CBS News found children in Ghana as young as 5 years old using machetes nearly as big as themselves to harvest the cocoa beans that end up in some of America's most-loved chocolates like M&Ms and Snickers. Debora Patta reports.
True enough, but there is still more and less ethical consumption. For example buying a refurbished smartphone instead of a brand new iPhone may still indirectly support unethical mining and working conditions, but it is the less evil option.
I just don’t want people thinking they have zero power, so they may as well wallow in iniquity.
My thoughts exactly. The statement is certainly true but I have seen it used as an argument against protest by refusing to support morally bankrupt businesses.
It’s a really good thing to think about your consumer habits but I think it’s also important not to internalize the guilt on an individual basis and get in to this “how do I cleanse myself” mode of existing as a capitalist subject. The power we have is held in opposing capitalism not by accepting the moral conditions it poses to us, but instead rejecting that “original sin” it forces us in to and not taking it personally. Every internalized guilt inherent in being a capitalist subject is similar to being an abused spouse who blames themselves for their partner’s behavior, the partner here are capitalist institutions and private entities who constantly gaslight us they’re just doing whatever they can to be good.
Because capitalists have had an effective propaganda campaign to make them think “made in the USA” is good. It don’t mean shit. We need the union label back.
if rules are in the way of profit it is not profit that is going to lose. this was, is and will always be the core problem of capitalism. it is profitable to break the rules.
Or more to the point, the people in charge of making and enforcing the rules ensure that the rules are either not enforced at all, or that the penalty for breaking them is small enough to be seen as just a cost of doing business.
My shorthand definition of capitalism is when everything is for sale, and that includes laws.
It’s just people failing the basics of logic. A positive expression for something is NOT a hit against things that naturally oppose it. On the other side, a condemnation of something is NOT an endorsement of the opposite. People make that basic “team sports” failure all the time, and even if people get past that, a lot still confuse nuances. Saying an aspect of something is good is NOT a natural endorsement of the whole thing, and same with negatives. Stating a negative is not hating on the whole thing.
For those who dislike capitalism: Being pro something (like capitalism) is NOT an automatic endorsement of the consequences. Some people truly have not thought through them, or do not have the capacity to think through something as twisted as capitalism.
For those who like capitalism: The mere ability to point at positives does NOT mean the negatives are suddenly invalid or that people are suddenly not exploited to hell.
Yet I constantly run in to people who hold these nonsensical views. Pure failures of logic.
we applied a system, in which breaking the rules means winning, to the globe. most people are asleep, dreaming of coca cola and luis vitton. others are wide awake, profiting from the system or fighting it in any way they can. people better start wake the fuck up, we are running out of time and no matter what billionaires tell you there is no planet b.
Naturally, a system that promotes wealth distribution and not one that promotes wealth capture.
This is a situation where the only correct answer is to change direction. Do not set requirements for perfection when even mild improvement is so easily attained.
EDIT: One specific step would be to make worker-owned corporations a requirement. The stock market can stick around for all I care, but the business capital should only ever be controlled by the actual workers. That doesn’t mean companies would have to restructure or fire executives. Delegation of duty is absolutely a thing.
Normal people wouldn’t have to worry at all about such a change. Though maybe if their job was figuring out how to cut meat off the company for profit, they might have to worry…
That’s why “I’m not buying [specific product] again” is worse than ineffective, it’s validating to the illusion of a capitalist subject’s ability to morally absolve themselves of the system that sustains their economic status, or even the notion that it’s important to internalize this guilt and morally absolve yourself from it. This mechanism is internal to capitalism and works in the manner a religious ritual would to cleanse yourself of sin, the civil religion of capitalism addressing the original sin you inherit as a capitalist subject.
It’s also liberating because it means it not about you, and you aren’t obligated to accept this guilt and “original sin” and the absolving rituals as prescribed by the capitalist system. The capitalists want you to feel guilty if it means we aren’t directing our anger at them for forcing this economic arrangement on us. It’s like they are an abusive spouse gaslighting us in to thinking we’re the problem.
That’s a good point. Very akin to christian churches (and almost certainly others, I just have personal experience there) shaming women for things guys may be celebrated for doing.
Hell, some of them literally blame all women for the original sin of eating from the fruit of knowledge… freaking psycho controlling thought patterns, all of 'em.
Not really. It means there are no easy answers, and they almost certainly do not lay within capitalism. It should in no way imply that there are no better or worse sources. It is only a comment about how capitalism will most certainly give you a negative answer that includes exploitation.
Spoiler: everyone ends up in “the bad place” because making ethically sound decisions in an increasingly complex and global economy is nearly impossible.
Yeah except that the sugar lobby does a lot to artificially keep sugar prices down. The sugar lobby also fights tooth and nail to make sure that sugar sin taxes don’t get passed or if they do, they target all sweeteners.
I mean, artificial sweeteners aren’t so grand either, when factoring in gut biome and odd digestion issues as well. Though I really doubt (read: wouldn’t believe) that is why the sugar lobby tries to include them…
If you think chocolate is bad, sugar is worse.
What I’ve learned in the last few years is that every part of modern life has exploitation in it.
There are very few parts that aren’t.
“There is no ethical consumption under capitalism.”
It’s not an air-headed anarchist/socialist slogan. It’s just the truth at scale.
True enough, but there is still more and less ethical consumption. For example buying a refurbished smartphone instead of a brand new iPhone may still indirectly support unethical mining and working conditions, but it is the less evil option.
I just don’t want people thinking they have zero power, so they may as well wallow in iniquity.
My thoughts exactly. The statement is certainly true but I have seen it used as an argument against protest by refusing to support morally bankrupt businesses.
