Read Kropotkin

For the people who haven't read the bread book, Kropotkin makes arguments against child labor starting in the first chapter. He says that it is unfair that children of capitalists receive inheritance but the labor of the worker is inherited by the capitalist. That is unfair that children of workers have to work in the factory starting at the age of 13. Throughout the book, he says that children should not work in factories or mines. He says that children should receive meals from the society for free. In chapter 4, he talks about how artisans take advantage of working class children through apprenticeships (ie internships) by paying them less than the value their labor produces. In chapter 12, he talks about how capitalists would rather employ children than grown adult because children are willing to be payed less, which causes grown men to be jobless. He says the use of child labor makes society into a joke.

Kropotikin? Least problematic theorist of that generation Kropotikin? The guy so likeable that the famously anti Anarchist Vladimir Lenin declared a ceasefire so Anarchists could attend his state funeral Kropotikin? Ending serfdom Kropotikin? Wife guy Kropotikin?

Child labor is like the least Kropotikin thing I can imagine.

That comment doesn't hold up to basic critical thinking.

If writing off the loss is the same to a capitalist as selling the product, there would be no incentive for the capitalist to sell it, because that involves more complications than just claiming the write-off. By necessity, any writeoff that is equal or greater than the sale value of the product will result in companies limitlessly scamming the government (or insurance). It follows that spoiled or stolen product is some degree of loss to the company.

"The capitalist still wins" is equating larger wins to smaller wins.

It looks like the person is saying that boycotting chocolate produced by child labor is not an effective way of ending child labor, which is correct, especially in the case where the child labor produced the raw cacao and the finished chocolates are made in another country.

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

The only proper way to support child labor is if you consider studying to be work

From a purely consequentialist viewpoint, any boycott does fuck all to actually affect material change. Even collective boycotts aren't as effective as advertised. However, you do not have to adopt a consequentialist ethics on the level of the individual. I would argue that virtue ethics makes much more sense because at the end of the day, socialists need to convince and onboard new socialists and nobody's going to want to become socialists if the current stock of socialists can't exert basic discipline like abstaining from chocolate that doesn't even taste that good.

"You hate capitalism, yet you use iPhone. Curious." is an argument that reactionaries make, but most people who aren't socialists are swayed by this on some level. That's literally why reactionaries keep on making that stupid argument. Because it works. They don't make the same argument with cars because average people (from the US) see cars as something essential for daily life while iPhones are seen as a luxury item. The argument is "you hate capitalism, but you use nonessential commodities that wouldn't exist without capitalism, so how can you criticize capitalism while enjoying the fruits of capitalism that is not essential for daily life?"

Nobody wants to sign up to join a political movement steered by a bunch of hypocritical losers who can't exert a basic level of discipline. To use chocolate as an example, US-made chocolate doesn't even taste that good. It's like, I'm not going to take your calls for class warfare seriously if you can't even abstain from eating vomit-tasting chocolate. You bozos aren't going to be embarking on the Long March anytime soon.

I thought the large amount of comments would be because of some lib that had wandered in to get dunked on, but it seems it's just nerds discussing theory .

Obviously people should stop buying meat, Israeli goods, items produced with child labor etc to the best if their abilities and it is extremely silly to imply otherwise, smacking of treatlerite tendencies. However as folks have pointed out individual consumption choices are not the political mechanism which will bring down child labor/Zionism/meat farming. Therefore going on endlessly about individual consumption habits instead of encouraging some kind of collective action or actually effective intervention also comes across as performative and deeply unserious. Some one who eats an occasional cheeseburger and blows up a slaughterhouse is objectively a better vegan than someone who never touches a cheeseburger and doesn't blow up a slaughterhouse.

This is just the meat thing again

Another example of how the colonial situation dehumanizes the colonized and the colonizer.

Colonizers can only look down on anyone that would personally not want to eat chocolate harvested with child labor. Even if it won't change anything, even if it's individualism with no hope of stopping child labor, we still dehumanize ourselves when we participate.

I'm beginning to feel a bit embarrassed at myself now for eating chocolate if it means I'm in the same boat as this person

Hell yeah, inject it directly into my veins.