Louis P. wrote: >>In general, the Aztecs and Incas ruled with a relatively light hand....<< Brad deL emoted: >!!!!!!!!!< I think Marx makes the point somewhere in vol. I of CAPITAL that overtly forced labor (which the Incas organized) combined with commodity production (which the Spaniards brought) represents the worst of both. Inca-type forced labor was limited in its disgustingness by the fact that it only produced use-values, which are very hard to accumulate in most cases. On the other hand, the Spaniards' exploitation of Peruvian labor was aimed at producing exchange value, which has no limit. In addition, the Spaniards' adaptation of the Inca tributary system lacked the limits implied by the ethnic similarities of the exploiters and the exploitees. The Spaniards also destroyed the Inca infrastructure, with disastrous and often deadly results for the locals and, ironically, hurting the Spaniards' own efforts to profit from Peru. I don't see why wampum isn't money. It fits the usual definitions. The difference is that the wampum functioned in social systems mostly oriented toward producing use-values (C-M-C) whereas what we call money operates in a social system oriented toward producing exchange-value (M-C-M) or surplus-value (M-C-M', with M' > M). In different social systems, money functions differently. BTW, J.V. Murra (who Louis cites) was one of my anthro. profs. more than 25 years ago. Jim Devine [EMAIL PROTECTED] & http://clawww.lmu.edu/Faculty/JDevine/jdevine.html
