Talk:Economy of the Inca Empire

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Possible issues with neutrality[edit]

I'm unsure how neutral this article is with sentences such as "Money was not used by the Incas, because they did not need it. Any citizen's basic needs were fulfilled since their economy was so well-planned" and "The Incas established one of the most prosperous centrally organized economy in economic history, which led to the development of social capital" It seems as if there may have been some bias towards socialism or more specifically centrally planned economies when writing parts of this article.

RZAFALCO (talk) 17:30, 19 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Statements aren't verifiable neither anyway. So one can fantasize ones own desires and wishful thinking into it. But didn't the Incas also engage in human sacrifices on massive scale. Also, calling subjects of a collectivist theocracy 'citizens' is misleading. Citizens would be the mark of free societies, not subjects that are planned from birth to burial. --105.4.0.2 (talk) 17:43, 11 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
There were no human sacrifices to that scale, tho. Encyclopédisme (talk) 18:16, 14 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
As to the citizens, yes, that is eurocentric. Most sources of the article are from the 80s and 90s, and one comes from a modern journal on economy, so not the best sources for this type of thing. Also, i just realized this discussion is 2 years old... Encyclopédisme (talk) 11:45, 15 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
This somewhat biased language was closer to the factual truth than the overcorrection that I just edited on the page, which went as far as mischaracterizing sources. Also, to 105.4.0.2, your definition probably denies the term "citizen" to the Romans, which is pretty funny. The x-phylas (talk) 06:13, 15 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Trading[edit]

This section literally does not even have the word trade in it. Can we please stick to the point? 93.112.206.254 (talk) 03:13, 7 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

There was no trade. The base of the Andean economy was the ayllu, a group united by legendary or real kin ties, and separated into a masculine and a feminine lignage. Each ayllu possessed a marka, a sort of village. The chief of an ayllu was the kuraka. The kuraka administered the separation of land between families. The kuraka also called for the minka, where everyone comes together to build public works, say a storage house. Right now were on village level, though one ayllu dominates over the others, creating chiefdoms, or kurakazgos, of unequal importance (if you didn't realize those are the 'kingdoms' and 'states' you hear about, the main kuraka is the 'king', the ruler). There were also traditions of mutual aid between families where they'd exchange work, thats called ayni. Being part of an ayllu meant obligations and different rights, and brought various traditions of solidarity. A lot of the later imperial wide administration sometimes described as 'socialist' was actually just the imperial application of those local traditions (actually, since this 'institution of reciprocity' was an actual socioeconomic and political system used in the absence of money, the Inca manipulated, or profited, from it. They used it. The Mita, a sort of corvée for state works, was the minka on an imperial level. The Inca emperors needed a good road infrastructure to create an imperial entity. They gave regular 'gifts', in an institutionalized generosity, to the local lords, and those partially redistributed the gifts to their subjects. The subjects found themselves obligated towards their lords, and those lords towards the Inca emperor.) At the basis, it was agro-pastoral communities adapting to their environnement. That is why the Inca Empire was not socialist. Consensus among historians and anthropologists currently is that it was a feudal state with reciprocity and redistribution as its economic system. Even during the empire, most people lived in small agro-pastoral communities. Although i'd be careful about calling it an Asian Mode of Production, and most historians don't. I dont think there should be anyone editing this out of anticommunism or socialism. The interpretation of it being socialist was mainstream in the 1920s, and we've moved away from that. The Inca had a fascinating conception of space-time, and of course there was a space-time for exchange, catu, in Cusco, by extension 'markets'. Inca philosophy is fascinating as it is unknown. They didn't separate between politics, economics, sociology, and military, and even history, and they thought past events could be freely manipulated for personal and political interests. In short this is way more complex than you'd think it is. (sources: Henri Favre, Que sais-je? PUF, Les Incas, Franck Garcia, Ellipses, Les Incas, César Itier, Les Belles Lettres, Les Incas, María Rostworowski, Cambridge University Press, History of the Inca Realm, Terence D'Altroy, Wiley-Blackwell, The Incas. And many others, these are just the ones I directly quoted). Cheers, and I hope I managed to explain this somewhat comprehensibly. Encyclopédisme (talk) 18:15, 14 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Updating this article[edit]

This article is too reliant on economists of the 90s and 80s who don’t know stuff about Andean economics.. I’m going to have to reformulante this thing using new sources after fully reading it… It’s late, I’m going to be doing it tomorrow, hope nobody has anything against this. Also gonna mention « reciprocity » which is almost completely left out here. Cheers. Encyclopédisme (talk) 22:21, 15 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]