People will do whatever it is those who don’t have to work already do.
So, jerking off, and playing videogames.
It’s the ‘work productively or else’ dynamic that will eventually phase out. The coercive element is not just socially harmful, but it will soon be obsolete.
Conforming to a role that succeeds in actually benefiting other people in society is not 'just socially harmful'. It's actually socially very beneficial. So it is a real issue when a class of people end up with no skill or qualification to benefit society. It will probably result in rampant mental health issues.
Giving out free money is already what we are essentially asking private firms to do by suggesting they think twice about automating of all (vast majority) human labor.
I don't on principle oppose 'handing out free money', as it is already practiced widely with sometimes positive effects. My main gripe is with the combination of social benefits and open borders, which is known to be unsustainable. "We need to have more social benefits and further open borders" is one of the most widely occurring paradoxical leftist chains of thought.
but it also forces us to reexamine what are humans good for? Because under the values of capitalism, humans are/will soon be obsolete.
You are twisting it. Natural differences in intelligence between people exist. Throughout human history those who were qualified for manual labor have generally had plenty of work to do. Due to technology this is increasingly less the case. The economical obsoletion of this class of people is not a capitalist construct. It's an inevitable fact of reality. Their work disappearing probably won't be in these people's benefit. Not all people are naturally creative. There's a personality trait known as 'openness', which varies widely. Some people will actually start feeling completely obsolete due to their work disappearing. And this obsoletion is not an arbitrary construct. It's a practical fact of reality.
Folks seem to think that those who don't produce/labor don't deserve to live, and suggesting otherwise is radical. But if productive capacity remains the lone metric for human value, then I guess that makes humans worthless to these vapid elites who will own the automated productive capacity.
I don't think anyone is 'arguing they don't deserve to live'. I think the right will probably think we have to increasingly create bullsh*t jobs. That already seems to be what Trump is intending to do. But in the longer term that project will probably fail.
Anti-state political groups have romanticized overthrowing entities in power instead of radically eroding the systemic dependence on these entities.
Because there hasn't been an alternative political platform that is more efficient and effective than statist capitalism. So that makes it quite impossible to 'erode' such dependency. If you don't create such a platform, then talk of 'eroding the dependency' on what we have is rather empty.
Looking at the big picture however, people from every established political leaning more or less have the same ideals, the disagreements are largely about about how to get there. Political polarization merely reaffirms the status quo.
I don't think that's completely true. People have differing values, and this also to an extent has a relation to a variation in personality. Conservatives are more conscientious, and progressives are more open. Conservatives care more about authority, loyalty, and sanctity. Progressives care more about fairness and reducing harm. Polarization affirms the status quo, sure. But one major cause for polarization is the persistent idea that the diversity of political opinion originates in misinformation and ignorance. To some extent it does, but to a large extent it does not.
Worker-owned, even with a flat management structure =/= low-skilled workers making high-skilled decisions.
Fair enough, but at the same time, ownership = power.