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.
The revolution will not be bought: Ethical consumption is seductive but dangerous to the values ethical consumers seek to promote
deleted by creator
It’s obviously not a binary choice, which I think you be getting at with your “two genders” statement?
Use a paper straw (or radically no straw or whatever) but don’t delude yourself that the action alone makes a huge difference.
deleted by creator
I think this kinda applies to regular voting as well, not just the wallet kind
So you’re telling me that my nightly dinnertime act of saladarity with Ukraine is worthless!?
I should read Fanon