Slop.

I thought the large amount of comments would be because of some lib that had wandered in to get dunked on, but it seems it's just nerds discussing theory .

The devil can cite Scripture for his purpose.

Kropotikin? Least problematic theorist of that generation Kropotikin? The guy so likeable that the famously anti Anarchist Vladimir Lenin declared a ceasefire so Anarchists could attend his state funeral Kropotikin? Ending serfdom Kropotikin? Wife guy Kropotikin?

Child labor is like the least Kropotikin thing I can imagine.

Read Kropotkin

For the people who haven't read the bread book, Kropotkin makes arguments against child labor starting in the first chapter. He says that it is unfair that children of capitalists receive inheritance but the labor of the worker is inherited by the capitalist. That is unfair that children of workers have to work in the factory starting at the age of 13. Throughout the book, he says that children should not work in factories or mines. He says that children should receive meals from the society for free. In chapter 4, he talks about how artisans take advantage of working class children through apprenticeships (ie internships) by paying them less than the value their labor produces. In chapter 12, he talks about how capitalists would rather employ children than grown adult because children are willing to be payed less, which causes grown men to be jobless. He says the use of child labor makes society into a joke.

That comment doesn't hold up to basic critical thinking.

If writing off the loss is the same to a capitalist as selling the product, there would be no incentive for the capitalist to sell it, because that involves more complications than just claiming the write-off. By necessity, any writeoff that is equal or greater than the sale value of the product will result in companies limitlessly scamming the government (or insurance). It follows that spoiled or stolen product is some degree of loss to the company.

"The capitalist still wins" is equating larger wins to smaller wins.

From a purely consequentialist viewpoint, any boycott does fuck all to actually affect material change. Even collective boycotts aren't as effective as advertised. However, you do not have to adopt a consequentialist ethics on the level of the individual. I would argue that virtue ethics makes much more sense because at the end of the day, socialists need to convince and onboard new socialists and nobody's going to want to become socialists if the current stock of socialists can't exert basic discipline like abstaining from chocolate that doesn't even taste that good.

"You hate capitalism, yet you use iPhone. Curious." is an argument that reactionaries make, but most people who aren't socialists are swayed by this on some level. That's literally why reactionaries keep on making that stupid argument. Because it works. They don't make the same argument with cars because average people (from the US) see cars as something essential for daily life while iPhones are seen as a luxury item. The argument is "you hate capitalism, but you use nonessential commodities that wouldn't exist without capitalism, so how can you criticize capitalism while enjoying the fruits of capitalism that is not essential for daily life?"

Nobody wants to sign up to join a political movement steered by a bunch of hypocritical losers who can't exert a basic level of discipline. To use chocolate as an example, US-made chocolate doesn't even taste that good. It's like, I'm not going to take your calls for class warfare seriously if you can't even abstain from eating vomit-tasting chocolate. You bozos aren't going to be embarking on the Long March anytime soon.