Ethical shopping in TK Maxx?

[Rob Ray]

Also, an interesting phenomenon this year has been that due to (among other things) floods and such, a vast percentage of the world coffee crop was ruined, driving market prices up. All the coffee growers dealing on the open market had bumper profits this year.

However, this did not apply to the 'Fair Trade' farmers, whose contracts with 'Ethical' companies were for a set price. They were left with the stark choice of breaking their contracts to try and sell at a one-off higher price, or with being ripped off for the extra.

Now it could be argued that the Fair Trade companies need to keep making their profits to y'know, stay open, but quite how that is substantially different to how every other company in the world works, i'm not entirely sure...

 

[Rob Ray]

In the UK, we have some of the highest work standards in the world. Would you say the company you work for is ethical? Mine certainly isn't. It made £19,000 profit per worker last year, they pay me £13,000. they recycle, just installed some ergonomic tables/chairs so we don't put our backs out, keep reminding us about the 'ten minute break' rule for computers and give us an hour for lunch. They don't get too bothered if I take a Friday off.

The fact remains however that they take approximately 2/3 of my production value away from me EVERY FUCKING YEAR.

 

[Col_Buendia]

or is capitalism automatically inethical no matter what?

Well, it is if you fundamentally have a problem with it as a method of distributing the world's resources, innit?

I think it is clear that there are varying usages of the term "ethical" here, and Catch's use is perhaps (imo) equivalent to saying that something that is ethical is "something that would find a place in my personal utopia". On the other hand, others might mean, as you seem to bluestreak, that it is a "least worst" option. I think there is a lot of difference between the two meanings, for however much they might resemble each other, and personally the "least worst" logic is *always* the one trotted out in defense of capitalism by its apologists. So perhaps we could clarify things by saying that if someone is fundamentally an "anti-capitalist", then "ethical consumerism" is a non-starter, on a basis of ideological absolutism. That, tho, still leaves us in the real world, with the worrying question of where to buy our beans from...

 

[catch]

re: individual unit vs overall... surely by buying overstock cheaper you're still helping to lower the average?

No, unbought overstock would be burnt or dumped, so you're actually raising the average when you buy that individual unit. If you have a choice of which you buy (not the case for many people buying overstock), then maybe a tiny bit, but you're in a tiny minority. It's impossible for everyone to buy overstock (or used, charity shop) innit?

we clearly have the same shopping patterns, and we can't be totally outside the system, but i think that trying to keep mainstream participation down is a useful thing -

I'm interested in mainstream resistance and opposition to the system, and replacing it with a different one. I don't think it's possible to operate outside it, so why bother? Obviously I can make informed consumer choices within the system, but that's all they are.

and re: ethical capitalism... that makes me wonder if the idea that capitalism CAN'T be ethical is correct. would a company that treats its workers well, has minimal environmental impact, and pays living wages be ethical. or is capitalism automatically inethical no matter what?

The construction "its workers" answers your question doesn't it.

 

[TeeJay]

not if it means helping to mystfiy what capitalism actually is, no.

capitalism is not evil multi nationals, it's not McDonalds, Nike or anyother world brand, it is a social relationship, it is wage labour.

Some companies force their workers to handle toxic chemicals which end up killing them early - other companies don't do this. Some companies use processes that completely wreck the environment, whereas others don't.

How can you possibly argue that one company is no worse than the other?

 

[Rob Ray]

No-one is arguing that (quite, I think), the point is they're all wankers, and resistance to what they do isn't effective when it takes the form of trying to reform them via consumer demand changes.

It's fine to buy 'ethical' stuff if you like (though as pointed out earlier, we're never gonna be talking about people who given the choice will ever make the right decision), but don't try and dress it up as a major plank of political reform, cos it isn't, and can't be (ie. while you may be able to afford organic grub, most folks have to make do with the Turkey Twizzlers - the power is a fundamentally middle/upper class one).

 

[TeeJay]

I don't believe "ethical consumerism" is going to change things - for this we need political action. But I still like to avoid giving my money to the worst companies that are committing abuses: to people, animals and the environment. I also think that raising awareness of the worst excesses of business - thinking about what you are buying and telling other people about it, in some cases including through consumer boycotts - helps mobilise the political action needed. Rightly or wrongly the "mainstream" public are less liekly to take people seriously complaining about the worst corporate abuses if these same people carry on shopping, consuming and rewarding these same corporations by doing business with them, even when there are viable and available alternatives.

 

[Rob Ray]

Do you own a mobile phone? Eat fruit? Watch TV? Watch movies?

Do any of these and you are supporting some of the most evil multinationals in the world. In order to do what you suggest, and live 'ethically'* you'd have to live the most boring of lives, eating hugely expensive food from specialist shops, buying hugely expensive clothes etc from christ knows where.

Frankly, if presented with two people, one a sanctimonious prick showing off their 'hand weaved by unionised Bolivian labour' T-shirts which I can't afford (and look shit), the other a normal human being who likes a pint and a laugh, I know who I'd get along with best, and indeed trust to tell me what's going on the world.

As I said, I don't have anything against you using your money for whatever you like. Given that you agree it won't change anything however, what possible justification do you have to tell the rest of the world to do likewise?

*Always with the proviso that actually they aren't really ethical, and spend as much time as anyone else trying to fuck over their workers, and are a complete rip-off.

 

[Rob Ray]

On a slightly different topic, wtf is 'mainstream public' in parentheses for? You not a member of it or something?

 

[reallyoldhippy]

....... most folks have to make do with the Turkey Twizzlers...........

Why? There's loads of cheap healthy alternatives.

..........a normal human being who likes a pint and a laugh........

 

[Rob Ray]

Why? There's loads of cheap healthy alternatives.

Readily available? Easy to pick up down the supermarket and cook in ten minutes after a shitty day at the office when you've not got any cooking skills? I know a few people who take the time to hunt down alternative foods (would try to do it myself, in theory) but the fact is it's a massive hassle to sort out a supplier and mostly is more expensive, and you have to take more time out to learn the culinary arts as well. The practical effect is people end up having to go with the turkey twizzlers.

Oh I'm terribly sorry, someone who likes a sherry and a laugh.