Talk:Economy of the Inca Empire

Possible issues with neutrality

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)

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)

There were no human sacrifices to that scale, tho. Encyclopédisme (talk) 18:16, 14 February 2024 (UTC)

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)

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)

Trading

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)

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)

This sounds like Serfdom. ComradeHektor (talk) 00:03, 22 May 2024 (UTC)

Both of you, cite sources! The current version cites many, User:Encyclopédisme and User:ComradeHektor, cite yours! 80.209.216.81 (talk) 10:59, 27 July 2024 (UTC)

Updating this article

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)

I somewhat agree, but the wording should improve. As it is written it almost seems like Inca propaganda. ComradeHektor (talk) 17:15, 20 May 2024 (UTC)

• With texts like: "[...] which was based on local traditions of solidarity and mutualism, transported to an imperial scale[...]" Wasn't there a way to describe it in a more objective and realistic way ? ComradeHektor (talk) 19:14, 20 May 2024 (UTC)

  Can I remove that template? I just really don't like those, especially since I'm going to be editing this soon.

  This is how the source puts it. It is based on local traditions of solidarity and mutualism by agro-pastoral communities. It was not founded on a specific intent of generosity fully consciously created by the Inca rulers and "the state" who explicitly made this system for some kind of general good for the people. This fact however doesn't at all imply that "generosity" and "mutualism" as well as "communalism" aren't perfect descriptions for the system of pyramidally and segmentarilly organized chiefdoms built on interpersonal relations (always individualized) and land (communal). You can read the post in the section above to know more. I don't really see the problem with this part of the text. Rather, I think the rest of the article is the problem. I didn't actually edit this page, I completely forgot about it. When I have the time and energy (soon, I hope), I will be rewriting and reformulating it. Encyclopédisme (talk) 22:10, 21 May 2024 (UTC)

  I just was the template was about viewpoints. What specific viewpoints? I don't see many problems in that regard. Rather, the wording should be clearer (not talking about the part I wrote in the intro. Again, the words solidarity and mutualism, especially traditions of solidarity and mutualism in local agro-pastoral communities, don't really seem subjective to me, they seem vaguely neutral). Encyclopédisme (talk) 22:14, 21 May 2024 (UTC)

  Sorry, this has started becoming confusing. 1. I wrote the intro, 2. I started reformulating this article, then I forgot, I haven't actually written most (some parts are written by me) of the article, except for the intro and the first section 3. I am going to be getting at it, as I wrote a month ago already without anything following, 4. Yes, I, as I wrote in this section, agree that the wording of the article is lacking, but I don't see how this phrase is lacking, I didn't rewrite the article yet, (only some content, including this phrase, is by me), most of the (very) subjective wording is not by me, the article is currently mostly the same as before I started editing it, I agree most of it needs reformulating, and again, I plan to be working on it very soon. Encyclopédisme (talk) 22:18, 21 May 2024 (UTC)

  Sorry for not knowing you were new, but one thing you need to know is you cannot delete a neutrality template unless a consensus is reached. As for the language, I am referring more than anything to its style, Wikipedia has a whole manual dedicated to it so you can learn. It seems to me that the previous version of the introduction better fulfilled an encyclopedic image, while yours jumps directly to giving complex concepts that can be confused with others (that's why I said it seemed a bit hippie xd) and then doesn't explain either. I think a better introduction is the one given in the Spanish version of the article. ComradeHektor (talk) 23:46, 21 May 2024 (UTC)

  For example, yours does not even give reference dates (or temporal location), but instead jumps to giving complicated concepts. Furthermore, from what you describe both here and in other answers, what Inca/Quechua society had was a kind of feudalism. ComradeHektor (talk) 00:00, 22 May 2024 (UTC)

  Well, there aren't many users who will be interested in this, probably, so we will have to reach a consensus alone (if anyone wants to participate, feel free). I don't what's your angle of attack, what's lacking about the intro specifically. The wording is accurate, and it doesn't break the rule you cited, traditions of solidarity and mutualism doesn't mean that the pre-Colombian andeans were "solidary" and "mutual". Encyclopédisme (talk) 00:00, 22 May 2024 (UTC)

  As to feudalism, yes, that is a possibility. On the dates, might I add that they aren't really accepted or accurate either, and the information is important, at least I think so. I agree with the template for now, with most of the article being in need of better formulation. Still, I don't see how that specific phrase is so problematic. We seem to agree on more than we disagree on anyway, so let’s agree to improve the bulk of the article. Cheers. Encyclopédisme (talk) 00:05, 22 May 2024 (UTC)

  How about this:

  • The economy of the Inca Empire, which lasted from 1438 to 1532, which was based on local traditions of "solidarity" and "mutualism" (—insert Quechua words—), transported to an imperial scale[1], established an economic structure that allowed for substantial agricultural production as well as the exchange of products between communities. It was based on the institution of reciprocity, considered the socioeconomic and political system of the Pre-Columbian Andes (like Feudalism in Europe).

