Ethical shopping in TK Maxx?

[TeeJay]

ethical handbags at dawn?

 

[bluestreak]

is it still an ethical handbag if you drop a half-brick in it before the fight?

 

[TeeJay]

But that would stretch it darling!

Don't you know how much they cost!

 

[Ryazan]

cheers. when i see a post of yours that presents a reasonable way of living the most ethically sound life possible in a capitalist system on a limited budget then i'll be offended.

My mother could give you a few pointers on that mate. And it wouldn't be about a silly bag from south America either.

 

[catch]

Do you even read the websites you link to TeeJay?

The bling binge has ignited a major increase in the diamond market. Recognizing the opportunity to encourage a diamond trade that is fair, equitable and benefits communities where the diamonds are mined and crafted - Kimora Simmons, founder of Baby Phat fashions and wife of Hip-Hop mogul Russell Simmons - partnered with diamond distributor M. Fabrikant to create Simmons Jewelry Co. The company inspects all diamonds to ensure they are conflict free and a large percentage of the profits benefit communities affected by the diamond trade. Recently, the company, which started in 2004, announced the release of a not-so-eco-but-nonetheless-socially-conscious $35,000 case for the Sony PSP portable gaming system. The iced out case is made out of a pound of gold, alligator skin (tsk!) and yellow and black conflict-free diamonds.

You want fashionable?

Try these:http://www.treehugger.com/files/accessories/index.php

 

[pinkmonkey]

Tk Maxx buy 'deadstock' (old, out of date, broken size runs, hard to shift stock) which usually means they buy it for less than the usual wholesale price, so the company that sells it to them often makes a small loss.

They also commision companies to make cheaper, lower quality versions of what they sell to everyone else (called downspeced), they are not the only company to do this, M & M sports and Designer Rooms do the same thing. That way they can sell it at a discount price.

They are the funeral directors of the fashion trade.

Finally re. Nike - they now have among the best ethical policy out there and they share a lot of factories with other brands (yes- including New Balance), so boycotting Nike I don't really get anymore. If you are truly worried about ethics, stop shopping in pound shops, buying cheap candles or xmas decorations. Those are the shithole factories in South East Aisa, the garment, shoe, bag factories are like palaces in comparison.

 

[bluestreak]

My mother could give you a few pointers on that mate. And it wouldn't be about a silly bag from south America either.

go on then. give her a call and share the wisdom. i'm serious. people often have trouble balancing a low income low impact life within a capitalist system and if your mum has the secret it would be rude not to pass it along.

 

[nadia]

I do believe that all unsold stock in tkmaxx is donated to charity at least in the US after being on the rails for about six weeks

 

[Ryazan]

go on then. give her a call and share the wisdom. i'm serious. people often have trouble balancing a low income low impact life within a capitalist system and if your mum has the secret it would be rude not to pass it along.

3 for 2's.

Handy when on income support.

 

[bluestreak]

3 for 2's.

Handy when on income support.

so basically you were just having a pointless snipe and have nothing whatsoever to offer other than sneering.

 

[rednblack]

plenty of respect lost on this thread from people who attack the system regularly but participate in it with a clear conscience, then attack those who worry about how their own participation works. nice, and it smells of hypocrisy. people aren't allowed to buy from charity shops, aren't allowed to buy from discount warehouses, ethical products are naive wiberal bullshit.

consume and die fellas, but don't forget that bitching about the system on the internet is the BEST way of undermining it.

don't be a fucking nob end - buying cheap nike stuff is probably the most ethical way of living on a budget - as others have pointed out their sweatshops are probably less bad than the ones for unbranded stuff, and there is no way of buying 'fair trade' stuff on my budget for a start.

who has said you can't buy from discount warehouses?

 

[mk12]

Cat boots are useful for wearing in a warehouse though.

 

[Ryazan]

so basically you were just having a pointless snipe and have nothing whatsoever to offer other than sneering.

