Episode 256: There IS (more) ethical consumption under capitalism (part one) with Lisa of Retro Housewife Goes Green

Welcome to Clotheshorse, that podcast that thinks that billionaires are very uncool.

I’m your host Amanda, and this is episode 256, part 1 of 2 that dares to declare “why yes, there is more ethical consumption under capitalism.”  And for this exploration into changing up our habits regarding where and when we spend money, I am joined by someone you met earlier this year, Lisa Sharp of Retro Housewife Goes Green. Every time boycotts and economic blackouts come up on Threads, I see Lisa dispensing great advice about how to vote with your wallet by making different choices. So I knew that she was going to be the perfect guest to break this down for you.

As I mentioned, this is part one of two. In this half:

• We are going to talk about how and when boycotting is effective,
• How shifting up our spending habits is really an exercise in “progress not perfection,”
• And then we are going to unpack some of the big companies that create an illusion of choice in terms of cleaning products, laundry detergent, food, and skincare. We will also talk about how those companies are having a political impact here in the United States.

Next week (in part two) Lisa will give you all kinds of advice about swaps and changes you can make. And I’ll share my personal “hierarchy of ethical decision making” when I need to make a purchase.

Before I get rolling here, I want to say two things:

1. Thank you to everyone who sent kind messages about my pricing episode.  The next part of the price/value/branding conversation will be happening in a few weeks. 
2. Just a reminder that everything in the merch shop is 50% off for podcast listeners using the promo code THEPRICEISRIGHT.  Dustin and I have been caring for a colony of feral “barn” cats that have settled in our yard over the last year.  We feed them, we have built little houses for them (I also built them a small three room heated house this winter), they have beds and toys on our porches, and I try to spend time with them (not sure if they like it). But right now, the colony consists of 12 (well now maybe 14) cats that have gradually found their way to our yard. My project is to get all of them spayed and neutered between now and when Dustin leaves to record his next album in early May. I found a clinic in town that will allow me to bring in two per week, on Thursdays.  So I rented some traps and I’m doing it.  Last week I trapped two, so only ten (or maybe 12) to go.  All merch sales will help cover the cost of this project, because while the clinic prices are heavily discounted, 12 (or 14) cats really adds up fast!  So now more than ever your purchase can have some positive impact. And you get cool iron ons and stickers!

Now, every time a conversation starts on social media about an upcoming economic blackout or a sustained boycott (like Target), conversations follow the same pattern:

• First a lot of people announce it, say they are participating in it.
• Then the posts start to shift into how impossible and non-inclusive protests like this are (because somehow we can never discuss anything with nuance on social media),
• And that is followed by small businesses begging people to remember that these boycotts don’t apply to small businesses (while others show up to call those small business owners capitalist bootlickers)
• Next people start picking apart how ineffective these kinds of boycotts are,
• And ultimately the conversation hits its final stop: someone declares “there’s no ethical consumption under capitalism, so why bother.”

Now, I’ve talked about the origin of “there’s no ethical consumption under capitalism” in the past…I did a whole episode about it that I will share in the show notes.  But let’s do a little recap for new listeners or people like me whose brains are very tired from having to live in ten years of Trump. Where did “there’s no ethical consumption under capitalism” originate?

Well, I tell you this: It wasn’t Karl Marx or some other big time philosopher.

No one seems to know who said it first, but many internet historians on Reddit seem to agree that it originated in the anti-capitalism corner of Tumblr in 2014, after a “feminist tee disaster.” From there, it spread across all the social media platforms.

Yep, it turns out that the statement that has been used to shut down approximately 900,000 conversations about SHEIN and Temu actually started on social media.

What was the “feminist tee disaster?” UK retailer Whistles did a collection of feminist tees (“This is what a feminist looks like”) in partnership with Elle Magazine and the Fawcett Society (UK women’s rights non-profit). The Daily Mail published a story revealing that the shirts were made in a sweatshop in Mauritius, where the garment workers were paid about 77 cents per shirt.

Now we have reached a point where we have had numerous discussions about the ethics of a fast fashion “feminist” tee, but this was a new and shocking reality in 2014.

So naturally, this started a lot of online conversation about the ethics of clothing and consumption. After all, what’s the point of wearing a feminist tee if the women making it are being underpaid, overworked, and living in terrible conditions? How feminist is it to wear a tee made by exploited women?

Like a lot of social media discourse, the pendulum swung hard into serious black and white thinking:

It started with that sound idea of “why wear a feminist tee if it was made by exploiting women?” That makes sense, still makes sense.

But it quickly turned to “if you buy or consume anything, you are making the decision to support exploitation.” We know that is some seriously flawed thinking. Because to exist, to survive, we must consume: food, water, clothing, shelter, education, health care, and so much more. To live a fulfilling life, we need social time, hobbies, opportunities to explore our creative sides, and so on.

