system
Given the following post, respond as if you're commenting on Reddit:
human
CMV: Anarchists/communists/anti-capitalists etc. who carelessly consume luxury products produced by capitalism arent living in accordance with their ideology.

I've tried having this discussion on a few leftist/ideological debate subs and haven't made a lot of progress. I'm hoping some folks here who haven't drunk the koolaid might be able to help!

It seems to me that an anti-capitalist  (anarchist, communist, etc.) who, say, sits around Starbucks drinking double frap extra pump whip whatevers in brand new Nike's as they browse Reddit on the latest Macbook is, at best, not living in accordance with their ideology, and at worst a hypocrite. 

The response I got when I posed this to leftists was mainly mockery and scorn. "We live in a society!" they said, "how can you expect us to not participate in that society? Should we all just starve to death rather than buy food produced by capitalism?" 

I dont think my view is that unreasonable. I dont begrudge any anti-capitalist doing what they have to do to survive in a capitalist system, and largely capitalist world. And FWIW I would consider some level of recreation/leisure/enjoyment to be essential to survival, or perhaps just mental health. 

Just as an example, say an anti-capitalist wants to read a book. Some anarchist literature, perhaps. Do they buy the book from a local mom-and-pop used bookstore, or do they buy it "new" on their $300 Amazon Kindle? The former shows a desire to engage with capitalism, particularly big-business, super corrupt and exploitative capitalism, as minimally as possible while still getting what they want; the latter shows a willingness to engage in and support the very worst forms of capitalism... at best it seems to show an indifference to it, neither of which really fit for a self-described anti-capitalist. 

It's sort of like if someone claimed to be a climate change/environmental/green advocate but they pour their used oil down storm drains, eat cheeseburgers twice a day, and drive the biggest gas guzzling SUV they could find. Like, obviously they have to eat and depending on where they live they might have to drive, and both of those things will impact the environment, but there are greener alternatives that they've foregone for luxury or convenience. 

Am I missing something here? The cynic in me likes to think that the visceral negative reaction I've gotten from anti-capitalists when i suggest that maybe they ought to stop wantonly supporting capitalism for their mere enjoyment and comfort is just because they're loathe to put their money where their mouths is and actually make any sacrifices for their beliefs. But it is fully possible I'm just missing something here, and they have a totally valid reason for giving their patronage to mega-companies like Nike or Amazon or Starbucks or Reddit while still being a genuine anti-capitalist.
gpt
Anarchy isn't a rejection of consumption or goods. There are some very successful business that use anarchistic models, like employee owned business that don't have any single person in charge, no bosses no mangers just workers who directly work for themselves. 

The fact that your lumping several ideologies into one category and demanding those that like then them to abide by YOUR interpretation of their beliefs is the real source of confusion here.

It's also strange to say, well this person wants society as a whole to drastically change, so they should behave as though it already has changed. Isn't very logical, people who want drastic changes can't remodel their personal lives to fit those desires, like Ayn Rand, who had very extreme views about individualism, and anti welfare, yet ended her life dependent on welfare and social security. Is she a hypocrite or is she living in a system that dosen't allow her to deviate from it's plan.

I personally think she was a hypocrite not because she accepted welfare and social security, but because her justification was the typical libertarian point of view. That she shouldn't have to pay for others, but there's nothing wrong with everyone paying for her.

Saying someone fits a view because you say so, not them, and that they must abide by your ideas about that view, dispite them never claiming to agree with it, or agreeing with a separate understanding of the view you won't acknowledge, doesn't make any sense. 

I know it's fun to accuse everyone you disagree with of being a communist, but that doesn't make it so.