Notice he didn’t say “consumed,” though, in the same essay, he describes “production and consumption” as the “movement” of private property:
Private property has made us so stupid and one-sided that an object is only ours when we have it – when it exists for us as capital, or when it is directly possessed, eaten, drunk, worn, inhabited, etc., – in short, when it is used by us. Although private property itself again conceives all these direct realisations of possession only as means of life, and the life which they serve as means is the life of private property – labour and conversion into capital….The human being had to be reduced to this absolute poverty in order that he might yield his inner wealth to the outer world. [emphasis added]
Let us say it again: To accept “consume” as a synonym for “use” is to adopt the terminology and worldview of private property rather than plain human beings. To do so is to truncate and distort one’s view of the very process one professes to want to elucidate, by conceding the hypothesis that human product-use activities are only interesting and important insofar as they serve their own “conversion into capital.”
Social critics of the world, unite and cease your use of the “consumer” vocabulary! Be precise and objective! There is still a world to win, or at least describe.