10

Citing "no ethical consumption" is a poor defense of unethical behavior.

Submitted by allred in Socialism

Not voting, owning property, eating meat, abusing workers, etc. can all be justified under the "no ethical consumption under capitalism" mantra. And while this is true, it's ridiculous to pretend that the present suffering of living beings does not influence our decision-making. Communists who throw up this platitude in defense of their actions is the equivalent of "Well that's just my opinion", to defend awful political views, "Well we can't change the past why complain," to justify past action, or any other over-used line to shed responsibility.

We have the ability to mitigate the suffering of others on our path to communism. Likewise, it's our role to point out that reformism won't end capitalism. But if your only goal is to end capitalism, and not to end suffering, present and future, then why the fuck are you even communist?

So next time someone asks why you purchase x, or eat x, don't get defensive. Accept that you, like everyone, myself included, contributes to global suffering willingly. And maybe consider doing something about that. And obviously if someones bein a dick about it, it's whatever. But "no ethical consumption" does not shield you from criticism.

Comments

You must log in or register to comment.

5

betterletter wrote

Yes THANK YOU. I'm sick of people using this defense for eating meat especially (veganism is one of my favorite anarchist sub-categories) and buying clothes/food blatantly made with slave labor.

I'm not sure I can trust someone to disavow animal abuse "after the revolution" if they can't make the bare fucking minimum effort to disavow it before. All the facts are there. Its cheap, its healthy, its better for the planet, and most importantly you're not paying into animal cruelty. I would still be vegan even if my tiny demand didn't change the system. I would still be vegan under socialism or anarchism or even post-civ primitivism. Crossposting this if you dont mind.

3

hjek wrote

I also get thelse "Ethical consumerism isn't gonna save the world"-style arguments a lot when talking animal liberation with people. While ethical consumption may not be enough, it can be a necessary first step.

My way of responding to these arguments: Can you imagine a group of carnivores shutting down a slaughterhouse? Can you imagine a group of automobilists organising Critical Mass? Etc.

(Although, yes, it is imaginable that someone may protest against something they do themselves, for example as a hypocritical PR stunt)

2

alex_ wrote

sure but i don’t see how voting fits into this

2

sudo wrote

I agree with most of what you said, however:

Accept that you, like everyone, myself included, contributes to global suffering willingly.

I most certainly do not contribute to global suffering willingly.

1

Pousol1 wrote

Those indigenous people in the Amazon would be grateful if western consumers would stop buying soy from genocidal Brazilian plantation owners.