I would have to strongly diagree with the idea indigenous peoples went through a capitalism phase. hunter gatherers wouldn't have because means of production are just your own hands and a few tools either you or a family member made. Things are already pretty egalitarian all around, so there is no need to change in any direction. it's just infeasable to extract more resources in the environment where those kinds of societies flourish. Most agriculture focused societies operated around nobility inheriting the land with a few smaller farmers and a massive slave underclass. Most indigenous peoples were one of those two kinds of societies. Aboriginal Australians were hunter gatherers, as were most other oceanic peoples, Pacific northwest Native Americans were also hunterer-gatherers. New England Native Americans were farmers, and I do not know if they used slaves or were small enough in population they just worked their own land. The Aztecs and Mayans used slaves, and I think the Inca did but I could be wrong, in their farming. It is wrong to say Native Populations were primitive because they didn't employ a capitalist system, but it is also wrong to say they had capitalism and moved on from it. you need a lot of surplus people and easily-available resources to start capitalism. Aztecs had a lot of people, due to their incredibly effective corn crop, but all the resources needed to be carried through harsh conditions of mountains or rainforest or desert before winding up in the capital, so they couldn't really get going. North America had more available resources, but no real surplus population due to the predominatly hunter-gatherer lifestyle. Cahokia was a pretty impressive city, and well situated for trade, but couldn't keep growing enough to start capitalism. I'd also suspect you need a printing press to start capitalism, but that's more me wondering the why exactly and I don't have enough evidence.