We're talking about a lot of different cultures. I also don't think it makes sense to talk about communism and fascism, though I understand why they come up, because to me these are forms of society at much larger levels of most native cultures we know about well. And then you have things like the Aztecs which have feudal monarchy imperial aspects to them.

One facet of a number of native cultures is their ad hoc nature. Leaders needed support. They were not like fascist dictators. If people were displeased with the chief, someone else might get general consensus and take over. And any venture that the tribe engaged in: war, changing location, say - even a well respected chief might not get support for. So the whole time they are negotiating, developing support, dealing with factions and elders. It is not hardened down into fixed roles like we are used to. And I mean this even more than in the purportedly democratic nations. There was a looseness to roles. Of course, scale differences make this easier, but I think it is also a different approach than we usually have even in small groups.

Phew man, I don't even know where to begin in this post (in a good way).

Really good read:

https://www.nrcs.usda.gov/Internet/FSE_DOCUMENTS/nrcs141p2_023458.pdf

Appetizer:

My IQ is too low to understand the question :(

:D

My IQ is too low to understand the question :(

:) — I like sushi

This one:(?)

What would you classify the social structure (in this case) of American Indians as? — Wallows