I don't know about that. From what I have observed, revolution tends to lead to tyranny. Such as the Arab Spring, the Russian and French Revolutions, etc. But gradual effects through protest and using the existing democratic structure do have a positive long-term effect.

For example, the shift to the left in the UK during the 19th (the Tories ended up adopting Gladstone's position.) We might be beginning to see some kind of move to the left in US democratic policies because of long-term gradual pressure from Sanders and others like him.

Matched with protest and organization of labor, and gradual changes in favor of the majority can be gradually effected. Admittedly, we are entering unknown territory with automation. But then again, I don't know. Rome destabilized because the ruling classes imported slaves instead of paying its lower classes. So that didn't turn out too well.

Admittedly, looking at that historical, it is looking iffy. If the wealthy don't need labor, then what leverage do the majority have?

Wow. You descended. Bye.

Sorry, I don't understand what you mean in most of your post.

The decision to begin the process will not be made by society as a whole, because society as a whole is not in a policy-making position.

Depends what you mean by "appropriate or desirable". I believe profit is king in the adoption of automation. If a general purpose robot can be programmed to perform multiple tasks, then I fail to see what will stop business owners embarking on mass automation.

Dunno. Protest and violent protest has an effect.

Yes, I think that is a fair conclusion. The system must change, but we don't know what it will change into. Tyranny or enlightenment. Then you add climate catastrophe into the mix...

This is the standard line. I've researched and sampled studies and there is no data that realistically supports this point. Studies show that robots will take more jobs than it makes.