The revolutions of 1989 would tend to argue against that. Leaders in East Germany and the like thought that giving people subsidized food, housing (and alcohol) would be enough to make them content. Some of it was, yes, about not having democracy, but a lot of it was being upset that they didn't have the consumer goods they knew people in the West had access to.

Hmm. I live and work in the bit of Berlin that used to be DDR (aber ich bin Ausländer).

The museums around here insist the two big problems were the secret police and the fact that production wasn’t very well matched to demand. Even if you ignore the literal Stasi, I think you may be understating the impact of the shops running out of various foods from time to time.

Totally agree. The number of people who naturally always want more is pretty low. Most people just want some level of security and comfort.

If humans weren't naturally susceptible to consumerism, that money wouldn't yield a ROI...

Humans are susceptible to seduction.

I don't think the point of consumerism is to separate humans from their wealth. You could do that easily and more effectively with many other organizational structures. Look at "communist" dictatorships, or feudalism, or isolated tribes that have no means of trade; their general population is very poor and shut out from what wealth the land generates or has the potential to generate.

The point of consumerism is to act as a motivator for the working class to keep working. Once you have that plentiful food and safe & warm hut, assuming that's all there is to aspire to, it would be very tempting to stay home from work on Fridays.

But... if you resist the temptation of shiny bullshit, we're so productive now that you could stay home from work on Fridays and the gears that provide that food and hut would keep turning. Why do people have to be motivated then? it just so happens that the excess of that extra work goes into someone's pocket.