Next, the conversation shifted to “if you’re buying anything and not ensuring that it was made ethically–-meaning everyone was paid a living wage–-then you’re a bad person.”

And of course, we know that line of thinking is completely lacking in nuance. What if you don’t have the privilege of time, access, and most importantly, MONEY to buy only ethically made items? And also: there are certain trappings of modern life that are non-negotiable for existing within our society that don’t have truly ethical options: phones, computers, routers, stoves and ovens, washing machines, furnaces, hot water heaters, etc.

And that’s where the conversation of “there’s no ethical consumption under capitalism” came into play. It was intended to remind everyone that no matter where they bought it and how “clean” the supply chain was, there was no such thing as a “perfect” purchase of anything. There would always be an impact because consumption is never devoid of impact. Someone worked to make it happen. Resources were used.

The statement “there’s no ethical consumption under capitalism” was not intended to give everyone a free pass for SHEIN hauls. It was also not intended as an excuse to buy more Keurig pods or skip out on economic activism.

It was meant (in good faith) to remind everyone that it was really privileged and short-sighted to pass judgement on those who bought clothes at Walmart or opted for the regular bananas over organic or drove an old car instead of a Prius because that is what they could afford and could access. It was intended to be a recognition that for many people the most ethical and sustainable option is what they can afford, not the one with all of the certifications attached to it.

It also meant that those who have the privilege of time, money, and access SHOULD make the most ethical choice available to them as often as possible. Maybe it won’t always be possible, but they should do their best to try to make the most ethical choice.

But the other thing about the original intention of “there’s no ethical consumption under capitalism?”

Recognizing that we can’t shop our way to a better future! A better world, where workers are paid a living wage and work under good conditions, where resources aren’t wasted, where products are better and longer lasting…that means that all of us need to get involved in fighting for change, by voting, protesting (when possible), having conversations with others, letting our elected representatives know that we want better regulation of all of these industries, and even running for office.

In other words: nothing gets better if we don’t get involved.

If people are using the statement “there’s no ethical consumption under capitalism” incorrectly, why do I see and hear it so often?

Let’s talk about “thought-terminating cliches.” They are statements used to shut down critical thinking or further discussion by offering a simplistic, often cliche, response to a complex issue. 

Some examples:

“We’re doomed.”

“We’re cooked.”

“My impact will never be as big as Amazon, so who cares.”

“There’s no ethical consumption under capitalism.”

The problem with these thought-terminating cliches?They are effective at ending the conversation and getting us to move on to another subject. They repress any real positive change because progress begins with difficult conversations and questions, along with ugly truths. And while some people weaponize thought-terminating cliches to control others, most people are just using them because they feel scared and overwhelmed.

And I get it…if someone tells you your Nespresso pods aren’t actually being recycled or that miracle “vegan” leather actually contains plastic, it’s not great news to hear. It makes you feel angry, disappointed, and kinda scammed. These feelings are not fun.  And thinking about it/talking about it even more, that just means more negative feelings…and it also means doing the work of figuring out what you are going to do next. Simply tossing out “there’s no ethical consumption under capitalism” ends the conversation and the bad thoughts. It feels easier.

The irony of those Whistles feminist tees? The wages of the garment workers were actually higher than the minimum wage in Mauritius. And furthermore, several groups considered this factory to be in-line with an ethical code of conduct. Meaning, this factory wasn’t actually a “bad” factory and it wasn’t doing anything “wrong” from an industry perspective.

And yes, it’s super unfair that workers can get paid 77 cents for making a t-shirt that will sell for $60-70. No one involved in making, selling, or shipping that shirt will ever get a “fair” share of the selling price, while those at the top will take most of that money for themselves.

The fast fashion system (just like most industries) only “works” for those people at the top when people stay poor and hungry for work, even when that means keeping entire countries poor and hungry for work.

This is a broken system for everyone (except the wealthiest). When you see this illustrated time and time again, you can see how there really is no truly ethical consumption under capitalism.

But that doesn’t mean we give up completely.

That doesn’t mean we guilt ourselves about needing things.

It also doesn’t mean we take the bleak view that the world is @#$%ed and unfixable, and that we should just keep making Shein hauls until the world ends.

We have the power to make it better, no matter how overwhelming it all seems.

One person can’t change the world alone…but when we work together at the same time, we can create real change!

One of my favorite things about the slow fashion community is that there is a place for EVERYONE! We all play a part in a better world! We REDUCE REFUSE RESIST every single day.  Even small things like mending our clothes or washing them carefully are radical in a hyperconsumerist, fast everything world. Shopping small and local when we can. Opting for secondhand first. Mindfully rehoming our stuff. Eating our leftovers. Sharing information. Picking up litter. Voting. Supporting mutual aid. It all matters. Slow fashion is a way of life!

All of this–figuring out what to do next, changing our habits, helping others do the same–it all starts with understanding where our money is going and how it is impacting our world.  And that’s what Lisa and I are going to do today.  So let’s jump into our conversation!