You think in terms of 'societies' as some fundamental unit, and as such your understanding of them is always going to be flawed because you have your own assumptions about what societies are, and those assumptions really have no basis behind them. Methodological individualism gives a basis for what societies are, but you're just stopping at the group level and assuming that it's just a thing that exists and is something that can't be reduced down further to individual action/motivation/behaviour/nature. So you don't understand the limits of social cooperation: that it's not just a 'given' that vast swathes of unrelated people just mutually come together and agree on things, and commit to do massive social projects together. But that isn't a given at all. You have to explain, in a more fundamental way, how and why those things happen, and what is necessary for those things to happen, otherwise you're just being lazy about it.

You just assume that the problems you see in today's society are attributable to what you don't like, and you assume this on an instinctive, common-sense level, but you can't really explain it in a more compelling way. I admit that it's somewhat intuitive to think that the 'money system' is somehow structurally problematic, and complex division of labour. We evolved in small human-scale tribes where cooperation and collective ownership is easy and natural. People for whatever reason have an instictive reaction (or maybe it's just cultural baggage, not sure) to think of 'making money' as a bad thing, and people think too highly of inefficient not-for-profit organizations just because profit is a dirty word. But the holistic, common-sense answer isn't always correct, as we can see by the monty hall problem. And to me it sounds like you're giving the reactionary, holistic, common-sense answer to the monty hall problem as 50% (which practically everybody thinks when they first hear it -- even brilliant mathematicians like Paul Erdos). And when it is shown to you in a reductionistic way -- by explicitly mapping out the probabilities -- that the answer is really 66%/33%, you simply assert 'nope' without explaining where the reductionistic explanation went wrong. Hopefully you can see with this analogy why what you're saying is not compelling at all.

As an anarchist (of the ancap pursuation), I think that when I attribute problems to the state I can explain it as being how the state interferes -- with aggressive violence -- with emergent market mechanisms (like the price mechanism), and this makes things inefficient and wasteful, leads to less social cooperation, etc. I think there's a complete chain of descriptive explanation there, going back to individual action, and even the existence of states is considered with methodological individualism, so it's not exempt from it. And I do believe that we can all be as fantastically wealthy as the venus projectors think (though I wouldn't go as far as to say 'post-scarcity', because human desire is unbounded). It just won't happen without money and prices, because as I believe I have explained that would cause more waste and more scarcity and poverty, and wouldn't occur naturally anyway without violent intervention from a state.