[orange character is smiling smugly, doing a finger gun, in front of the “1860 WEEKLY SLAVE MARKET” in which a crowd of people are browsing slaves, while some slaves ask “please help…”]
There is no ethical consumption under capitalism bro, everything is equally bad
I won’t stop buying slaves until the state compels me not to, until then to each their own and let’s agree to disagree and I’ll have you know my family needs their labor
It’s great that you can live without slaves though, keep being an anti-slavery activist it’s awesome!
You’re the best!
I dont really know what to make of this mene, but this isnt really what ‘no ethical consumption’ is intended to communicate.
The challenge isn’t to abstain from unethical practices directly like owning a slave yourself, the challenge is to avoid consumption that involves exploitative structures at all. It’s a structural critique, not an individualized one - exploitation is so pervasive in capitalist production that it’s nearly impossible to avoid entirely even if you’re an activist with complete knowledge and can dedicate a large amount of energy perfecting ethical consumption
It bothers me how cynical this meme is, honestly.
I think it mocks people who interpret “no ethical consumption under capitalism” as a license to do whatever they want, because it’s all unethical. rather that it being a call to fix/change the system.
Libertarians co-opting concepts in order to put their own cynical spin on it and “win so easily”
Just like they did with the word “libertarian”
it’s easy to win every argument if I’m too stupid to understand what I’m arguing about
Have you actually encountered someone who did this? Everyone I’ve ever known of who was in the ‘do whatever they want’ mindset, certainly wasn’t because of how they interpreted that ‘slogan’, it was just because they don’t give a shit to begin with—they almost certainly had never even heard it before.
I’m confused, didn’t you answer your own question?
there are people who use that as an excuse to do whatever they like. they don’t care
No, there is a difference in motivation between doing whatever you want because you believe it’s hopeless re ‘consuming ethically’, and doing whatever you want because you’ve never given a single thought to the matter of ‘ethical consumption’ at all.
My contention is simply that the vast majority of people who ‘do whatever’ are in the latter category, that’s all.
nah, same outcome in both cases. no point wasting energy trying to find the difference.
Sure, but the point of that idea is that capitalist exploitation can’t be addressed through personal consumption choices to begin with.
I guess fine, that person is making a shitty choice. But moralizing over consumption habits is pretty counterproductive IMO.
That’s valid as long as it isn’t used as an excuse to consume.
Ngl your wording choice here sounds like satire
Correct me if I’m wrong but…you seem to be siding with the slaver in the above meme
pointing out poor rhetoric isn’t siding with any aspect of the rhetoric
Learn to read
This wasn’t intended as criticism of “no ethical consumption”, but rather as satire of people who misunderstand the concept and think “no ethical consumption” is a moral shield that acts as a permission slip to completely stop caring about ethics and indulge in the vilest, least ethical consumption possible. Who cares if it was made with slave labor, everything is made with slave labor amirite?
This looks like a twist of what I call the “cat shit problem”:
A cat shitting on your front yard is bad. But an elephant doing it is even worse. Both are shit and you want neither; but elephant shit is a considerably worse problem.
However, every bloody single time this subject pops up, you’ll see two sets of muppets:
So. The orange guy in your comic is in the first set.
If that is the intent, then I fear the presentation is incomplete
But that isn’t really the comparison being drawn. That comparison would be someone buying a shirt from a factory in a free northern state; because that shirt was produced by cotton grown by slave labor in the south.
Sure, except a part of the critique is an acknowledgement that exploitation begets exploitation - most of the working class has only a limited amount of time, resources, or energy to participate in this level of market research before buying anything.
I find this satire to be similar to Milton Freedman libertarians who think consumers should simply know what theyre buying instead of having government consumer protections.
I’m not criticizing people who struggle to navigate exploitative systems.
Rather satirizing some bad faith individuals who use the excuse as a blank check to justify obviously unethical choices.
I just dont think it’s ever really that clear-cut.
Be kind to people, but be ruthless to systems.
First I’ve heard this, really like it. Thanks.
If you’re unfamiliar with him or his quote, I really reccomend reading about Michael Brooks