I'm not sure if anyone should be happy about the prospects of literal class warfare, i.e., a large portion of society being so disenfranchised that they need to resort to mass violence in order to survive. There are 3 possible outcomes to that:
(a) the warfare is limited and we're back to the same decision point (how do we change society?) but lots people have suffered for no good reason;
(b) the fighting ends with 'permanently jobless' getting physically eliminated in large numbers - increasingly sophisticated military/police forces + growing drone warfare may make it a possible outcome;
(c) the fighting ends with them winning, and implementing, as I said, "drastically change our distribution of resources - where 'having a job' is not needed for living;".
Why don't we just agree on (c) and implement it without need for bloodshed?
There will be in my lifetime billions of people without a possibility for any economically viable "job", i.e., the rest of society doesn't need anything at all from them, not their labor, not their services, not their flesh. They still need resources to live. So either they'll (a) not get those resources and not live; (b) we'll simply give them those resources; or (c) they'll try to take those resources - but in the end it results in (a) or (b) anyways.
