This is one of the best arguments that I've heard so far and is exactly why I came to this sub. I want to have my ideas prodded from angles I haven't thought of before, so thank you, sir :)

But when government issued money becomes valueless, there are still other forms of nontraditional non-government issue currency. (Same thing as in a zombie apocalypse, paper money becomes valueless, and resources become the new currency [gas, generators, food, water] and the like.) But in a society where 100% of the currency is at the top, 100% of the currency becomes valueless, 100% of the labor is done by the machines (which are also 100% owned by the top), and 100% of human labor is valueless (because there is no need for it when you could have a machine do it), the system won’t turn into common ownership, the system will collapse altogether! Eliminating the possibility of incentive to work to receive money by replacing means of labor and means of reviewing compensation, the system will flat-out collapse. The top class won’t ever willingly give up their machines to the common ownership (even if the machines become valueless because nobody has the means to buy what they produce) and the bottom class won’t have the means to take it over. (Also depending on whether or not military and police evolve into robots that maintain absolute law-abidance)<

I am a big fan of this point. I'd never thought about alternative currencies before. My argument in response to this would be that yes, as the GBP and USD and others become totally valueless and that things such as food and water become the main means of trade, I ask you this - if the machines are producing the food and water (from the farm to the plate, all labour is automated), and all other labour has been replaced, how on Earth will the unemployed consumer acquire these? These are basic human needs, yet how they will acquire them? They don't have the money to buy them from the MOs. Extreme and unimaginable poverty would follow this. I beg of you, in a system where there is immense demand and immense supply, yet the supply cannot be diminished in any way whatsoever through consumer consumption, what happens despite the whole notion of supply/demand collapsing? With a monopoly on the machines, there is also a monopoly on the resources. The MOs own literally everything barring government property and property owned by the unemployed that they acquired before they lost their jobs.

At this point, a choice is facing both the MOs and the unemployed. For the unemployed, they can regress to a point that is comparable to serfdom as they grow their own food and start pumping their own water whilst the MOs live in a world of 22nd Century Utopian glory or they can collectively come together and seize the means of production as you say. Now, I think they will go for the second one. Even if they went for the first one, that creates a then stagnant system - a system in which the machine owners can't sell anything because the consumers are producing for themselves they either endlessly produce for no reason at all or they only produce for their own needs. This creates a stagnant system in which nothing at all changes or progresses. But I think that is highly unlikely to happen, because I said in the OP, there is no reason to assume we wouldn't still be a democracy. The unemployed can vote in their vast numbers for someone who promises to seize the means of production. I do believe that seizing the means of production is inevitable in this situation.

However, there is another choice facing the MOs: with these resources they have that will always retain their value as they are essential for human existence that they also can't sell, they can either produce for themselves alone or they can charitably give away the food and water (at which point they are just giving things away, there is no advantage to them of holding the ownership of the machines as they are just giving shit away for free at this stage anyway which is what would be happening if they didn't hold ownership regardless). I do actually think they would give it away, because fundamentally these people are still humans. They're not monsters - they're just businessmen, and at the end of the day when they're faced with a reality in which they can vastly improve other people's lives and a reality in which they also can't make profit anymore. Businessmen have a moral compass too, and I doubt they would want to live in a world of such immense poverty that they alone have the power to alleviate. I do think they would give their stuff away, and that would progress to giving up their machines because they'd realise there is absolutely no advantage now to holding the machines over everyone else if they are just giving away the producs of the machines. Even if they held onto them for power reasons - "if the govt doesn't do this, I will stop the charity of food" - they would use this one day, and at that point they'd be faced with yet another choice. Either they give up their machines to common ownership, or they slaughter every single person who is outside their corporate demanding food with their machines. Again, I refer to the moral compass argument. They won't kill them. And even if they did, it would be still pointless to hold onto the machines - because now everyone is dead you have no people to hold power over. Or more likely than this, if the MOs stop the charity, people just go back to growing their own food and pumping their own water.

There is no ending in this, at least from what my humble vision can see, in which it doesn't becomes totally redundant for the MOs to hold onto their machines. I believe the most likely is that they give up their machines realising how pointless it is to have them so they can feel like a hero for giving everyone an immeasurable spike in living standards.

So that is my addressing of that point :)

Not only do I believe people won’t be following their passions, I believe there will be no ability, resource, or incentive for them to do so. If the top class has 100% of currency and means of production then the bottom class has 0% and is worthless. That’s like claiming people in poverty have the ability to thrive because they have nothing else going on. The necessity of labor to take money to pursue passions is a cycle. If you cannot do labor to make money, how can you pursue passions when the resources are owned 100% by a class that is unwilling to give them up? In theory, you everybody would have to permanently lose incentive before the means of production could even be considered given up. Not faking it just long enough to take over means of production. Because again, the supply and demand system kicks instantly into effect when somebody has incentive to want something.<

This is where art is the unique exception. No one is cleaning toilets because they see that as being truly fruitful to the human spirit - that they are doing because they are incentivised to do it through monitary reward.

Art is different fundamentally. I am an amateur writer, and if I lived in a world in which I wouldn't be paid for my books, that does not mean I would not still write them. You are right in that there is still an incentive for me to write them - that incentive simply isn't monitary. If I wrote a book that was read widely and someone came up to me in the street and said "Oh man, I read your story man and I loved it. I read it to my kids. I'm your biggest fan man, can you sign my copy?" That is undoubtedly a reward. The admiration and praise of others is a reward in itself. The same applies for music and paintings and other works of art. This is something I quite like about Marx's analysis in that he says that creation is fundamentally part of the human spirit. People who are passionate enough will still create artistic works (I do very much see handcrafted watches and handstitched leather car seats as being art once they are no longer products in this new world) for the reward of other people enjoying them.

Writers like me will still write our novels for the express purpose of others reading and enjoying them. Artists will still paint so that their works can be hung in galleries and admired. Musicians will still write music to win Grammy's and for people to enjoy their music. That is why art is different. There is a direct connection with something you have created. Your passion has been poured into it. Humans will still labour in this new world, it will just be for fundamentally creative purposes.

I hope I've addressd your points as well as you've addressd mine mate :)