snowdriftissue

Vote with your dollar/ethical consumerism is not effective at bringing political or economic change

https://lemmy.world/post/42505124

Vote with your dollar/ethical consumerism is not effective at bringing political or economic change - Lemmy.World

I’m kind of surprised that this seems to be an unpopular opinion around here, since I’ve always thought of Lemmy as being pretty leftist as opposed to liberal/capitalist, but there seems to be a base assumption here that voting with your dollar and trying to purchase the most “ethical” thing through the most “ethical” channels is worth the time and energy. To me it has always seemed intuitive. I mean, what is the goal anyway? If the goal is to destroy the company you hate and replace it with the one you like (which btw you won’t, for many reasons), you’re doomed from the start because capitalism is gonna capitalism, and that brand you like and think is more ethical is at the end of a day, still a brand whose primary purpose is to make money, and they will put that above all else. If the goal is for the unethical company to make a smaller, more specific change, you’re also doomed because the company you’re silently protesting has no idea why you’ve stopped spending money with them, and likely doesn’t care so long as others continue to spend. To me, it seems more about making you feel good about yourself than bringing about real change. Which is further supported by the hostility that often comes with ethical consumerism towards people who don’t engage with it - people who fundamentally agree with them but who apparently must be shunned for their purchasing decisions. Obviously I’m all up for humiliating Cybertruck owners or whatever, but there’s a limit. This brings me into the other problems with ethical consumerist rhetoric - it takes an inordinate amount of time because you have to research every company you engage with in every area to find the “most ethical” one, whatever that means, as well as the subsidiaries of those companies so you can recognize them in the wild. This time could be better spent toward much more productive activities that actually have the potential to bring about change. “More ethical” products also tend to be more expensive, and for this reason low income people typically can’t engage in ethical consumerism. This money is likely also better spent donated toward organizations trying to bring about real sociopolitical/economic change. I also draw a distinction between “vote with your dollar”/“ethical consumerist” rhetoric and well-organized boycotts with specific demands because these types of boycotts have actually been effective in the past, and it makes intuitive sense why. When you have a lot of organized people who together have lots of buying power asking for one specific thing, with the carrot of “if you do x specific thing, we will come back and start spending again,” rather than the vague ethical consumerist position of “you’re not ethical enough for me,” all of a sudden it makes good financial sense to the company to make that specific change. The successful boycotts I’ve seen in the past have met both of these criteria. Sorry this got to be so long and sorry if there are errors in it, I just kind of word vomited.

Feb 1 at 1:54pmWeb
Show threadMaeveFeb 1
💡
Show threadfyrilsolFeb 1

It is effective. The only reason you may feel that it isn't effective, is because larger groups of people aren't doing it.

Sure, 50 some odd people who decide to not shop at Amazon, you sneeze at that.

But if 100,000 or a million people, decided not to shop Amazon. Yeah that's going to have an effect and it'll say something.

Show threadsnowdriftissueFeb 1

that’s going to have an effect and it’ll say something.

Sure, if you somehow were able to accomplish this feat and get millions of people to stop going to Amazon, it would cut into Amazon’s profits. But what is the statement? And what is the desired outcome? Amazon won’t die, they have AWS which is most of their profits. Even if they did something equally shitty would likely replace them.

And where should consumers go instead? I don’t think walmart is more “ethical” overall than amazon, or costco or ebay or fedex or ups or whatever. So what’s the point? Why should I spend all this time and energy splitting hairs when I could be organizing, participating in established boycotts with specific actionable demands, striking, voting with my vote in the few direct democratic systems that exist, donating to organizations trying to make systemic change, and volunteering in my local community mutual aid groups?

Show threadfyrilsolFeb 1

Hey you're the one who made the opinion in the first place, the ball is in your court on this one.

The statement is clear as day for you, I'm not spelling it out.

Show threadheshFeb 1
Hopefuply Walmart is not the only alternative you have to Amazon. Support smaller and local businesses. Your business does make a difference to their future.
Show threadFlashMobOfOneFeb 1

Yup, that’s because it’s wholly possible for corporations to create an ecosystem where only the illusion of choice resists.

In many small towns throughout the US, your only choices for getting the things you need are Amazon or Walmart, for example.

