For what it's worth, when I see that term used, it's not about criticizing consumption for being amoral. Rather it's about pointing out that, if all consumption is unethical under capitalism, then you can't ultimately live without contributing to that in some way through consumption.

Like, we need food to live for instance, so let's say you get a salad, you'd feel bad because, in America at least, those ingredients probably being farmed by abused immigrant workers for shit wages. But you can't fight to uplift those workers if you're dead by starvation. So try to limit the harm, but understand that no one is living a perfectly moral life under capitalism so don't beat yourself up too much when you don't live perfectly morally either.

That's generally how I see "no ethical consumption under capitalism" used by people. Of course sometimes that itself becomes a shield for criticism but that's a different can of worms.

Leftists keep getting distracted by moralising.

It is easier than trying to analyse material conditions.

I always interpreted as “shifting consumption patterns under capitalism won’t end capitalism.” Not that shifting consumption patterns is in and of itself, a bad thing, but that it has to be understood that it has its limits in what it can accomplish.

Can someone explain to me the results of consumer actions that are going to help us get to communism?

I don't think anyone was ever trying to say we should only take ethically pure actions (because there is no such thing, this is just silly tbh). That seems like a purposeful misunderstanding of the phrase similar to the argument every liberal makes about purity tests during elections.

The whole point is that it doesn't matter what you buy under capitalism because exploitation exists at every level. Focusing on what we buy is a distraction from the things that can actually make real change like building a vanguard. I guess you could make an argument that boycotts and such can be used as an avenue to radicalize people, but that's true of just about everything because capitalism relies on exploitation at all levels.

And you're talking about reforming consumption, which is a waste of time. Reforms do not work, we've had a century of reforms and look where we are today.

It was coined in response to baby leftists getting angry at tyler buying a fried bacon mcwhopper with the money he made from his job as an uber driver. Its antiquated for the current levels of class consciousness amongst the american working class.

It's an observation made in dialogue a hypothetical lib

It’s good you’re making new site taglines but be careful, someone might take this post seriously…

Maybe I'm shit at reading between the lines but I don't get if you think consumer action does in fact lift the working class?

My two cents is that "shaming" people for their consumption is more alienating than rallying and that the petit bourgeoisie has a lot more power in choosing what they consume for obvious money reasons ; and that therefore consumer action isn't working in favour of class consciousness. What do you think?

Is that a Switch2 in your hand?

I used the term when some lib points out that me owning a phone means I can't be a communist

at some point we are going to have to boycott everything

Man is it such a banger bar though.

It's the same as how even an abolitionist would profit from slavery. Purchasing goods that are produced or harvested using the exploitation of others will never be ethical!

we gotta borrow from the atheist in foxholes phrase and start saying "there is no ethical consumption under capitalism - this is not an argument against consumption"

Look, I'm sorry but if someone wants both communism and funko pops, they aren't a real communist. That's the rules.