Is modern day western luxury life possible in a socialist world?

Is modern day western luxury life possible in a socialist world?
If not why would the western working class want to get rid off it.
Let's face it even the working class in the west lives a more luxurious life then even the first class lived in 99% of human history.
Sure it makes sense for the working class in third world countries to be communists but how is it in the western workers material interest?

The pie has gotten bigger, but we're still eating only crumbs. Bigger crumbs, sure.

Marx actually had high praises for capitalism because it greatly developed productive forces. And so it did, but we can always do better.

I don't see why would everything get suddenly rolled back in the terms of development, but more importantly the jobs are getting outsourced anyways, so we will be on equal/equally shit level sooner or later as Marx(PBUH) predicted.

Because sitting in traffic for an hour to get to work, so you can sit in an office chair for 8 hours eating twinkies and making spreadsheets, then get stuck in traffic again so you can do the same thing at home, is such a good, desirable life, isn't it?

Immigration would not cause the same strife is it does now. Because you wouldn't be losing jobs to Asians, nor would the lower paying jobs be taken by Muslims or Eastern Europeans. This is because you no longer will be valued for your ability to churn out products or services. The constant threat of unemployment wouldn't constantly loom over the workers. As their sectors would no longer get outsourced nor would they get replaced so readily.

Ecological catastrophe wouldn't be such an issue. We could easily adapt our production to decrease the creation of pollution. And not only CO2, but also chemical waste, radioactive waste, plastic waste, and organic waste. The latter two are often dumped into the ocean, especially in countries without proper regulations. This could help preserve animal and plant life and keep our planet a cleaner place

Expansion of capital wouldn't exist for its own sake, only for the sake of human quality of life. This means that we wouldn't create a bunch of garbage, which does nothing but appease the rich and first world pathological consumerism. Instead, we could focus on expanding more important sectors. Medicine for specific diseases, durable energy, and water cleaning technology are currently very much needed. They are however not profitable at the moment. Full automation wouldn't be a scary concept because it wouldn't get the way of commodity selling. Even if it meant a less dynamic and forced progress. The decision as to what progress we made would be in our own hands, instead of in the hands of capitalists who only care about profitability.

When expansion for capital wouldn't be a reality anymore. It also means that work would be less focused on productivity. Creating sufficient is still important, however, we wouldn't have obvious overproduction which won't be consumed. This means that we wouldn't have the current obscene situation where homeless people exist when there is plenty of housing. Nor would stores have to lock their trash cans, when the hungry come to scavenge them for perfectly fine food. Even if capitalism creates a lot, it is far from everything which is sold, nor is everyone capable of buying the products which are made.

These people might reconsider when the next few generations don't have a choice in the matter anymore. When the war for resources to fuel capitalist expansion happens, I hope third world terrorists will bomb their neighborhood. When the quality of life slowly diminishes while more and more work is outsourced to Africa and Asia. I hope that the unemployed will destroy the gated communities. When global warming wasn't just a meme, and the sea level actually rises. I hope that the refugee streams will break open the muh privileged countries.

Luxury does not make a good life. As someone raised upper middle class I can say I hated it. Money was everything. Financial stability was everything. Then I would look at my normal working class friends. They had such a family bond I would never had. It was simple and sweet. Another thing I've noticed…almost every suicide in my city was done ny a upper class person. I never once knew of a poor person who self harmed or attempted suicide. Just an observation I made.

Hmmm why would I want to get rid of a system where I am essentially a slave to a man who sees me not as a worker and someone who can help him in success but instead sees me as nothing more than an expense that simply makes a product to line his pockets.

If being a slave to a dollar sign and putting your values and life worth on a market is in your interest then I guess it's an ideal system.

well, I suppose it ought to be something at least comparable to it. maybe with less useless commodities.

there'd surely be less need to have separate versions of every product when most of them exist for reasons that wouldn't matter under full socialism. no need for 10 phones with slightly different specs and prices and whatever, no need for 10 brands of cheese that don't really have any difference besides their marketing and price.

one thing would be that our work days would surely be shorter (for those who want so: no need to deny the passionate scientist his workaholicism). so that might be a reason to want socialism.

anyway, there's a reason why a lot of us deny the possibility of a revolution in first world countries. and that is, indeed, that a lot of us have it pretty good currently, and especially used to have it good.

but here's the thing: it ain't gonna stay that way! it is already a lot harder for a young person to get a job, a house, and so on than in the 80s or something. our youth are being denied the very privilegos their parents still had. without intervention to capitalism, this development will surely continue. the youth are being denied their future and their dreams.

this might create a mass of dissatisfied people. this is the reason why I even bother with real-life radical leftism: I do see a very real potential growing around me.

bull. fucking. shit.

