Interesting article. I am a post scarcity anarchist. I see no problem with combining abundance with a post capitalist society. The solution is simple. Production of goods and services will be automated to a very high degree.
And then you give stuff away,for free.
Yes,you heard it right. Do away with both capitalism,and the monetary system.
Certain things will still be scarce,mostly attention. And "services" or functions involving human consciousness,like a therapist,or a teacher.
We should do these remaining tasks on a voluntary basis.
Alternatively,what I see as a transitonal step, and this is quite likely to happen organically,most goods and servises could be produced at extremely low costs,by cooperatively owned local manufactoring technology,and certain things that are still scarce will be traded. Cooperative ownership is on the rise,and is being helped with possibilities like DAOs and smart contracts.
Your argument that market regulations protects scarcity is valid at the current moment,in some situations.
It might be more difficult to realise that capitalist monopolies are also creating artificial scarcity,and stifling innovation. The digital age has greatly increased the problem of monopolies.
In addition, public spending is crucial to scientific progress,and techological innovation. And innovation drives abundance,not just market factors.So many innovations are based on public research,funded by tax money. Like the iphone.
http://time.com/4089171/mariana-mazzucato/
Good thoughts. I'd love to see us reach that post-scarcity point. To be honest, once we do, I don't think it'll matter what market model we use, since a large part of economics is meant to handle scarcity. Just like a person on an island doesn't need economics due to a lack of other people, a person who has everything they need in basically infinite supply doesn't either.
I agree with you that a large part of the problem with what I've outlined, outside of theory, is the issue of corporate hegemony reinforced by the same market protections I argue against. My post doesn't deal with it at all (perhaps for a future writeup?) but even if we were to completely shift away from collectivism/protectionism, the corporations which have been benefited to date would still be able to maintain control of the market, regardless of future actions.
Regarding public spending being crucial to innovation, I disagree. Innovation of the scale we saw through the 20th century was more a factor of manhours being devoted to a project. While the abundance of manhours came from government spending, I think it's false to argue that it needs to.
Thanks for your comment!