The Inca = socialists?

[JazzRemington]

I was in a North-South American history class tonight and we were studying the Inca and I found their economic structure close to Marxist brand socialism.

Essencially, the Inca's structure was based on whole villages producing one product (one village produces cloth, another produces a certain food, etc.) and these were distribued equally amongst the citizens of the empire, along with other social services. Widows, orphans, and the infirm were given a little more, out of compassion I figure.

I was wondering what the Marxists on this board think about this. Certainly, one cannot deny that this is at least somewhat similiar to what Marx wrote about.

[kingbee]

perhaps primitive communism, but its easy to forget that the inca rulers were hardly socialist minded. the inca rulers lived in complete comfort, while the peasants lived in horrible conditions, and were taught to worship the leaders, as they were living gods. sounds like stalin, i suppose.

[encephalon]

In an american indian sense, they were also imperialist.. It's easy to attach modern concepts to ancient civilizations, especially non-western ones, but it probably isn't good practice.

[Paradox]

I'm not sure about the equal distribution you mentioned, but as far as food goes, they watched out for the entire empire. They had state farms on which people worked, and they had small plots for families to subsist on. The food grown on the state farms was put in store houses throughout the empire. If a drought, flood, or some other natural disaster occurred in some part of the empire leaving people there without food, then the supplies in the store houses would be used to help those affected by the disaster. Of course, it was still an empire.


In an american indian sense, they were also imperialist

What do you mean "in an american indian sense"?


the inca rulers lived in complete comfort, while the peasants lived in horrible conditions, and were taught to worship the leaders, as they were living gods.

Not sure about the Incas living in "horrible conditions," but the Mexica/Aztec kept their dwellings clean and sanitary. As far as worshiping leaders as gods, yeah, that's not right. Still much of what is said of these peoples is myth or lies. Here's a good site to check out, though it only deals with the Mexican Indigenous civilizations. You probably won't care for the religious parts of the site (you probably won't care for the part on Frida Kalho either), but it shows that the claims about multiple gods is false, giving a better understanding of what they believed(even though you'll probably dismiss these beliefs as well):

http://www.mexica-movement.org

[Latin America]

The Incas very interesting! I called the type of government they had Monarchy because the throne was hereditary. The Incas people were believers that the 1st Inca was choose by god named “Viracocha” He was basically the sun god the creator the mighty one! The Incas were very religious they had many temples. You can say some villages were producers of certain products but not because that was the structure but because some places and the weather were good for specific products! For example potato and chuno were good on the cold weather but Corn and coca were better in the valleys!
I could say they had a very organized work system because every family had his own house and the family planted their own food twice a year. The Incas established a law called Mita if I remember, this law consists that every men has to work certain hours or days for the Empire to plant or do public job like Roads, Temples, Fortresses, Plantations, ect.
The Inca Empire and every culture they conquered they added it to their rule! In order to control these other cultures they teach men and women their own languages and set “caciques” or Head villages! These head villages had to make sure the town work well and also do what they agreed with the Incas, the Incas were very respectful to the different culture god what make them once again a very Religious Civilization!
But I could say thanks to this weakness to accept different gods; the Spanish conquer this great civilization! The Incas accepted different god they were very flexible about letting other cultures have their own beliefs, but as we all know the Spanish Idea was to Christianized the so called “Pagans” and they didn’t accept or allowed the Inca gods!

Sometimes I think my self what is the Incas resisted the Spanish Attacks, how would it look South America now? Medicine, astronomy, astrology and even Brain surgery were some of the Incas advances! The Greatest civilization in America!

[godisdead]

i think one could call the Inkas - vertical socialists.


the peasants/serfs did not live in horrible conditions. :rolleyes: not even the spanish claimed this slander.

[Morag]

I recall an archaeology professor explaining that archaeologists specialising in Incan society believe there was gender stratification based on the amount of a beer-type drink that was brewed by women but was only drunk by men. The fact that large portions of the women's time could be spent preparing the drink they were not allowed to drink (I believe it was drunk at political-type gatherings) suggests that the society was stratified. (There was a heap of other evidence, but lush that I am, all I remember is the part about booze. Amazed I got an A in the class...) Sorry I can't remember more, but my point is generally that the Incans were not a socialist society based on social or political equality. (At least, according to these archaeologists. The evidence was strong, though, I do recall that)

[jaycee]

i know very little about Inca society but from what i've read i would say it was a class society with quite a few remnants of primitive communism.

Did slavery exist in any form there or was most labour peasant based.

The peasants in inca society sound like they were closer to the independent yoewman which deeveloped briefly and was eradicated by capital in britain than the surf of european feudalism.

i would like to learn more about this.

[thewoodcutter]

it's too bad they were decimated by europeans. if anybody is interested in reading up on the events leading to the spanish invasion of the new world (as opposed to an incan invasion of the old world) then check out a book called 'guns, germs and steel'.

[godisdead]

i think its important to remember and keep in mind that the inkas or quecha ppls still "exist" in modern day peru and bolivia, much like the maya in mexico, belize, and guatemala, the romantizing of their ancestors deeds allows ppl to forget that inkas and mayas today live in the most horrible conditions and face discrimination and racism of the worst kind.

[Qwerty Dvorak]

Correct me if I'm wrong, but I don't think attaching our ideals of revolution and progression to an empire that collapsed 500 years ago is a very good idea.

[afrikaNOW]

And why not?

[thewoodcutter]

yeah, they pretty much just got stuck with terrible geography. who knows what woulda happened had they made contact with the aztec for example? (inca had llamas, aztec had the wheel, woulda made a sweet combo).

[Qwerty Dvorak]

Originally posted by [email protected] 29 2006, 02:00 AM
And why not?
Because we're meant to be moving forward, not back.

[afrikaNOW]

Originally posted by RedStar1916+Jul 29 2006, 06:14 PM--> (RedStar1916 @ Jul 29 2006, 06:14 PM)
[email protected] 29 2006, 02:00 AM
And why not?
Because we're meant to be moving forward, not back. [/b]
Technology wise we may have been progressing, but whose to say idea, moral,value, freedom wise we are?

[Qwerty Dvorak]

Originally posted by afrikaNOW+Jul 29 2006, 07:13 PM--> (afrikaNOW @ Jul 29 2006, 07:13 PM)
Originally posted by [email protected] 29 2006, 06:14 PM

[email protected] 29 2006, 02:00 AM
And why not?
Because we're meant to be moving forward, not back.
Technology wise we may have been progressing, but whose to say idea, moral,value, freedom wise we are? [/b]
Em, well me for one. Morals, if anything, have been decaying, and that's certainly what I call progression. Freedom-wise, well, you may not want to admit it, but we are certainly more free than we were under the monarchies of old. As for the other two, ideas and values, I'm not quite sure what you mean.

[Morag]

I don't think it's a good idea to romanticise any period of history. It can easily lead to reactionary tendencies. If you assume that the way things were were better then the way things are today, you're looking into the past, not into the future. As well, romanticising indigenous cultures often leads to the assumption that their way of life was "harmonious," (which often it was), and that that way of life should not be changed in any way, therefore excluding them from the benefits of progress, like clean water, electricity, and more productive economic and agricultural methods. Respect is definitely a healthy feeling, but romanticising the hardship of older or former societies often leads to the opinion that people nowadays are "soft" and that workers have it good and shouldn't complain.

So, romanticising is bad (I think), while respect is good.

[TupacAndChe4Eva]

Labelling era's from the past using modern terminology is a very dangerous thing to do, it is almost always inaccurate, and is never useful.

Look forward, not backward.