Not a snipe at all. It is just pointless in some ways in trying to get a complete change in your consumer habits when on a low income. You will just end up annoying yourself if you do. From family experience, the least "ethical" options in the supermarket are sometimes the best choices to make when you have a tiny budget in which to feed the kids. Just a thought. Hardly taking the piss, being very serious. I just don't think that changing your consumer patterns is going to have that much of an impact in the long term, and it helps the profits of those that have placed themselves into the ethical niche when selling to guilt ridden people, who might want to spend their larger disposable incomes on a fair trade football, but most will head to JJB when there is a sale on.

I would buy a hemp donkey jacket if they were available though. Tartan-lined of course.

 

[FreddyB]

I buy a lot of clothes from auction, boxes of ex catalogue stuff surplus and bankrupt stock. Keep what I want/fits me and sell/give to mates the stuff that doesn't. Army surplus is good stuff as well but some places are ludicrously expensive.

Having absolutely no dress sense helps, apparently Swiss camo shirts should not be worn with versace jeans.

 

[dolly's gal]

hm, this is an interesting thread. i watched that documentary 'The Corporation' the other night. and while it succeeded in making me feel a bit guilty about buying clothes from GAP it didn't offer a viable or affordable alternative (cos let's face it, primark is just as bad). in fact, after an initial five minutes of feeling remorseful about my wardrobe, all it really did was make me think that the majority of boycotting is a load of old cobblers, and that's what i thought before i watched the film anyway. maybe if we made our own clothes, that would be ok. trouble is, i wouldn't know where to start with a pair of ugg boots!

 

[bluestreak]

don't be a fucking nob end - buying cheap nike stuff is probably the most ethical way of living on a budget - as others have pointed out their sweatshops are probably less bad than the ones for unbranded stuff, and there is no way of buying 'fair trade' stuff on my budget for a start.

who has said you can't buy from discount warehouses?

first point, don't be such a rude cunt. but the cheap nike stuff may be a goodd idea, however how does one get them when plenty of people on this thread have suggested that buying from tk maxx (a discount warehouse) is just as bad. this attacks the principal of trying to get goods without paying either top dollar or supporting companies that are, perceived as being partially responsible for bad ethical practices. after all, i would suggest that if there hadn't been pressure put on them from consumers they wouldn't have improved conditions in their factories.

part of the problem here is that a lot of people are uncomfortable wearing branded clothes as it appears to be visible support, whereas others couldn't give a fuck what message they put across. i tend to get around it by wearing charity shop clothes, but then i've been attacked for that before. people who spend moeny on fair trade clothes because they can afford it are attacked for being liberals. i just think that around here there's always attacks on people who try to do the best they can and worry about it and quite frankly that sucks.

------------------

ryazan, now you've explained it, i can see your point a lot better. i think what is a shame here is that yeah, tescos loss leaders and the like are the cheapest way of feeding a family on a budget and i can totally understand that people don't necessarily have the choice - i'm bloody skint and do my best to avoid tesco and the like because i don't approve of their business practices but you can't avoid the bad shit altogether. changing your consumer patterns as an individual isn't going to help, but if enough people demand food that is as local as possible then it might well help.

 

[kropotkin]

NO IT WON'T

That idea is based on a misunderstanding of the way the market works. AT BEST you are talking about expanding a middle-class niche market, where 'concerned ethical consumers' choose to buy the same commodity [e.g. a banana] at higher than its market price. This is the same- in terms of effects on general market practises [i.e. the only thing that should concern you]- as someone buying the same sandwitch from Harrods food court for £4 when they could have bought it from Tescos for £1.50: i.e. none.

What you have to understand is that in a class-stratified society, where for the majority of people the largest factor in determining purchasing decisions will always be the price signals surrounding a commodity, 'ethical consumerism' can only ever have niche market effects. That is cool for the workers in those industries [although there are ots of issues around weakening the bargaining position of producers- like fairtrade coffee coops in Guatemalas- by tying them to one particular buyer], but it can never achieve the momentum to effect significant change in average practises.

