations which predominated in the rest of society.

 

[Crush]

OK then why did tribes fight and who were their leaders?

 

[Crush]

Convenience.

Why did leaders desire this 'convenience' for?

After all, the members of the tribes were surly able to keep the fruits of their own labour right?

Or are you just playing word semantics in order to duck answering question you have absolutely no clue about.

Moderator Action: Warned for trolling. Don't be rude to other members - especially when they've bothered to answer your question.
Please read the forum rules: http://forums.civfanatics.com/showthread.php?t=422889

 

[Masada]

Barter-systems have only ever been observed as a response to the unavailability of currency

That's a bold claim.

, and even then tended to revolve around a small number of key commodities (e.g. cigarettes in prison) rather than taking the "I'll give you five chickens for that pig" form usually imagined.

"Medium of exchange" is the word you were looking after. Southeast Asia for a long time used Indian cloth.

 

[H4run]

Barter-systems have only ever been observed as a response to the unavailability of currency.

What I know in some tribal community they use shell, coco bean, pretty stones, dates etc as money. While things like fruit, meat, or anything that can't last long hence can't accumulate, unlike the commodity that I mention above. These primitive currency later evolving unto something more convent like gold and silver, and later paper money use as a representation (not substitute sorry-edit) for gold and silver, in more future paper currency been produce and print according to society demand of money (loan, etc). So I think even in tribal community the idea of currency already exist but in the primitive form. And barter not been used because unavailability of currency.

 

[Cutlass]

Why did leaders desire this 'convenience' for?

After all, the members of the tribes were surly able to keep the fruits of their own labour right?

Or are you just playing word semantics in order to duck answering question you have absolutely no clue about.

You could read through THIS THREAD for some basic discussions of money.

 

[tokala]

After all, the members of the tribes were surly able to keep the fruits of their own labour right?

Technically yes, but effectively a lot would get distributed among the tribe's members.

What I know in some tribal commodity they use things like shell, coco bean, pretty stones, dates etc as money..

Traditional tribal societies usually have a gift economy as the distribution method for everyday items within the tribal community, and the "currencies" you mentioned are used for entirely different purposes (i.e. as representation or substitutes for "social debts", think marriages or crimes here)

That's a bold claim.

It appears rather that the "traditional narrative" of barter systems --> money is the one with weak support, as there appear to be zero historical or ethnological evidence of a barter system within a society along the lines of one pig vs. five chickens predating the appearance of real money .

At least according to Mr. Graeber ("Debt: The First 5,000 Years"), very interesting reading by the way.
And in regard to the initial statement of this thread, he argues that money/taxes/debt were "invented" to solve the problem of efficiently supporting standing armies. I suspect the initial statement goes back to this book. If true, this would be quite a misrepresentation.

 

[Flying Pig]

OK then why did tribes fight and who were their leaders?

For the same reasons as any other group of people? People basically aren't all that different, wherever, whenever and however they happen to live.

 

[Louis XXIV]

That's a bold claim.

There's been a lot of scholarly work on it (I'll try and find a link). There are a couple systems. Very small communities with a family leader of some kind (a clan structure, for example) basically centrally distributed goods obtained for some reason. The next level up isn't barter, it's debt. In settled communities, even to today, the most common exchange is not a one time exchange, it's an exchange of obligations over time. You ask to borrow your neighbor's lawnmower and you later invite him over to your barbecue. At the time, he wasn't going to say "I'll only give you the lawnmower if you give me barbecue food" because he had no idea he needed it. Likewise, it's very strange to see someone who has a pig but desperately needs three chickens carry his pig all the way to market on the odd hope that someone brought three chickens and happens to need a pig (as opposed to a horse, in which case both parties are out of luck). Instead, you buy the chickens on credit and then, some day, you replace it in kind with whatever they need that you happen to have.

 

[H4run]

Traditional tribal societies usually have a gift economy as the distribution method for everyday items within the tribal community, and the "currencies" you mentioned are used for entirely different purposes (i.e. as representation or substitutes for "social debts", think marriages or crimes here)

I'm not completely understand what you say, could you explain it a bit detail?

For me currency is simply a medium that the society already made a consensus (hence they had faith on it) as a medium of exchanges. It usually portable and can be anything, it can be feather, shell, metal, silver, gold even paper, as long as it can use to buy commodities that have value (both the value that already exist within the commodity or the value that add after someone work on it) and to value other works. And other important thing is it can be accumulated. In Japanese backthen they use rice as currency in some measurement call koku. The main items of commodity money in ancient time in Japan were arrowheads, rice grains and gold powder, as well as hemp cloth. In early 14 century they had mon as their currency bu they keep the salary of the samurai been paid by rice. So the higher rank samurai have more rices and land than the lower rank.

