Boycotts - Effective?

[Dennis the 'Bloody Peasant']

Do you consider product / service boycotts to be an effective tool for attacking or weakening capitalists and their multinationals? Do you participate in any boycotts?

[Jimmie Higgins]

Do you consider product / service boycotts to be an effective tool for attacking or weakening capitalists and their multinationals? Do you participate in any boycotts?For those specific aims, no. But that also dosn't mean they are totally useless either - it depends on the circumstances and more immediate goals. The problem with this tactic is that it is inherently consumerist, our power isn't in buying - especially when you consider the inequalities of wealth: for example in the US where the bottom 40% has .2% of the wealth in the country. So even if the whole working class boycotted something, it might make a limited impact, but out power just isn't in our consuming vs. the wealth we create which is 100% of the wealth basically: so .2% control or 100% control... a strike of a few hundred workers in a essential field like shipping or electricity vs. a boycott by thousands, which has more power both in hurting the bosses and in self-organizing workers... in this view, it should be obvious where our real access to power is.

All this being said, boycotts can be a useful tactic - I think one example is just in a demonstration of general solidarity with a worker's struggle. So if there is a strike with a lot of community support, beyond calling for people not to cross the picket line, workers might call on supporters to also boycott the products - this helps bring the strike more into community life and if it's a strong boycott, then it might show the bosses where popular opinion is. But again it's a weaker tactic than organizing at the point of production. Another case where boycotts might be appropriate is when the fight is over social oppression: the Civil Rights bus boycott being a famous example.

[Philosophos]

I really don't think if you just do it by yourself it will make the difference even though I keep doing it because I don't even want to think that Colas and same brands take more money because of me.

It might not be very effective but in Greece we started some boycotts a few years ago and they had quite big results.

Well boycotts might not be the best solution as Jimmie Higgins said that "our power isn't in buying" but since we live in the period were capitalism is at it's best since almost noone considers at turning the tables and where people think communism is somehow taboo this is a good way to make people start realizing that they should at least be anti-capitalists and that they can do something even if its something small.

[The Jay]

I said the soft no, but I avoid buying certain products and from certain stores. I shall make WalMart tremble!

[leftistman]

I, being a vegetarian, have a boycott against all industries that abuse animals(meat industry, fur industry, circuses, etc.). Boycotts can be useful at time but only if a large group of people participate. A good example of this would be when there was a boycott against segregated buses during the Civil Rights Movement. I still think that direct action is more effective.

[Igor]

The thing about boycotts is that in the end, they're about changing capitalism; any boycott movement can't really have goals beyond "nicer" capitalism and that's exactly the reason it can't hurt capitalism. I personally have boycotted some businesses in the past but wouldn't campaign for that, because they have pretty much just been my personal decisions to not give too much money to the worst assholes; regardless of whether it's a good strategy, it's important to remember it doesn't have any potential to go beyond hypothetical "nicer capitalism" which shouldn't be our goal.

[Die Neue Zeit]

But again it's a weaker tactic than organizing at the point of production.

What is the relevance of comparing two forms of organizing apolitically, and thus ineffectively? :confused:

[Mr. Natural]

Of course boycotts can be a revolutionary tool if they are organized as such. What is needed in an underlying revolutionary organizing theory and direction and an engaged community. Revolutionaries are to enable the development of these conditions.

Many decades ago I participated in the United Farm Workers' grape boycott, which was very successful. That this was a liberal campaign does not mean that similar radical boycotts could not also take place.

We are surrounded by capitalist conditions and values, though, that revolutionary boycotts must transcend. My mother provided an excellent example of this problem. During the grape boycott, our family decided at the dinner table that we would buy no grapes. Then, after my mother's next trip to the commissary, the refrigerator was full of grapes. "They were on sale!," my mother explained.

My red-green best.

[Ostrinski]

Not in a direct sense but they can be useful for raising political awareness.

[Jimmie Higgins]

What is the relevance of comparing two forms of organizing apolitically, and thus ineffectively? :confused:I'm not sure what you mean by that. How was I making an apolitical argument about these tactics?

[Grenzer]

I'm not sure what you mean by that. How was I making an apolitical argument about these tactics?

Because there is nothing inherent to resistance at the point of production which implies a vision in a higher, worker-organized economy. Only actual political organization can inspire and create this consciousness. Frankly I'm surprised you haven't realized this since it's exactly what Lenin was arguing in What is to be done?

Arguing for tactics in the nature of "point-of-production" struggles is economism in essence since it's not actually inherently linked to a political alternative and political struggle.

[Jimmie Higgins]

Because there is nothing inherent to resistance at the point of production which implies a vision in a higher, worker-organized economy. Only actual political organization can inspire and create this consciousness. Frankly I'm surprised you haven't realized this since it's exactly what Lenin was arguing in What is to be done?

Arguing for tactics in the nature of "point-of-production" struggles is economism in essence since it's not actually inherently linked to a political alternative and political struggle.

