Now the taking of terminological liberties with well-defined concepts has its dangers. "Money" has no sooner been introduced into the argument than "communism" crops up and the two are related by a remarkable piece of reasoning.
"The subject of communism in property is closely connected with that of money. A thoroughly communistic people can have no use for money among themselves. If they possess anything which can be regarded as currency it can only be used in trans actions with other peoples. The use of money should therefore be associated with the disappearance of communism; if it can be shown that Melanesian money is due to immigrant influence, and especially to that of the Kava people, we shall have gone far to establish the conclusions already suggested" (History of Melanesian Society, vol. 2, p. 385).
And again: "A thoroughly communistic people would have no need for money, and any explanation of the communism of Polynesia will therefore furnish also the explanation of the absence of money" (1). And as an "historical explanation" of these facts: "The explanation of the absence of money in Polynesia and of the communism of its people is to be found in the special mode of settlement of the Kava people" (p. 393).
What a "thoroughly communistic people" are is difficult to say. The Bolshevik regime aspires to that title, but they have not done away with money, they use it in fact for internal purposes with out qualms or difficulties. On the other hand, the Central Aus tralians, the Fuegians and the Melanesians of Eastern New Guinea have a keen sense of individual property, yet they use no money or currency. The fact is that neither in primitive nor in advanced cultures is there any correlation between com munism and absence of money. Under a system of rigid indi vidual property, exchange takes place in the form of direct barter; in a highly developed economic organisation with money and banking systems, the community may control almost completely the resources of the individual and establish thorough-going communism.
It can be very seriously doubted whether Dr. Rivers has ever proved that in some parts of the Western Pacific there exists communism and in others individualism, nor as we have seen is his statement that certain objects are money functionally cor rect. The absence of money on the other hand which Dr. Rivers explains by the existence of communism can be very simply ac counted for by the absence of any need for it under primitive conditions. The moral of this criticism is that we need in Anthro
pology far greater precision in the use of terms and the definition of concepts and far richer and minuter observations on economic matters. We can dispense on the other hand with daring specula tions about absence of property or presence of monetary systems in pre-historic Oceania.
Summary.—To sum up briefly, it is incorrect to assume that man for a long time has lived in a semi-natural primitive stage of individual acquisition of food and primary utilities. Equally untrue is the correlated assumption that he lifted himself out of this condition by the gradual application of the economic principle of maximum of effect for the minimum of effort. In stead, from the outset, artificial, cultural, non-instinctive aims have been indispensable to him and his culture. Early types of value and symbols of wealth have spurred him from the outset to economic effort. This effort is organised and standardised by tradition. The real problem, therefore, consists in gaining insight into the primitive forms of condensed wealth, into the mixture of motives and impulses which drive man and in studying the manner in which these primitive incentives control organised ef fective effort. All the conclusions arrived at show that for the discussion of economic problems it is necessary to consider the relations of early wealth to religion and to magic as well as its function in primitive social structure.
The borderland questions—the influence of economics on social structure; the problem of wealth as the foundation of rank, power and status; the rule of give-and-take in social obligations; ceremonial distribution of goods, and its economic importance— are gradually coming into the forefront of anthropological inter est, and open up entirely new horizons in theory and field-work. They bring it into close contact with the disciplines of economics, history and sociology (Buecher, Schwiedland, M. Weber, K. Lamprecht).
The relation between the various larger aspects of culture opens a new type of problem. Social organisation is largely dependent upon economic foundations, while economics cannot be studied without a knowledge of the various groups within the tribe. Religion and magic are not independent, but are intimately asso ciated with economic pursuits, with power and prestige, with domestic life and everyday necessities.