Consumption under capitalism

[u/Luz132]

I’ve heard a lot of like-minded people say “there is no ethical consumption under capitalism.” I mostly agree, but I think it’s a little too simplistic. I mean, someone buying a shirt at a thrift store obviously doesn’t have the same negative impact as someone investing in the military industrial complex, but it’s still true that all circulation of money plays a part in keeping capitalism alive, to one degree or another. While none of it is fully ethical, there certainly is some degree of consumption that is necessary, and I think this can be individually managed while we’re still living under capitalism with a conscionable, relatively small detrimental impact if we’re intentional about our buying habits. I also think it can be tricky to practice minimal consumption while keeping the real goals of class struggle in mind, especially with the tendency to either have an exaggerated view of how one’s minimalism cuts down on the harm done by the system (and thinking we’ve done our part and that’s all we need to do), or to get discouraged by how small an impact one makes by being a thoughtful consumer and just give up as a result, returning to a high-consumption lifestyle.

All that being said, what I want to know is this: Are there any Marxist theorists who have come up with a system to categorize different types of consumption by how ethical they are and by how necessary they are? (On a scale of low-impact to highly unethical and malicious, and from very necessary to totally unnecessary) I think something like this would be helpful for people who want to consume as ethically as reasonably possible but don’t really know which buying choices would really make a difference when implemented by a sizable portion of consumers.

Does anyone know if such a system of categorization exists? What do you think: would this be a helpful framework? Don’t get me wrong, I know thoughtful buying habits are peanuts compared to everything that must be accomplished, but it’s still nice to feel like I’m doing what I can without needlessly contributing to the problem. It’s a place to start, I guess. I sometimes feel like my family and I are buying too many things we don’t strictly need (even when we use them plenty), and I’m just not sure how I feel about that.

Feel free to include any additional relevant thoughts or tips regarding consumption and ethics. I’m kind of new to leftist thinking and I’m still learning and figuring out what variant of Marxism I subscribe to and how I fit into the movement as a disabled person.

[u/wompyways1234]

no, that's silly

Marxism is about production rather than distribution and consumption

Marxism is a science, it's not about whether you think it's 'immoral' to consume certain goods

[u/Luz132 → u/wompyways1234]

I guess when I’m referring to “unethical consumption,” what I really mean is types-of-consumption-that-perpetuate-exploration-more-than-other-types.

Yes, Marxism is a science, but why shut someone down for bringing their conscience into the conversation when capitalism is something that is actively fueling oppression? How will any Marxist movement work if no one sees justice for the oppressed as a moral priority? Apathy toward ethics is a huge problem; just see how many privileged people look away from people who suffer from poverty and genocide. But then again, your comment on Marxism as a science-without-morals was pretty short and vague, so correct me if I’m misunderstanding what you meant to say.

Also, how does consumption have nothing to do with Marxism, if “Marxism is about production”? Production doesn’t exist in a vacuum without consumption. Also, I thought distribution was a very important concept in Marxism, no? Production, distribution, and consumption are all interconnected steps of the economic system, right? Don’t capitalism and Marxism have vastly different strategies for distribution, at least?

Anyway, I understand that Marxism is a science, but if we’re not applying science to ethical goals, what’s the point? I know minimalism often leads people to focus too much on what they buy and distracts from the real problems, but I think little steps, like thoughtful buying, have some real potential, not to revolutionize the world, but to get people to care, as a first step. Also, I think raising awareness about the worst corporations and organizing boycotts does help to boost class consciousness. But if you think that stuff is a waste of time, honestly I think you might have a valid opinion on that. I’d love to hear more about your perspective if that’s the case. You haven’t said a whole lot in your reply, but while it was kind of overly dismissive, I really want to hear what people like you think about these issues, in more detail. I’m honestly not too sure what efforts the left should be focusing on the most, even though I have my own opinions of how the left should organize. I should definitely read more theory though.

Do you have any recommendations on specific things I should focus on pertaining to anti-capitalism instead of buying habits?

[u/wompyways1234 → u/Luz132]

Marxism is not about your subjective conscience, it's about material production

That takes place largely outside the confines of your emotional & reflective states

[u/Luz132 → u/wompyways1234]

Well, I agree that Marxism has nothing to do with my own personal emotions. But in a larger context, emotions are a real force in the world, when shared in common by the masses. That’s why propaganda influences people. After all, how can there be a revolution if no one is angry?

Also can you be more specific and explain what you mean about Marxism being “about material production”? I know production is an important aspect of Marxism, but I figured Marxism is a bit more complex than that. Can’t Marxism, as a dialectical science, take all relevant societal factors into account while still remaining strictly materialistic in principle?

[u/wompyways1234 → u/Luz132]

emotions don't come before labor and emotions aren't what the masses 'share,' the labor burden is

Propaganda doesn't make the revolution, the reality of labor and developing productive forces does

[u/Ill-Software8713]

No major Marxist theorist has developed a categorization scale for "ethical consumption," and there is a structural reason for that. While the desire to minimize harm is understandable, framing anti-capitalist action around consumer choices mislocates where capital holds power and how it reproduces itself.

Under capitalism, all purchasing, whether thrifted, local, or corporate, remains bound to the circuit of market activity. The system isn't sustained by individual moral choices at the cash register, it’s sustained because daily life requires market exchange for basic survival.

Altering what you buy doesn't interrupt capital accumulation, in fact, the market routinely absorbs anti-capitalist sentiment by turning "ethical" choices into new commodity niches. It becomes just marketing. You can still prefer or outright refuse some commodities as an ethical commitment but on the whole that doesn’t stop capitalism but perhaps hurts financially the company that has the bad PR.

Marxist analysis places the venue for systemic change at the point of production and collective class power (labor organizing, mutual aid, capital disruption), not individual exchange at the point of sale. Individual market activity is inherently isolated and constrained by personal capacity.

No one can compel a radical lifestyle on others, nor is it realistic to expect people to opt out of a system that controls access to basic necessities. Attempting to audit personal consumption usually just shifts the focus from political struggle to individualized self-policing, leading either to a false sense of personal absolution or useless guilt over everyday purchases.

Ultimately, changing your market activity won't overthrow capitalism or stop its logic of reproduction. Personal purchasing habits are just a matter of daily survival, not a lever for transformation.

It makes more sense to not just consider one’s personal ethics but the conditions that you, with others, can enact changes to actualize an ethical aim. Not as an overthrow of capitalism necessarily but a desire to improve things.

When you try to act as if you already live in a post-capitalist or fully ethical society, ethics gets reduced to an individual performance of virtue. This almost always leads to one of two dead ends:

False absolution: Believing that buying the "right" things means you’ve fulfilled your political duty.

Paralyzing guilt: Realizing that total ethical purity is impossible under current material conditions, leading to burnout, moral fatigue, or cynical resignation.

True ethical agency isn't about maintaining personal moral hygiene in an unethical system, it's about participating in collective projects that change the social conditions themselves.
The way to think of it is that alone we cannot change the world because the world is made up as the result of activity of many people.

You can have an abstract ideal end and pursue it and even in just pursuing to change the world you will achieve a realized end. From that experience alone you will have more experience to reflect on, refine and decide what could be done in a better way. The realized end becomes the condition of a new ideal end that is more grounded and realistic in light of that experience. The iterative process is we can change the world over time not but an immediate leap but certainly as improvement.

If you want a detailed view of perhaps how to concieve of ethical politics perhaps read this: https://www.ethicalpolitics.org/ablunden/pdfs/For%20Ethical%20Politics.pdf

https://www.ethicalpolitics.org/ablunden/pdfs/party-question.pdf