Is "There is no ethical consumption under capitalism" a cop-out argument?
Thoughts on the oft-used argument espoused by progressives to justify personal inaction
(The following is a brief criticism of the argument ‘There is no ethical consumption under capitalism’ often regurgitated by a specific brand of progressives (including anarchists) who pull out this argument when their own consumer choices are being challenged.)
There is no ethical consumption under capitalism.
This argument perfectly encapsulates what is wrong with today’s brand of progressives who often see themselves on the “right side of history” but who stop short of taking any personal responsibility to change their own lifestyle for the better.
More often than not, this argument ends up instantly shutting down conversation. It’s like a get out of jail free card for faux progressives who have adopted a position of futility and apathy, but who still selectively express outrage on certain issues.
If taken on its own, I certainly agree with this statement, but this does not mean we must give up entirely and do nothing at all. It’s easy to blame the big, bad capitalist system, and the faceless actors that uphold it, but it is much harder to actually try and minimize the harms capitalism has caused on an individual level because this requires personal sacrifice and commitment.
Certainly I agree that capitalism is inherently exploitative, but this doesn’t necessarily mean that any attempt to make better personal choices within a capitalist system is ultimately futile. If that were the case, what is the point of doing anything at all? We might as well do away with the social contract altogether. Lose civility, break unwritten social rules, and descend into depravity. Nothing is off the table if we follow this strand of logic: rape, murder, violence — all can be excused according to this mindset.
Even though it may feel futile and helpless to be a part of a system that is propped up by powerful, influential elite, it actually is quite impactful to try and minimize harm where possible.
Because we live in a quasi-capitalist* society, consumer choices do make a difference. If they didn’t then we would never evolve beyond current cultural trends.
(*Note: I say ‘quasi’ because the government has a sneaky way of intervening in a way that is expressly anti-capitalist if it means maintaining the status quo, e.g., bailing out big banks, subsidizing junk food, etc.)
As more people become more socially conscious, companies have to follow suit. “Sustainable” companies are growing faster than companies that aren’t marketed as sustainable (whether they’re actually sustainable is another topic entirely); junk food companies are investing in plant based foods; more companies are rolling out reusable product lines; and more than half of consumers are willing to pay for more ‘eco-friendly’ brands. Even the trend of buying secondhand clothing is still at an all-time high. All of these are examples of consumer choices making an impact.
But when it comes to specific issues likes animal rights, anti-oppression activists seem to recoil at the very idea of having to modify their lifestyle at all. They would much rather deceive themselves into believing that nothing they do could possibly make a difference, so why bother changing any habits at all? At least that’s what they tell me when I point out the fact that if you support anti-oppression then that should, in practice, be reflected in your actions. Some anarchists like to specifically criticize veganism because they see it as a purely consumer choice, even though it goes much further than that. It follows the premise that non-human animals should not be exploited or be viewed as commodities in the first place.
The ‘no ethical consumption under capitalism’ argument promotes a sense of apathy, yet it is often paradoxically used by veteran activists who have been involved in a number of other actions within the capitalist system like protesting pipelines or pushing governments for a minimum wage increase.
This argument also alleviates personal responsibility and ignores the role we all play in perpetuating an unjust system. It removes our own complicity and puts the responsibility back onto faceless capitalist. In turn, I’ve noticed that such activists tend to also avoid being critical of their own complicity. I can’t tell you how many conversations I’ve had with progressives about issues like animal rights, who then turn around and ask me about the iPhone I own, as if it’s some sort of gotcha.
There’s an interesting paradox here, in that progressives pick and choose when this argument should be used. Generally they would agree that divesting from fossil fuels, for example, is a worthy cause, and that buying local is worth supporting, too. But for other issues, they confidently declare ‘there is no ethical consumption under capitalism’ because it’s convenient to do so.
It’s easy to attend a rally, or spout political theories, or protest pipelines, or be ‘anti-racist’ or announce your allyship — it’s a lot harder to actually live in a way where your actions reflect your morals. Faux progressives like to make exceptions where convenient and do away with the rest. The result is an inconsistent moral framework, which is then reflected in the larger cultural and economic zeitgeist.
On the face of it, the argument ‘there is no ethical consumption under capitalism’ may be true, but that does not mean must we throw up our hands and give up. I’m not at all saying that taking personal responsibility will suddenly make someone ‘opt out’ of the system entirely, and I think that striving for perfection is impossible, but we should strive to at least make more consumer choices, where practicable, that may be uncomfortable for us.
Perhaps the most fitting rebuttal to this argument is the following: How do you expect to start a revolution when you can’t even revolutionize your dinner plate? (This is one of my favourite quotes, though I can’t seem to find where it first originated.)
Living in an inherently exploitative system demands us to be more action-based and reduce our impact in a way that helps propel change — not put our hands up and admit defeat when it’s convenient to do so.
I’m curious what others think about this.
Yeah, it’s a cop-out. Their positions lend themselves to obvious market preferences. In fact, they themselves tell you all the time that they buy this especially progressive product because of political reason 1 or that pro-environmental product because it saves species XYZ or such and such food because of this and that production practice. They just don’t want to be told they have to be consistent on the products of child labor and slavery-adjacent practices. It’s about virtue signaling without having to be virtuous.
I think focusing too much on the definition of a label (such as 'capitalism') prevents discussion of real issues.
Each clique has its own jargon, definitions and meanings -- they throw labels around that their clique understand as having a specific meaning, meanwhile everyone outside the clique has different understandings of the term and so you get 'arguments' and 'debates' that have nothing to do with the real situation, but are just arguments about definitions of words/labels.
Anyone can define 'capitalism' to be a system that prevents ethical consumption... but that is begging the question.