Since recent events are leading people to boycott every product/service owned or operated by a certain person (including Twitter/X), I’ve seen people labeled as a Nazi for promoting/using Teslas.
Does endorsing this product somewhat support the owner either directly or indirectly? Perhaps. Does that mean you necessarily agree with all of his views/actions? I don’t think so, but it might be seen as tolerating them enough to not want to distance yourself from him/cease participating in any action that could in any way support him entirely? Or maybe just prioritising certain things above those principles, or not believing that your use of the product is meaningful in message or impact in relation to support for the figurehead?
It’s a shame because while there are a lot of other EVs, Teslas are a popular line that are in many ways leading the world in electric & hybrid vehicle technology. A boycott of Tesla could do some harm for the world & hinder the fight against climate change (similar to a boycott of Greta Thunberg’s climate efforts over her position on Israel). Is it worth that risk to disassociate from/remove any possible support for the person? Maybe?
Also, notably, the person in question didn’t found the company, contrary to popular misconception, and simply purchased it when he saw a business opportunity like he did with multiple other companies. So it would be a shame to forever link the brand with him inextricably rather than recognising its origins and potential to exist outside of his orbit (and maybe it will divest from him eventually, possibly as a necessity for commercial viability/brand image in the wake of this apparent boycott).
Lastly, some have pointed out that while the owner’s views on climate change issues are mixed at best (with quite a few scientists having accused him of climate misinformation-spreading), his association with climate-friendly tech innovations could inspire the political group he is now heavily embedded in to reconsider the potential utility of such technologies or the need to address climate change in general, many of whom are currently resistant to those ideas.
Umm…
If the CEO of a company does the “normal” capitalistic stuff, like shitty wages, then its just bussiness, and the person is giving in to the convienience isn’t necessary doing something wrong. There is not ethical consumption under capitalism.
But
musk has crossed the line from “average shitty capitalist” to a LITERAL NAZI DOING A NAZI SALUTE BEHIND THE PRESIDENTIAL PODIUM ON LIVE TV
If you buy anything with a musk as CEO or majority stockholder, it means you don’t care if you do bussiness with nazis, and that is (IMO) a very shitty thing to do.
Lile the market isn’t all filled with nazis and you have no choice. You have a choice. There are many car manufactureres that are, while being a shitty capitalist, aren’t LITERAL NAZIS.
Like this isn’t just some N-word slip of the tongue (even that is already fucked up by it self), this is a full on fascism, musk is a LITERAL NAZI DOING A NAZI SALUTE
You literally cannot trust a nazi on “promises” of doing better for climate change.
You might save a bit of emissions on the electric cars. But simultaneously, SpaceX will be using un-optimized rockets with total disregard for the climate to achieve his wet dream of getting a human on mars, maximizing the rocket’s performance, when there is a slightly more expensive rocket design that could save a lot of environmental damage, with the same performance. The fascist will pick the cheaper option, doesn’t matter of the enviornmental damages.
(sorry for the caps, I have to emphesize the point)
I appreciate and respect all your points and largely agree. For the record I won’t be buying a Tesla, I just thought it was an interesting discussion. I do want to comment on the “There is no ethical consumption under capitalism” aphorism/maxim, in a way that I think supports your argument or at least the logic underlying it.
Firstly, even if it is the case that there is no ethical consumption under capitalism, that doesn’t appear to suggest that there can’t possibly be varying degrees of morality of different forms of consumption under capitalism. In other words, even if all consumption under capitalism is unethical, there can still be more ethical (or less unethical) and less ethical (or more unethical) consumption under capitalism, at least in theory. Not all consumption under capitalism is necessarily ethically identical or equivalent.
If it were the case that all consumption under capitalism was equal in moral wrongness or moral weight, with no variation, then it seems to follow that supporting a Tesla would be no worse or better than supporting any other vehicle (or product/service for that matter). I don’t think this is true, and I think your point demonstrates that it isn’t true as well. It’s possible that it would be worse than supporting other things, and there could also be things that are worse than supporting a Tesla in theory.
This is important not just for the sake of a semantic technicality, but because people (consumers) frequently use the “There is no ethical consumption under capitalism” phrase to deny any moral responsibility for their actions related to consumption. I think that precisely because we do have differing choices available to us (within the flawed capitalistic system), which are not necessarily morally equal (even if they are all immoral, just to different degrees or in different ways), and some consumption decisions are more unethical than others, we do have moral responsibility to choose the least unethical (or “most ethical”) options that we can realistically access.
To suggest that “because all things are bad, it doesn’t matter what we do” (not that you’re saying this, quite the opposite), would be somewhat evoking an appeal to futility and nirvana fallacy; because nothing is perfect, there is no difference between any solution/option and any effort to reduce harm is invalid. And I think this is the mentality that people are embodying when they use the no ethical consumption under capitalism line to justify their morally questionable decisions.
Secondly, and somewhat less importantly depending on intended meaning behind the phrase, I’m not certain that there is no such thing as ethical consumption under a capitalist rule in technical terms, as despite the inherent ethical problems with capitalism, I don’t think it’s really morally reasonable to expect someone to do something they can’t physically/possibly do, or which would involve self-sacrifice. If there were truly no ethical consumption under capitalism, then if someone wanted to be perfectly ethical, the only morally permissible option would be to unalive themself (which comes with other moral consequences). So it’s basically a “damned if you do, damned if you don’t” situation, which doesn’t quite sit well with me. I appreciate the sentiment behind the saying, as it alludes to the inherent & inescapable problems with capitalism (which can only be addressed by changing the system entirely), but I think it makes sense that ought implies can (Kant’s ethical formula whereby if something is morally obligated to do or an action is one’s moral duty to carry out (or refrain from doing, if it’s in reference to negative duties), then it must be within a moral agent’s ability to do so - or I would add, within the scope of generally intuitive reasonability as an expectation for them to do, since it might be technically possible for them to do something if it involved significantly harming or compromising their own life, but that expectation or imposition on them would violate their own rights to self preservation, autonomy, etc). In other words, if someone is truly doing everything they can within reason or practicability to avoid making unethical consumption choices, or to make the least unethical choices available to them in a broken system that they didn’t design themself or choose to be born into, then in my book, they are being ethical as a moral agent, despite the unethical capitalist system they live in. But we should all do what we can to help reform it additionally where possible.
I hope this makes sense & wasn’t too convoluted, pedantic or annoying :)