105
submitted 2 weeks ago by Objection@lemmy.ml to c/slop@hexbear.net
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[-] miz@hexbear.net 28 points 2 weeks ago

boycotts are a useful tool in concert with an organized political movement (like BDS or a union of striking workers) but can be ultimately counterproductive on their own:

In short, a strong belief that ethical consumption will lead to ethical practices is not warranted – purchasing as voting is a weak feedback mechanism at best and there are other actors who are able to influence the system. The danger, however, comes in believing that this mechanism can make substantial political change. Ethical consumption gives the individual the illusion of contributing to progress; of “doing their part” by making purchasing decisions. This illusion can detract, and probably has detracted, from trying to put forward an avowedly political agenda that seeks to mobilise people collectively to make the changes they support. Instead, it individualises ethics, it individualises politics and it reaffirms us as consumers rather than citizens – it is a part of the profit-maximising, pathologically-externalising neoliberal market system that has caused many of the problems ethical consumerism seeks to alleviate, rather than being an alternative.

from The revolution will not be bought: Ethical consumption is seductive but dangerous to the values ethical consumers seek to promote

[-] Objection@lemmy.ml 12 points 2 weeks ago

In short, a strong belief that ethical consumption will lead to ethical practices is not warranted

Nor does it have anything to do with my position.

[-] QuietCupcake@hexbear.net 6 points 2 weeks ago* (last edited 2 weeks ago)

It really is frustrating to see true things trotted out as a defense of undeniably shitty behavior. There are two facts (that people who are aware of how exploitative capitalism is) will use to argue that any consumption is fine, that their personal consumption of certain deeply unethical products isn't problematic, or that there isn't a spectrum from mostly fine to inherently problematic consumable commodities.

One: there is no ethical consumption under capitalism. Two: attempts at ethical consumption alone will never be sufficient to affect real change (and may mislead some into thinking they've done their part when they haven't). These things are true. But just because they are, that does NOT mean that all consumption is the same, and it doesn't mean that consuming certain things isn't a form of tacit but still supportive approval of the worst kinds of exploitation. It very much is just mental acrobatics that some people will use to justify their hypocrisy and stamp out the feelings of guilt for consuming shit that deep down they know they should feel guilty about consuming.

OOP is using fact one to do this. And I don't think miz is meaning to, but in the context of this post, reminding people of fact 2 without further explanation comes across as if it's backing up OOP's flawed "logic."

[-] infuziSporg@hexbear.net 3 points 2 weeks ago

one day, we are going to have to boycott everything

total disengagement from the economy, purchasing strike, using the remaining degree of advantageous position that workers/debtors/consumers have in the postindustrial economy, relying on direct production for use to survive, while overpowering the capacity of the economy to punish us

[-] meatcringe@hexbear.net 2 points 2 weeks ago

But we can't create a second economy that protects everyone, including our disabled comrades, without maintaining our access to the vast and irreplaceable industrial machinery and supply chains of the world.

We must take this economy.

[-] infuziSporg@hexbear.net 3 points 2 weeks ago

We must take this economy.

This economy is built from the bottom up on the logics of imperialism, ecocide, hyper-commodification, and subordination of the vast majority of humankind; its resource usage is going to hit a wall in the next 50-100 years; there is much to be learned from but nothing of value to take over.

we can't create a second economy that protects everyone, including our disabled comrades

Try me.

[-] meatcringe@hexbear.net 2 points 2 weeks ago* (last edited 2 weeks ago)

I love you, comrade. 💚 You are right and the posadists and the anprims are wrong. We must take this economy before it hits that wall for the sake of the vulnerable. We don't have the time or the resources to start over, only to seize the means and transform them.

[-] infuziSporg@hexbear.net 3 points 2 weeks ago

the posadists and the anprims are wrong.

Me, an alt-civ autonomous communist with a huge emphasis on appropriate technology and a strategy that accounts for collapse:

side-eye-1 side-eye-2

We shouldn't forget that the ability of the land to sustainably support people was articulated over millennia. The ideology of capitalism credits itself with all human thriving and says we are in primitive misery without it, but in a full accounting, we know that its costs are far greater and that in terms of peoples' well being, we would be starting off much further along than we are trained to believe.

Strategically, I favor a prefigurative culture that has means consistent with ends, as opposed to a fight to claim all the tools and products of capitalism which would take place largely on capital's terms, and would involve multiple revolutions to do course-correction.

There is certainly a speedrun we're in to collect all the useful knowledge there is in the present economy and put it to work for assembling an alternative. Comrade, there will be a spot for you in the eco-communes, with the average footprint/life support being 20 m^2^ of adobe floorspace, 100W of solar panel or CHP stove output, 900 m^2^ of cultivated land, and 2 cords of wood per year.

[-] meatcringe@hexbear.net 3 points 2 weeks ago

Me, an alt-civ autonomous communist with a huge emphasis on appropriate technology and a strategy that accounts for collapse:

erm-this-you

the average footprint/life support being 20 m2 of adobe floorspace, 100W of solar panel or CHP stove output, 900 m2 of cultivated land, and 2 cords of wood per year.

Throw in enough insulin for my diabetic comrades and enough HRT for my trans comrades (and I know you will 💚) and it's a deal.

this post was submitted on 02 May 2026
105 points (96.5% liked)

Slop.

857 readers
444 users here now

For posting all the anonymous reactionary bullshit that you can't post anywhere else.

Rule 1: All posts must include links to the subject matter, and no identifying information should be redacted.

Rule 2: If your source is a reactionary website, please use archive.is instead of linking directly.

Rule 3: No sectarianism.

Rule 4: TERF/SWERFs Not Welcome

Rule 5: No bigotry of any kind, including ironic bigotry.

Rule 6: Do not post fellow hexbears.

Rule 7: Do not individually target federated instances' admins or moderators.

founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS