Well, as a "rabbit hunter" myself (lol), I see it something like this:

Two things were wrong:

(1) Shyge shouldn't have stolen the meat from the Mammoth Hunters, because it wasn't his. He neither earned it nor did his duty to his new collective.

(2) Both groups were short-sighted in clinging to the belief that the other group was "evil".

Perhaps I should clarify more about what I think of (2): There shouldn't be anything stopping any of the other rabbit catchers from making their own deal with the mammoth hunters. This "free market" would break Shyge's monopoly, and all of the "bosses" would have to start sharing more of their profits with the others in their group, in order to attract the most skilled hunters. So in that way, the economics of the thing gets leveled out a little more. There would still be some vastly more "wealthy" than others, but in general there would be a very wide middle class and very small upper and lower classes. And that idea that one could work hard and make it into that upper class, even if the chances are small, gives them a more compelling reason to be productive.

Though it's probably something that could be argued to death without coming to any conclusion, lol. I try to be skeptical of my own beliefs, so as to avoid becoming an ideologue, but sometimes I wonder how much of the results of my self-skepticism are truly unbiased, and how much of it is just a confirmation bias, lol.

For what it's worth, before someone calls me a "white-nationalist racist sexist capitalist patriarch" or whatever the current slur for the "individualist" is these days (lol), I don't believe that the US actually operates on a free-market capitalist system anymore. I think that for at least the last 150 years, we've been operating on a system of corporate/government cronyism, (which imo IS quite wrong and bad for the general public) which some people wrongly identify as "capitalism" or "free market", and then start screaming "down with the evil capitalist patriarchy!", and the conversation goes to shit quickly, lol.

I guess my problem with collectivism is that, historically, large collectivist movements always seem to oppress an "out-group". Whatever that out-group happens to be, regardless of race or gender or whatever, we end up with the "tyranny of the majority", which our republican system of government in the US was originally designed to prevent (but has since IMO been subverted). Large scale collectivist revolutions always seem to result in oppression and purges of these out-groups (Castro, Mao, Marx/Stalin, Hitler, 3rd Wave Intersectional Feminism, etc).

So yeah, perhaps it's just my particular cultural bias talking, but I feel like collectivism only works in smaller groups, at the family or community level. Once you have something larger, the people and ideas become too diverse for a one-size-fits-all large-scale collective to work (not to mention that the power wielded by the collective when it acts as an entity on its own right is a bit frightening, if you are the one in the out-group).

But again, I am one of those crazy small-government free-market wackos, and I don't know how much of my self-skepticism isn't just confirmation bias. So maybe I am just insane, haha.

Regardless, I hope that neither you, or any of your other readers, have found anything I've said offensive. If so, I apologize. Such was not my intent.