#no ethical consumption under late stage capitalism

[confessions-of-a-queer-christian]

[snowbazzledestielshipper]

I don’t think the billionaires are building their fortresses for the apocalypse, I think they’re actually building them for the revolution that we’re on the doorstep of.

[brinnanza]

"boycotting doesn't work they're already making billions of dollars" yeah but you don't have to HELP

[absurdist-void]

I don’t know how people don’t go insane after knowing the extent of corporate crimes across the planet. Nearly everything we interact with in the west was produced through slavery and poor working conditions. Everything is tainted.

[quixoticanarchy]

please. “there is no ethical consumption under late stage capitalism” does not mean that all consumption is EQUALLY unethical. it’s a structural critique of systems of production it’s not a get-out-of-guilt-free carte blanche to invoke while carelessly consuming whatever you want

[fangedflower]

The only ethical consumption under late stage capitalism is eating pussy

[pacifyara]

Late-stage capitalism makes monsters of all of us

I would like to examine Netflix’s Squid Games (2021) which quickly skyrocketed to international success and fame. The nine part season, directed by Hwang Dong-hyuk, features a talented cast and an even more gripping storyline. 

This show has been picked apart over and over again. It is clear that the bones of the show is its critique on capitalism.  The squid games essentially is a game where in-debted people risk their life for the chance to win money. However, under capitalism money is never just money. Money is a place to sleep, money is food, money is security, money is acceptance. These themes and more are heavily presented in the series. There have been so many breakdowns of Squid Games overall that I am choosing to focus on an analysis that I have not seen much of.

Spoilers Below

Cho Sang-woo, mainly referred to as Sang-woo, is an antagonist in the series. Sang-woo is one of the most disliked characters in the show because his ruthlessness, desire to win, sociopathic tendencies and selfishness eventually led to him murdering not one but two of the other main characters. Sango-woo’s actions are irreprehensible, but his motivations are all too familiar. Sang-woo desires redemption for his financial failures and missteps on his quest to climb the socioeconomic ladder. Within the confines of the game Sang-Woo is also clearly being driven to survive and outlast all his competitors. If we take the game as a metaphor for late-stage capitalism Sang-woo represents the one willing to do any and everything to win the rat race, which more often than not leads to their own demise. The conditions created by the Squid Games were ones that required depravity and lack of empathy to triumph. Remember although Sang-woo was not an upstanding citizen he began the games as a decent and mild-mannered individual. Sang-woo’s actions are not that of a rogue outlier, they are a direct response to his reality. The truth is to varying degrees most (if not all) participants of the Squid Games let go of empathy for their fellow man for self-preservation in the games. Sang-woo as a character is not a one off extreme but an example of how late-stage capitalism erodes the empathy and morality of every day people.

We have to lack empathy to exist

Have you ever heard the saying “there is no ethical consumption” under capitalism? If not, The Good Place (2016) brings it to life (haha ironic) with seasons long plot culminating in the realization that no human has been able to get into “the good place” (a positive afterlife akin to heaven) in centuries. This is because even the simplest of actions are inexplicably tied to numerous dubious and immoral consequences. Think about it 

The amount of cognitive dissonance required to go about our every day lives and believe we are good people is frightening. 

There have been studies that have found a link between social class and compassion. It is not all cut and dry but it seems the higher the socioeconomic status the relatively lower the compassion for the distress of others were shown. Again, this is not a phenomenon that can be explained briefly or reduced down but I posit that some of this unresponsiveness to others distress is exactly what is required to consolidate wealth amongst the uber-wealthy. This can extend to beyond individuals to nations or so on. 

This post is meant to be a brief examination. I welcome healthy and respectful conversation whether opposing or supportive. 

[secreteviltwin]

"there is no ethical consumption under late stage capitalism" doesn't mean do what you want because it's all bad it means consume LESS

[boreal-sea]

"No ethical consumption under late stage capitalism" does not apply to the antisemitic wizard game.

[stringgs]

Just saying “trigger warning” doesn’t help shit, by the way. Trigger warning for what? Flashing lights? Spiders? Body horror? The crippling realization that there is no ethical consumption under late stage capitalism and we’re all controlled by corporations who run the government? Eggs?

[confessions-of-a-queer-christian]

I understand that celebrities don’t owe us anything. I also understand that billionaires don’t have to use their fame and fortune for good causes. But nothing IRKS me more than a billionaire or multimillionaire celebrity who does nothing to combat climate change, homelessness, and food crises.

