You can’t buy a candy bar in this country without facilitating child slavery in the global south. You expect people living paycheck to paycheck to vote with their wallet and defeat capitalism?
boycotts are a useful tool in concert with an organized political movement (like BDS or a striking workers union) but can be 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.
Yet people continue to buy from Amazon and I assume Virgin
deleted by creator
deleted by creator
You can’t buy a candy bar in this country without facilitating child slavery in the global south. You expect people living paycheck to paycheck to vote with their wallet and defeat capitalism?
Jesus.
youre a fucking genius. you’re so god damn smart
Death to America
No, I think I’d remember if I bought anything from you.
boycotts are a useful tool in concert with an organized political movement (like BDS or a striking workers union) but can be counterproductive on their own:
The revolution will not be bought: Ethical consumption is seductive but dangerous to the values ethical consumers seek to promote