this post was submitted on 02 May 2026
74 points (96.2% liked)

Slop.

846 readers
416 users here now

For posting all the anonymous reactionary bullshit that you can't post anywhere else.

Rule 1: All posts must include links to the subject matter, and no identifying information should be redacted.

Rule 2: If your source is a reactionary website, please use archive.is instead of linking directly.

Rule 3: No sectarianism.

Rule 4: TERF/SWERFs Not Welcome

Rule 5: No bigotry of any kind, including ironic bigotry.

Rule 6: Do not post fellow hexbears.

Rule 7: Do not individually target federated instances' admins or moderators.

founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] stink@lemmygrad.ml 7 points 1 day ago (24 children)

Your position would be correct even under a capitalist / austrian-economics lens.

The invisible hand of the free market ~~would~~ should signal to cocoa producers that fair trade / non-child labor labelling gets more sales despite the premium, and in turn more companies would begin to migrate to the more ethical option with enough push back.

This specific scenario is literally how Econ-101 is taught in even the most conservative institutions, LOL.

Wild how we've become so treat-pilled that even "progressives" think they have no impact on a system.

[–] AmarkuntheGatherer@lemmygrad.ml 5 points 1 day ago (2 children)

Even a capital-backed idealistic ideology supports an idealist argument? That's like saying even Marx criticised capitalism.

There's a moral argument in favour of these boycotts, but that's all it is. Even if one holds comrades to such moral standards, and I'd agree with that, it's still not a real version of combating capital. Idealists would have us believe the political economy is simple enough that a fraction of a fraction (people who hold to a boycott, among people informed enough to know about the wrongdoing sufficiently) of their consumer base refraining can compel companies.

Snowflake in an avalanche type of arguments only hold up from high potential, in a manner of speaking changes that are inevitable anyway. Improving conditions against capital requires building up potential, uphill. This can be done by organising and educating, not as an [expected] accumulation of individual actions and browbeating people for not engaging in just that.

[–] stink@lemmygrad.ml 4 points 19 hours ago (1 children)

I mean I think the boycotts have been working to an extent thus far. "israeli" foods are being renamed / their origins are being hidden. I was at a store yesterday and a significant number of products that are under the cocacola brand now no longer have ANY labeling related to cocacola, even though they did previously have a mention of it somewhere on the label.

Starbucks shit down dozens of locations in my city alone, although I'm sure the financial situation in amerikkka plays a big role in part of this, I also do attribute it to the boycotts. There have been plenty of Yemeni / saudi (🤮) owned coffee shops popping up around where I live that are booming in business while Starbucks is faltering.

I don't buy anything that has a relation to the zionist entity, and if I'm out with more liberal acquaintances from work / sports teams, I'll organically offer an alternative location by calling it trash coffee / burgers / pizza / etc., and they always oblige with my request without me having to call them nazis for even considering those locations.

You could call this an organized boycott, but a lot of the places / food items aren't on the actual BDS list, it's just individuals collectively deciding they don't want to spend money on bloodshed.

load more comments (21 replies)