[cheesypeetyz]

Replacing labour with capital is more of a problem for capitalism than communism. In marxist terms the same value is being created by less workers, but the wealth created is the same. There remains the matter of distribution, which the planned economy should be able to manage more easily than the market. Replacing labor with capital is not at all a problem of capitalism or communism. Nor is it a problem at all.

As technology advances, technological solutions are
a) more efficient
b) give better quality products
c) create far more jobs (creating and supporting the technology).

How is value dependant on the amount of workers is beyond me.

Value is a subjective thing, that is dependent on the possible consumers. This has almost no relation to the workers. Wealth is a matter of monetizing the value at a certain point and time.

Distribution of wealth is a silly concept, because there is no objective measure to decide on the distribution.

Obviously you want everyone to be able to provide, and live a normal life. However, as the standards of living keep improving, you'll always have a (logarithmic?) scale, because not everyone are improving in the same rate.

A planned, progressive society would have ladders for the low-skilled to climb, wheras a capitalist society may or may not open up opportunities. Even under capitalism, upward-mobility has proven possible, so the notion of an amorphous blob of proletariate or lumpen proletariate (unemployed), unable to adapt, develop and improve is not only but pessimistic but incorrect. You always have room for lots of jobs for the proletoriate.

However, someone will always be faced with the dirtier work. Someone will always end up on the low-paying job.

Of course you have ladders, but they are only meaningful if you have someone on the bottom. You can't make the entire ploretariat disappear into the high-paying jobs. Because then the high-paying jobs will have much less meaning and value, and they will effectively become the new "minimum" standard.