What did he mean by this?

What did he mean by this?

Tweeting #ResistCapitalism is nice and all but it's the ultimate armchair move

Maybe, but I think there might be more to it than that.

I know I'm a christfag, but this is some real spooky shit.

It's true there is no reason you can't own an iPhone if you're a communist, but if your life revolves around an endless consumption of expensive commodities, people do indeed question your dedication. this doesn't mean you can't own anything nice, but I feel alunya's frustration when I see people literally living lastman-mode.

Nobody's actually saying "no ethical consumption under capitalism" in defense of the speaker though

it's cool.
We're on the same page this time, friend.

We'll disagree here, because I have seen people use it exactly that way on far too many occassions.

It's all about where you put your effort. if you focus all day and night on pursuing consumerist urges, you have no time for leftist activities. If you spend all your time and energy repressing even your tiniest of vices, you fail all the same.

So go out, buy that pack of cigs, jerk off to your loli and watch your favorite shitty hollywood flick, once you've gotten past the refractory period, do something useful.

There is a fundamental paradox in the realm of ethics and consumer capitalism. The statement "there is no ethical consumption under capitalism" rings fundamentally true: there are always stages in the cycle of production-consumption that necessitates exploitation. At the same time, (most) people tend to strive towards living ethical lives, which comes into conflict with the fact that consumption (to at least some capacity) is a necessity under modern capitalism. That leaves you with two possible logical conclusions to the paradox: eliminate the systemic exploitation that makes consumption unethical or re-orient one's ethics so that the exploitation is no longer unethical.

To the socialist, the goal is obviously the former resolution: if one eliminates capitalism and the exploitation it entails, then consumption (assuming it does not come at the detriment of the public at large through over-expenditure of resources) ceases to be unethical. Most would also say that the cultural attitude of consumerism is fundamentally unsustainable and needs to be done away with for a number of reasons, but that's not the larger point in this case.

To the unabashed capitalist, the goal is the latter resolution: if they internalize the notion that capitalism is not exploitative (and indeed is interpreted as a fundamentally and universally beneficial system), then consumption not only ceases to be unethical, but becomes among the most ethical things one can do. At least in terms of logic one uses to justify one's own actions, the conflict is resolved.

Then you have the "socially conscious" liberals who recognize that exploitation does occur under capitalism but have internalized capitalist ideology to the point where they see it as an unassailable (or in many cases "natural") system. To them, neither of the two proposed resolutions are suitable to fit in the framework of their own internal logic. Thus, rather than actually address the conflict directly, the foundational premise must be altered. To some, they will simply assert that conscious observance of the ethical practices involved in every part of their consumer life is enough to ensure that the worse exploitation is not given a market to propagate. This ultimately proves impractical and impossible in a world of globalized production however, as few instances of the productive process can be wholly assessed from beginning to end (not even taking into account the exhaustive effort placed on the consumer themselves trying to chase down such information for every purchase they make).
The second possible conclusion arises from the failure of this first liberal strategy and involves rephrasing the initial premise: there is no way to consciously consume under capitalism. Then a logical leap happens: if there is no individual agency in the ethics of consumption, and if consumption is necessary, then all consumption by extension must be ethically neutral. This conclusion, while not logically sound when probed to any great extent, absolves the individual of responsibility when giving themselves over to consumerism while allowing them to still remain at least superficially critical of consumerism at large. In this too, the tagline that was used by the socialist as an indictment of capitalist consumerism becomes a statement of complacency in it; the logic is twisted and malformed to mean the exact opposite of what it was intended.

There's no ethical consumption but there is more ethical consumption

Meant to say "there is no way to consciously consume ethically under capitalism" in the last paragraph.

Obviously, the right thing to do is to consume LESS. It's not rocket science.

Can't win

Holy fucking shit what is wrong with you retards. Consume whatever the fuck you want in capitalism, either way it doesn't matter. There is no hypocrisy as there is no anti capitalist faction you can support. There is ONLY capitalism so there is only an illusion of choice. Choosing to make arbitrary decisions on consumption is the height of lifestylism and should be denounced

...

You're a retard go be anprim somewhere else, relinquish all your belongings and go live in the bush.

Marx and Engels never purchased a single thing in their lives, they didn't even have a single piece of paper to wipe their asses.

Don't try to make consumerism look good, please!

It's a neutral subject, because ultimately it's irrelevant. You don't accomplish anything by detracting or supporting

I think giving porky more money than necessary should be a bad thing.

