[weatherlight]

There's a lot of anthropological and archaeological evidence to the contrary. People indeed had trade and exchanges in ancient times, but these did not aalways necessitate a formalized system of money as we understand it today. The early forms of trade were often based on complex systems of credit and debt that were deeply intertwined with social relationships and trust within communities. David Graeber's work, "Debt: the first 5000 years," highlights that for more than 5,000 years before the invention of coins, humans extensively used such credit systems to buy and sell goods, long before the existence of coins or cash.

While it is true that trade is evident from ancient times, with goods found at burial sites that originated thousands of miles away, this does not automatically imply that all trade was facilitated by a commoditized asset serving as a universal medium of exchange. In many cases, goods like salt, furs, and metal objects were indeed used in trade, but they were part of a broader system of barter and reciprocal exchange, which could function effectively without a standardized form of money.

Regarding the role of social relationships in finance, while it's accurate that relationships remain crucial, especially for large transactions in modern times, this does not discount the fact that in the past, community trust and social bonds were often the primary means of securing credit, not collateral or commoditized money. This is evident in how competitive markets and the scarcity of trust can affect transactions, as Graeber notes through an anecdote where mutual aid within a community was a given, not a transaction requiring formal repayment.

The idea of a pre-commercial time where 'people didn't care about money' may indeed be fictional, but it's more nuanced than simply saying they used money in the way we do now. They cared about value and exchange, but these were frequently managed through social mechanisms rather than through impersonal, commoditized money. It's essential to understand that the concept of money has evolved and that early forms of trade and credit were valid economic systems in their own right, even if they don't match the monetary systems we are familiar with today.

[monero-xmr]

My broader point is that certain people think that there is this utopian “pre money time” where capitalism didn’t exist. I believe capitalism is the default, free trade is the default, and the fundamental idea that people will engage in for-profit commerce is embedded into our psychologies.

[weatherlight]

capitalism, as a system defined by profit-driven markets and private ownership, is a relatively modern concept and not the default economic state throughout human history. earlier societies often operated on principles of reciprocity and communal sharing rather than for-profit trade. while the inclination to trade can be considered inherent, the forms and rules of trade have varied greatly across cultures and eras, shaped by differing social and political contexts.

[WalterBright]

> is a relatively modern concept and not the default economic state throughout human history

This is speculation.

> earlier societies often operated on principles of reciprocity and communal sharing rather than for-profit trade.

Any society that had specialization of labor did more than that. Heck, the American Indian tribes measured their individual wealth via horse ownership. They certainly engaged in trade with the intent of profit.

[nextaccountic]

horse ownership? that was after european contact, right?

[WalterBright]

Yes. The first thing that happened with european contact was trade. I don't believe they were unfamiliar with it.

[weatherlight]

That’s not speculation. Capitalism is more that just trading for profit. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Capitalism

[WalterBright]

From your link:

"Capitalism is an economic system based on the private ownership of the means of production and their operation for profit."

[weatherlight]

exactly, "private ownership of the means of production...." that's an important distinction. It also says, "Central characteristics of capitalism include capital accumulation, competitive markets, price systems, private property, property rights recognition, voluntary exchange, and wage labor." Literally the next sentence. I'd rather not argue the very well understood definition of Capitalism.

You can't have wage labor unless you have money as a construct.

[monero-xmr]

Capitalism is about accumulating resources privately, and then using those accumulated resources to invest in earning more resources.

If you believe that early man was capable of thinking, "This shit is my shit, that shit is your shit, and if you take my shit I will punish you", then you have the precursors for capitalism. Academics like to throw a bunch of other nonsense around but that's it.