In need of assistance in debate about Socialism

[youngphys01]

So I am in a debate with colleagues about the future of capitalism and socialism and they are claiming that with the rise of automation, capitalism will fail as an economic system and the only way to prevent mass starvation and severe poverty i to implement all of the socialist ideas of Obama, Elizabeth Warren, Nancy Pelosi and others and do it now. The idea is that with the rise of automation technology, any job that depends on manual labor and repetitive actions will simply be gone and tons of construction and other jobs will disappear. And so there will be millions upon millions of jobs that will not exist and so there will be many millions of people who will be homeless and dying of disease and starvation unless they get a living income regardless of whether or not they are working.

The argument is that a Capitalist society will not be sustainable since it will only be possible for a minority of Americans to work for a living the way we see it now. And so they are arguing that we need socialism, perhaps even going into communism now, in order to make the transition feasible without mass homelessness and starvation.

How would you go about refuting this argument?

I am looking for assistance in addressing and countering this argument in favor of capitalism.

[discostu]

In the ends it generally boils down to a little from column A a little from column B.

[tacticalogic]

In the ends it generally boils down to a little from column A a little from column B.

For the Russians, it came down to "We pretend to work, and they pretend to pay us."

[discostu]

Until the collapse. Since things are always changing it never stays. It start very badly and go well in the end. Could start with promise and go south. Could be some parts of the country handle and some collapse. One thing that you can count on: it’ll be interesting. This is a big change to the basic fabric of society, and it comes with cool toys.

[tacticalogic]

Keep your powder dry, and your toys fully charged.

[Haddit]

http://humanevents.com/2015/05/22/how-obama-radically-transformed-americas-patent-system/?utm_source=hefbp&utm_medium=fbpage&utm_campaign=heupdate

How Obama Radically Transformed America’s Patent System
Michelle Malkin | Friday May 22, 2015 12:01 AM
The AIA’s primary agenda? “Harmonizing” our patent laws with the rest of the world to reward paper-pushers who are “first to file” at the patent office, instead of those who are “first to invent.” These and other measures enacted by Obama threaten to drive garage tinkerers and small inventors — the designers, engineers and builders of American prosperity — out of the marketplace. Longtime venture capitalist Gary Lauder noted that the first-to-file system has suppressed solo and small-business innovation in Europe and Japan. “The U.S. gets 10 times the angel and venture capital of Western Europe — which recently declared an ‘innovation emergency,’” Lauder observed. “So why are we harmonizing with them? They should be harmonizing with us.”

And then just for fun, check out this hoverboard
http://www.cnet.com/news/this-guys-homemade-hoverboard-flight-sets-a-guinness-world-record/

[x]

Technology Isn’t a Job Killer Many predicted ATMs would eliminate bank tellers, but the number of tellers in the U.S. has risen since the machines were introduced.

[x]

But on the other hand:

Will Robots Kill the Asian Century? The rise of technologies such as 3-D printing and advanced robotics means that the next few decades for Asia’s economies will not be as easy or promising as the previous five.

In answer to your question, though, the hope would be that a decline in one kind of routinized manual labor might open up a new revival of crafts. Those rich people aren't going to want just what the machines turn out, they'll look for higher quality, more artistic products and maybe workers can be retrained to meet that demand. Don't know if that will be enough, though.

But as I said, the future is going to be so different from the present that it may not automatically and neatly fit into the ideological categories we have today. Given human nature, it's not likely one group of people will be happy about everything and the other depressed or angry for very long.