People do a lot of things for other motivations too. And how do you explain the tribal societies who did not collapse? In those, people who did more than others got prestige and status and that made it work just fine.
I agree that status is a very good motivation metric. It just so happens that wealth might be the best way to assess status. In a communist regime, a high status also correlates with high salary and high power ("some individuals are more equal than others" said a famous writer). Tribal societies "did not collapse" because they basically never developed in the first place (which ones were you thinking of?). Tribalism means you only accept/promote/tolerate what is from within the clan. Anyone from the outside world is de facto considered an existential threat. Tribalism is mostly incompatible with universal peace and prosperity, nor does it relate to communism anyway as they are entirely different paradigms.
People innovate out of kindness. They see a need and know how to fix it and they do. People innovate out of the need for creativity. I think you have a very one-sided view on what people's motivations areNo one innovates purely out of kindness. People who claim to be fully altruistic usually:
- do so at other people's expense (eg: spending other people's money, like through taxes)
- or have a vested interest (eg: influencers/organizations who loudly "give back" to buy themselves a good image)
- and/or have higher than normal narcissistic tendencies
- and/or suffer from the savior complex, which is a psychological disorder
- or simply know they will be direct beneficiaries to such policies because they intend to live off of more productive members of the group.
You seem to imply altruism and capitalism are opposites, but capitalism is just a tool to foster initiative and encourage improvement. It is both individually and collectively healthy to encourage what is productive behavior, and discourage what isn't. It doesn't mean the absence of rules, in fact it requires all parties to willfully participate since individual freedom is a key element of the concept.
And slavery did not exist before farming. In hunter gatherer societies there was no point to slaves, because you need one person to watch one slave, so slavery would not bring benefit. Written history is just a tiny piece of history and that's essentially the part in human history where things started to go wrong
This carefully avoids my questions in regards to capitalist vs communist countries, just like you chose to dismiss the part about "barbaric Europeans who destroyed/enslaved prosperous societies". Does written history include Das Kapital?