lol.If you take the communist world at its apex and compared it with the capitalist world at its apex, you'd likely find less net relative scarcity. This is because, say, the Soviet system, did not rely, for the most part, upon the exploitation of foreign economies for its own benefit, if you discount the reparations from Eastern European nations at the end of WW2. Sure, there were less consumer goods, but such a standard was held at a constant across the communist world -- there were, au contraire, imperial metropoles with boundless consumerist abundance (provided you were white and at least middle class!) in the Western World. Such a fact is touted to display the supposed superiority of capitalist production. However, this obfuscation is what the division of the world into different nations with their own "territorial integrity" achieves. Beneath the flourishing "first world" nations (which are beginning to face existential threats to their way of life already!), there is a countless mass of toiling peoples in third world nations, raped and exploited to foot the bill for European social democracies and American consumerism alike. A lot of people like to play the mixed-blame game with the USSR and USA; that they were both Empires with their own spheres of influence they aimed to guard by any means necessary. However true this slowly became as the war dragged on, fundamentally, unlike the USA, you wouldn't see the same bare-faced economic exploitation by the USSR, and indeed the USSR accepted a lot of losses itself in order to send funds to its allies across the world.
So, yes. Capitalism is scarcity.
