By: Liv

Not sure how far I can get behind a ‘conscious capitalist’ who requires his producers to create good working conditions but ‘opposes labor unions and once penned a Wall Street Journal op-ed that ran under the headline The Whole Foods Alternative to Obamacare that endeared him to the Tea Party.’

Ultimately, there are contradictions/paradoxes inherent to ‘ethical capitalism.’ And I think that Mackey doesn’t really deal well with them in an ethically conscious way (unlike certain other models, that, yes, have to compromise, but do so with a greater emphasis on widespread social justice). He’s really just an arch neoliberal/free market-eer.

If he were so committed to the line that he espouses in the article, Whole Foods would be built on a social enterprise and co-operative model, and would try and maximise efficacy through those.

Also, I mean… ‘conscious capitalism’ that voluntarily supported militarised presence in Baltimore… Again, it seems like Mackey deals with the contradictions inherent in an ‘ethical form of capitalism’ by just, ultimately, opting for the easier route. Just because he doesn’t build his model on immediate profit over anything else, doesn’t mean he’s a ‘conscious capitalist’ (or ethically conscious anything, necessarily).

And a ‘conscious capitalism’ that maintains/perpetuates the gentrification of food cultures, including ‘healthy’/’ethical’ alternatives, isn’t even spreading the gospels Mackey claims to support.

All this said, it was a super interesting read. Thank you!