system
Given the following post, respond as if you're commenting on Reddit:
human
CMV: Every purchase is a vote

In reading Leo Strauss on Political Philosophy, he said this:

>*Everyone knows that buying a shirt, as distinguished from casting a vote, is not in itself a  political action.*

I agree that purchasing a products is not a political action to the same amount that voting for a candidate is. I disagree that it isn't a political action at all, even if it just is a very minor way of influencing the status quo.

There are many ways of describing what is political and what is not, from Machiavelli to Luhmann or any you're familiar with. So a purchase is not a political action under every definition of politics, but under a few.

**Every time you define politics by "exerting influence over the system" or "affecting a society", purchasing a product can be viewed as a political action.**

\[See also:  „Politics is the struggle over changing or conserving the status quo." Graf von Krockow\]

Every purchase, even if not transparent as such, has consequences. The sum of our purchases as a society has a massive influence over the state of the world. A shirt from a local producers with adequate working conditions is different to a shirt from Bangladesh in it's consequences. This can also be applied to the carbon footprint of our purchases, etc.

Maybe to distinguish between an individual and a movement is helpful. Perhaps the individual buying a shirt is not political, but in context of a 'fair trade movement', which consists of many consumers and their choices, it can be called political.

If you view my definitions of politics as incorrect (1), you can furthermore address if purchasing does fall under the characteristics of these definitions (2).

So this one has two parts: (1) Whether my definition of politics is correct/practicable and (2) whether purchasing a product can be viewed as "exerting influence over the system" and "affecting a society", addressing individual actions and movements. I find (2) to be more interesting to talk about.

I know many of you disagree with (2) as well and I want to know why. I feel like my view on this is simplistic, so I hope to learn more.
gpt
The primary issue with this idea, and the idea of the free market punishing bad actors in general, is that the vast majority of people only interact with the tip of the iceberg of transactions. Supply chains increase in complexity exponentially. When you buy bread, you are buying the water, flour, yeast, and whatever else involved. But you are also financially supporting the equipment supply co that made the combine that harvested to grain to make the flour. You are supporting the chemical company that provided the pesticides or whatever else. You are supporting the contractor that installed the irrigation system. And all of the sweatshops that made the machines used in making that irrigation system. 

In buying a product, you are supporting its components. You are supporting the components necessary to produce said components in an infinite progression. And the vast majority of that happens before the end user becomes involved at all.