The statement “there is no ethical consumption under capitalism” often comes up in conversations about fast fashion…where did it originate?

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.

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 made was 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 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.

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.