You live, therefore you must consume, your individual consumption practices are irrelevant in the wider scale because ultimate you cannot definitively exit consumption cyclicality

I had this discussion with someone on my /neetsoc/ board when they asked if porn is ok or degrading to women. I answered that there is no ethical consumption under capitalism.

I consume what I want. When I want. I just keep an eye out on those bank statements. Being a NEET, even though I make some money with my home business, I don't want to go too overboard with spending. I want to be able to cover my expenses and even save some money. I actually feel guilty when I spend like $100+/month on fast food. Or when I saw a whore for $60 last week. Because I know that this isn't the best use of money. But you need to spoil yourself now and then (I regret blowing the $60 on the hooker because she was terrible. But fast food? If I want to eat chicken tendies, why should I have chicken tendies?)

...

i guess almost anything is meaningless in the grand scheme of things huh

If that's how u interpret this then kys right now

The bottom line is that life sucks. And if buying vidya, buying an iPhone is going to make you happier, then why not go for it?

For me, I have a 3+ year old Android smartphone. It's kinda slow these days but I'm too cheap to upgrade. And I don't have a PS4 or Xbox One. I just have my old PS3 and Xbox 360 (I also have a 3DS and PS Vita). I lost interest in vidya ages ago. I don't have a gaming rig. I just have a basic laptop that is fast for what I need it to do (browsing, shitposting, Word, Excel, Netflix).

I thought about getting a Nintendo Switch because it seems cool. But a Switch will cost more than my laptop and I barely play vidya anymore. Do I really need a Nintendo Switch? Or is it just gonna end up collecting dust in my parents' basement?

For me, in terms of how I spend "disposable income", I find that for me it's fast food (tendies, poutine, fries, pizza, bottles of coke zero), junk food, Netflix. And I saw 1 whore within the past year. For entertainment, I watch a lot of YouTube, Netflix and shitpost a lot. It sounds really dull. But I don't enjoy vidya or animu anymore. But I might just force myself back into vidya just so that I have something else to do. I've pretty much watched all that I need on Netflix. I'm stir crazy because I'm waiting for new seasons of my favourite shows on Netflix to come out.

I was watching a lot of The Young Turks and RT America on YouTube as well. And it's just the same old bullshit. Fucking boring. It's like 4AM and I'm like just trying to figure out what to do basically. I don't feel like I had any sort of contentment all day. I've just been shitposting a lot and doing whatever the fuck. I was writing some erotica and jacked off. I don't even remember what the fuck I have been doing for the past 10 hours after I woke up other than that.

Nope, it's interpassivity.

Armchair implies you're not pretending to contribute, but criticizing/ignoring those who are instead.


I believe giving proles more than enough money is a bad thing.

why does leftypol always read so much into shit? it's like this comic where faggots took it as a personnal insult to them that their failures in getting laid were less than relevent in the current conversation. Now people think the saying "No Ethical Consumption" means they don't even need to be a socialist. this is leftcom tier tbh.

Ethical consumption contributes the empirical totality of less than nothing to socialism. It is so irrelevant and trite that it is worse than even liberalism…it is lifestylism.

...

The people who made this should be hanged, jesus christ

There is no ethical consumption under capitalism but there is less unethical consumption.

If you lay a finger on papa I will get you.

Implying people aren't spooked as fuck by consumerism. Are you spendin your cash according to your self interest, or just doing what porky told you to? it's the latter

all the OP is saying is that the truism that there's no ethical consumption under capitalism doesn't mean you should give yourself carte blanche to lose yourself in mindless consumerism. the aforementioned truism is a criticism of 'voting with your dollars' which is supported by a Marxist analysis of labour. it was never an excuse to throw one's hands up in the air and be uncritical of mindless consumption for the sake of consumption.

critiquing consumerism easily gets into petitbourgeois nonsense territory ('poor people need to spend less and they'll be happy' and such drivel), but consider that if you work for a living (like most proletarians do), you potentially give up hours of your life to spend on things that you may not need, and that may not prove to be of as much utility to you as the capitalist who just pocketed your dollars in exchange for it.

OP's arguing against the 'absurd absolute', a simple tell for cognitive dissonance. People will use the absurd absolute to argue their point of view; it's a simple enough trap for uninformed people to fall into using.

I buy accelorationist. Only the cheapest goods, so I'm sure there is minimal profit and maximal exploitation. Gotta go through the capitalist phase fast.

It allows me to indulge in my natural cheapness also.

wrong see