this post was submitted on 02 Aug 2024
296 points (97.7% liked)

Today I Learned

17269 readers
628 users here now

What did you learn today? Share it with us!

We learn something new every day. This is a community dedicated to informing each other and helping to spread knowledge.

The rules for posting and commenting, besides the rules defined here for lemmy.world, are as follows:

Rules (interactive)


Rule 1- All posts must begin with TIL. Linking to a source of info is optional, but highly recommended as it helps to spark discussion.

** Posts must be about an actual fact that you have learned, but it doesn't matter if you learned it today. See Rule 6 for all exceptions.**



Rule 2- Your post subject cannot be illegal or NSFW material.

Your post subject cannot be illegal or NSFW material. You will be warned first, banned second.



Rule 3- Do not seek mental, medical and professional help here.

Do not seek mental, medical and professional help here. Breaking this rule will not get you or your post removed, but it will put you at risk, and possibly in danger.



Rule 4- No self promotion or upvote-farming of any kind.

That's it.



Rule 5- No baiting or sealioning or promoting an agenda.

Posts and comments which, instead of being of an innocuous nature, are specifically intended (based on reports and in the opinion of our crack moderation team) to bait users into ideological wars on charged political topics will be removed and the authors warned - or banned - depending on severity.



Rule 6- Regarding non-TIL posts.

Provided it is about the community itself, you may post non-TIL posts using the [META] tag on your post title.



Rule 7- You can't harass or disturb other members.

If you vocally harass or discriminate against any individual member, you will be removed.

Likewise, if you are a member, sympathiser or a resemblant of a movement that is known to largely hate, mock, discriminate against, and/or want to take lives of a group of people, and you were provably vocal about your hate, then you will be banned on sight.

For further explanation, clarification and feedback about this rule, you may follow this link.



Rule 8- All comments should try to stay relevant to their parent content.



Rule 9- Reposts from other platforms are not allowed.

Let everyone have their own content.



Rule 10- Majority of bots aren't allowed to participate here.

Unless included in our Whitelist for Bots, your bot will not be allowed to participate in this community. To have your bot whitelisted, please contact the moderators for a short review.



Partnered Communities

You can view our partnered communities list by following this link. To partner with our community and be included, you are free to message the moderators or comment on a pinned post.

Community Moderation

For inquiry on becoming a moderator of this community, you may comment on the pinned post of the time, or simply shoot a message to the current moderators.

founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
 

From wikipedia:

Contrary to popular conception, there is no evidence that societies relied only on barter before using money for trade.[73] Instead, non-monetary societies operated primarily along the principles of gift economics, and in more complex economies, on debt.[74][75][76] When barter occurred, it was usually between strangers or would-be enemies.[77]

top 33 comments
sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[–] Semi_Hemi_Demigod@lemmy.world 104 points 1 month ago (5 children)

If you want to learn a lot more about how economies worked in the past, I highly recommend the book "Debt: The First 5,000 Years" by David Graeber, author of "Bullshit Jobs." It goes into this topic, and then presents a very detailed world history of economic systems from the perspective of an anthropologist.

[–] Atsur@lemmy.world 17 points 1 month ago (1 children)

Graeber’s work, as always, is truly incredible. Such a shame he died so young

[–] Semi_Hemi_Demigod@lemmy.world 14 points 1 month ago* (last edited 1 month ago)

His last book, "Pirate Enlightenment, or the Real LIbertalia" is pretty good if you haven't read it, if you don't mind a lot of Malagasy names.

[–] terraborra@lemmy.nz 10 points 1 month ago

Came here to say exactly this.

If you want to dive even further into why the foundations of modern macroeconomics are bunk, then I can also recommend reading Debunking Economics by Steve Keen.

[–] dylanmorgan@slrpnk.net 9 points 1 month ago

That book radically changed my worldview, and then I read The Dawn Of Everything and it was changed again.

[–] TootSweet@lemmy.world 4 points 1 month ago (1 children)

I've been meaning to read that book for a long time but haven't gotten around to it yet.

[–] Semi_Hemi_Demigod@lemmy.world 3 points 1 month ago (1 children)

Definitely give it a try. It's one of the books that helped me understand the terms "scales falling from my eyes."

[–] ripcord@lemmy.world 1 points 1 month ago (1 children)

There were multiple books that helped you understand that term?

[–] Semi_Hemi_Demigod@lemmy.world 2 points 1 month ago* (last edited 1 month ago)

There's been a few of them. A People's History of the United States, 1491, and Humankind are some good examples

[–] Akasazh@feddit.nl 3 points 1 month ago

Thanks for the recommendation! I had a reminiscent Reddit reflex, where I looked the writer up to see if it wasn't a 'guns, germs and steel' type of popular history, but was pleasantly surprised.

