^^^^^ CB: No. They are known for their egalitarian structure, both in recent ethnography and in ethno histories. Check any anthro textbook.
^^^
Anyway, I think the idea of species-being as a return to a primordial state is really confusing the matter - it is not a return to the garden, but a fulfillment that could not have been accomplished WITHOUT history, so I'm skeptical about any appeal to what is probably a thoroughly imaginary "state of nature."
^^^^^ CB: I'm not sure what you mean by return to premordial state. Our species being is the same now as it was at our origin. You imagine (thoroughly) that "upward mobility" is an aspect of our species being and therefore will be operative in communism. In other words, you pose "upward mobility" as motivation, not as a product of history , but as biological. But it is a product of history , and so further development of history can negate it. And there is nothing in our nature that prevents communist society tossing "upward mobility" and hierarchical economic classes into the dustbin of history.
You raised "species-being". Class divided society is based in history not species being or human nature.
^^^^^^^
Perhaps another way to look at it would be that in post-scarcity, material wealth simply loses its power as a motivator for productive action and is replaced by social regard, trust, respect, etc.
^^^^ CB: That's a better approach. However, class divided society has artificial scarcity for the exploited and oppressed classes so as to use that false scarcity to coerce production of material surpluses which are the substance exploited. See my theses on materialism on Marxism-Thaxis
http://greenhouse.economics.utah.edu/pipermail/marxism-thaxis/2012-January/028259.html http://greenhouse.economics.utah.edu/pipermail/marxism-thaxis/2011-April/027292.html
^^^^
What I'm getting at here is the question of what is the transformation of psychology under communism that allows "from each according to need" to function without being itself oppressive, which is the neoliberal worry. And as the complement to that, what is the psychology that allows "to each etc." to function without being stifling or simply not any fun. I think a lot of Marixists neglect that participation in economic activity can be fundamentally joyful (including the joy of competition) and is therefore an important aspect of species-being.
^^^^^^^ CB: Yes, though Marxists are on this , too. We aim to abolish toil , not productive activity, including enjoying it. Marx clearly believes that labor is integral to human species being. The key to fulfillment is that laborers get the fruits of their labor. See Marx Economic and Philosophic Manuscripts of 1844, et al. Chapter in Capital vol. one on labor.