Scarcity, Capitalism, Socialism

Hobbes' widely accepted 'war of all against all' formulation implies that  Conflict is the condition of Humans in the State of Nature.  However, there seems to be no way to confirm the claim.  In contrast, more easily verifiable is the thesis that Conflict is one response to Scarcity, defined as any condition in which Supply < Demand, e. g. the event that inspires Hobbes, the English Civil War, is a struggle between two sides for one end, political control.  It is not the only response--compromise is another, and a third is the elimination of Scarcity, e. g. via manufacturing processes.  Now, one important distinction between the two theses is that one attributes Necessity to Conflict, whereas Scarcity, even if widespread is Contingent, and, thus, so, too, is any subsequent human conflict. Thus, to whatever extent Economics is a response to Scarcity, Ecological conditions are a factor.  In contrast, as has been previously discussed, Capitalism is based on completely artificial Scarcity, a consequence of the Profit-Maximization behavioral principle that, if it reduces to any psychological drive at all, it is to Greed, which corrupts the natural survival instinct.  Thus, the Marxist response to Capitalism is a correction of Scarcity in two respects.  First, it eliminates any struggle over exclusive ownership of property, and, second, it projects a technological solution to the scarcity that it diagnoses as the occasion of that struggle in human history. On the other hand, it tends to leave unaddressed how Profit-Maximization exacerbates the former struggle, i. e. as Smith's variety of Moral Egoism, it validates Exploitation.