World Systems Theory and related concepts often come up whenever people try to explain why Westerners are psychotic counterrevolutionary scum, etc. It's often suggested that white Americans in particular love third-world exploitation because it directly benefits those same white Americans. We might say "White Minnesotan Joe Cracker wants child slavery in southern Africa so he can get his cheap electronics." And yeah, that makes sense up to a point...
But Joe Cracker might not understand the relevant supply chain or even the basic composition of his smartphone. He probably doesn't even know about the existence of said exploitation, much less its nature or purpose. Maybe Joe Cracker WILL revolt without his cheap goods, but he probably doesn't actually know what goes into producing them or keeping the prices down. So what decisions is he making that render him "complicit" in the profiteering of some massive international corporation like Apple? Falling for their ads?
It's also worth pointing out that his iPhone doesn't actually make him richer any more than a Hulu membership does. It's a cute little toy, but it doesn't obtain food, housing, medicine or fuel. It's a cell phone with a billion bells and whistles and a monthly subscription fee. One could starve to death with it in hand. Is this really the "wealth transfer" we keep talking about? This is the socialized bribery Americans perfected?
It seems to me that Joe Cracker is complicit in fuck-all. He doesn't materially benefit from low wages in southeast Asian textile plants even if he wears one of those shirts they make every single day. It seems that he's just a different kind of poor from the Bangladeshi serfs who make his sneakers, the kind of poor with tap water, McDonalds, and WiFi. Poor overseas workers make the stupid shit, poor Americans buy the stupid shit, and they both struggle, but at least Joe Cracker has some killer kicks to go along with the Taco Bell and the wireless internet in his shitty apartment. The Nike execs, meanwhile, can smoke cigars and watch the line go up from the VIP lounge.
"Bread and Circuses" seems like a much better explanation for the behavior of these Westerners. Who says Joe Cracker has a good reason for throwing his verbal weight behind an ongoing genocide in Gaza, screaming about nuking Moscow over a slice of Ukraine, and pearl-clutching about the 100 billion victims of Communism in Xinjiang?
I think this gets to a relevant point that the average Joe in any imperialist country has not the smallest clue about how much pain and suffering his lifestyle costs, but it does not change that his lifestyle costs that much pain and suffering, and this whole complicity stuff is some semantic hair splitting and ultimately unproductive, if by complicit you mean part of the system that exploits the subjugated countries, yes they are, but that don't mean much because by this logic most everybody is, even those living in the exploited countries, so if you mean complicit knowingly furthering the exploitation, sure most people do not act like this, in fact I'd wager a very small group does. So this complicit stuff is meaningless because either everybody is or nobody. Once that is understood the point becomes: the enemy isn't Joe cracker from America or Europe, the enemy is the system, that uses Joe cracker as frontline buy seducing him with a small share of the fruits of exploitation. Our job is to dispute the ideological mechanisms that keep Joe cracker in line and show him what could be different with the system changing and what he had to gain, like not worrying about leaving inheritance for the children for no one will ever be destitute, not worrying about cost of health, working less, retiring sooner, have appropriate support if he wants to have children.
TLDR the complicit argument is kinda pointless, and the average Joe is not necessarily our enemy many of those are potential allies once we get them to understand more about how things work.