It’s a really good thing to think about your consumer habits but I think it’s also important not to internalize the guilt on an individual basis and get in to this “how do I cleanse myself” mode of existing as a capitalist subject. The power we have is held in opposing capitalism not by accepting the moral conditions it poses to us, but instead rejecting that “original sin” it forces us in to and not taking it personally. Every internalized guilt inherent in being a capitalist subject is similar to being an abused spouse who blames themselves for their partner’s behavior, the partner here are capitalist institutions and private entities who constantly gaslight us they’re just doing whatever they can to be good.
how people fail to grasp the meaning of this expression, beautiful in its simplicity, still amuses me to this day.
Because capitalists have had an effective propaganda campaign to make them think “made in the USA” is good. It don’t mean shit. We need the union label back.
if rules are in the way of profit it is not profit that is going to lose. this was, is and will always be the core problem of capitalism. it is profitable to break the rules.
Or more to the point, the people in charge of making and enforcing the rules ensure that the rules are either not enforced at all, or that the penalty for breaking them is small enough to be seen as just a cost of doing business.
My shorthand definition of capitalism is when everything is for sale, and that includes laws.
Can we grow sugar? Just curious
deleted by creator
The US? We do grow sugar. But many farms in America hire child laborers. This isn’t solely a problem with imported agricultural goods.
It’s just people failing the basics of logic. A positive expression for something is NOT a hit against things that naturally oppose it. On the other side, a condemnation of something is NOT an endorsement of the opposite. People make that basic “team sports” failure all the time, and even if people get past that, a lot still confuse nuances. Saying an aspect of something is good is NOT a natural endorsement of the whole thing, and same with negatives. Stating a negative is not hating on the whole thing.
For those who dislike capitalism: Being pro something (like capitalism) is NOT an automatic endorsement of the consequences. Some people truly have not thought through them, or do not have the capacity to think through something as twisted as capitalism.
For those who like capitalism: The mere ability to point at positives does NOT mean the negatives are suddenly invalid or that people are suddenly not exploited to hell.
Yet I constantly run in to people who hold these nonsensical views. Pure failures of logic.
we applied a system, in which breaking the rules means winning, to the globe. most people are asleep, dreaming of coca cola and luis vitton. others are wide awake, profiting from the system or fighting it in any way they can. people better start wake the fuck up, we are running out of time and no matter what billionaires tell you there is no planet b.
deleted by creator
Yes, I agree. Who is making that conflation here?
Absolutely true. But under what system is there significantly less exploitation? Too many people are selfish, cruel or both.
Naturally, a system that promotes wealth distribution and not one that promotes wealth capture.
This is a situation where the only correct answer is to change direction. Do not set requirements for perfection when even mild improvement is so easily attained.
EDIT: One specific step would be to make worker-owned corporations a requirement. The stock market can stick around for all I care, but the business capital should only ever be controlled by the actual workers. That doesn’t mean companies would have to restructure or fire executives. Delegation of duty is absolutely a thing.
Normal people wouldn’t have to worry at all about such a change. Though maybe if their job was figuring out how to cut meat off the company for profit, they might have to worry…
So conquer the world and force it on it because otherwise how do you control what the Congo does to their children?
How about we start with punishing companies that knowingly integrate shave labor into their supply chains?
deleted by creator
That can be done without colonialism, imperialism, or invasion. Much like how the EU is forcing American tech companies to be less shitty.
You want part of this sweet pie? Wash your hands before you sit at the table.
That’s why “I’m not buying [specific product] again” is worse than ineffective, it’s validating to the illusion of a capitalist subject’s ability to morally absolve themselves of the system that sustains their economic status, or even the notion that it’s important to internalize this guilt and morally absolve yourself from it. This mechanism is internal to capitalism and works in the manner a religious ritual would to cleanse yourself of sin, the civil religion of capitalism addressing the original sin you inherit as a capitalist subject.
Very true. If you’re against the exploitation, it’s a damn good idea to be against the system that actively promotes the exploitation.
It’s also liberating because it means it not about you, and you aren’t obligated to accept this guilt and “original sin” and the absolving rituals as prescribed by the capitalist system. The capitalists want you to feel guilty if it means we aren’t directing our anger at them for forcing this economic arrangement on us. It’s like they are an abusive spouse gaslighting us in to thinking we’re the problem.
That’s a good point. Very akin to christian churches (and almost certainly others, I just have personal experience there) shaming women for things guys may be celebrated for doing.
Hell, some of them literally blame all women for the original sin of eating from the fruit of knowledge… freaking psycho controlling thought patterns, all of 'em.
In other words, eat whatever you want.
Not really. It means there are no easy answers, and they almost certainly do not lay within capitalism. It should in no way imply that there are no better or worse sources. It is only a comment about how capitalism will most certainly give you a negative answer that includes exploitation.
I’m not in control of that, so why should it matter to me? I’ll buy chocolate until the day I die.
Good clarification.
There’s a show about this:
“The Good Place”
Spoiler: everyone ends up in “the bad place” because making ethically sound decisions in an increasingly complex and global economy is nearly impossible.
Spoiler: Except that girl that ended up in the middle place
Sugar trade is so profitable you might just accidentally do slavery.
There’s others sources of sugar that are much less problematic though, like beet and others. There’s not much alternative to cocoa.
Yeah except that the sugar lobby does a lot to artificially keep sugar prices down. The sugar lobby also fights tooth and nail to make sure that sugar sin taxes don’t get passed or if they do, they target all sweeteners.
I mean, artificial sweeteners aren’t so grand either, when factoring in gut biome and odd digestion issues as well. Though I really doubt (read: wouldn’t believe) that is why the sugar lobby tries to include them…