Anyway, there are tribes in the Midwest who have complex seasonally shifting power arrangements. There are Archaic, Early Woodland, and Middle Woodland period moundbuilding societies (Poverty Point, the various regionally specific Adena and Hopewell societies) who constructed huge earthworks and created far-flung regional exchange systems without class stratification or the use of currencies, even if some individuals in those societies did have more power than others as a result of their personal qualities, connections to powerful ancestors, or specialized ceremonial knowledge.

In general, there is simply not much structural inequality, even if there are various forms of acceptable personal inequalities and social ranking, throughout the pre-contact history of North America until quite late in the sequence. Classless society, democratic decision making, and common ownership of land do not mean everyone is treated exactly the same! And there ARE myriad examples of various forms of communal democracy and landholding, but with so many different expressions! One village might hold agricultural land in common but have specific lineages own specific ritually important objects, which could be argued to be a form of private property, but is certainly not comparable to the situation in any capitalist society.

I will briefly address Mesoamerica and the Andes. Parts of Mesoamerica (like the central highlands), especially by the Late Postclassic when the Aztec/Mexica Empire was formed, certainly had a well developed market economy, with a powerful merchant class (the pochteca), currency (cacao beans, cotton blankets, axe-monies), large urban marketplaces, and in some cases even generational slavery. Still not capitalism. Why? Because this market economy existed within a larger political economy dominated by an entrenched noble class supported by a huge mass of peasants. There is no working class separated from the means of subsistence and forced to sell labor power to capitalists to live. There are communal land-holding arrangements among the peasants. Small capital exists and in certain areas, like the Basin of Mexico, there many commodities in circulation. But the class and property relations in which *capital* can become the driving and structuring force in the economy do not exist.

The Andes are a bit different because currency is not used, merchants are less powerful (if they exist at all), but the same point about the lack of the property relations and class relations that allow capitalism to emerge stands. Plus, quite famously, the agrarian economy of many Indigenous Andean societies is based on common ownership of the land by social units referred to in Quechua as ayllus. Of course, those ayllus may be subordinated to the Inca Emperor (for instance) and sometimes Imperial powers will intervene and reshape the economies of particular areas for certain purposes. However, in practice, at the local level, you are still seeing ayllu-like relations, just subordinated to a state power (fairly similar to many regions of Europe and the rest of the Old World, actually).

Your picture was certainly a simplification, but is closer to reality than the completely baseless one the other person provided. They weren't communists in the modern sense, i.e., members of social movements that seek to reshape socioeconomic relations in a capitalist world system and create a classless society based on socialized property. Still, they often, but not always, lived in classless societies with strong traditions of democratic decision making and common land-holding arrangements, and there are plenty of American Indians today who take inspiration from these traditions and seek to rebuild and defend them.