• Flying Squid
    link
    fedilink
    English
    1113 months ago

    And, according to John Oliver, even the chocolate companies that try to only source their product from child labor-free sources, they say they can’t guarantee it. That’s how much and how often children are used on these farms.

    After seeing that John Oliver report, I’m never eating chocolate again. All I would be able to do would be to think of those kids.

    And yes, I realize that other products I have are made from child labor, but chocolate is a pretty easy one to give up.

    • @[email protected]
      link
      fedilink
      English
      523 months ago

      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.

      • @[email protected]
        link
        fedilink
        English
        453 months ago

        “There is no ethical consumption under capitalism.”

        It’s not an air-headed anarchist/socialist slogan. It’s just the truth at scale.

        • @[email protected]
          link
          fedilink
          English
          93 months ago

          how people fail to grasp the meaning of this expression, beautiful in its simplicity, still amuses me to this day.

          • PorkRoll
            link
            fedilink
            English
            173 months ago

            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.

            • @[email protected]
              link
              fedilink
              English
              53 months ago

              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.

              • @[email protected]
                link
                fedilink
                English
                23 months ago

                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.

          • @[email protected]
            link
            fedilink
            English
            1
            edit-2
            3 months ago

            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.

            • @[email protected]
              link
              fedilink
              English
              23 months ago

              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.

        • @[email protected]
          link
          fedilink
          English
          83 months ago

          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.

          • @[email protected]
            link
            fedilink
            English
            2
            edit-2
            3 months ago

            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.

          • @[email protected]
            link
            fedilink
            English
            23 months ago

            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.

        • FarraigePlaisteach
          link
          fedilink
          3
          edit-2
          3 months ago

          Absolutely true. But under what system is there significantly less exploitation? Too many people are selfish, cruel or both.

          • @[email protected]
            link
            fedilink
            English
            5
            edit-2
            3 months ago

            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…