Revolution arises when one lacks the ability to meet their needs, and do not have the ability to obtain value consensually, so they resort to theft/oppression.
This is a failure of government in enabling the market to meet demand with supply. If the government does allow a free market, the above can be solved through unions (a collective appeal is a stronger incentive to a corporate hoarder than many coerced fractured appeals), or arrests in the case of corruption, or in stimulus packages (progressivism/socialism as defined by wealth redistribution achieved by government coercion – but does this means of implementing the intention achieve the outcome in the best way?), or via a successful market that provides supply for the emerging demand of meeting the needs of others.
For the market to supply demand, the market demands a supply of workers to provide a supply of a product. To supply workers it needs either slavery, or consensual contracts (consensual contracts being capitalism). To supply consensual contracts it needs to promise incentive to the workers, which is trade.
If there is no market demand, there will be no production. If there is no employee supply, there will be no production.
If there is no market demand, then there is no opportunity for employees under a free market, this is because if there are consensual contracts then the employees work to get a piece of what they demand (or money to get what they demand in another area, money = capital). The market produces supply for consumer demand by demanding employees, which people supply with work in exchange for capital that they use to supply themselves with the product they demanded. The Entreprenuer who provided this matchmaking earns more capital, as for each trade they facilitated they earned a cut, that they use to supply their demand.
As products are produced, innovation occurs, which brings the costs down for equivalent value, which people prefer and thus redirect their resources willingly towards delivered innovation. This allows one’s stored earned capital, to acquire more supply for their demand yet for the same price as before.
For machines to take a human job, the machine must be cheaper, that is more productive, than the human, which brings the cost of the product down, which is delivering equivalent value at a lower price and more value at the same price. A machine does not take a job in providing a product no one wanted nor can afford, as under that circumstance, there would not be any supply of demand of a product necessary to first demand a supply of producers (in this case machines).
Wealth is traded, that is to say accrued wealth is reduced by trading a a portion of it for a product they demanded. If the product is a liability, it does not produce more wealth. If the product is an asset, the product’s aim is to produce more wealth.
As a human accumulates more wealth, they have more capital to either rest (holding their wealth, or using it to purchase liabilities), or to invest into demands for more wealth (this is the role of investment, of which children fulfil for many in the world).
Once one fulfils their needs, the conscientious and inspired continue to work, and the slacker and artist retires to focus on things that offer meaning primarily only to themselves, without direct market contribution. If this pursuit fails to fulfil their needs (it was a hobby instead of a job), then the able starving artist will work (resume primary focus on adding market value) to continue the cycle. For those without the ability to supply market needs, this is an appeal for charity.
We see this pattern of wealth exchange throughout history, wealth is used to buy runway, that is used for wealth creation or rest. In modernity, this is investment or relaxation. A modern contrast is entrepreneurial activities versus video games. As innovation progresses through market demand for value at a cheaper cost, it furthers the runaway that existing wealth affords. That is why over the centuries more of the world’s population moves out of poverty. The cost of feeding them went down.
Consider a farm owner that grows 10 potatoes, he takes 5 and gives 5 to the workers, 1 each. If the workers strike and want wealth redistribution without more wealth contribution, then we are still arguing about the distribution of 10 potatoes in total, or 5 potatoes in subtotal, and the farm owner may quit and move elsewhere to where people aren’t so entitled, leaving the entitled to starve and the new workers to eat. Of course, if he hoards while the workers need, then he will go out of business if there is another farm owner that is more generous, as the workers will move. In a situation where all farm owners hoard which is only possible by the employer coercing its employees, then a revolution begins and socialism is enacted.
Introducing innovation however finds a way to double the throughput, that is doubling the output with the same input, so 20 potatoes are produced from the same effort. Under this, twice as many people can have their needs met. And with several iterations, it generates surplus/abundance of potatoes, and people can move into greater things beyond needs, such as wants.
For innovation to occur, that is to create surplus, one must have motivation to work, that is to contribute value. Consensual contracts, the access of one’s fruits of their labour, without theft — that is the right to one’s property, liberty, and person—occur to be the best motivating factor for one to produce value.
Remember, stealing to provide freedom violates freedom, which therefore demotivates contribution, which also creates market inefficiencies as now there is the motivation to avoid theft, such as tax loopholes, or simply not working and expecting welfare.