  ComradeHektor (talk) 00:11, 22 May 2024 (UTC)

  It is a proposal that I have. ComradeHektor (talk) 00:13, 22 May 2024 (UTC)

  Well, except for the fact that it should be « which lasted from 1438 to 1532 and was based on local traditions of "solidarity" … » and that the original source doesn't mention Quechua (going to have to search for that one), this is a good way to put it (;. Encyclopédisme (talk) 00:15, 22 May 2024 (UTC)

  As to feudalism, while the description might be vaguely accurate, there are also problems with it. Generally, most historians don't even bother with the question anymore, and just describe the Inca system as unique. Favre calls it a "redistributive system" and Rostworowski insists on the importance of reciprocity based relations, which weren't necessarily unequal. Encyclopédisme (talk) 00:19, 22 May 2024 (UTC)

  It could be added at the end "([...] and similar in form to European serfdom.)" ComradeHektor (talk) 00:39, 22 May 2024 (UTC)

  Great. Well, how about "similar to a form of serfdom". Personally, I think in practice, there were many similarities, but the theory and philosophy that eventually led to the practice observable in 1532 is somewhat different, and so describing it as similar to European systems, in a way, removes the Andean Point of View in favor of an external (and in this case conquering) POV (this is the reason many ethno-historians don’t bother with feudalism" socialism and co. anymore). The problem with the term "European", is that many historians, such as Waldemar Espinoza, or Favre in this case, associate it (perhaps, at least in some cases, in relation to Marx's Asian mode of production) with Asia (Espinoza), or Oceania and Africa (Favre). Serfdom is vague enough for most interpretations to be encompassed. Encyclopédisme (talk) 01:04, 22 May 2024 (UTC)

  I agree. ComradeHektor (talk) 01:08, 22 May 2024 (UTC)

  I made the edit. Encyclopédisme (talk) 01:09, 22 May 2024 (UTC)

  Going to be working on the rest of the article later. Cheers. Encyclopédisme (talk) 01:09, 22 May 2024 (UTC)

  Well, after thinking about it, Yana ("servants"), would be similar to serfs. While there was a strong social hierarchy, the idea of a "gift" and an obligation in return isn't really vertical, it's horizontal. Of course ruling classes and castes used that system, but the general lines (where "poor" individuals were those without reciprocal relations, the word for both orphan and poor being wakcha, and the yana or servants being those who left the system of communities: Yana could be of good or bad condition, but their work wasn’t related to any "payback", it wasn’t part of the system of reciprocal exchange). Serfdom generally fits it though. Encyclopédisme (talk) 01:20, 22 May 2024 (UTC)

  @ComradeHektor: Despite this previous conversation, it seems growingly weird to me to mention that the system was "similar to a form of serfdom", almost negative. As you can see, I’m currently working on it, specifically on the sections concerning the workforce & reciprocity, but I cannot really understand the reasons behind your intervention. Just judging by your name, Hektor, and your edits, it seems you come from a Marxist perspective. First of all, I have nothing at all against Marxism, and I’m not here to start a principled discussion. But the Inca are not influenced by western developments at all, and were never a part of Marxist analysis to begin with. Yes, indeed, Marx didn’t know much about the Inca, he wrote about them actually (yes, he did), but he based himself on preconceptions of the time created by the great mythologizer Garcilaso de la Vega, the one who said that the Inca emperors were preparing their people for the catholic faith and that the average Andean of the 16th century actively supported the Spaniards hole heartedly. In the context of this ideal Garcilasian image of the Incas, Marx wrote about the Incas as having a form of primitive communism. Subsequent analysis is either controversial, or unserious. The Inca economy is the Inca economy, it is not European nor Asian nor Oceanian nor African nor Mesoamerican nor North American, and due to the Andes' mountain range isolation it isn’t Amazonian or north Andean either or Central American either. It is the Andean, then Inca economy, which is on a pan-Andean state-level both fascinating and extinct since the 16th century. Encyclopédisme (talk) 23:35, 1 June 2024 (UTC)