 

[catch]

i just think that around here there's always attacks on people who try to do the best they can and worry about it and quite frankly that sucks.

You're misunderstanding the attacks. The objection is to two things:

1. that consumerism will not change the fundamentally exploitative nature of capitalism. ethical capitalism is an oxymoron.

Anyone who doubts this is just another manifestation of consumersism see TeeJay's "So, would buying any of this stuff make you feel better?"

2. Ethical shopping can take a lot of time - either time spent shopping hunting around charity shops, or time spent working to buy goods at multiples of their normal price because they've been branded to a niche market. If you accept point 1, then these shouldn't be seen as attacks, they should be seen as genuine expressions of concern that people are spending loads of time and money that in the end will have little effect because they feel guilty about a system that isn't their own fault. Spending a little bit less time trying to opt out of capitalist society or reduce your impact or whatever might free you up to consider how things could actually be changed collectively.

 

[redsquirrel]

Do you even read the websites you link to TeeJay?

Of course not that would take up too much of his time being used to be a tedious fuckwit.

 

[bluestreak]

NO IT WON'T
.

but what i'm talking about with food is that while a locally produced spud might cost a bit more than a tesco's spud the money goes direct to the producer, there is far less wastage and far less pollution involved in transfering it around. cutting out the middleman, basically.

how does one reduce their negative social/environmental impact most effectively in this society then on limited funds?

 

[catch]

how does one reduce their negative social/environmental impact most effectively in this society then on limited funds?

How about trying to change the society so social/environmental impact isn't left to consumer choices?

 

[Col_Buendia]

I thought this thread was a satire, to be honest.

If you like it, and it is cheap, buy it.

The problems with production are just that: they can't be altered in a meaningful way by attempting [and failing] to change patterns of consumption.

Making a choice to buy the same product at higher than its market price is silly.

Interesting points from many posts, but I'd like to come back to Kropotkin on the above... not sure why it should have seemed like satire, but that's not so important.

I take onboard and to a large degree agree with what you are saying about consumption not being able to change patterns of production, although I think that that position needs to be tempered with a small amount of recognition that public reaction has meant that perhaps some of the more flagrant sweating abuses needed to be beautified...

But my original post was prinicipally concerned with my position in the world, and that seems to me to be the point that you have missed. While I largely agree with your analysis of my potential impact on a factory in the Philipines, I am more concerned (in this instance) with personal morality. When you say "If you like it, and it is cheap, buy it" I find that hard to take at face value. I mean, for sake of argument (and if you'll forgive me picking an extreme example to try to make the point clear), would you seriously have no personal/ethical concerns over the impact you would have if you turned up at a Palestine Solidarity Meeting wearing a pair of Caterpillar boots that you had picked up in a charity shop? I find it hard to imagine that you would not blink at such a proposition, but I don't want to put words in mouths, I'd be keen to know what you think.

Don't you feel that there is a question to be asked of people who wear/carry logos that represent forces that have a hugely concrete and negative impact on our world?

 

[bluestreak]

You're misunderstanding the attacks. The objection is to two things:

1. that consumerism will not change the fundamentally exploitative nature of capitalism. ethical capitalism is an oxymoron.

Anyone who doubts this is just another manifestation of consumersism see TeeJay's "So, would buying any of this stuff make you feel better?"

2. Ethical shopping can take a lot of time - either time spent shopping hunting around charity shops, or time spent working to buy goods at multiples of their normal price because they've been branded to a niche market. If you accept point 1, then these shouldn't be seen as attacks, they should be seen as genuine expressions of concern that people are spending loads of time and money that in the end will have little effect because they feel guilty about a system that isn't their own fault. Spending a little bit less time trying to opt out of capitalist society or reduce your impact or whatever might free you up to consider how things could actually be changed collectively.

