The Postcapital Space is the confederation of postcapital economic spaces operating through PSP; Capital Space is the existing economy, formally seen as an economic space. They face each other across one membrane: the bridge.
Confederation is the organizational word, chosen against its alternative. A federation implies a central pillar, a capital city of the network; the Postcapital Space has none. Coordination happens through protocol, not through a council. The topology word is mesh: sovereign spaces, pairwise books, transitive coherence, no global record and no seat of government. The confederation has no operator by construction, which is not a governance preference but a structural fact: the grammar is the shared thing, and the spaces are sovereign.
Capital Space is a descriptive term, and the register discipline matters. It names the existing economy treated formally: one economy, expressed as one configuration of the accounting protocol, with its unit (money), its signal (price), its surplus definition (profit), and its primitive (the firm). Nothing sneering attaches to the name. Seeing capital formally is what makes it addressable as architecture rather than fought as ideology.
Because both are economic spaces under one abstraction, a membrane between them is possible. They connect at exactly one point: the bridge, an agreement between two organizations, through which capital funds the network by valuing it, never by commanding it. One point of contact is the design, not a limitation — it is what keeps the price signal dampened across space (the bridge prices the network as a whole, not individual spaces) and across time (it prices the yielding future, not the spot).
The names are load-bearing: one economy is the configuration we inherited; the other is the confederation of configurations networks now author for themselves.
Related: · · ·