The contemporary designer operates in a world saturated with consumerism. It must be said outright: the role of the designer is becoming increasingly controversial. At every turn, graphic design serves brands, corporations, and political narratives, aiming to convince us to purchase, build a certain image, or sometimes even shape our identities. To be frank – I don’t believe in most of the commercial projects I’ve completed.

The question worth asking is: as a designer, do I even have a choice? Visual design is now seen as a tool supporting consumption and capitalism. Designers create brand images, advertisements, and products whose primary goal is to capture consumers' attention and persuade them to spend money. Design has become an integral part of market mechanisms, often serving corporate interests more than the actual needs of society.

I recently returned to Ruben Pater’s book Caps Lock: How Capitalism Took Hold of Graphic Design. He presents a critical analysis of this phenomenon, arguing that designers – often unknowingly – contribute to perpetuating social inequalities and harmful consumer practices. What was once a form of artistic expression has gradually transformed into a purely functional tool for promotion, sales, and ultimately profit. The designer becomes a mechanic of the capitalist machine, building visual tools not for culture but for sustaining the cycle of production and consumption.

Brands have become more important than the products they sell. The designer no longer designs for the product but for the brand – an illusion, a promise that the brand wants to sell us. Consumption is no longer a choice – it has become our everyday reality, and the designer, knowingly or not, plays a crucial role in this. Brands, through carefully designed visual strategies, have transformed into carriers of lifestyles, leading to the homogenization of culture and the limitation of real consumer choice. In this context, the designer appears as a key player in creating artificial needs and desires.

Moreover, what was once a critical movement against capitalism has now become a tool for its promotion. Radical ideas that aimed to transform society have been co-opted by advertisers and sold as a lifestyle. From this perspective, every graphic project, regardless of the original intentions, gets drawn into the whirlpool of capitalist reality.

Can we then blame design for being a tool of capitalism? Not necessarily. The question is: does the designer have a choice? Can they operate outside the system? Victor Papanek promoted the idea of responsible design that serves communities, not capital. His vision was design in the service of humanity, not corporations. He criticized designers for using their talents in the service of "useless things," emphasizing that design should be functional, ecological, and ethical. The problem is, few designers have managed to break free from the capitalist framework. Papanek’s world, though noble, seems utopian in a reality where every commission must be scalable and profitable.

From the outset, capitalism has demonstrated an incredible ability to assimilate everything that could undermine it. Rebellion, which once had an authentic character, is now transformed into yet another trendy product, lifestyle, or advertising campaign. Any contestation quickly becomes a commodity – capitalism can sell anarchist patches and recycled eco-shoes, promising us a sense of individuality. The paradox is that every expression of rebellion can be monetized. The market seems to have an endless capacity to capture and sell all forms of resistance.

But the search for rebellion is not a trend – it’s a response to our sense of alienation and emptiness caused by a world dominated by money and consumption. Rebellion cannot be a lifestyle or a trend – it must be a process of continuous questioning. It is a battle on the level of ideas, not superficial aesthetics.

Is there a way to act differently? Perhaps. We can engage in social projects, ecological initiatives, or activist movements. We can design for local communities instead of serving global giants. But even then, we still operate in a world where money determines the value of our work. An alternative might be to completely reject the role of the designer in favor of becoming a conscious creator – a person who designs for ideas, not profit. However, this is a utopia possible only for individuals. We probably won’t escape consumerism – it is too deeply rooted in our culture.

Perhaps a certain solution could be Papanek’s so-called tithe. Every designer should devote at least ten percent of their work to projects that have a real, positive impact on society – those that help improve quality of life, solve social problems, or contribute to environmental protection. Papanek proposed a "tithe" not in a financial sense but a creative one: that every designer shares their knowledge and talent in the service of ethical goals, not profit. But honestly, this is the minimum program – a symbolic gesture that still keeps us within the capitalist system.

The issue is not whether design is necessary – of course, it is. The question is, what kind of design is needed, and how can a designer act ethically? Critical thinking and awareness of one’s choices are the first steps toward ceasing to be a pawn in the game of consumption and starting to build something valuable. The future of design depends on those who can combine creativity with social responsibility, taking on projects that not only look good but also genuinely make a difference. Otherwise, we are left only with ideas that, in essence, boil down to one thing: profit, which, worse still, isn’t even ours in the first place.