Was Marx right?

Capitalism contains the seeds of its own destruction, and will collapse from its internal contradictions, giving way to Socialism and eventually to Communism. Or so said Karl Marx.

What will be the mechanism for this inevitable process? Globalism combined with new technology and automation is producing a "Winner Take All" system that rewards the successful with ever greater wealth and power while Labor and the Working Class fall ever farther behind as workers are replaced by machines. Science fiction writers have predicted this future for decades, Those with a talent or new product to sell now have the entire world as customers; those with only their labor to sell now have that outsourced to workers all over the world.

Self driving cars will make low cost safe transportation available to all, replacing not only taxi and bus drivers, but also the need for most people, especially in cities, to own a car, and so eliminating most of the automobile industry.

Player Piano is the first novel of American writer Kurt Vonnegut, published in 1952. It depicts a dystopia of automation, describing the negative impact it can have on quality of life.[1] The story takes place in a near-future society that is almost totally mechanized, eliminating the need for human laborers. This widespread mechanization creates conflict between the wealthy upper class—the engineers and managers who keep society running—and the lower class, whose skills and purpose in society have been replaced by machines. The book uses irony and sentimentality, which were to become hallmarks developed further in Vonnegut's later works.[1]

Is this a realistic projection of what is happening now?

If so, is that GOOD or BAD? I mean when ambitious intelligent people pursue their dreams, and become VERY rich (Bill Gates, Elon Musk, Jeff Bezos, etc.) they fund projects that can benefit society (space exploration, AI, education innovation, etc.)

Are there ways to spread the newly generated wealth created by the Winners to the Losers without destroying the incentive to win? Or without reducing the incentive of the Losers to improve their own lives?

The above describes the problem. Here is a solution:

Subject: EITC: The Right-Left Reversal EITC: The Right-Left Reversal IN THE BEGINNING The Earned Income Tax Credit was first proposed by conservative economist Milton Friedman in chapter 12 of his 1962 book CAPITALISM & FREEDOM (University of Chicago Press). He called his proposal the "negative income tax", and the chapter title was "The Alleviation of Poverty". Friedman's theory was that poor people were poor because they didn't have enough money. Working people with low income would not only not pay income tax, they would get a refund. It would decrease with increasing income, become zero, and then become a tax to be paid (the positive income tax), but in a gradual enough way to always provide an incentive to earn more. The "liberal" idea then was to spend a lot of money to create a vast federal bureaucracy with separate agencies to deal with each different aspect of poverty (HUD to build and manage housing for the poor, food stamps to feed the poor, etc.) This way the federal welfare system would provide for the poor as long as they stay poor. They get AFDC if they have kids. There are extra benefits to not get married, and benefits are cut off if they earn "too much" money. The Friedman idea was ridiculed by Hubert Humphery and most "liberal" politicians, but was pushed by most "conservatives". It was implemented on a limited basis during Nixon- Ford Administration and expanded during the Reagan-Bush years under the name EARNED INCOME TAX CREDIT (EITC). President Reagan called EITC "the best anti-poverty, the best pro-family, the best job creation measure to come out of the Congress". President Clinton also expanded the EITC. But it was seen as a threat to the welfare state concept by some on the left: instead of bureaucrats rewarding people for NOT working, EITC was going to those who found a job. And with that money, they were less dependent on the welfare system. And the money went directly to the people who needed it not to well paid federal employees. I hope you saw the recent post on "Welfare: Who REALLY Benefits?" by DonBlis160@aol.com on a.p.e. It is included next on my web page. THE STRANGE REVERSAL With the election of a Republican congress in 1994, I thought we would see the triumph of Friedman's idea by replacing the negative incentive welfare system with an expansion of the "negative income tax" EITC. Instead, the new congress had chosen to keep food stamps and other aspects of the current welfare system and REDUCE EITC! They have even voted to keep paying single girls to have more babies (AFDC), but they won't expand the incentive to get married or to work. Instead of expanding the Reagan Revolution, they want to repeal it. The new Congress seems to think EITC is "another welfare program" and an expense; they don't seem to realize it can REPLACE the existing welfare system, (and the minimum wage law). With proper implementation it can provide incentive to work and insure that those who do work have enough to live. It can be structured to provide people at any income level an incentive to earn more without loss of benefits, and without funding a vast "welfare bureaucracy". It did result is some income tax cheating by the poor, but this has always been a problem, usually by the rich. This can be monitored by the IRS as always, and is not a reason to scrap EITC in favor of welfare (which is at least as subject to abuse). WHY NOT?? The main "disadvantage" is that the cost is up front and open, now over $20 billion. Opponents claim that it is better to just raise the minimum wage, since that gives the working poor money and "doesn't cost anything" (no kidding, I have actually read congressmen saying that!) Also, EITC benefits only the working poor. Other welfare programs have interest groups to lobby for them; farmers for food stamps, labor unions for Public Housing (which they are paid high wages to build, to repair, and to demolish when the units become too crime ridden to live in), and Federal Employee unions for the administrators and social workers, etc. And to complete the reversal, it is now "Liberals" who are calling for keeping and expanding EITC.