1. i agree that ethical capitalism is an oxymoron. however, given less we're stuck with it for the time being how about some form of less destructive consumerism - an attempt to reduce one's participation as much as possible.

2. to be honest i've considered a lot of ways, and this is what i've come up with. charity shopping for what i want, buying from the secondary market such as tk maxx etc., trying to buy my food outside the restrictive markets of the supermarket monopolies. doesn't seem to be costing me much time. and what's the point of using the time that the capitalist system gives me in ease of use to try and undermine it through collective change when i can simply feel a lot better about myself and not put myself through the hell of trying to organise anarchists into a force for change. might as well try and nail jelly to the ceiling. been there, done that, worn the t-shirt.

 

[catch]

Don't you feel that there is a question to be asked of people who wear/carry logos that represent forces that have a hugely concrete and negative impact on our world?

no logo clothing has a

hugely concrete and negative impact on our world?

as well. Concentrating on brands just obfuscates the real issues of capitalist society (and I say this as someone who owns just about zero branded clothes, I don't normally wear clothes with any kind of pattern/print on either).

 

[bluestreak]

How about trying to change the society so social/environmental impact isn't left to consumer choices?

it'd be nice. and part of that is by advising people that consumer choices aren't the only way of doing things, spreading the word and most importantly trying to live it yourself to demonstrate. how can you take someone seriously who demands change from a system that they themselves profit from, even if the profit is only in terms of time and ease of existence?

IMO changing society comes by showing people there is another way, not by telling them that there is when you're not living it. even if you're only living it a little bit, it's still better than nothing.

 

[catch]

1. i agree that ethical capitalism is an oxymoron. however, given less we're stuck with it for the time being how about some form of less destructive consumerism - an attempt to reduce one's participation as much as possible.

The logical extension of that is squatting/homelessness, dumpster diving, eating roadkill. Not a road I'm prepared to go down by choice myself. I personally don't have the cash to be either a rampant consumerist or consistent ethical shopper - I buy some stuff that's might be considered ethical, some stuff that isn't. I don't think any of it has much to do with changing society and it's that idea I'm objecting to. Buying "ethical" stuff doesn't make me feel any better anything (unless it's happens to be tasty food!), in fact I've walked into one or two "ethical" clothing shops and got pretty angry about the bare-faced consumerism that's trotted out as a force for social change. I'd rather good, honest, hard-nosed capitalism to dishonest cunts like the body shop or adbusters.

2. to be honest i've considered a lot of ways, and this is what i've come up with. charity shopping for what i want, buying from the secondary market such as tk maxx etc., trying to buy my food outside the restrictive markets of the supermarket monopolies. doesn't seem to be costing me much time.

TK Maxx is hardly outside the market - they're a way of clearing dead stock to make way for new stock. Don't know what their staff get paid, but I bet it's shit. I'm lucky enough to live close to a street market (and two supermarkets) and get most stuff on the market apart from things like milk, cheese and cereals that aren't available. Again, although I really like the street market, I'm under no illusions that I'm hurting supermarket chains by buying stuff there instead most of the time.

and what's the point of using the time that the capitalist system gives me in ease of use to try and undermine it through collective change when i can simply feel a lot better about myself and not put myself through the hell of trying to organise anarchists into a force for change.

Who's talking about organising anarchists? How about acting in areas where you can actually have some influence like your job or neighbourhood?

 

[catch]

Making consumer choices in western society isn't "another way", it's an essential part of western late-capitalism. Profit is a term relating to a specific social relationship that occurs in production, not something that can be applied to emotions and time.

 

[Col_Buendia]

Concentrating on brands just obfuscates the real issues of capitalist society (and I say this as someone who owns just about zero branded clothes, I don't normally wear clothes with any kind of pattern/print on either).

