Any Particular Companies?

[Revolutionary Pseudonym]

Hi,
I was just wondering, are there any specific companies/organisations which we should avoid and boycott due to their treatment of employees, exploitation, enviromental or what ever.
Obviously most companies have something wrong, but I want the like the big ones. Could you please say which company and why we should boycott them please, thanks.

[Red Commissar]

One I can think of that'd be in the UK would be starbucks.

Starbucks' CEO apparently thinks unions are redundant because he already knows what is best for his workers. In some areas here in the states, he refuses to give many of the workers benefits. In New York City, there's an ongoing wage battle because the employees feel they aren't being paid enough to keep up with NYC's cost of living.

Only their appearance of being a "progressive" business has kept them from being held under scrutiny. Really the only "good" thing they do is they have some fair-trade policies but that's as far as it'll go.

[which doctor]

All companies exploit their workers, this is a fundamental theorem of Marxism. There's no point in boycotting specific companies, perhaps besides that feel goody feeling liberals get when they're thinking they're 'saving the world.'

Even if these boycotts could gain mass support, the most they would do would tip the scales of the market to a different company. Poor working conditions will not be fought by the consumer, but by those workers who experience them.

It is not a matter of who is the most oppressed, and how we can best alleviate their situation, the point is the proletariat as a class are exploited and they are the only ones in the position to change this by way of socialist revolution, the historical mission of the proletariat.

[Revolutionary Pseudonym]

All companies exploit their workers, this is a fundamental theorem of Marxism. There's no point in boycotting specific companies, perhaps besides that feel goody feeling liberals get when they're thinking they're 'saving the world.'

Even if these boycotts could gain mass support, the most they would do would tip the scales of the market to a different company. Poor working conditions will not be fought by the consumer, but by those workers who experience them.

It is not a matter of who is the most oppressed, and how we can best alleviate their situation, the point is the proletariat as a class are exploited and they are the only ones in the position to change this by way of socialist revolution, the historical mission of the proletariat.

Boycotting companies can work and I can make a difference, capitalism works by selling people what they think they want, if people don't want to buy something then they are not going to sell it; so if people refuse to buy something due to the work conditions then they would compete because of market competition as we could use the companies that treat the people less bad - through time this should drive the working conditions better - as has prices for example, as people constantly seek better deals all the prices go down so the companies can compete with eachother.
Avoiding particular companies can make a difference and anyway, what's so bad about the feel good save the world ideas - after all we should try to achieve victory by any way we can and for me, at the moment, using more fair companies is really all I can do - every little helps.

[Q]

All companies exploit their workers, this is a fundamental theorem of Marxism. There's no point in boycotting specific companies, perhaps besides that feel goody feeling liberals get when they're thinking they're 'saving the world.'

Even if these boycotts could gain mass support, the most they would do would tip the scales of the market to a different company. Poor working conditions will not be fought by the consumer, but by those workers who experience them.

It is not a matter of who is the most oppressed, and how we can best alleviate their situation, the point is the proletariat as a class are exploited and they are the only ones in the position to change this by way of socialist revolution, the historical mission of the proletariat.
Exactly, couldn't have said it much better. The way forward is to organise and educate and thus to take matters into our own hands. A boycott leads to passiveness and moralism. Moralism because it inherently makes some forms of exploitation acceptable.

[Revolutionary Pseudonym]

Well yes, but we live in a capitalist world and there is virtually no way to avoid it, so there really is reason to not actively pay money to the more exploitive companies and use the less exploitive ones so to not aid them. Therefore we should aim to avoid the worse companies and in order to do that we need to know what those companies are - thus the point of this thread. The point of these boycotts would not be to topple the capatlists but to instead make a slow change and to not actively support them.

[Q]

Well yes, but we live in a capitalist world and there is virtually no way to avoid it
Agreed, exploitation is a fundamental part of the system.


so there really is reason to not actively pay money to the more exploitive companies and use the less exploitive ones so to not aid them. Therefore we should aim to avoid the worse companies and in order to do that we need to know what those companies are - thus the point of this thread. The point of these boycotts would not be to topple the capatlists but to instead make a slow change and to not actively support them.

Disagreed, for two reasons: First you're basically saying that a big company is inherently bad as it has become so successful, at least partly, because it can be more "productive" (it can exploit better). This fosters illusions in that smaller or local companies are somehow better, which is simply not the case. We don't attack them for their efficiency of playing the capitalist game, but for playing the game at all.

Secondly, this builds no alternative. How do you exactly propose that workers will ever start organising if you say "well, fuck you guys, you work for Starbucks and I'm boycotting that"? The response you'll get of course is that Starbucks workers will stand behind their bosses in order to safe their jobs from being boycotted away. You give the bosses a very effective tool in divide and rule. Building a class movement is for starters beginning to unionise workers in the workplace and start to organise them to demand their rights and use action by achieving it.

[Revolutionary Pseudonym]

I am not saying that boycotting should be used to cripple and destroy the capatlist companies, and thus their workers, but instead so that they will change their practices due to lack of proffit - for example: when in Britain you could buy two chickens for £5, after an onslaught from celebrity chefs and people refusing to buy the chickens due to the inhumane conditions in which they were kept they virtually stopped selling them and people instead opted for the more expensive free range chickens. When the recession hit and people wanted cheaper stuff and they were more willing to buy the inhumane products they began to sell them again because people wanted to buy them.
This same principal can be applied to say Starbucks - if people stop going there because of how they treat their staff then in order to increase their proffit they would have to treat their staff better in order to regain their proffit. They will only sell what people want, if people don't want products which are some way involved in great exploitation (as opposed to the whole idea of wages etc. which is exploitation in itself), then they will not sell it.
I am not solely targeting lareger companies, ofcause many smaller and indepenednt compaines are often involved in the same degree of exploitation and this can be combatted equally as well through boycotting them.

[Q]

I am not saying that boycotting should be used to cripple and destroy the capatlist companies, and thus their workers, but instead so that they will change their practices due to lack of proffit

And this is where you go wrong, I'm sorry to say. Capitalists will maintain their drive for profit and increase exploitation to keep it up. The road of the boycott doesn't achieve anything.

[Os Cangaceiros]

I think that boycotts might possibly have some place if they're used in conjunction with strikes as a leverage tool. Other than that though I pretty much agree with which doctor and Q.