So, he says that in the early days of consumerism, you'd buy something -> feel bad -> donate to a charity -> feel good.

Now, with Starbucks, you pay more upfront and get to do both (buy coffee and donate to charity) at the same time.

But, like, how is this bad? Or, hell, how is it is even different from before? At Starbucks (to stick to his example) you get to do both things at once. I don't see any ideology here - just a more efficient process.

Like, the megathread advertises Zapatista Coffee because we get to do two things - buy coffee and support people we like. It's just convenient to do both things at once.

And, honestly, if there is an ideology here, it's certainly not about donating to charity. If you ask the average Starbucks coffee drinker (like me), we don't go to Starbucks to donate to charity. We go because it's convenient (usually on multiple places on campus), the store looks nice, the baristas are cute has free Wifi, places to sit etc. I pay extra for all that.

The fact that Starbucks donate like 1% to charity or whatever contributes to it, but it's not the "ideology". Like, if that actually becomes a bigger part of my motivation for buying coffee (and other products), I'll actively stop going to Starbucks and go to either local coffee-chains or to the Zapatista Coffee mentioned above.

Edit: Thanks for the explanations. I get it now. Starbucks keeps class consciousness down and prevents consumers from recognizing the exploitation that goes into making and distributing that coffee. Instead people get positive feelings about consumerism.