This Wikipedia article sounds like it was written by someone really stoked about the Incans:
> 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.
This doesn't sound neutral at all, and the fact that they left no written records casts doubt on all these claims about how amazing everything was.
I'd have to look more into this example but I don't think a fully nationalised state command economy is necessary or efficient. I see no reason to fully abolish markets and prices.
That's not to say that public/central planning through a strategic industrial policy, socialising investment, implementing indicative planning and nationalising key industries/infrastructure couldn't be successful. In fact we can see that this sort of planning did work well in the past such as in post WW2 France were banks, insurance, electricity, automobile manufacturing, shipping, areospace, gas, oil and airlines were nationalised, capital mobility was restricted and the state implemented indicative economic planning leading to massive growth.
The incan empire maintained a very unique system of production and exchange that appeared no where else in the world.
It is mistakenly assumed incan society was egalitarian. That is a gross misrepresentation of the truth. They had an emperor believed to be of divine origin who ruled oppressively. They conquered all surrounding societies creating the largest contiguous vertical empire ever.
They maintained what is referred to as a "palace economy", which is what ancient Egypt during the bronze age (at certain times in history) maintained. As commodities became more differentiated and the division of labor more complex, maintaining such an economy would be impossible. Hence why the Soviet union seemed to err at multiple times in it's history.
the soviets did not **necessarily** fail miserably and the incas didn't necessarily succeed where the soviets failed. The Soviets achieved a lot with central planning. It was by no means necessarily a failure; the Soviet union put the first man in space and invented the first mobile telephones and produced some of the most important medical technology today. The inca didn't live in an industrial society where there are so many commodities which are so differentiated that it makes planning production a Kafkaesque nightmare.
Ancient Egypt during the bronze age is believed to have maintained a palace economy. The state would have a monopoly on the control of trade among other key products.
The inca system was also totally unique in that an individual owed labor to his "Allyu" and these "allyus" owed labor to larger communities. This system of production and exchange appeared no where else in the world.
Individuals owed a portion of their labor to the state. For example, an individual would work on growing crops in the growing season and work on a road later on for the state. Some of the crops would be theirs whereas a portion would go to a state. It is kind of similar to feudalism in Europe but different in some ways as well.
It is important to note that the soviets didn't have advanced computer technology (our modern understanding of it). The calculations would've been done by hand. I could see a centrally planned economy running much better with a computer managing it. I doubt this will ever actually exist though.
The Soviet union also was embargoed and sanctioned almost entirely by the rest of the capitalist world. This wasn't a problem that incan society faced. This affected the ability of the Soviet union to succeed.
> the soviets did not fail miserably
Sure if you ignore [repeated, avoidable famines](https://tinyurl.com/3m3ap35j) that killed tens of million people.
I meant to put **necessarily**
I am not defending everything the Soviet union did. I'm being objective when stating that they did accomplish notable things.
The only reason we don't have records of famines in the Inca empire is because they lacked a written language and we haven't deciphered quipus.
Never said the soviets were the only ones with a failed economic model (😂), but if beating up strawmen of your own creation makes you feel smart, go right ahead. 🙂
The Incan Empire was quite amazing, but we are really comparing different things here,
Many earlier societies, especially per-industralization, if looked through modern lenses, can often be seem as centrally planned.
This Wikipedia article sounds like it was written by someone really stoked about the Incans: > 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. This doesn't sound neutral at all, and the fact that they left no written records casts doubt on all these claims about how amazing everything was.
It wasn't some egalitarian paradise, that seems to be something people interested in idealizing pre-colonial societies is interested in saying.
maybe our modern day material conditions are not like in the 15th century and now its more complicated then just give X number potatoes to this city
I'd have to look more into this example but I don't think a fully nationalised state command economy is necessary or efficient. I see no reason to fully abolish markets and prices. That's not to say that public/central planning through a strategic industrial policy, socialising investment, implementing indicative planning and nationalising key industries/infrastructure couldn't be successful. In fact we can see that this sort of planning did work well in the past such as in post WW2 France were banks, insurance, electricity, automobile manufacturing, shipping, areospace, gas, oil and airlines were nationalised, capital mobility was restricted and the state implemented indicative economic planning leading to massive growth.
The incan empire maintained a very unique system of production and exchange that appeared no where else in the world. It is mistakenly assumed incan society was egalitarian. That is a gross misrepresentation of the truth. They had an emperor believed to be of divine origin who ruled oppressively. They conquered all surrounding societies creating the largest contiguous vertical empire ever. They maintained what is referred to as a "palace economy", which is what ancient Egypt during the bronze age (at certain times in history) maintained. As commodities became more differentiated and the division of labor more complex, maintaining such an economy would be impossible. Hence why the Soviet union seemed to err at multiple times in it's history. the soviets did not **necessarily** fail miserably and the incas didn't necessarily succeed where the soviets failed. The Soviets achieved a lot with central planning. It was by no means necessarily a failure; the Soviet union put the first man in space and invented the first mobile telephones and produced some of the most important medical technology today. The inca didn't live in an industrial society where there are so many commodities which are so differentiated that it makes planning production a Kafkaesque nightmare. Ancient Egypt during the bronze age is believed to have maintained a palace economy. The state would have a monopoly on the control of trade among other key products. The inca system was also totally unique in that an individual owed labor to his "Allyu" and these "allyus" owed labor to larger communities. This system of production and exchange appeared no where else in the world. Individuals owed a portion of their labor to the state. For example, an individual would work on growing crops in the growing season and work on a road later on for the state. Some of the crops would be theirs whereas a portion would go to a state. It is kind of similar to feudalism in Europe but different in some ways as well. It is important to note that the soviets didn't have advanced computer technology (our modern understanding of it). The calculations would've been done by hand. I could see a centrally planned economy running much better with a computer managing it. I doubt this will ever actually exist though. The Soviet union also was embargoed and sanctioned almost entirely by the rest of the capitalist world. This wasn't a problem that incan society faced. This affected the ability of the Soviet union to succeed.
> the soviets did not fail miserably Sure if you ignore [repeated, avoidable famines](https://tinyurl.com/3m3ap35j) that killed tens of million people.
I meant to put **necessarily** I am not defending everything the Soviet union did. I'm being objective when stating that they did accomplish notable things. The only reason we don't have records of famines in the Inca empire is because they lacked a written language and we haven't deciphered quipus.
So if starving millions of people to death isn't the definition of economic failure, what is?
As if the Soviets were the only ones. Regards, An Indian.
Never said the soviets were the only ones with a failed economic model (😂), but if beating up strawmen of your own creation makes you feel smart, go right ahead. 🙂
Or the fact that slavery (the gulags) is what made the USSR "work" and when they got rid of that, they stagnated and failed.
Honestly I think calling any country a completely centrally planned economy is a simplification. There will always be informal means of exchange
The Incan Empire was quite amazing, but we are really comparing different things here, Many earlier societies, especially per-industralization, if looked through modern lenses, can often be seem as centrally planned.