But I assume we believes include me backthen the tribal villages and ancient society use barter and base their transaction on the need of community to set our mind that on that time there no such things as wealth accumulation, there is no concept of rich and poor. Well this is the hypothesis of the socialist both anarko and communist (leftish) so they think money and it ability to be accumulate is a core of the problem. While it not closed a possibility, back then in tribal community peoples also accumulating wealth, there were freeman and slave, patrician and plebeian, lord and serf, proletar and capitalist, in it own primitive form in ancient community.

 

[Traitorfish]

What I know in some tribal community they use shell, coco bean, pretty stones, dates etc as money. While things like fruit, meat, or anything that can't last long hence can't accumulate, unlike the commodity that I mention above. These primitive currency later evolving unto something more convent like gold and silver, and later paper money use as a representation (not substitute sorry-edit) for gold and silver, in more future paper currency been produce and print according to society demand of money (loan, etc). So I think even in tribal community the idea of currency already exist but in the primitive form. And barter not been used because unavailability of currency.

That's the traditional narrative, yeah, but that's not actually much supporting it. These so-called "primitive currencies" could very rarely be actually traded for anything, but were instead tokens of honour or esteem, exchanged as gifts or tribute. Their function was to reorganised relationships between people- to establish alliances, to obtain marriages, and so on- rather than being swapped around in exchange for everyday objects. The reason that we think of them as "primitive currencies" is because that's how we, i.e. Western traders, conceived of them when dealing with these peoples; it would never have occurred to them independently.

OK then why did tribes fight and who were their leaders?

Depends entirely on the tribe.

 

[tokala]

I'm not completely understand what you say, could you explain it a bit detail?

Everyday items, i.e. food, clothing, tools. You could basially walk into someone's lodge and ask for it, and it would be considered extremly rude to refuse it (to another member of the group. Of course, the same would be expected of you on another occasion.)

An example for "social currency" from another forum :

A young pony runs amok, damaging the tipi of another and wounding his child. The ower of the pony compensates the owner of the tipi for all that is lost, pays the medicine man to tend the child and likely gives the pony, with a couple of more, to the offended party. No grudges held.

In this case (Plains Indians), the social currency is horses, but nobody would even think of buying food from another member of the tribe with horses.

But I assume we believes include me backthen the tribal villages and ancient society use barter and base their transaction on the need of community to set our mind that on that time there no such things as wealth accumulation, there is no concept of rich and poor.

There probably was, but not necessarily the way we are used to it in a capitalist economy.

, back then in tribal community peoples also accumulating wealth, there were freeman and slave, patrician and plebeian, lord and serf, proletar and capitalist, in it own primitive form in ancient community.

Hold on there. The point of a tribal society as I understand it, is that it's based on kinship. You were related to every other tribal member, by definition.
It's a dangerous fallacy to imagine it "just like ours, only smaller/more primitive". It might operate on, to us, completely alien rules; primarily driven by the kinship network, not economics.

 

[Masada]

It appears rather that the "traditional narrative" of barter systems --> money is the one with weak support, as there appear to be zero historical or ethnological evidence of a barter system within a society along the lines of one pig vs. five chickens predating the appearance of real money .

There's been a lot of scholarly work on it (I'll try and find a link). There are a couple systems. Very small communities with a family leader of some kind (a clan structure, for example) basically centrally distributed goods obtained for some reason. The next level up isn't barter, it's debt. In settled communities, even to today, the most common exchange is not a one time exchange, it's an exchange of obligations over time. You ask to borrow your neighbor's lawnmower and you later invite him over to your barbecue. At the time, he wasn't going to say "I'll only give you the lawnmower if you give me barbecue food" because he had no idea he needed it. Likewise, it's very strange to see someone who has a pig but desperately needs three chickens carry his pig all the way to market on the odd hope that someone brought three chickens and happens to need a pig (as opposed to a horse, in which case both parties are out of luck). Instead, you buy the chickens on credit and then, some day, you replace it in kind with whatever they need that you happen to have.

I'm aware of all that. What I'm challenging is the notion that barter systems only exist in the absence of the availability of currency.

 

[ParkCungHee]

I think this discussion seems to be the result of some ambiguity of the term "barter system".

 

[H4run]

I really want to know the truth about this matter, so I continue this discussion to dig more.

