Perhaps the biggest issue which is overlooked in this article lies in the political mesh and foundation of this concept as a whole. Though it's mentioned that there is a political aspect or background to this idealistic notion, it's not brought up as a real, practical issue with which supporters of this movement are going to have to work around. It's easy to say that the ideas of a world without labor or a people wholly united are negative, but there absolutely would be sacrifices made in the process, and convincing those who hold different sociopolitical/world views would be nearly impossible. Not only that, not having those people along for the ride would take away from this prospect greatly, if not ruin it entirely. There will always be men and women who choose to fight for a capitalistic society—to some, this is simply the most appealing way for a society and an economy to function. Missing cogs in a machine such as this one are going to take away from the big picture in a vital way. What good is a laborless society if someone around the corner is offering a better product? At that point, the whole issue becomes messy and even more political. The whole concept of capitalism undermines entirely what luxury communism seeks to do. There are some nice concepts to daydream on, with these ideals and any other sort of utopian complex—equality (and perhaps even less labor for humans) is something we can strive for and view as an objective good for society. But you're not gonna get everyone on board the boat to abandon these strongly ingrained capitalistic and individualistic worldviews (not to mention fear/loathing of communism). Even if the majority agreed, it leaves room for exploitation by those who want to play outside the rules of the game. It's fine to believe that this brand of luxury communism is a natural progression of things, but the truth is that it will never be practical in a first world which is inhabited by many who despise communism or who would look to cheat the system.