This statement isn't whole, so I would beware using it too much as any kind of foundation for argument. It is only true if the collective has no skin in the game. If the collective have the same incentive of maximising collective income, then all willingly share responsibilty, truly collaborating, attacking all problems as teams rather than as individuals. A good "Boss" knows how to set this up so they can stand back and trust the team to do what is needed.
The problem China had with Mao was that he was obviously of pretty low intelligence, thinking problems could be fixed by culling this and that, probably not listening to truly informed advisors, maybe even putting then in fear of their lives, so eventually they just agreed with everything he said and did.
In any situation where individuals can gain power by, or be rewarded for obstructing perceived privelige gained by others, they will, it seems to me.
I think that is removed, when things are such that when one is rewarded, all are rewarded.
I believe this will be a natural outcome of moving from limited extracted energy being the input to all things, to donated limitless energy being the input to all things.
In the first scenario, the ambitions of each individual are contrary to the ambitions of every other individual, since any individual gains have to be at the expense of gains that might be made by others.
That does not apply in the second case, when limitlessly scaleable donated energy is present, or even just expected, there is nothing to be gained by obstructing others, every gain is collective gain.