Like, they have all the money. They have. ALL. OF. IT. Billionaires have all our money (“our” being that of “our society”). They’re hoarding all of our collective wealth. Wealth accumulated by oppressing the working class. It’s our money, too. The very very least they could do is play nice with it.

So I guess what I’m saying is fuck it, they do owe us something. They owe us good stewardship of the resources they’re hoarding.

[dragontatoes]

While I kind of understand critiquing companies that “support” Israel in some way. It sounds like everyone once again forgot what “no ethical consumption under late stage capitalism” meant.

[loganlefleur]

the only ethical consumption under late stage capitalism is munching box

[ravens-loft]

The humanitarian/environmentalist part of me tells me the planet is dying so I must help by supporting small businesses and shopping local if possible

The cynical part of me says that there's no ethical consumption under late-stage capitalism and to just buy what makes me happy

Both are homoerotically swordfighting as I buy a 32 inch weighted stuffed goose off of Amazon with a gift card my mom got me for Christmas

[goose-girl]

On the drive to the Rockland Goodwill, I listen to a podcast recorded at the peak of quarantine, in which two girls make fun of twin flames and debate the soul’s journey. I agree with the girl who sometimes irks me and disagree with the girl who I think could be my best friend if we ever met in real life. This is one of many podcasts I wrapped myself in when I first came back to Maine, when the quiet of the island I lived on became piercing, when I couldn’t fall asleep because the foxes were screaming in the woods. All of the podcasts that have been my companions these past months boil down to this: two girls have conversations about dating apps, pop psychology, Taylor Swift, or theater kids, and these frivolous topics almost always devolve into a mention of late-stage capitalism. Trains of thought are pinched off with “there is no ethical consumption under capitalism.” They laugh, the pith of it weighed down by the knowledge of impending societal collapse, and then they move on. Read the rest here!

[beaniebaneenie]

Why are you telling people not to boycott as opposed to telling them "Yes, you should boycott but also do these things that help"? I've seen absolutely nothing from the workers that indicate they want you to give the company money.

I'm getting a slight whiff of troll here, but I'm gonna give you the benefit of the doubt and assume that you're asking because you genuinely want to know.

This is gonna be a long one, so strap in.

_________________

I said the things I said mainly because the strikers have very specifically NOT asked for a boycott. They clearly outline the things they actually want people to do, and a boycott is nowhere on that list.

And as I stated in the post that I'm positive caused this ask,

1. If enough people claim that strikers want a boycott, the Company can use that at the table in a few ways. They can refuse to negotiate, claiming the strikers are in "bad faith" (something that you never want to happen during negotiations). They can claim that the strikers DO want a boycott, and in a lot of states, strikes are only legally protected in incredibly narrow circumstances... often, if strikers push for a boycott, OR if consumers do it on their behalf and claim the strikers really want it, legally the Company can claim that the strikers are causing "intentional sabotage" and fire them. Remember, the point of a strike is that you want to still have your job at the end of it... you just want conditions to be better.

2. One of the main reasons that strikes work at all is basic supply and demand.

-Company sees demand for a thing. They produce a large supply of the thing.

-Workers who actually produce the thing are not treated well by the Company. They go on strike and stop making the thing. Supply is now very low.

-CONSUMERS (that's you!) still have a high demand for the thing.

-Workers are on strike and not producing the thing. Demand is very high, Supply is very low.

..........and now the Company has a REASON to even bother sitting down at the table: restoring their profits by getting the Workers to end the strike.

-The Workers say they'll come back when conditions are better. Company feels increasing pressure from the High Demand/Low Supply bottleneck, and actually agrees to terms.

This is a fundamental basis for how a TON of strikes work, especially for companies that have a tangible and consumable product, like Kellogg's.

Contrary to popular belief, most strikes do not include a boycott.

____________________________

If you personally don't feel comfy buying Kellogg's stuff while this is going on, or even ever again? You do you, boo.

But you do realize just how much Kellogg's owns, right?

I'm genuinely asking, do you realize exactly how much work you're going to have to put in to ensure that they don't get even a dime?

In case it's difficult to see, Kellogg's also owns a ton of non-cereal brands: Eggo, Nutri-Grain, Pringles, Pop-Tarts... and even more. They also own Dorset Cereals, and Twinings Tea. They also own the UK department store brand, Primark (sort of the UK version of Target).

They own 38 companies/brands in food/beverage products alone. (Not counting separate flavors or variations in every single brand. For example, there are 16 separate types of Cheez-Its... and multiple flavors for each type.)

