"Natural state" is not a very useful predicate because, even if you can define it (what hominid and what period) first you need to define poverty unambiguously.
But I'll bite. If we settle on stone age, in my very humble opinion, poverty is a natural state. Someone can argue that paleo people were happy or in harmony with nature or whatever, but then they were at the mercy of elements, diseases and wars. That's poverty to me.
It's artificially created and violently enforced through property law.
This seems a description of a lawless society. By the way, law of the jungle is the natural state. Property law is a cornerstone of civilization.
This is a dubious claim, but I believe GP is specifically referring to property rights and law under capitalism, which until quite recently in human history was not the cornerstone of civilization. Property law worked much differently in pre-capitalist societies, and through the enclosures in Western Europe and imperialism off the continent, it is by no means a stretch to declare it as originating in violence and requiring a monopololy on violence by the state to continue to exist.
'If money, according to Augier, “comes into the world with a congenital blood-stain on one cheek,” capital comes dripping from head to foot, from every pore, with blood and dirt.'
"...capital comes dripping from head to foot, from every pore, with blood and dirt."
This is a way to look at things as useless as the "natural state" thing, and for the same reason: it's looking back, not forward. It's condemning the money and the production means as evil because of their origin, not their usefulness.
It's far more interesting to look at how societies evolve when you tweak the rules. It turns out that the results of abolishing capitalism are not pretty.
It's artificially created and violently enforced through property law.