• Flying Squid@lemmy.worldM
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    111
    arrow-down
    6
    ·
    1 year ago

    And, according to John Oliver, even the chocolate companies that try to only source their product from child labor-free sources, they say they can’t guarantee it. That’s how much and how often children are used on these farms.

    After seeing that John Oliver report, I’m never eating chocolate again. All I would be able to do would be to think of those kids.

    And yes, I realize that other products I have are made from child labor, but chocolate is a pretty easy one to give up.

    • CosmicTurtle@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      50
      ·
      1 year ago

      If you think chocolate is bad, sugar is worse.

      What I’ve learned in the last few years is that every part of modern life has exploitation in it.

      There are very few parts that aren’t.

      • MotoAsh@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        43
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        1 year ago

        “There is no ethical consumption under capitalism.”

        It’s not an air-headed anarchist/socialist slogan. It’s just the truth at scale.

        • porcariasagrada@slrpnk.net
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          9
          ·
          1 year ago

          how people fail to grasp the meaning of this expression, beautiful in its simplicity, still amuses me to this day.

          • PorkRoll@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            17
            ·
            1 year ago

            Because capitalists have had an effective propaganda campaign to make them think “made in the USA” is good. It don’t mean shit. We need the union label back.

            • porcariasagrada@slrpnk.net
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              5
              ·
              1 year ago

              if rules are in the way of profit it is not profit that is going to lose. this was, is and will always be the core problem of capitalism. it is profitable to break the rules.

              • lolcatnip@reddthat.com
                link
                fedilink
                English
                arrow-up
                2
                ·
                1 year ago

                Or more to the point, the people in charge of making and enforcing the rules ensure that the rules are either not enforced at all, or that the penalty for breaking them is small enough to be seen as just a cost of doing business.

                My shorthand definition of capitalism is when everything is for sale, and that includes laws.

          • MotoAsh@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            2
            ·
            edit-2
            1 year ago

            It’s just people failing the basics of logic. A positive expression for something is NOT a hit against things that naturally oppose it. On the other side, a condemnation of something is NOT an endorsement of the opposite. People make that basic “team sports” failure all the time, and even if people get past that, a lot still confuse nuances. Saying an aspect of something is good is NOT a natural endorsement of the whole thing, and same with negatives. Stating a negative is not hating on the whole thing.

            For those who dislike capitalism: Being pro something (like capitalism) is NOT an automatic endorsement of the consequences. Some people truly have not thought through them, or do not have the capacity to think through something as twisted as capitalism.

            For those who like capitalism: The mere ability to point at positives does NOT mean the negatives are suddenly invalid or that people are suddenly not exploited to hell.

            Yet I constantly run in to people who hold these nonsensical views. Pure failures of logic.

            • porcariasagrada@slrpnk.net
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              3
              ·
              1 year ago

              we applied a system, in which breaking the rules means winning, to the globe. most people are asleep, dreaming of coca cola and luis vitton. others are wide awake, profiting from the system or fighting it in any way they can. people better start wake the fuck up, we are running out of time and no matter what billionaires tell you there is no planet b.

        • banneryear1868@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          2
          arrow-down
          1
          ·
          edit-2
          1 year ago

          That’s why “I’m not buying [specific product] again” is worse than ineffective, it’s validating to the illusion of a capitalist subject’s ability to morally absolve themselves of the system that sustains their economic status, or even the notion that it’s important to internalize this guilt and morally absolve yourself from it. This mechanism is internal to capitalism and works in the manner a religious ritual would to cleanse yourself of sin, the civil religion of capitalism addressing the original sin you inherit as a capitalist subject.

          • MotoAsh@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            2
            ·
            1 year ago

            Very true. If you’re against the exploitation, it’s a damn good idea to be against the system that actively promotes the exploitation.

            • banneryear1868@lemmy.world
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              2
              arrow-down
              1
              ·
              1 year ago

              It’s also liberating because it means it not about you, and you aren’t obligated to accept this guilt and “original sin” and the absolving rituals as prescribed by the capitalist system. The capitalists want you to feel guilty if it means we aren’t directing our anger at them for forcing this economic arrangement on us. It’s like they are an abusive spouse gaslighting us in to thinking we’re the problem.

              • MotoAsh@lemmy.world
                link
                fedilink
                English
                arrow-up
                1
                ·
                edit-2
                1 year ago

                That’s a good point. Very akin to christian churches (and almost certainly others, I just have personal experience there) shaming women for things guys may be celebrated for doing.

                Hell, some of them literally blame all women for the original sin of eating from the fruit of knowledge… freaking psycho controlling thought patterns, all of 'em.

        • FarraigePlaisteach@kbin.social
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          2
          arrow-down
          1
          ·
          edit-2
          1 year ago

          Absolutely true. But under what system is there significantly less exploitation? Too many people are selfish, cruel or both.

          • MotoAsh@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            4
            ·
            edit-2
            1 year ago

            Naturally, a system that promotes wealth distribution and not one that promotes wealth capture.

            This is a situation where the only correct answer is to change direction. Do not set requirements for perfection when even mild improvement is so easily attained.

            EDIT: One specific step would be to make worker-owned corporations a requirement. The stock market can stick around for all I care, but the business capital should only ever be controlled by the actual workers. That doesn’t mean companies would have to restructure or fire executives. Delegation of duty is absolutely a thing.

            Normal people wouldn’t have to worry at all about such a change. Though maybe if their job was figuring out how to cut meat off the company for profit, they might have to worry…

          • MotoAsh@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            4
            ·
            edit-2
            1 year ago

            Not really. It means there are no easy answers, and they almost certainly do not lay within capitalism. It should in no way imply that there are no better or worse sources. It is only a comment about how capitalism will most certainly give you a negative answer that includes exploitation.

      • jol@discuss.tchncs.de
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        1
        ·
        edit-2
        1 year ago

        There’s others sources of sugar that are much less problematic though, like beet and others. There’s not much alternative to cocoa.

        • CosmicTurtle@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          4
          ·
          1 year ago

          Yeah except that the sugar lobby does a lot to artificially keep sugar prices down. The sugar lobby also fights tooth and nail to make sure that sugar sin taxes don’t get passed or if they do, they target all sweeteners.

          • MotoAsh@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            1
            ·
            1 year ago

            I mean, artificial sweeteners aren’t so grand either, when factoring in gut biome and odd digestion issues as well. Though I really doubt (read: wouldn’t believe) that is why the sugar lobby tries to include them…

    • HeyThisIsntTheYMCA@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      13
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      1 year ago

      Chocolate gives me the runs so I avoid it. I figure the diarrhea is from my allergy to child labor. Same thing happened when I ate an iPhone

    • Microw@lemm.ee
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      10
      ·
      1 year ago

      The organizations fighting child labor in Ghana pretty much focus on getting the kids into school at all. It’s a success story to enable a kid to go to school 5 days and only work on the cocoa farms 1 day a week. Completely eradicating it is impossible as long as families depend on that to make a living.