Yes I’ve read all the above. I have published using a Marxist anthropology lens.
I was taking issue with your claim that communism is somehow about making sacrifices for some future benefit. That’s not at all part of the philosophy.
If you want to claim there are sacrifices (which is an odd way to look at it) they are about immediate benefits not some future state.
Ok, I’m not sure Marx would have adopted the “sacrifice now for paradise later” frame, because he was overly optimistic, politically naive, and thought communism would arise in developed economies.
In terms of actual communism, my understanding is that “sacrifice now for a paradise later” was the dominant message of the USSR to its citizens for the whole of its existence.
In terms of “Marxist anthropology,” that strikes me as a made-up thing. I mean I’m sure it exists, but it’s why biological anthropologists and social anthropologists aren’t really on speaking terms.
Early communism was much more like The Gift. Through a control economy and overcoming the labor theory of value they had discovered the secret code to outplan the anemic growth of undirected owner controlled parasitic capitalism, which would lead to a better future faster. A lot was made about growth rates, infrastructure building, and the superiority of communism to capitalism. It was only after a couple of decades when it became clear that in the long term capitalism returned more growth than communism that a sacrifice mindset started to be a fall back position.
Bummer for Marx to discover The Truth about economics at approximately the same time developed economies first started producing a compounding surplus of goods and services.