Actually there's signs that the contra-positive is actually the truth. Bartering is a devolved form of capitalism. In human societies that have not been exposed to money, bartering doesn't really take place to the extend that it does in societies that have been exposed to money but have a shortage of it.
Adam Smith said that quid-pro-quo exchange systems preceded economies based on currency, but there’s no evidence that he was right.
www.theatlantic.com
Basically, money is the most efficient and effective system, and barter is a shitty attempt to mimic it, but it's not a precursor to it.
And, frankly, I don't think living in a 'gift' society would be pleasant, especially with women needing to fuck men for 'presents' that they then share with their men. That's fucked up, and not, IMHO, a good way to live.
Cato has a counter-point article that, importantly, doesn't actually refute The Atlantic's assertions that barter as we think of it, wasn't really a thing, but does refute the Atlantic's frankly idiotic assertion that this gift economy is somehow better than a cold hard cash economy... The advantage of money is that people know exactly where you stand, and it's impersonal, which is a good protection for people who would normally be tribal outcasts.
It's also harder to game by being 'sympathetic' or tricky.
So far as some people are concerned, when it comes to bashing economists, any old stick will do.
www.cato.org