I didn't mean to disparage Talmudic analysis. It has its place. This just isn't it.

Whether your arguments are explicitly moralistic is beside the point. Their impetus belies their animus. Why not start by trying to fix capitalism? Capitalists don't need workers. They used workers when workers were the best available technology for getting certain things done. When machines became a better technology, capitalists used machines. Labor is simply not an element of capitalist production, so why would changes in labor's role matter to the continuation of capitalism?

Nor do capitalists need scarcity. Capitalism is essentially trickle-up economics. The more customers a business has, the richer its owners become. So if the government prints money to create customers, capitalists do just fine. There is no need to communize the production, just the money to buy the low-marginal cost outputs.

Decisions regarding what to produce and how to produce it don't go away in an age of abundance. Those decisions can be made by people who have their fortunes at stake or by bureaucrats who can stay in office by greasing the right palms and sucking the right dicks. That's the only issue in selecting a decision-making system. Your arguments may be internally sound - I don't know or care - but they are humanly sub-optimal because they put important decisions in incompetent, corruptible hands. That's essentially a Trumpist mindset: you don't care how bad the people in charge are so long as your pet peeves are addressed.