These so-called "primitive currencies" could very rarely be actually traded for anything, but were instead tokens of honour or esteem, exchanged as gifts or tribute. Their function was to reorganised relationships between people- to establish alliances, to obtain marriages, and so on- rather than being swapped around in exchange for everyday objects.

So also gold, silver and paper money used for these namely to form alliance, marriages, tribute. While we know also they use this primitive currency for salary, so practically this is their income. We can think Japanese koku for example, it just a form of daily income but they not really use it for real transaction, because 1 koku stand for 278.3 litres. Of course they not carry all of these rice in their pocket to go buy their daily stuff, while samurai who get a salary around 30 koku per month can be consider as poor samurai while a Shogun can have an income like 1 million koku per month. But the use of something that less functional like arrow head, shell, also metal in bronze age, it might be stand for something like modern paper money stand for. Because it have value when the society give value it don't have a special intrinsic function or value, the value depend on the consensus of the society to put or not to put faith on that object, just like paper.

The reason that we think of them as "primitive currencies" is because that's how we, i.e. Western traders, conceived of them when dealing with these peoples; it would never have occurred to them independently.

In Mesopotamia, Bahrain, etc they use metal and copper since 2000 bc. And again this object have every aspect to be a currency (coin), they are portable, last long, and can be accumulate. And yes seeing at the time it happen long time ago before western even set sail to trade with other civilization.

 

[Masada]

I think this discussion seems to be the result of some ambiguity of the term "barter system".

Agreed. "Money" also needs to be defined because so far as this thread is concerned rice is a store of value.

 

[H4run]

Everyday items, i.e. food, clothing, tools. You could basially walk into someone's lodge and ask for it, and it would be considered extremly rude to refuse it (to another member of the group. Of course, the same would be expected of you on another occasion.)

You still find these ethics in some region of the world today, for example in south east, in some villages or places, you can see someone Mango tree and ask if you can have the fruit and it will be rude for them not to give you, even if you take all of it for the sake of manners they will nod and smile and say "its alright" while in your back they will protest about your bad manners. It even treat as normal behavior for you to come to someone house and say that you are hungry and you want to eat if they have any food, and they will give it to you as something normal (you don't need a special invitation to eat in somebody house, the only requirement is you are friend with them-edit). In east you can see a neighbor giving a new neighbor food and fruits as a welcome sign and greeting, it is a sign of respect and they willingness to get close to you. I think its more like social system that not really related to conclude the different social system must also have entirely difference currency system. Except if we assume the changing of social system are cause by the changing of economy system within the society.

In this case (Plains Indians), the social currency is horses, but nobody would even think of buying food from another member of the tribe with horses.

I don't how to put this, but I'm not agree that the horses act as social currency. Currency must durable and portable, I think it just how they justify the problem that cause by the pony, so it justify by the pony goes to the child family also he responsible for the child medicine.

Hold on there. The point of a tribal society as I understand it, is that it's based on kinship. You were related to every other tribal member, by definition.
It's a dangerous fallacy to imagine it "just like ours, only smaller/more primitive". It might operate on, to us, completely alien rules; primarily driven by the kinship network, not economics.

I just using the fallacy that also used by Marx by saying the struggle from the dark ages until Industrial time is the same class struggle. He also see a relation between worker and owner of industry are like a relation of patrician and plebeian. Well some of his diagnosis might be truth, but the treatment that he offer is what I believe is not truth but that will be a different discussion.

But isn't it a seperated matter, clan, kaum, marga, is still seen important in some society today. Some of the Chinese society still head to head helping their family member who unable to feed themselves, they can dedicated their wealth for the welfare of their family. They even can accept some of their far relative that come from faraway and stay in their house, they feed them, giving them money to settle new business, even finding jobs for them, because the sake of the family member or clan, even some modern Chinese don't practice it anymore but still many of them practicing it. You can even see a family having 2 child living with their mother and father and depend on them in some of Asia community while it is something illogical or embarrassing in the west community, this is because how they see the important of the kinship and tribes. But that is an entirely difference matters with how they run their economy isn't it?

What I'm doing now is just I open a possibility if the accumulation of wealth (money, currency) is already happen even from the ancient community, a problem about human greed and power it also already happen since that time.

 

[H4run]

I think this discussion seems to be the result of some ambiguity of the term "barter system".

that is right, because gems, rice, dates, is see as another commodity so the trade of it is more seen as trading two different commodity (barter) then it function as currency. But take for example how about shell, metal, arrow head?