As such charity over welfare, and to the extent robots take jobs is to the extent robots distribute wealth to the people by distributing lowered costs of the products people demand, and that the market is there to provide supply of jobs to meet demand of employment to meet the supply of things that people demand and want.
It may be the case where robots are used to enslave and protect the wealthy. But as there is no trade, the wealth of the oppressor has no purpose, it is useless. It is the governments job to ensure a free market continues, preventing that situation.
By that time, mass abundance would already be possible, as we already see today in the West, and that the East is now realising and working towards. The wealth the West already has would just grow amplified.
Other less good outcomes is if people revolt against the robots, making everyone more poor. Or where the entitled demotivate the producers to produce by theft of their wealth, where the producers go on strike. Or where the government now forces people to work, to provide for people’s needs, as the market producers left (where communism fits in).
The other option here is where the robots hoard their wealth against the humans. This is what Elon Musk is aiming to prevent with Neuralink, by making us symbiotic with the robots.
A note on charity. You may have heard of the Giving Pledge, that many of the world’s richest make, that before they die they would have given all their money to charity. But what is charity? It is the aim of welfare achieved not through coercion, but through voluntarism. Unlike welfare, charity does not have a perceived infinite supply of wealth available via theft, as such charity must be effective to sustain itself. Charity occurs where under conditions of abundance perceived surplus is given to promote actualisation of the needy, to provide supply of the higher demands of the wealthy’s virtue of humanist values, all consensually and effectively due market forces which is to say market necessity. The giving pledge occurred as a result of Andrew Carnegie, whose Philosophy of Agency made him the world’s first abundant man (remember only those who can engage in trade actually have wealth), who developed the Gospel of Wealth for what to do with his abundance.
This political relationship can be thought of as a 12 hour clock. 2 is anarchy, 4 is libertarianism, 6 is democracy, 8 is socialism, 10 is communism. 0–6 is the sacrifice that no one can be compelled to sacrifice for another, 6–12 is the sacrifice that one can be compelled to sacrifice for another.
Remember wealth requires a market to trade with to be wealth. This is because remember wealth = capital = leverage. When a revolution occurs against wealth hoarders, which destroys the market, then inflation occurs, as they obtained money but not wealth, this is because when production was destroyed when the producers stopped producing, it eliminated trade potential as there is less things to trade, despite everyone having more money, leading to inflation, so despite the aim of wealth redistribution, they redistributed money but not wealth, because the redistribution of money eliminates the opportunity for that money to manifest itself as wealth, leaving the money worth less than before, and in some cases it is more worthwhile to burn the money to keep warm as the burning of the money to provide heat is now cheaper than buying heating. This confusion seems caused by a conflation of money with wealth while not understanding the economic circumstances that make wealth possible. Wealth is capital to be leveraged in trade, which money only symbolises, wisdom is another symbol, health is another — these are all forms of capital for leverage in trade. Money is so popular as a form of wealth, as it is a tangible abstraction.
Another way to think about this is that when one redistributes money, they haven’t solved the scarcity of the desired goods, which is only solved from more work and less entitlement, or through innovation. As such, when money redistribution occurs, the prices recalibrate to equilibrium of the new money to scarcity ratio, resulting in the same amount of wealth for everyone, despite the intention. This is the potato farmer example of earlier.
Where scarcity was caused by a lack of effort, then government attempts to solve that through communism, that work will set you free, achieving slavery of the population. However, this deteriorates as it does not provide the incentive structure necessary for innovation, which is that great contribution must obtain great reward. As such, communism leads to more goods scarcity, that eventuates to starvation & riots, which result is less population, which achieves less demand until an equilibrium is somewhat reached between adequate dwindled supply and dwindled population, by which point the lazy perished and the conscientious are ready for obtaining the fruits of their labour.
Where scarcity was caused by a lack of innovation, then government solves that by fostering the factors necessary to produce innovation, such as returning to a free market, as well as social programs to encourage innovation, and reducing inefficiencies.
Without the ability to trade, money is no longer equivalent to wealth.
A slowing economy is when there is less trade, this means less companies are offering things people want. This can be a good thing, as means innovation just made a whole bunch of people wealthier by offering more for less.