Technology will make capitalism obsolete

To your definition: "an economic system in which investment in and ownership of the means of production, distribution, and exchange of wealth is made and maintained chiefly by private individuals or corporations, especially as contrasted to cooperatively or state-owned means of wealth. " You say that this is "simply stating that property is owned and controlled by Private actors and not the Government." and that "This will be crucial to my future arguments." Of course the problem is that your definition is is in fact stating quite a bit more. It clearly states exchange of wealth is a fundamental component to capitalism. Let's look at some other definitions Google: an economic and political system in which a country's trade and industry are controlled by private owners FOR PROFIT, rather than by the state. Merriam-Webster: an economic system characterized by private or corporate ownership of capital goods, by investments that are determined by private decision, and by prices, production, and the distribution of goods that are determined mainly by COMPETITION IN A FREE MARKET And a definition for economic system: An economic system is a system of production and EXCHANGE OF GOODS AND SERVICES as well as allocation of resources in a society. - Wikipedia Individuals with control over private property do not on that fact alone constitute a capitalist economy by any of the definitions stated above. All of these mention wealth exchange in some form or another. Wealth exchange is a key component. You base your arguments on only a portion of your own definition and do not account for the rest in any way. Your argument is flawed. As per my definition of technology, it comes from Merriam-Webster dictionary which also states the following: the use of science in industry, engineering, etc., to invent useful things or to solve problems. Ultimately, technology is very broad term that can apply to spaceships and pencils alike. As such, the definition will never refer to any specific piece of equipment or the en vogue usage which refers mostly to electronics. The term is used in its broadest sense because the technology that is being referenced is not simply one piece of new machinery but many different emerging technologies across many different fields and industries. I will name a few, though of course, a list of all currently emerging technologies would be far to large to fit in this debate. Self Reproducing Robots: http://www.news.cornell.edu... This particular technology is vital for automation Fruit picking robot Agricultural automation Vertical Farming: The benefits of vertical farming range from efficient space usage to accessibility (farms inside cities) etc... (more info on the video) Indoor farming: http://www.gereports.com... Farming that is independent of weather. Machine that makes water out of humidity http://www.islandsky.com... Access to resources Driverless Cars http://www.driverless-future.com... Automation Automated 24 hour House construction http://www.contourcrafting.org... Access to housing. 3D Printing http://www.newyorker.com... Personalized resource creation These are simply a few of the technologies I am referring to. There potential lies in satisfying basic necessities (food, water, shelter, transportation) permanently in an automated self sustained way. Now imagine the same situation happening in education, transportation, food, water, shelter, sanitation, health care where technology allows for universal self maintaining access to resources in all those areas. This is where technology is headed. This is the technology I am referencing. The Disregarding the Sum of Technological Advance argument Your argument in this point makes a false generalization. It assumes that since what I am proposing has not happened, that it clearly will not. This is wrong. Picture pouring water into a glass very slowly. Your logic would allow for the argument that the water will never spill no matter how much we pour in because it never has spilled before. Of course this is wrong. We simply have not reached the tipping point. The history of technology has been one of increments. It is precisely because I understand its history as a build up and not as mere isolated inventions that I see what it has been leading up to. Never in the history of technology had we ever been actively working to create self repairing, self replicating machinery that can carry out complex tasks in our behalf using clean renewable energy. These are unprecedented circumstances. Not once has this been adversarial to Capitalism in any form Interesting. I am not claiming that technology will hinder capitalism. The exact opposite is the situation. Capitalism will end up hindering that which our technologies can do for us. Capitalism is being made obsolete precisely because, in the face of universal access, it becomes a hindrance to quality of life. A perfect example lies on your very statements concerning potable water. Tap Water in the US It is perfectly true that the government provides tap water to almost all households in America. It should be noted that it is the government that has made water accessible. Not private industry. Moreover, the rise of bottled water is due largely to the unsafe water scare. Here is Fox News (a for profit news outlet) telling us that we shouldn't just drink tap water: http://www.foxnews.com... Here is some information showing that it is in fact perfectly safe to drink tap water http://www.mayoclinic.org... There used to be drinking fountains in many public establishments. This is precisely my point. Water is perfectly abundant and readily accessible but capitalist interests require profitable goods exchange and so people were repeatedly told that bottled water is cleaner. Misinformation accounts for a great percentage of bottle water sales. Misinformation that stems from a capitalist endeavor (profitable wealth exchange) which is perfectly unnecessary. Capitalist endeavors to restrict access to a near-universal resource are collectively detrimental. How does society benefit from not having universal access to water anymore? Also here is Nestle CEO saying we should privatize water Bottled water is an artificial necessity (as you said, we already have water) meant to sustain the capitalist need for profitable exchange. We stand to lose access to drinkable water because of capitalist interests. "Monetization and liquidation are not necessary in capitalism." This is wrong. Again, your own definition talks about exchange of wealth. There is no capitalism without exchange of privately owned goods. It is not enough to own them. Exchange is part of what makes it an economic system. These exchanges are intended to be advantageous (for profit) to the exchange participants. On your final paragraph: You've missed the point. It is not simply that large corporations will become obsolete. Access to all essential resources makes individualist exchanges for profit and resource appropriation unnecessary. When supply is ubiquitous, there is no sense in appropriating it. This is not to say that some people will not attempt to sell you water when you already have it, only to say that it will become increasingly pointless and detrimental to do so. "Capitalism is unique in this regard as it can break down fully to the individual." No. It cannot. It requires exchange of wealth and therefore group interaction is vital to it. Capitalist endeavor will not crash because of technology. It will be made useless by it.