If you’ve existed on the internet for any amount of time, and especially for any amount of time circling a boycott, then you’ve likely heard the phrase, “There is no ethical consumption under capitalism.” The swiftness with which it is used is often equalled by someone responding that they’re not using it properly, and indeed, it is often used to justify buying little treats somewhat recklessly, but this blog isn’t about being the dopamine-supply police. Rather, it will explore where the phrase actually comes from and what it means.
Origins
The phrase has been around in political circles and on the internet for decades, and it doesn’t appear to have a single originator. It is widely believed to be an amalgamation of ideas from Karl Marx, simmered down into a phrase that people can easily remember. Marx is famously known for criticizing capitalism and his belief that it was exploitative, which is a large part of the idea behind the phrase. Discussions have been swirling online and elsewhere for decades about ethical consumption, and what it means to be an ethical consumer in a system that takes advantage of employees and consumers alike.
It came more into the mainstream focus in 2014, when Emma Watson and other celebrities began wearing shirts that said “This is what a feminist looks like” but shortly after there were reports that the workers making the shirts were barely making a dollar an hour, and the discussions of how to ethically consume came into the forefront. The rallying cry became what is used so often today: There is No Ethical Consumption Under Capitalism.
Meaning
Its meaning has become a little fuzzy since 2014, and not without good reason: how do you buy items that are ethical when the most conscientious choices are financially unattainable, and/or the businesses that offer them still have some features that falls short of ideal (like size inclusivity)?
The phrase's intended use is to bring awareness to the exploitations of capitalism and to encourage critical thinking about where your money goes when making purchases. Here’s an example: you may choose to buy from Whole Foods, for instance, because they have lots of organic options, and a good many of the companies they stock their stores with do have really good intentions, such as making clothes from recycled materials, or proceeds benefiting underserved communities. The hitch? Whole Foods has a history of union-busting, which is firing or otherwise punishing workers for wanting to unionize, and it is now owned by Amazon, which has come under scrutiny for poor working conditions for their employees and other various highly questionable business practices. Therefore, making a purchasing choice for good intentions is still funding something you may or may not be opposed to. Or, there is no ethical consumption under capitalism because the money always leads back to something unethical.
Misuse
So, how is the phrase being misused? Owing to the knowledge that everything traces back somewhere, the phrase is now largely being used to justify not having to think critically about where or how money is being spent. People will spend their money at companies facing RICO violations or plagiarism allegations for reasons that aren’t invalid, such as time, money, sizing, or other reasons, and then excuse any guilt by using the phrase.
Arguably, there is an element in the phrase to help alleviate feelings of regret that come with trying your best but still funding something you don’t want to because the reality is, there is no way not to without resources that most of us just don’t have.
Still, fret not, The Good Place tackled this exact topic. I recommend it as cathartic viewing; the comedy is a nice palate cleanser, at the very least.
Add a comment to: What Does ‘There Is No Ethical Consumption Under Capitalism’ Mean?