Show threadlastaFeb 1

I think voting with your wallet can be effective on smaller levels: in local communities where reputation matters, in a market where there are enough competitors (not monopolies), when the thing you are “voting” against is the only/major source of revenue, or when the demands are very specific. If anyone has an example of this strategy working on a large scale, I’d be curious to hear it.

Like you said, the organization you are boycotting has to be aware of why it is happening and what is the change that is being demanded. Then, a large enough number of people have to participate to make an impact, which can be hard to do when there aren’t many ethical alternatives. Many people aren’t aware just how many “smaller” companies are owned by the same handful of large corporations, the alternatives are expensive or inaccessible, or they simply don’t care enough to inconvenience themselves.

In some cases the owners of the boycotted business have their roots deep enough in other institutions (government contracts, workplaces, schools) that they don’t depend on the average consumer.

Show threadsobchakFeb 1
I’m guessing it’s effective to some extent, else companies wouldn’t spend so much time green washing, pink washing, etc. To some extent, I do try to support the lesser evil, even though I think there’s a lot of truth to, “there is no ethical consumption under capitalism.” I mostly just do it out of principal, not caring if it’s effective or not.
Show threadsnowdriftissueFeb 2
This is a good point, it certainly seems to impact branding/how companies choose to present themselves.
Show threadheshFeb 1
Aside from whether I think it can have any impact (I do), from a moral standpoint I just don’t want to give my money to evil.
Show threadpinball_wizardFeb 1

Exactly.

I know I’m not going to take down a Kaiju with a flare gun.

But I’m sure as shit still going to spit in it’s eye when I get the chance.

Show threadsnowdriftissueFeb 2
Fair enough. I guess I just don’t have much faith that any profit seeking companies are not evil or won’t become evil once they find success, so I don’t really get any catharsis from moving from one to another over moral grounds. Which is why I try to focus on avoiding companies altogether when possible, instead going with community made alternatives (e.g. lemmy > reddit) which to me represent something more revolutionary. Any less fundamental changes than that generally feel pointless to me.
Show threadheshFeb 2
There’s definitely a difference between giving money to mom & pop down the street so they can afford their rent, and giving it to Bezos so he can fund fascism, right?
Show threadsnowdriftissueFeb 2
Honestly wouldn’t count on it. Most small business owners at least in my area are huge Trump supporters or zionists. And even if they weren’t, if everyone went there they’d just become the new Amazon.
Show threadheshFeb 2
Just because the world is complicated and there’s not a simple clean choice doesnt mean you should choose the most harmful option
Show threadsnowdriftissueFeb 2
How exactly do you come to the conclusion that buying from Amazon is “more harmful”?
Show threadheshFeb 2
Cuz Bezos directly funds the regime with those profits
Show threadsnowdriftissueFeb 2
So does my local mom and pop business owner. In fact they probably donate a larger fraction of their net worth than bezos.
Show threadheshFeb 2
If you don’t see that mega corps like Amazon are a bigger problem for society than the individuals in your town there’s a lot more to go into than I can right now. PS. All this debate is in good faith!
Show threadsnowdriftissueFeb 2
Of course mega corps are a bigger problem than owners in my town specifically. I’m just trying to understand what the end goal even is if we were somehow able to convince the whole country to do ethical consumerism.
Show threadheshFeb 2
Before big corp stores like Amazon and Walmart came along, towns had a lot more small business that helped the local communities thrive. Then the big stores (using unfair leverage) put them all nearly out of business, with average Americans unable to resist the subsidized low prices and free shipping then turning their back on their neighbor’s store. What followed was the decimation of small town economies and the ability for working people to earn a decent living. Meanwhile, the centralization of all that profit and power in a few hands has allowed the creation of the oligarchy we have today. So what would life be like if every American stopped patronizing Amazon and started funding their local community? All of that would start to become undone, and we would begin to regain that lost prosperity and wrest control over our politics away from billionaire oligarchs.
Show threadsnowdriftissueFeb 2

I’m just not convinced things were as peachy as you describe. Basically since the beginnings of capitalism there have been people with power and influence similar to modern billionaires. It is just the natural trajectory of capitalism for those people to accrue more and more wealth and increase the gap between those at the bottom of the socioeconomic hierarchy.

