Comment on Another 62 ‘Girls Do Porn’ Victims Sue Pornhub for $600 Million
scarabic@lemmy.world 11 months agoI find this word brought out all the time and used as a scapegoat for us to pile all our sins onto and then stone it to death. It’s not us, it’s capitalism!
Ookami38@sh.itjust.works 11 months ago
It’s not about piling your sins on a scapegoat, it’s about being realistic. One CANNOT live ethically if you consider the sins of whatever company they’re buying from the sins of the consumer.
The broader goal of saying there’s no ethical consumption under capitalism is saying, “hey this system is flawed, and we’re all perpetuating it. Let’s acknowledge that so we can work together better it.”
nihth@programming.dev 11 months ago
I have seen this argument a few times lately but I’m not sure i understand it completely.
Is the argument that person 1 trades with company 1 which is seemingly run ethically. Company 1 trades with company 2, 2 with 3 etc.
And then eventually company x trades with x+1 which is some human rights breaking company. And then all seemingly ethical companies have this link or trail of trade partners which eventually end up at some unethical company?
Ookami38@sh.itjust.works 11 months ago
Pretty much. The idea is that capitalism forces companies to create goods at the cheapest possible price. Eventually, this means the company will rely on outsourcing labor to a country with less-than-stellar human rights conditions. For instance, we all know how shit most Chinese factory labor conditions are. Now think of just how many things you find are “made in China” stamped.
At the most undeniable level there’s that. You can also take the approach that any kind of profit that a company is making, they’re only making off the labor of their workers. That profit, thus, should belong to them, not the capital owners. This position is a bit tougher to argue, but it’s also valid.
nihth@programming.dev 11 months ago
Alright, that makes sense, thanks for the info :)