Also, the first class of the past didnt have engines, electricity, computers and automation available, only humans who couldn't even read most of the time.

the comparison is unfair and stupid, really

I mean yeah the average dude in a first world country (especially one of the more egalitarian ones) has access to better healthcare, more different foods, more products than some king living in the 1800s, but this isn't exactly a meaningful comparison

"Luxury" is living a meaningful live, and having the time and resources to follow your passions. All while achieving inner peace.
Modern consumer capitalism and it's penchant for fake gaudy gadgetery has nothing to do with that.

Always strive for something better.

You're not a coward, are you, user?

the real thing to consider are the expectations of people. if the expectations are higher than what the society can provide, there's revolutionary potential.

most revolutions and such didn't happen when the oppressed were at their most oppressed and miserable; at such points, they don't have the resources to start shit

nor are you seeing big revolutionary movements in the poorer countries where standards of living, possibilities etc are growing really pretty fast. the people there can view their future in an optimistic way.

the welfare of the people must be good enough that they have the time and energy to organise and do stuff: but it must be bad enough for their expectations to be higher than what they're getting.

I think this is what third worldism misses, by the way: we must look at places where the standards of living are either going down (if they're relatively good atm) or in places where the growth is too slow to satisfy the people. we can't simply look for the "most oppressed"

Better than designated beheading squares under Muhammad, designated shitting streets under Pajeet or designated starving countries under Jamal.

Accelerationist communists everyone.


First world living standards depend on the first world people living in it. Even if they're as shit as you claim, it's far better than anything brown people could ever produce.

Tell us more about how you're not just another SJW faggot

Autism. Nobody was talking about this until you came:

What kind of mental gymnastics do you do to somehow believe this is important to the topic?


Because you faggots want to make everywhere third world

You are an SJW. No amount of screaming about "muh culture" and "muh degen.eracy" will mask that. Take your autism somewhere else



Probably. It would require intensive development of basic industry in much of the world, but there is no reason that can't happen. If Stalin and Deng could engineer it, so can our generation.

The only real constraints are ecological, and political choices.

where, where the fuck did he ever say this? Literally the entire last third of the Capital is him shitting all over it, and how much misery and toil it produces.

compared to the majority of history and third world countries they are

So what is OP asking? Can this mediocre existence continue with global socialism?
Yeah, probably.

Maoists Third-Worldists were right

Subscribe to Jason Unruhe today

what fucking luxury

In the Commiefesto, maybe.

Lots of art and entertainment to enjoy.

Reminder that piracy is literally communism

yes there will be lots of art and entertainment to enjoy in communism

No, and modern day Western luxury life is a disaster for the planet. A more spartan lifestyle will need to be enforced under socialism.

It really depends on which parts of the "western luxury life" we consider the luxury part.

There's an excess of consumption, sure, but most of that stuff is… sort of meaningless and stupid. A lot of it only serves ideological "needs" that should be defeatable under socialism.

The true core of the luxurious lifestyle lies in having plenty of food, having plenty of entertainment/culture available and having decent healthcare and maybe something that I am forgetting. Socialism should be able to provide those, and I wouldn't call it a "more spartan" life if we simply use more public transportation and don't have 100 different computers and 100 different fleshlights and 100 different brands of whatever to choose from. Maybe we won't buy new phones every 2 years, but so what if we optimise our use so that a 5-year-old piece of technology works just fine.

When we get room temperature superconductors, and CO2 to ethanol, and have 99% of energy coming from something other than fossil fuels, we don't neccessarily need a spartan lifestyle, but anyway, the abject poverty in third world countries is not neccessary for the rest of the world to have a few gadgets.