#consumerism

[peyton-westwood]

gen z seems to believe that money can buy happiness. are they right? in my opinion? no. but our rampant consumerism and materialism might be indicative of confidence, or lack thereof, of our economic potential. i discuss all of this and more in my new article, here:

can you really buy happiness? gen z and the lipstick effect

gen z seems to believe happiness = access to money and things. what might our obsession with material objects reveal about our generation, t

[clovurspeltwrong]

my family has an issue where they forget what groceries/ingredients we have so theres a bunch of old random things i happen to get my hands on when they dont do anything with them... so heres some stuff ive been doing to stop that food from going to waste

-an ENTIRE bag of mini cucumbers that had begun to get visibly old 😭: did a quick korean inspired cucumber salad for meal prep (also using up a quarter of an onion that weve had for a week), cut the rest into spears to pickle using leftover pickle juice

-mushy peaches + strawberries: diced and simmered for a quick summery syrup thats very nice in iced teas and matcha

-random half finished plates of leafy raw veggies (usually lettuce or some chinese vegetables idk the name of in english): this is prob controversial but i throw them in smoothies with fruits.... it sounds bad but lowk u can barely taste it plus it makes me feel healthy

-old/mushy apples: stewed apples to mix into yogurt! this one was very good although even 1 apple lowk makes a lot of servings (i used 2 and i think i'll get a good 5 bowls out of it ngl)

[kneesnipplesandnonsense]

People already saying they're going to buy the Ocarina of Time remake like jesus christ they barely gave us a teaser of a game that's already been remade once and rereleased 3 seperate times and you're already going to drop $60???

[alienspacegirl]

Sometimes I get sad because there’s so much makeup out there and I won’t be able to try them all 🥀

[kalasangan]

gtfo with your overpriced katol, diptyque

(right now, US$1 = PH₱61.37)

[chatsintowolves]

“No Ethical Consumption Under Late Capitalism”

Consumerism and Individualist Ethics

This is a provocative phrase often associated with leftist and critical theory circles, particularly drawing from the works of thinkers like Theodor Adorno, Max Horkheimer, and more contemporary critics like Mark Fisher. The argument isn’t that individual consumers are immoral, but that the structure of late capitalism makes truly “ethical” consumption structurally impossible.

Here’s a breakdown of the core arguments.

1. The Illusion of Consumer Sovereignty

The idea of “ethical consumption” rests on the premise that consumers have meaningful power. By choosing the “right” products—fair trade, organic, cruelty-free—one can vote with their dollar and shape the market.

Critics argue this is a delusion. In late capitalism, production is controlled by a small number of massive, transnational corporations. Consumer choice is not a form of democratic power but a curated set of options designed to maintain the system’s core logic: endless growth and capital accumulation. You can choose which multinational conglomerate gets your money, but you cannot choose a system that isn’t predicated on exploitation.

2. The Problem of Supply Chains

Even the most carefully chosen product exists within a global supply chain that is designed to be opaque. “Ethical” claims often address only the most visible forms of exploitation.

· Exploitation is systemic: A t-shirt labeled “fair trade” might ensure the cotton farmer received a marginally better price, but it was likely still sewn on a machine made with conflict minerals, shipped on a container vessel powered by heavy fuel oil, and distributed by workers without collective bargaining rights.

· Externalities are hidden: The true costs—environmental degradation, carbon emissions, colonial resource extraction, and labor exploitation—are “externalized,” meaning they are not reflected in the price and are systematically obscured from the consumer.

· Impossible oversight: It is functionally impossible for a consumer to verify the ethical integrity of every single input in a modern commodity. The complexity of the supply chain guarantees that somewhere, exploitation exists.

3. The Co-optation of Ethics (Greenwashing and Fairwashing)

Late capitalism has proven extraordinarily adept at absorbing critique and turning it into a marketable aesthetic. “Ethics” becomes a commodity itself.

· Ethical branding: Companies don’t change their exploitative practices; they simply market a “conscious” line of products. The same corporation that devastates rainforests for one product will sell a “sustainable” version of another, using the ethical label to absorb guilt and maintain overall market share.

· Privatization of responsibility: The concept of “ethical consumption” shifts the burden of systemic problems—like climate change or labor rights—from governments and corporations onto the individual. The focus becomes whether you recycled the right way or bought the right sneakers, rather than on the systemic structures that make mass exploitation and ecological destruction inevitable.

4. The Impossibility of Non-Participation

A core tenet of the argument is that there is no outside. You cannot opt out of late capitalism by shopping “ethically” because the system is totalizing.

· Necessity vs. choice: Participation in the consumer economy is not a choice but a condition of survival. You need food, clothing, shelter, and medicine. In a capitalist system, these are commodities. To survive, you must engage in transactions with corporations whose supply chains are inextricably tied to exploitation.

· No ethical zone: There is no ethical “sector” of the economy that is sealed off from the rest. Even if you grow your own food, you likely rely on a globalized system for tools, seeds, energy, and land titles. The system is a seamless totality; you cannot support one part without indirectly supporting the whole.

5. Foundational Exploitation

From a Marxist perspective, the critique goes deeper. The very category of “ethical consumption” ignores the foundational exploitation upon which capitalism is built.

Capitalism’s primary contradiction is between labor and capital. Profit is generated by paying workers less than the value they create (exploitation). Therefore, the act of consuming any commodity produced under capitalist relations of production is, by definition, participating in the realization of that surplus value. You cannot ethically consume your way out of a system whose foundational mechanism is exploitation. You are simply choosing which exploited worker’s labor you are going to profit from.

6. The Impossibility of Systemic Change Through Consumption

Finally, critics argue that the focus on “ethical consumption” is a political dead end. It treats a systemic crisis as a series of individual moral choices.

· Individual vs. structural: Climate change, wealth inequality, and precarious labor are structural problems. They require structural solutions: regulation, unionization, collective ownership, and political transformation. Individual consumption choices, no matter how well-intentioned, cannot solve structural problems. They can, at best, make an individual feel morally virtuous within a system they cannot change.

· The function of guilt: In this view, “ethical consumption” acts as a pressure valve. By giving consumers a way to feel they are “doing their part,” it dissipates the collective anger and political energy that would be required to challenge the system itself.

Conclusion

The claim that “there is no ethical consumption under late capitalism” is not an argument for nihilism or apathy. Instead, it is a critique of the idea that shopping can be a vehicle for morality or political change.

It argues that late capitalism is a total system that has made exploitation and ecological destruction structural necessities. While individuals can and should try to minimize harm, the very act of consumption—which is required for survival—entangles one in a web of exploitation that no individual choice can escape. Therefore, if one seeks genuine ethical alignment, the focus must shift from what one consumes to a collective effort to change how production and society are organized.

[zsoltzsemba]

Standing in Line for a Phone? It's a Problem. https://wp.me/p84YjG-aWe #hypeculturee #consumerism #sneakerculture #iPhone #standingInLine #FOMO #brandobsession #wasteoftime #beingfirst #minimalism #timeisvaluable #wakeup #zsoltzsemba

Standing in Line for a Phone? It's a Problem.