Link economic system up with subsistence system?

Question

thanks in advance, ive been wondering about this

Answer 1

Technically, a subsistence system is a type of economic system.  Consider reading Layton's Marxist Anthropology chapter from a book called An Introduction to theory in anthropology.  I don't usually like Marxist anthropology but this particular analysis is one I do like.  It covers the differences you are looking at, especially what Sahlins called the 'economy of limited objectives' - wherein the people work with an enough-for-now sort of attitude rather than one of accumulating wealth for the distant future/for the inheritance or dowry of one's children.  Another thing to read would be the second chapter of Myth and Meaning by Levi-Strauss.

Answer 2

Land is the most valuable resource and every society has rules for what con be done with it and by whom. Food collection societies do not have private ownership of the land because it has no intrinsic value, rather it is the presence of animals and edibles on the land that count. In this case, valuability can shift in location as the resources on the land do. The Hadza of Tanzania are one such group. Any member may hunt, pick and drink when and wherever she pleases. However, in societies dependent upon fishing, it is not uncommon to have individual or family ownership. This may largely be due to the predictability of fish in the area, whereas game and plants are more likely to fluctuate in a particular area. “Rights” to the land can be maintained by a tribe or band, but some do not even defend or restrict it to speakers of their language. This variability can be attributed to the predictability in resources. The more predictable, the more likely a community is to form more permanent settlements and has something to defend.

Most horticulturalists do not have individual ownership of land. This may be because growing techniques render the land exhausted relatively soon and must then move. However, plots of land may be allocated to families, but they do not own them in the sense that we regard it in permanence. The Mundurucu in Brazil maintain village control. Individuals can hunt and fish where they like, and clear land whever it is not being used. Once the soil is exhausted it reverts back to the village. It is distinguished between the land and produce, as well as land and game. Whoever farms or kill it, owns it. When the villagers began tapping rubber trees for sale, ownership of those trees and the paths leading to them became more permanent, and they could even be inherited.

Pastoralists, like food collectors require large areas of land. Resources also fluctuate, since they are manipulating animals rather than land. It is therefore pointless for ownership of unpredictable land, especially in a nomadic society. They do own their animals. It is theorized that it motivates families and individuals to keep working for their own survival. If it was communal, the laziness of one is then imposed on the hard work of another. Even mere misfortune falls on one family who can then seel wages in agricultural societies rather than bruising the fortunate. Also, they have the opportunity to sell or trade with societies that are not horticulturalists. The degree of accesability of lnad, varies, from free grazing without ownership to defending territories.

Following the pattern of predictable resources, intensive agricultural societies have the most private ownership of land. Since it is cultivated in a manner rendering it somewhat permanently fruitful (to the generation anyway), one would want exclusive rights to it. There are social and political reasons influencing this as well, since these all get more complex in intensive agricultural societies. Like horticultalists, land may be appointed or oppurtuned (Homestead Act of 1862), but they then own it and can dispose of it at will, generally. Land granting could be for reasons other than survival. Like medieval feudalism, one could be granted land in exchange for military service. In communist societies, the government owns the land, but it is worked by other people.

Colonialism invades natives, taking their land, sometimes giving them small areas of poor quality. Colonialism often tries to change the system of ownership for the natives, once communal into private because it is easier to take from one than many. Andrew Jackson initiated Indian reservations, which reduced in size during westward expansion. State societies, with an emphasis on control, do not favor communal ownership or pastoralists.

Technology is used to acquire resources or convert them into a consumable state. The more nomadic, the smaller and simper the tools must be for them to carry around. And likewise, the more sedentary and agricultural, the larger and more complex the tools become. Ownership of these tools vary. In societies without craft specialists, it is likely that all members have the knowledge and skills to make such tools and therefore have no need for ownership. However, sophisticated tools arise like harpoons and boomerangs, and they are considered to be owned by the person who made them. But all members have equal access to the materials they are made from and thus possession of tools cannot be used to gain superiority. They are stil expected to share their possessions. Pastoral and horticultural societies own their own tools, but again, are expected to share. In craft specialization, tools cannot be made by all and must be traded or bought. Since they will not be cheap, private ownership is the mode. Some societies have communal use of large equipment, even in capitalism, where the government or corporation owns the machine, but others use it (for a fee).

Production is the process of turning raw resources into food and good through labor. Domestic production is carried out by fmily or kin. Industrial modes of production require expensive machines, which their owners (governments, corporations, capitalists) must hire wage workers who can then support themselves with wages. In nonidustrial societies, tributary systems are untilized where laborers produce their own products, must yield a portion of it to the aristocracy.

Some societies work for the subsistence of their own household.. Others for a profit. The relationship between quantities of consumers and producers can determine how hard members of a society work. Social rewards can b a motivator to work beyond the needs of the household.  subsistence economies. Commercial economies are different in that there seems to be a motivation to achieve and improve the quality of life. Individuals in horticultural and collection societies are not required to work per say, but in more complex societies they may be forced to work through slavery, serfism, military drafts, or even taxation (monetary, or through goods or services). The corvee system requires tributary production. Indirect + Direct incentives  

Division of labor by gender is universal. In nonindustrial societies, large tasks may be accomplished by kin groups. In general, the more tehnically advanced a society is, the more surplus, the more craft specialization. The more complex a society is, the more organization of labor there must be.

Distribution of goods can be seen in three ways. The first is reciprocity, which can be generalized or balanced. Generalized reciprocity gives without the expectation if return. This relies on generosity and helps to form alliances through gift-giving. Balanced reciprocity expects an equal exchange. The Kula Ring is an elaborate system or balanced reciprocity. Every year, members of different tribes travel to give armbands for necklaces, have acces to their partners immediate resources, and they trade enough goods to last the whole year. Redistribution gathers goods and labors in a particular place to be redistributed. Though this occurs in all societies, it is important to ones with political hierarchies. Market or commercial exchange is buying and selling of goods and services. It relies on two kinds of money: general-purpose, where almost all items can be exchanged with a determined value. Special-purpose money is more abstract, where one item is the medium that standardizes the value of al other objects. Special-purpose money cannot always buy everything.  

I hope this answers your question- I just happen to be tudying for a test and wrote this. It took me the last few hours to synthesize this informatin into somewhat of a study guide for myself. If this is your way of dogding thinking for a homework assignment, the world would truly be better without you. Otherwise, continue this discussion in your head.