Yes, you read the title right.
The logic goes like this:
"I want some luxury item, but because it is not in demand, all I can find is average quality items of that sort. The market responds to what the majority of the people ask for and makes the rest follow. It is communist! Supermarkets destroyed the luxury boutiques and supermarket won't provide the luxury items I want!"
Of course, the boutiques had to be capitalist in the first place (the commie state won't give you luxury toys), but is there any truth to this claim?
Entrepreneurs on the market thrive by serving the masses? Wow, how original! Mises only said that oh what... 40 years ago?
What is being ignored is that the market serves both niches and the mainstream where profitable; not one to the exclusion of the other. That aside, this has to be the dumbest argument yet. Markets are predicated on private exchange - the word whoever made this argument was looking for was 'democratic'.
Freedom of markets is positively correlated with the degree of evolution in any society...
xSFx:Supermarkets destroyed the luxury boutiques and supermarket won't provide the luxury items I want!"
The market will provide any luxury item he wants (asusming it's physically possible). It just won't provide it at the cost he thinks he's entitled to. You name it, he can get it, if he's willing to pay the price - which may include his own labor.
His fundamental error is in assuming that goods have an inherent "true" market value, and if they are not available at that price, then there is something wrong. He's not complaining about availability, really, he's complaining that the cost is too high.
The state won't go away once enough people want the state to go away,
the state will effectively disappear once enough people no longer care
that much whether it stays or goes. We don't need a revolution, we need
millions of them.