Small town businesses abuse their employees and rip off their customers as much or more in my experience than big businesses. And many of them are directly politically opposed to me. I just don’t see them as ethically better.

So what would life be like if every American stopped patronizing Amazon and started funding their local community? All of that would start to become undone, and we would begin to regain that lost prosperity and wrest control over our politics away from billionaire oligarchs.

And I don’t think this is true either - if people spent their money locally on small businesses and their criteria for where they spent their money primarily revolved around that, all that would do is prop up more local oligarchs and turn those small businesses into the big businesses you say are worse.

Show threadheshFeb 2
Bezos has oligarch powers because Amazon has control of such a huge portion of the market. If we all shopped at 20 million different stores instead of the same one, we would not recreate the same oligarch power. Breaking up monopoly power by keeping market share from consolidating under one set of owners is econ 101. The way things are today is not the way it has always been, or the way it naturally must be. The level of inequality today is orders of magnitude worse than it was even earlier in my lifetime. We lost more and more control by allowing these mega corps to runaway without guardrails.
Show threadsnowdriftissueFeb 2

If we all shopped at 20 million different stores instead of the same one, we would not recreate the same oligarch power.

Even if it didn’t, which I’m still skeptical of, the products on the shelves would likely still become consolidated into mega corps. The shipping companies would consolidate. Every piece of the supply chain that the consumer doesn’t have direct control over would consolidate. Would that really be that much better than the current situation?

Show threadheshFeb 2
Fair, but the only way to combat that would be to have more shopping options: Different stores with different suppliers ingested of fewer stores with more centralized suppliers. And the only way to make sure those options exist is for people to vote with their wallets and keep them alive, instead of giving in and shipping at Amazon. The problems you’re describing seem to me to be directly caused by not voting with your wallet in this way.
Show threadsnowdriftissueFeb 2
But this just lends to my point that it’s ridiculous to expect average consumers who are just trying to survive to juggle all of these things that they can’t easily see and which business owners have a direct incentive to hide. There’s a reason that ethical consumerism hasn’t worked.
Show threadheshFeb 2
It is ridiculous, and we shouldn’t have to worry about all this. Sadly the alternative is accelerating everything bad. So it’s up to those of us awake to the issue to do whatever we can.
Show threadsnowdriftissueFeb 2

Sadly the alternative is accelerating everything bad. So it’s up to those of us awake to the issue to do whatever we can.

I guess I just don’t think the only alternative is “ethical consumerism” and I don’t think that will ever create any significant change given how difficult it is to do well (if such a thing is even possible) and how few people realistically will ever engage with it to begin with. There are lots of methods of resistance, many of which have been shown to create real systemic change in the past and in my opinion are far more worth your time money and effort, including:

  • Participating in boycotts that are well-organized with specific actionable demands
  • Labor movements/union power
  • Donating to political orgs fighting for systemic change
  • Voting for direct democratic initiatives that push policy forward
  • Moving from for profit solutions to community built ones, buy nothing groups, mutual aid, etc.
Show threadheshFeb 2
Maybe so. To be clear I agree that doing all of those things is necessary, and don’t expect everything to change because I canceled my Prime account. But I also believe, at least for myself, that it would be hypocritical to believe those efforts are righteous while simultaneously paying money directly to the oligarchy when I have other options.
Show threadsnowdriftissueFeb 2

Fair enough. I don’t think being a hypocrite is such a bad thing :)

srslywrong.com/…/325-the-idea-of-hypocrisy/

325. The Idea of Hypocrisy – srsly wrong

Show threadRiskableFeb 1
It’s no different than other kinds of voting: It only works if everyone is well-informed.
Show threadZwuzelmausFeb 1

problems with ethical consumerist rhetoric

You are probably in Usa where the question of red/blue seems the only one that counts (while from an outside perspective, it is the one that counts the least).

Then you are right that you have hardly any influence on this question while doing your weekly grocery shopping.

But to know where you really put your money can make many other differences, and greater ones. But it needs some more thinking with your own head and your own heart.

Not letting some rhetorician or other do all the thinking for you.

