One might ask: what does the alternative look like? From what I can tell Marx is a bit wishy-washy on that point.
Hayek more helpfully explained that the market provides a mechanism for determining value, not virtue. That it works, but doesn't uplift. And that trying to force it to will leave with neither -- you will need to find your meaning in something else.
The market's notion of value is weighted by wealth: making coffee for the rich is "valuable", meeting the basic needs of the poor is not "valuable." This makes the market notion of "value" very different from just about any other notion of value in the world. If you muddy the distinction, or let someone else muddy the distinction, markets become almost tautologically awesome, because the market notion of "value" is something that markets are very good at optimizing.
There's a lot of privilege talking about what is and is not valuable, but its worth pointing out that its only a very recent, probably very temporary, phenomena that coffee is all about rich people massively overpaying in public as an act of conspicuous consumption at Starbucks, for some decades previous McDonalds and other fast food sellers made more total money selling coffee than hipster coffee shops.
There are some market bifurcation events going on, as relates to income inequality only increasing over time. For example the number of independent bicycle shops has been dropping for decades while average revenue and profit increase... thats because the market for $2000 adult bikes is extremely high social status but also very small, leading to the inaccurate observation that "there's no money selling bikes to poor people". However, sales and revenue for poor people bikes at department stores, walmart, etc, are really pretty good, its just that you can't buy a poor person bike at a cool trendy rich hipster independent bicycle store, only from extremely uncool mass retailers. There are absolute tons and boatloads of money in selling bicycles to poor people; the money is inaccessible to the "cool kids" is the only problem.
Food deserts are a similar thing; the point of talking about food deserts is to point out the individual noticing them is a really cool person.
Perhaps a HN car analogy where nothing could be cooler on social media and more valuable than bragging about selling Tesla cars to very rich people, but you won't make even a tiny fraction as much total revenue as the incredibly uncool act of selling commuter SUVs to suburbanites.
Being cool and trendy on twitter is important, but you can make many times as much money by being very uncool. To some extent the whole meta overall topic is conspicuous consumption at its finest, along the lines of I'm rich enough and privileged enough to pretend deeply uncool (as defined on social media) market opportunities literally don't exist.
Hayek understood that what we think about prices and what we think about ethics are distinct things. He didn't see rightness as flowing from markets. He saw it as a discovery process for allocations of resources.
> One might ask: what does the alternative look like? From what I can tell Marx is a bit wishy-washy on that point.
I have no clue either. But it feels to me as if we're turning humanity into a single superorganism, with each one of us being just a cell, except all those cells have brains capable of wishing they'd play on the same level as the superorganism.
Related: I've never had a libertarian bent. I'm known to argue for coordination over individual freedoms. I frequently wondered, just what is it that makes many people say that we're in chains, and (here in the West) we have so little freedoms left. I think I finally realized where this could be coming from.
I've been spending some time recently going, in my head, through a list of activities I'd find exciting. I quickly discovered that most of them are either impossible or illegal, especially when living in a city. Someone (I think pg) wrote that as we entered the industrialized age, we had to invent the whole fake, hollow thing called "exercise" to replace what we've lost in the change of lifestyles. I'm starting to see it as more general pattern - we're losing many more things we could do, and replacing them with structured activities available on the market. They're similar, but also feel fake to me.
> Hayek more helpfully explained that the market provides a mechanism for determining value, not virtue. That it works, but doesn't uplift.
That sounds about right (I suppose I should start reading the foundational texts of economic thought at some point). I do not deny that the scheme I described, in which your only role in society is to pick something profitable to do, doesn't work. It generally does (with all coordination problem caveats of the market in mind). But the meaningful work, the virtuous work, the uplifting work, seems to be distributed scarcely and randomly throughout the market space. Much like in the past, you got to be a king or a peasant depending on the lottery of birth, nowadays you can be involved in civilization-changing work, or forever toil on the margin, depending on random chance. Is there even a place for fining meaning in contributing to society? Is there any agency left as to how to contribute? Are we supposed to seek either of it?
I have no answers here. Only a topic I'm trying to think my way through, hoping to find some meaning on the other end.
I wish you luck.
I'll be sure to let HN know if I ever come to any lasting conclusion.
What has always tied Marxism in knots has been the tension between waiting for the inexorable laws of history on the one hand (and sometimes trying to give them a hurry up) versus on the other hand agitating for reforms. The former see the latter as delaying the revolution. The latter see the former as something between dreamers and jerks.
I think that history, having been somewhat lawless after all, makes the reformers look better.