I have a bunch of reading to do now. Cheers!

[–] TootSweet@lemmy.world 38 points 1 month ago (3 children)

Yup. Capitalism is built on a foundation of lies.

The other thing I think may just be straight up a pro-capitalist-propaganda myth is "homesteading." Honestly, do we have any evidence that that has ever happened in human history? It seems like every extample a Libertarian (with a capital "L") might come up with is actually an example of theft of land. From either indigenous peoples or from pre-capitalist land owners.

[–] atro_city@fedia.io 29 points 1 month ago (2 children)

Money is just a representational tool for value. A service rendered might make you in-debted to the person and you will have to render a service in return to get out of it. No money is involved, but if a person rendered you a big service and you return the favor with a small service, it might make the other person less inclined to help you again in a big way.

The introduction of something that represents a value is a logical step when keeping track of debt. Be it salt, cows, labor or even money.

Gift economies are of course probably hotly debated topics. I'd love to see a multi-year experiment that allocates a large area to a group and lets them try out such an economy. I don't know how they will interface with the real world to get good (medicine, electricity, ...) or if it will just throw them back into the dark ages and they'll have to progress from there.

[–] TootSweet@lemmy.world 14 points 1 month ago* (last edited 1 month ago) (1 children)

I'm not terribly sure what your response has to do with my comment in particular. I'm not sure why you responded to me and not the OP. I guess just because that first line of my comment agreed with OP?

Whatever the case, do you have a significant other? Kids? Parents? Is your relationship with any of them as transactional as what you're describing?

"Happy 18th birthday, Jimmy. I wanted to let you know that the total cost for services rendered in the course of your raising comes to," *hands Jimmy an invoice, "$227,261.63. Would you like to pay that in a lump sum or do you need to discuss a payment plan?"

It's understandable if you've spent your whole life in capitalism to not really be able to think outside of that particular box, but I recommend looking into it. I can't say I'm terribly well-read on the subject, but I think a book worth reading on the subject is Charles Eisenstein's Sacred Economics (which is available to read for free online.) If you want something a little more hard-core, there's Kropotkin's "The Conquest of Bread". Both of those will probably speak pretty well to the question of whether a gift economy can coexist with things like modern technology. (Spoiler: Those works definitely argue it can.)

[–] atro_city@fedia.io 3 points 1 month ago (1 children)

I'm not terribly sure what your response has to do with my comment in particular.

Yup. Capitalism is built on a foundation of lies.

Whatever the case, do you have a significant other? Kids? Parents? Is your relationship with any of them as transactional as what you're describing?

You may be surprised to know that not everybody grows up in a nice family. You further be surprised to find out that some parents have children so that they can be taken care of later in life - I take care of you, you take care of me. There are children paying rent to their parents right this moment.

The further away the relationship, the more quid pro quo comes into play. The fact that there are some people who do not require some kind of compensation (love, hugs, material good, money, ...) for some actions, doesn't mean that won't require it for others. People can have unconditional love for another person and still demand payment or compensation from another.

[–] TootSweet@lemmy.world 3 points 1 month ago

I’m not terribly sure what your response has to do with my comment in particular.

Yup. Capitalism is built on a foundation of lies.

This thread is specifically about one of the lies in question. And I gave another example. You don't seem to be arguing that those lies aren't indeed lies, so if I'm understanding your arguments correctly, what you're trying to get at is that neither "barter was a thing before money" and "homesteading is a thing that actually happens/happened" are "foundational" to pro-capitalist thought and "the foundation" of capitalist ideology is instead something along the lines that "quid pro quo and keeping score are human nature and money is just an abstraction thereof". Yes?

I'm saying that I find the existence of counterexamples (as well as the whole "gift economies were the norm before money" thing, and that capitalism has existed for a great minority of the time anatomically-modern humans have been around) a compelling reason to be skeptical of that stance.

[–] emeralddawn45@discuss.tchncs.de 12 points 1 month ago (2 children)

Have you never had a friend group? Like that's a dead-ass simple 'study' of a gift economy. Sometimes someone pays for lunch, sometimes someone pays for beer, sometimes someone brings weed or bakes cookies or sings a song. Everyone helps everyone else out. Each according to their need, based on their ability. Or is that not something you're familiar with, because if not, you need better friends.