It is a full time job just to be sure that one thing you wanna buy isn't owned by Kellogg's.

_________________________

By the way, while you're compiling that big list of stuff you don't want to buy... you'd better add all the stuff from Nestle, Mondelez, and General Mills too... because all of these companies and Kellogg's are actually owned by a single parent company.

Also, Nestle has a joint company with Coca-Cola called Beverage Partners Worldwide, so all Coca-Cola brands and products (there are at least 25 brands here too, and each with their own product list) would have to be tracked and included in your big list of "Bad Stuff".

There is no such thing as "ethical consumption" in the late-stage dystopian capitalism that we live under.

About 75% of the brands in that graphic are owned by a single parent company.

Nestle, Wonka, Coca-Cola, General Mills, Associated British Foods, Cadbury, Mondelez, and Kellogg's up there? All owned by a single parent company.

FairLife dairy, Coco Tipo coconut water, Bacardi mixers, Costa Coffee, Dunkin Donuts, Vitaminwater, Minute Maid, and Odwalla smoothies are all also owned by Coca-Cola (which is owned by the parent company that owns Kellogg's) so you'd better put them on your list too.

If you thought you were making an Ethical Choice(TM) by getting a box of Kashi cereal, an RxBar, and a bottle of FairLife milk? You just bought Kellogg's products.

Even a lot of generic brands are also owned by companies like Kellogg's...

For example, Walgreen's in-house generic "Nice(TM)" Brand is owned & produced by Kraft. Which is owned by General Foods. Which is owned by Nabisco. Which is owned by Mondelez. Which is owned by the same parent company that owns Kellogg's.

Destroy any illusion you have of free market, or "consumer choice"... because it hasn't existed in decades.

_____________________________

While you're thinking about that, also think about the actual commitment to a true boycott... time, energy, and financial.

There are millions of people who do not have the available energy or time required to go through their entire list of daily consumable products to ensure that none of them are from a company that Kellogg's owns (or a parent or sister company or subsidiary). Or to go through all these products and find suitable alternatives.

Most of the things that Kellogg's actually produces are food & beverage. People still need to eat. That's not a luxury item, or a need that can just be turned off.

There are millions of people in the US (Kellogg's prime market) who quite literally cannot afford to spend the time going through every item they need, figuring out if it belongs to a company anywhere in the Kellogg's chain, finding a substitute that somehow isn't owned by any of those companies, finding somewhere that sells it, getting there, and buying it instead.

A lot of these same people are also struggling financially and literally cannot afford the higher prices of a non-Kellogg's product, even without the added stress of a pandemic that a large portion of the globe is ignoring, and 50+ million Americans still being out of work, and millions more on significantly decreased salaries, compared to what they were making pre-pandemic.

I'll use myself as the example for this one... pre-pandemic, I made $53,000 annually. I lost my job in March of 2020, and managed to scrape by on a combination of unemployment checks, savings, and a few short temp jobs for over a year, until I landed the temp job I currently have... which is still a $13,000 pay cut from where I was before. $13k is about my yearly cost for rent and utilities... which haven't gone down, despite the significant pay cut.

And I am luckier than most.

Ethical consumption in late-stage dystopian capitalism is impossible for nearly every single consumer.

There are millions of families and individuals that, if they didn't buy Kellogg's products, would starve. That is the fault of the SYSTEM we live under, not the consumer who bought a box of Frosted Flakes.

Maybe that same consumer can write a support letter to a striker. Maybe they can tweet about the strike to let other people know it's happening, and influence public opinion. Maybe they can manage a $5 donation to a strike fund.

All of which, by the way, are specific things that the Kellogg's strikers have actually asked for.

You learn a lot of this stuff if you have Teamsters in your family, and I'm well aware that the American government in particular works very hard to keep their populace from learning any of it.

But it also relates back to a simple principle that applies to nearly all relationships and interactions in life... not just when dealing with a strike.

"If you truly want to help someone, ask them how you can do that. Provide help according to the needs they tell you. If you're only interested in offering the help you want to give, then you're not as interested in helping as you think you are."

__________________________

If you decide that you have the time, energy, and money to commit to not buying any products from any companies in the entire Kellogg's chain, and that's what you need to do to feel like you're a good person?

Go ahead. I'm not stopping you.

It's when you decide that a publicized boycott is what the strikers want (contrary to their official statements and requests), and that anyone who is unable or unwilling to do the same is irredeemably morally bankrupt, that we have a problem.