I agree wholeheartedly with what you are saying Catch, but again, I think my point is that it is not an either/or situation. I do many other things apart from think about where I shop & what I buy, and I couldn't agree more with you when you write "I've walked into one or two "ethical" clothing shops and got pretty angry about the bare-faced consumerism that's trotted out as a force for social change."

At the same time, whilst engaging in other activities, and while not entertaining any illusions about the revolutionary potential of "ethical shopping", is it not worth our while to spare a moment's thought to what/where we buy? That's my point, again returning to the personal morality thing I was on about above.

 

[catch]

trying to buy my food outside the restrictive markets of the supermarket monopolies. doesn't seem to be costing me much time.

is it not worth our while to spare a moment's thought to what/where we buy? That's my point, again returning to the personal morality thing I was on about above.

OK a bit of an admission. I've been increasingly reading up on Del Monte and Dole's practices in banana production, and have decided I can't face buying bananas produced by them any more. Not just because they're union busting child mutilating cunts, but because my wife's pregnant and the idea of her eating something that's directly resulted in disfigurement of the kids who produced it (or whose parents produced it) is pretty fucking sickening, and also because for that to be the case, they must be completely saturated with fungicide which isn't an idea I like either.

As I've just posted I live next to a street market, and two supermarkets. If I buy bananas from the street market, apart from one stall I've noticed (that's half a mile away past all the other stalls selling bananas), all of the bananas are either of unclear source or made by Del Monte/Dole. Or I could pop into Sainsbury's and pick up from a choice of organic or fair trade. Or I could stop eating bananas, and by extension stop eating any food at all. Think about this shit too much and you end up feeling guilty about eating, wearing or living in anything - I'm not interested in being an ascetic.

 

[bluestreak]

1. The logical extension of that is squatting/homelessness, dumpster diving, eating roadkill. Not a road I'm prepared to go down by choice myself. I personally don't have the cash to be either a rampant consumerist or consistent ethical shopper - I buy some stuff that's might be considered ethical, some stuff that isn't. I don't think any of it has much to do with changing society and it's that idea I'm objecting to. Buying "ethical" stuff doesn't make me feel any better anything (unless it's happens to be tasty food!), in fact I've walked into one or two "ethical" clothing shops and got pretty angry about the bare-faced consumerism that's trotted out as a force for social change. I'd rather good, honest, hard-nosed capitalism to dishonest cunts like the body shop or adbusters.


2. TK Maxx is hardly outside the market - they're a way of clearing dead stock to make way for new stock. Don't know what their staff get paid, but I bet it's shit. I'm lucky enough to live close to a street market (and two supermarkets) and get most stuff on the market apart from things like milk, cheese and cereals that aren't available. Again, although I really like the street market, I'm under no illusions that I'm hurting supermarket chains by buying stuff there instead most of the time.


3. Who's talking about organising anarchists? How about acting in areas where you can actually have some influence like your job or neighbourhood?

1. true enough. i've been down that path myself and it's not fun. i'm in much the same situation as yourself, not rich in money or time. i don't know how dishonest 'ethical' companies are - they're operating within a capitalist system and are playing by the rules of the high street. i can't really stand any of them so whatever, basically.

2. dead stock is still stock that is no longer viable - by buying it later you're not playing into the whole fashion bullshit. it may not make much of an effect but it's the difference between consumerism and making use of what's left behind when this wave has been eaten up by those who are consumers. again, buying from small stores and markets isn't 'hurting' chains, it's simply not participating in the chains' existence. it's having nothing to do with them, and maybe if enough people do that it might hrt them. that's the way i see it anyway.

3. temps have no power in their job, when they're lucky enough to work. and transient renters such as myself don't have a lot of power in the community. but yes, exercise such power as you can. i'm permanently impressed by how good community action groups can,if nothing else, expose the anti-democratic machinations of capitalism. but the simple truth is that we aren't going to bring down the state any time soon, but if we act in a the best way that we can within our communities and as individuals, lead by example and with intelligence and integrity we might make spreading the word easier.