Show threadFizzFeb 2

On a small scale it does nothing but if the sentiment is popular and people actually agree then it can in some.situations bring change. People’s opinions are often much less popular than they think.

However the massive companies are so diversified that they are impossible to boycott.

Show threadminorkeysFeb 2
Things exist where resources are. It’s a simple and always valid rule to live by. Direct your resources to the things you think wise to see exist. Withhold your resources from the things you think wise to not exist.
Show threadr0ertelFeb 2

I don’t really understand the purpose of “unpopular opinion”, so if I’m supposed to change your opinion, I won’t. However, what would you think about a vegan running around yelling, “meat is murder” and then sitting down to eat a bacon double cheeseburger?

What if really came to say is that your view has been covered before. Some choice quotes from the article:

any election that requires you to “vote with your wallet” is always won by the people with the thickest wallets

Conversely,

The Montgomery bus boycott was an organized project, put together by a powerful membership organization, the NAACP, that demanded far more of its members than merely shopping very carefully. The boycott was the end stage of an organized resistance, not a substitute for it.

Go read the article, it’ll refine your argument and maybe soften some aspects of it.

Pluralistic: The petty (but undeniable) delights of cultivating unoptimizability as a habit (22 Jan 2026) – Pluralistic: Daily links from Cory Doctorow

Show threadsnowdriftissueFeb 2

what would you think about a vegan running around yelling, “meat is murder” and then sitting down to eat a bacon double cheeseburger?

The hypocrisy argument really doesn’t hold much water. Real “yet you participate in society. Curious!” energy. It is ok to advocate for systemic change while participating in an unethical society. I’ll read the article though.

Show threadr0ertelFeb 2

Why doesn’t the hypocrisy argument hold water? I do it with some things to be able to look myself in the mirror. For example, I was shopping for a new pillow and was planning to get a My Pillow and then things happened and I can’t see myself laying my head on one. There are hundreds of good people who work hard to make it a good pillow, but the top guy put togerher a plan to overthrow the US government. I can’t get behind that.

Conversely, I’m sure that United Way has a pedophile or rapist or other miscreant on the payroll. Giving to them indirectly funds that, but they’re not advertising their behavior so i can still feel good to give 'em my donations.

Show threadsnowdriftissueFeb 3

Why doesn’t the hypocrisy argument hold water?

The wrong boys can explain it better than I can if you’re willing to listen to a podcast about it

srslywrong.com/…/325-the-idea-of-hypocrisy/

The meme I was referencing is this: knowyourmeme.com/…/we-should-improve-society-some…

325. The Idea of Hypocrisy – srsly wrong

Show threadLauchmelderFeb 2

Not a counter argument, not supposed to be one.

For me it’s less about bringing change and more about not giving money to people/corpos I dislike. It’s not perfect, I for sure don’t have a 100% success rate, but I feel better spending a bit more at a company that is probably fine instead of at Amazon and co.

I don’t expect any one company to change because of this, let alone the system. It’s just out of my own volition. I can’t avoid trading with companies and people in general, but I can choose who I trade with

Show threadParagoneFeb 3

True.

There are several fundamental problems, which, together, are anti-fragile/robust:

Assymetrical-leverage: corporations act to alter markets to suit them, & exactly as management generally won’t tollerate the workers acting together, to level-the-playing-field against management’s coherent torque,

so, too, corporations won’t tolerate individuals or activists leveling the playing-field against them, either.

Also, there’s nobody competing against moneyarchy/concentration-of-wealth-archy.

For all the leftists complaining vociferously that businesses ought be paying livingwage, etc, … all the left has to do is create businesses which do that?

& nobody will.

Natural Selection works, whether anybody competes against the “bad guys” or not, though: IF nobody competes against them, THEN … Natural Selection picks them, & they rule the future.

ONLY IF someone competes against moneyarchy & concentration-of-wealth-archy CAN Natural Selection ever decide otherwise.

Also, without real education & real journalism, there’s no point in pretending the other 2 dimensions have all they need to coerce our world into level-playing-field.

Here’s a gift of excellent-meanings from a rather well-known author, Taleb, who also identifies problems with economics…

www.fooledbyrandomness.com/tenprinciples.pdf

_ /\ _