> 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.
Have you read Zen and the Art of Motorcycle Maintenance? You might enjoy it. A thoughtful book (semi-autobiographical) about a man searching for meaning, thinking-through-it-all while riding his motorcycle across the country with his son.
Long time ago, I dropped it somewhere near the end (random life circumstances). Thanks for reminding me of it - I recall it as being pretty insightful. I'll read it again.
The Japanese have some takes on this subject. I'm far from an expert, I only have a passing understanding, and I also have no answers, but if you were curious you might look in to Ikigai.
> 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.