Interesting point of view, but I think it's based on some bad assumptions
about how life works among humans.  It's also short-sighted on an important
point on the nature of resources.

You can easily argue that the natural state of the human animal--the true
hunter/gatherer--is one of extreme material poverty.  That some are happy
with this doesn't change that fact.  They hold almost no possessions, when
they can't find food they go hungry, when they are injured or infected or
give birth they frequently die.  They have few forms of entertainment, and
have little to no ability to improve their lives if they are unhappy with
them.

Viewed from this perspective the advent of agriculture brought on many
wonderful things that were never possible before and which people quite
enjoyed and wanted more of.  Viewed from this perspective, with the
exception of cases where the poor were starving to death and fighting for
food, most class struggles would be about one thing only: envy.  This would
be best highlighted in those countries where civilization has reached its
apex, where even the very poorest people are fabulously wealthy by
comparison to your average hunter/gatherer.  For example, with the
exception of the insane or drug-addicted, the vast majority of people
living most of their lives "below the poverty line" own at least one car
and at least one television and radio, live in homes or apartments of their
own with central heating and indoor plumbing, and eat three meals a day
without concern of starvation.  Most also have telephones, and with the
exception of those in the most remotoe rural areas, have immediate access
to emergency medical care for any traumatic injury, severe infection, or to
assist in childbirth, and are given education to teach them basic literacy
and mathematics for free if they choose to avail themselves of it.  By
comparison, those "above the poverty line" may be far more wealthy, with
larger, newer cars, air conditioning, medical care that is even better and
more responsive, cable television, travel opportunities, more and finer
clothes, bigger and nicer houses, wider variety of foods they may choose to
eat, more forms of enertainment they can afford, etc. etc. and in more
extreme cases, their own paid servants, huge mansions, airplanes of their
own, and so on.

Yet by comparison to the hunter/gatherer, the difference between, say,
Leona Helmsly and the average 19 year old living on $18,000 a year in
Memphis is almost negligible, and the only reason for the person living on
$18K per year to resent a Leona is that Bill Gates owns a lot more things
than she does.  She could, if she wished, go back to the wild and attempt
to live a hunter/gatherer life, but she knows full well that she likes her
life better within civilization, even if she resents those who have more
than she does.

Viewed from this perspective, a lot of modern "class struggle" is nothing
but envious people who resent those who have more than they do, even though
they already have far more than living in a state of nature would ever have
given them.

There's also the difficult problem of democracy, which tends to have a
strong levelling effect on classes when combined with a fairly free,
loosely regulated market.  Democracy + freedom-oriented economics + modern
medical technology is the most effective form of population control yet
devised, and to also be the most effective guard against war yet devised.
It is amazing how seldom people notice that one of the primary benefits of
democratic systems of governments is that democracies almost never wage war
on each other.  In prior centuries free and open trade was an effective
brake against war (although some wars broke out because of protectionism),
while democracy has proven even more effective.  It is nearly impossible to
find an example of a true democracy waging war on another, and usually when
they do happen they are extraordinarily short-lived.  The vast majority of
wars fought in this century have been either between two dictatorships (or
tyrannical, non-democratic oligarchies, such as the Iran-Iraq war, or the
constant wars raging throuogh most of Africa), or have been a case of a
democracy fighting with form of non-democratic government (such as the
fight against the German Kaiser in World War I or the German Fuhrer in
World War II).

It is also the case that within a truly democratic system, civil wars still
happen but tend to be far more rare. (Dictator-led countries may be in a
constant state of civil war or may suffer from either coups or purges every
few years, whereas such things are -quite- rarer in any democracy.)

Viewed from this perspective, our modern age has in many ways made it
possible to return to many of the benefits of the hunter/gatherer mode of
existence without the many drawbacks.  The recipe for change would be:

Education + democracy + free-market economy--while reminding people just
how lucky they are would probably repair a few things as well.

 -=-=-

Once in a while you get shown the light/
 In the strangest of places if you look at it right   ---Robert Hunter

http://www.syndicomm.com/esmay