The communes had all collapsed and the main reason was that a small handful of people did all the work and the others were basically just free riders. But the people who had the drive to do the work didn't get any special consideration or recognition, because that was counter to the egalitarian spirit of the times. Eventually they just left, disgusted at having to support the parasites.

This is a general human dynamic, it seems; certainly I've lived through it too many times. And while I wouldn't have called them "parasites", it's true that organizations tend to devolve into the mediocrity of maintenance drones who are more effective at social positioning within the organization than interested in the original mission.

And it's not just communes. It's any directed endeavor in which egalitarianism - what I call "monkey fairness" - is presumed to be an utter prerequisite for any solution to any problem. Currently, most humans consider human egalitarianism a more important consideration than the anthropogenic mass extinction. This may ultimately be one of the most dangerous delusions of all.

Moreover, if such a thing as this is uttered, the majority who disagree would assume that I wish to be in an "elite", and deny something to others, since that's the way monkeys model social interaction. But I mention it just as a central structural problem of the human existential pickle. That even as we head into situations in which our world and species will be drastically impacted, any solutions which seem "monkey unfair" are generally met with capuchin screams and thrown feces.

"Fairness" works well in small tribes. It's dysfunctional to try applying it on large scale, "correcting" any natural variations which seem unfair. Paradoxically, it will lead to greater "unfairness", particularly to those monkeys not here to scream for themselves since they're trapped in a diminishing future.