It may be inevitable that people may rise up to seek power over others, but the question is what is the best way to respond to this? Do we leave them to rule over others without restrictions, or do we limit the damage they can do? Do we reward this impulse of control of the few over the many to their general detriment, or do we treat it as a mental health issue (like sociopathy or hoarding)?
Just mention them. There is no need for citing a book that will take me a few months to read before I respond.
I have a feeling I know about the ones you are about to mention. They had leaders or factions that controlled the resources(not classless) or they only lasted for a few months or years before getting conquered.
As for scarcity: It seems to me from my research that it is most often the leaders and factions that create artificial scarcity in order to enforce their power, rather than there being a lack of resources in the first place.
If you're wondering why we don't see the other kind much - well, the socialist movements that won back in early 20th century were generally the most ruthless ones, whereas the more democratically minded movements (e.g. Luxembourgism or various anarchist groups) were crushed. So you had a kind of artificial selection for brutality to begin with - but then countries controlled by those winners would also subsidize similar movements elsewhere, and of course they demanded ideological conformance in return. This is largely why stuff like Marxism-Leninism and Maoism is still so pervasive on the left.
The issue is that leaders and factions always emerge. Even if everyone could 'keep their excess labor', you get groups of people that position themselves to get higher value jobs or easier jobs.
As much as people claim this is not inevitable, I've yet to see this happen IRL or in history.