Would it be possible to develop a functioning society without money

No.

God bless capitalism.

>Define money.

Anything that gets is value from the fact that it has value. If that makes sense. Basically, it has no other reason than to represent value for exchange.

Unless scarcity of resources isn't a thing, it's damn near impossible without severe coercion.

Well considering money was invented after civilizations arose, yes. Commodity money was a thing for thousands of years in many places - you're just replacing what people traditionally think of as money with things that have real value outside of them being money. In mesopotamia, the popular thing was grains, but I've seen references to societies using everything from precious metals to salt to slaves as forms of currency.

It's been known to happen

The Phoenicians, a maritime trading power, didn't adopt currency until relatively late in their history.

Spartans had money you tard.

They didn't have currency until around the 4th century and that was from plunder/end of the Peloponnesian wars. It was illegal before that and led to fucking up their traditions.

Source: Donald Kagan

Sparta used iron coins.

source:plutarch

*iron sticks. Before that they had gold and silver like other people.

I love that line, I think it's from A War Like No Other

>The best rowers in the Greek world were not about to head to Sparta in the hopes of being compensated with barbecue spits

They weren't coins. The legend is that Lycurgas made the iron unusable and unweidly to make it so nobody used it.

>"[Lycurgas] commanded that all gold and silver coin should be calledin, and that only a sort of money made of iron should be current, a greatweight and quantity of which was very little worth; so that to lay up twentyor thirty pounds there was required a pretty large closet, and, to removeit, nothing less than a yoke of oxen. With the diffusion of this money,at once a number of vices were banished from Lacedaemon; for who wouldrob another of such a coin? Who would unjustly detain or take by force,or accept as a bribe, a thing which it was not easy to hide, nor a creditto have, nor indeed of any use to cut in pieces? For when it was just redhot, they quenched it in vinegar, and by that means spoilt it, and madeit almost incapable of being worked."

Read the sources you cite.

No, because money obviously was a solution to a problem itself, and the problem probably was the remuneration of labor, and the pricing of goods is vastly easier and more efficient with the existence of money.

I mean, you can probably start a society where there is no money, but I bet they'll start using it again at some point unless you literally use violence and coercion to stop people from doing it.

The Phoenicians were pretty successful without it. Some of their city states began adopting it once the Greek market grew (namely the Athenian Empire).

well, if one doesn't care about fairness of productivity, and only cares for the well-being of the whole, it certainly can!

>perfect communism is just human-hivemind

When are you going to stop typing things in caps?

Incans didn't use currency. They were a proto socialist state after all.

Even their neighbours chimu, incans conquered, had a bronze based currency system but they didn't adopt it, it seems.

I am always surprised at the popularity of this question when compared to others. Currency and finance seem integral to the development of civilization, with their implementation usually occurring sometime before the development of writing. However, no one ever asks if its possible to develop a functioning society without writing.

Incas have society without money or currency. As far as I can tell.
They were pretty well doing before diseases decimate them and cause succession/civil war that Pizarro take advantage.

Oral traditions.
You still need a medium to transport/deliver/keep records or knowledge.

>Currency and finance seem integral to the development of civilization

Why? Currency is not of any value

Can you imagine it tho. For every single book that exists in the world, there would need to be a person who would know that information verbatim. And even then, that's only if one copy of the book exists. Its truly a ridiculous idea.

Nah.
You have bards or priests who know not only one book but many.
>there is pricing in old Gaelic law that cost of great bard(who know at last 350 different tales) put on price of a king
> I also know a person(my teacher) who meet a guy(when she was young) who memorize entire book(national epos) and could cite it from his memory(he was old then)

So you have a trade that learn specific tales and stories word for word. Passing test is to tell it without a single mistake. Mediocre bard can tell 5, good can tell 50 different stories, great 250 without single mistakes. You have branches of this trade that specialize in some sort of stories.
It can be done.
The worst is when some really apocalyptic events come some knowledge(or all) would be lost) - all people who know specific tales die and then did not train their successors.
In worst case scenario whole trade died.

If you mean money as in the stuff provided by governments.

Then yes.

the socialist countries in northern europe will most likely be the first societies to ditch money in favor of a more efficient system once post-scarcity is achieve there, which will happen in 10-15 years give or take.

Yes, but you need total obedience from the population.

Honestly, I’m surprised they aren’t used more often as an example of functional socialism. Debts were paid in labor and public service, and they even had welfare programs.
I guess the whole human sacrifice thing really dampens your image.

The miners are the bitcoin government

It just seems like it would be inefficient. Prices are a really good system-wide tool for measuring demand, as well as allowing for granular flexibility. Without money your only options are to either try and match that level of accuracy through bureaucracy, or ask everyone to just barter. Both solutions are pretty inefficient in comparison.

You mistake Aztecs with Incas.
Incas do not have human sacrifice. Instead they have mummies.

>”Qhapaq hucha was the Inca practice of human sacrifice, mainly using children. The Incas performed child sacrifices during or after important events, such as the death of the Sapa Inca (emperor) or during a famine. Children were selected as sacrificial victims as they were considered to be the purest of beings. These children were also physically perfect and healthy, because they were the best the people could present to their gods. The victims may be as young as 6 and as old as 15.”

Hm.
So its similar to old Roman tradition on sacrificing enemies of the Rome in hour of need.