Edit: Changed title to be more accurate.

Also here is the summary from Wikipedia on what Post-scarcity means:

Post-scarcity is a theoretical economic situation in which most goods can be produced in great abundance with minimal human labor needed, so that they become available to all very cheaply or even freely. Post-scarcity does not mean that scarcity has been eliminated for all goods and services but that all people can easily have their basic survival needs met along with some significant proportion of their desires for goods and services. Writers on the topic often emphasize that some commodities will remain scarce in a post-scarcity society.

  • betheydocrime@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    0
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    11 months ago

    I would call monarchism a form of religious capitalism where the ruling class claims divine right as the methods to accumulate capital, rather than using financial means to accumulate capital

    • Cowbee [he/they]@lemmy.ml
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      1
      ·
      11 months ago

      Certainly more hierarchical than Socialism, but also more than Capitalism. Fundamentally, the lack of a market for Capital separates Capitalism from Monarchism, the class dynamics of today are different from before. This is helpful to understand IMO when trying to see how to solve it.

      • betheydocrime@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        1
        ·
        11 months ago

        Does the exchange of land between kingdoms via wedding dowries/treaties/violence fulfill the definition of a “market for capital”?

        • Cowbee [he/they]@lemmy.ml
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          1
          ·
          11 months ago

          Not really. Capitalism allows anyone to buy and sell Capital, whereas these more primitive exchanges aren’t the same. The Bourgeoisie are fundamentally different from the Aristocracy.

          • betheydocrime@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            1
            ·
            11 months ago

            That’s pretty fair. It may feel impossible for me today to afford any capital, but if I were somehow able to accumulate enough money I would be legally allowed to own capital. Under monarchy, even if I got that much money, it would be illegal for me to purchase capital as an individual. That’s enough of a distinction to make them different for me, thanks for bringing it up.

            • Cowbee [he/they]@lemmy.ml
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              1
              ·
              11 months ago

              Yep, that’s the idea! Functionally, Capitalism is more revolutionary and progressive than Feudalism, which is why it’s a good thing that Feudalism is fading and Capitalism is the status quo, just like it will also be a good thing when Capitalism is fading and Socialism becomes the status quo.

        • intensely_human@lemm.ee
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          1
          ·
          11 months ago

          Kinda. It’s not a very efficient market, but a market doesn’t have to be efficient to be a market.

          I guess technically any system of trade could be thought of as a capital market, as long as capital is for sale.