  Are your sources reliable? If yes, great! If no, not great! 80.209.216.81 (talk) 10:58, 27 July 2024 (UTC)

NPOV

@ComradeHektor: Is the current version OK? I'll still have to work on it, but at least the formulation isn't obviously biased anymore. Should I go forward and remove the tag? Cheers. Encyclopédisme (talk) 14:14, 27 June 2024 (UTC)

Yeah. ComradeHektor (talk) 14:17, 27 June 2024 (UTC)

This is one of the worst articles I've ever read on Wikipedia. I came here to learn about the modes and means of production of goods and services in a defunct empire and encountered a lahar of anachronistic Marxist jargon mixed with grammatical errors and unnecessary native terms. I still don't know what specific crops were cultivated, how they were cultivated, harvested, processed, preserved, stored, distributed, or prepared; all I gleaned was that there was some sort of Feudal land use arrangement which an extremely ideological college freshman desperately wants to interpret as validation of his beliefs. 172.56.106.156 (talk) 16:58, 25 July 2024 (UTC)

Everything should be rewritten, I agree. The guy did not follow any of my recommendations and now this is much more confused than before, and clearly tends towards a certain thinly veiled "socialism" (I would rather say indigenism). ComradeHektor (talk) 17:40, 25 July 2024 (UTC)

No need for WP:Forum, Wikipedia is all about WP:Reliable Sources. I don't see the words socialism, serfdom or capitalism used at all. Why don't you all just cite your sources correctly? I'm confused who wrote what now, just this is like purely ideological talk about irrelevant stuff. 80.209.216.81 (talk) 10:56, 27 July 2024 (UTC)

Article accuracy

This Wikipedia article’s accuracy is questioned by some, and it is at least not detailed enough on some points. Let's cool down everyone. The answer to if there was private property or not is easy: There was a strong sense of collective, every man was part of a group, and had family members from other groups, creating spider webs of social and economic relations. In a community, there was public land, and land (usually one tupu for a celibate individual) used by individuals or families. Not quite private property, some scholars say, but a „right to use“ land, annually reassigned to members of the community by an Inca official during a ritual. The ritual was usually a formality, but the Inca administrators could have punished peoples who had resisted Inca power, or rewarded generals or „Incas by privilege“ by removing or assigning land. The only person with private property was the Inca Emperor. Next to the land of the people and the land of the Inca emperor, there was also religious land, where the food of the priests, chosen women, and guardians of temples was cultivated. Land of the Inca and religious lands were often cultivated by those who left the community system. Crops were all stored in collective storehouses. Tribute was taken from the storehouse and not personally from the individual. What public lands were cultivated when was decided by the community leader. The Inca state held detailed statistics for every region, and used many means to increase yields as much as possible, including the momentary or permanent displacement of tribes.

Exchange existed too: A maritime currency existed, however the Inca Empire did not have a monetary economy. The economy was based on three principles, also found during the potlach ceremony in North America, who were practiced on a day-to-day basis in South America, and were the foundation of economic exchange. The three principles were: Give, by giving a service you expect to receive a similar service or gift back; receive, by receiving you accept to give back later, and you create a close bond; give back, you are in the obligation to give back a similar service to the one who gave you, otherwise you are indebted. If you don't give or give back, then you will likely be ostracised. In asymmetrical reciprocity, a service could be responded to by a similar, but not identical, gift, or vice-versa. A few resources seen across the Andes had even a similar value throughout the empire.

Western systems have nothing to do with this article: From Plato (who would see the Inca as half-monarchy, half-aristocracy), to Rousseau (the Inca have a perfect social contract, yet the Inca emperors claim the gods chose their people, and never claimed the agreement between individuals and the state was consensual), to Marx (the Inca would be an example of primitive communism, but beyond property and commerce, the Inca state never wanted to question hierarchy or the class system, never wanted to abolish religious sentiment, or separate from history, as both religion and history were manipulated to justify Inca imperialism), it is difficult to put the Inca into western frameworks.

Long story short, private property probably existed in some form, but only for the Inca emperor, and mostly as a means to establish himself in the socio-economic landscape of conquered regions. The Inca economy was not primitive, however there is still no proof for a regular currency. Potatoes, tomatoes, or the maritime axe-monies were however common means of exchange.

Some of this is missing in this Wikipedia article. There is no information on what are de facto currencies, no information on rules of exchange, and too little information on the private property of the Inca Emperor. I agree with others that it should be improved, not rewritten (the page has sources after all) but made longer and more detailed. 80.187.121.15 (talk) 14:22, 4 November 2024 (UTC)