[–] ripcord@lemmy.world 3 points 1 month ago

First part was good and got the point across. The personal attack at the end was unnecessary.

[–] chonglibloodsport@lemmy.world 3 points 1 month ago

Yes, and then there’s the one who always receives gifts but never contributes. The free rider problem is present even at this tiny scale. Reputation takes care of it, generally, when the friend group decides to stop hanging out with the non-reciprocal individual.

I haven’t heard of any proposal that could scale up a reciprocal economy like this up to a city of thousands (let alone millions). The issue is Dunbar’s number: our brains simply cannot track relationships with thousands of people.

[–] olafurp@lemmy.world 4 points 1 month ago

Capitalism is way further along the chain of economic system development.

It essentially builds upon coinage and debt systems to be able to issue credit for people to invest in land and equipment to increase productivity of workers.

Capitalism is not strictly necessary but it did speed up the productivity development without spreading the gains equally. Right now we have a great opportunity to take these productivity gains and split them equitably via wealth redistribution but people will need to vote left for that.

It's not capitalism itself that is bad it's mostly how it's being used and the built-in accumulation of money that translates to power that translates to political power that's the problem with it.

Capitalism as a force for good is a lie, it's a force for increasing productivity and investment and accumulation of wealth. Capitalism itself is just another tool to be used by the people for the people.

[–] lud@lemm.ee 3 points 1 month ago (1 children)

How is capitalism built on this "lie"?

[–] ripcord@lemmy.world 3 points 1 month ago

Because they dont like it.

[–] monkeyman512@lemmy.world 36 points 1 month ago (3 children)

Makes sense. In a small community everyone knows each other and can rely on trust/reputation to keep things fair.

[–] Semi_Hemi_Demigod@lemmy.world 53 points 1 month ago (2 children)

Back in the late 60s and early 70s the banks in Ireland went on strike to protest some laws. They thought that they'd cripple the economy and people would demand they reopen. Instead, people used cash for most transactions and if they needed to write a check they'd go down to the pub and the pub owner would vouch for their credit. The banks eventually gave up because their tantrum didn't work.

Another example was when the British pulled out of Hong Kong. People who were paid with checks from a British bank would just endorse the check to someone else, who'd endorse it to someone else, who'd endorse it to someone else. The checks were rarely cashed, they just kept circulating.

[–] dactylotheca@suppo.fi 22 points 1 month ago (1 children)

if they needed to write a check they'd go down to the pub and the pub owner would vouch for their credit

Well that was an unexpectedly hilarious turn

[–] Semi_Hemi_Demigod@lemmy.world 18 points 1 month ago (1 children)

It's Irish AF. They recently relaxed drunk driving laws because rural elderly were just sitting at home drinking, which is apparently less healthy than sitting in a pub drinking.

[–] NOT_RICK@lemmy.world 16 points 1 month ago (1 children)

It is healthy to get out and socialize but I’m not sure elderly drunk driving is the answer

[–] captainlezbian@lemmy.world 2 points 1 month ago

Yeah I think that calls for public transit. But what do I know I’m an American who’s pissed because I’m in the process of leaving the land of a dollar beer from a vending machine

[–] dylanmorgan@slrpnk.net 3 points 1 month ago

That is cool as hell.

[–] HobbitFoot@thelemmy.club 5 points 1 month ago

Yeah. If bartering occured, it was probably between peoples who didn't have a connection with each other.

[–] Swedneck@discuss.tchncs.de 5 points 1 month ago (1 children)

it's not even really a small community thing, it's just about general culture and people's ability to feel safe.
If you're not lacking for anything then why wouldn't you help others out?

[–] chonglibloodsport@lemmy.world 1 points 1 month ago

There’s a difference between helping others out and working an unpaid job for others. When you help someone it’s on your terms. You can always walk away if they ask you to do something you don’t want to do.

Normally if you have a job then you’re paid to do things you might otherwise not want to do. I like the example of an artist. If you’re an artist then maybe you’ll be happy to paint someone’s portrait for and even give it to them as a gift. However you’re unlikely to want to sit there all day creating character art for someone else’s video game project (a lot of meticulous, tedious, and/or uninteresting work).

[–] endofline@lemmy.ca 10 points 1 month ago

And you forgot: slavery. Sparta basically enslaved surrounding hellenic population ( so called hellots ). Many Athenian politicians were quite disgusted with the harsh conditions Spartans enforced on hellots. Basically they maintained "population control" by slaining hellots en masse when their population grew too much ( Spartans were somewhere around of 10-15% of their dominion )

[–] Mango@lemmy.world 1 points 1 month ago