Taken dialectically, the mass unemployment of a strata of workers also causes massive repercussions for the stability of the capitalist system. Without workers earning wages, an integral part of the the circulation of capital, that of the reproduction of variable capital I.e. the consumption of goods and services by the proletariat is interrupted. This then causes shockwaves in the form of crises of overproduction that throw even more people into poverty, joblessness and disarray. This then produces opportunities for the proletariat to fight back against a weakened system that is no longer functioning to keep them fed and placid. The attack against labour invokes its opposite, an attack of labour against capital. It is at this point the communists put forth their argument - it is not enough to wring concessions from the ruling class that put you in this mess, you must seek to transform society by their overthrowal and by the collective and democratic ownership of the means of production.

Yes and this is all very bad for average people. Therefore which side of the struggle are we to take? One in favour of bringing about the conditions that will destroy the lives of working people or one in favour of protecting those lives?

One side is accelerationism. The other is authentically fighting to protect the lives of average people.

I can assure you that while a strike is a powerful weapon against the bourgeoisie, an uprising and revolt is certainly a greater power that doesn't rest simply on labour downing tools and not showing up to work.

This won't be an uprising. It will be a war of survival. If bourgeoisie no longer need labour then the protection that the working class receives for its usefulness is removed. The bourgeoisie will recognise that the uprisings are existential for themselves, they will not seek to simply bring people back under control to exploit them because that incentive will be gone, they will seek to exterminate all threat to themselves. This can and will be carried out through any means necessary, including deadly chemical weapons at a mass and unprecedented scale. The bourgeoisie will seek to be the surviving class, then they will live in fully automated luxury and abundance after they win.

Call me a revisionist but I do not think Marx was correct in his assumption that the contradiction could only resolve in one direction - an inevitable working class victory. Marx only envisioned a world in which the working class would be permanently necessary for their labour, he did not and could not imagine a world where the working class could have that taken away. When you do take that away this contradiction can resolve with a bourgeois victory as well. They can win and they can live in the communism that follows by themselves.