Communism and capitalism will hopefully be made irrelevant by advanced robotics. A post-scarcity economics does not care much about structure of ownership of the means of production.

Regrettably, there is no such thing as post-scarcity society. The exponential nature of biological reproduction ensures that no matter how much carrying capacity one builds, it will be filled to the brim in a geological blink of an eye.

Hopefully a society that is liberated from the burden of work will devote much more time at understanding and solving its political problems and should see unchecked growth as an evil to fight. Especially if we also get very extended life expectancy.

There have been plenty of societies historically in which very little work was required in order to live normally.

What people did with the resulting free time was generally to make war on those nearby.

That's simply not true. Until recently agriculture was extremely labor intensive and only an elite caste could have free time.

You're thinking of agriculture north of the tropics.

But there have been many societies which

- didn't engage in agriculture at all, or

- engaged in tropical horticulture, which is low-effort

And those societies (plains Indians / Australian aborigines / sub-Saharan Bantu (they're farmers! But they're not labor-intensive farmers) / central Asian Turks and Mongols / etc. etc. etc...) are characterized by near-constant warfare.

Not all societies are ancestral to yours. Most aren't.

Do you have any source to your claim that these societies required little work?

And seriously, claiming that a society will engage in warfare by comparing it to an example that is as remote to it as possible in terms of technological development and culture (we do view warfare as negative, not all societies do and ours used to not do so) is not exactly convincing.

That pre-colonial farming in Africa required relatively few hours of labor is well-known. I don't have a great link but "female farming system" is a term to start from (seriously, I didn't make it up).

The reason, if I understand right, was that the limit on human population was set by disease not labor. In northern climates (where fewer of the diseases we evolved with thrive) instead the marginal farmer was on some stony hillside from which maximum effort could only just produce enough calories for winter.

I'm less sure whether such societies were involved in more warfare, it's possible (the men had time on their hands & soccer hadn't been invented...) but I don't know the data.

I also don't know how to extrapolate this to the future of our society.