LOL we're comparing boycott to strike or occupation, not strike to worker's revolution. I'm arguing that OUR POWER as workers is in producing, not consuming - therefore point of production struggle is a stronger tactic than boycotts.

[blake 3:17]

LOL we're comparing boycott to strike or occupation, not strike to worker's revolution. I'm arguing that OUR POWER as workers is in producing, not consuming - therefore point of production struggle is a stronger tactic than boycotts.

It's silly to make them into somehow opposed tactics. There is no contradiction between them. Boycotts can hurt the enemy economically, but also help develop class consciousness by appealing to the class as a whole and not just a particular group of workers.

Two of the most important boycotts in North America were the California grape boycott and Taco Bell boycott, which were in support of farm workers. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Delano_grape_strike & http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Coalition_of_Immokalee_Workers#Taco_Bell_Boycott Would it have made sense for Leftists to not respect these boycotts? Of course not.

There seems to be some confusion on this thread about what a boycott is and how they can be effective. They need clear aims and clear targets. Like strikes, they succeed because they are hurting particular capitalists or sections of capital. It can be used very effectively in ways similar to pattern bargaining as developed by Farrell Dobbs.

Sometimes the tactic backfires. A few years ago, one of the local Palestine solidarity groups called for a boycott of kosher holiday wines produced in Israel. The problem is that nobody drinks them except for religious Jews.

[Prometeo liberado]

The United Farm Workers employed the boycott tactic years ago and apart from the initial inertia garnered from the "No Grapes" campaign it pretty much showed itself to be useless. People tend to fall into the thinking that "If everyone else is boycotting product X then it won't hurt if I just use it this once".

[Collectorgeneral]

I boycott certain companies/corporations like EA, Chiquita (or whatever the united fruit company calls itself these days) etc... by refusing to purchase (for there are no other means of procurement available to me that won't land me in jail) their various commodities.

[Jimmie Higgins]

It's silly to make them into somehow opposed tactics. There is no contradiction between them.Who's doing that? I was mearly comparing them, not counterposing them. In general, strikes are stronger both in economic impact and in their ability to self-teach workers about the importance of their role in society (regardless if they take that to full revolutionary conclusions - which in history seems to generally only happen with small numbers of workers in absence of a larger revolutionary movement - or tons of workers all at once but fleetingly). But as I said boycotts can be useful and entirely appropriate too.


Boycotts can hurt the enemy economically, but also help develop class consciousness by appealing to the class as a whole and not just a particular group of workers.Yes as I said in my first post when I said that when a boycott is connected to a strike it can be a tool to broaden the strike and gain solidarity among wider layers of workers - the Grape Boycott is a famous example of this because as very isolated workers (geographically and because of the racial stratification in the way the industry works), this public boycott was able to make the struggle more visible. But it also tends to be a weaker strategy, and I think, if I remember correctly, the UFW actually did counterpose a strike with this boycott, saying that the boycott would be a safter road. But anyway, I can't quite remember and the point is that there are times when this tactic is useful, but I think in general terms of class struggle, strikes are more effective tactics for furthering working class self-emancipation.


Two of the most important boycotts in North America were the California grape boycott and Taco Bell boycott, which were in support of farm workers. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Delano_grape_strike & http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Coalition_of_Immokalee_Workers#Taco_Bell_Boycott Would it have made sense for Leftists to not respect these boycotts? Of course not.Again, I am not making a dogma of this point, or even counter-posing the tactics on a principle of some kind. Both are tactics, which mean there are times when tactically they are appropriate and times when they might not be. A strike is better than a sick-out, but sometimes when ourside is weak or if there is an injunction against a strike, then a sick-out is workth organizing and supporting. In military terms, one could say it's always better to defend from the high ground - but this is not counterposed to other kinds of defenses or that if you don't have a hill to fortify, then you are fucked - it's just a generality.

And not only do I not oppose boycotts on principle or dogmatically, I was part of a coalition in LA that organized in solidarity with the immokalee workers against Taco Bell in 2001. I went to coalition meeting and helped organize weekly pickets outside of a Taco Bell where we made a big Taco Bell Dog sign and had people walking by throw tomatoes at it.

While this campaign, again, was useful for bringing public attention to a marginalized group of workers, the thing is that they had tried and couldn't effectively strike and so this was another tactic available to them. So again, a strike would have been more effective in some ways, but it's abstract to talk about it because it wasn't possible under the conditions, making a Boycott a very effective alternative that was possible.

EDIT: Oh and to clarify I pretty much agree with your entire post - sorry if this response came off as too argumentative.

[blake 3:17]

Yes as I said in my first post when I said that when a boycott is connected to a strike it can be a tool to broaden the strike and gain solidarity among wider layers of workers - the Grape Boycott is a famous example of this because as very isolated workers (geographically and because of the racial stratification in the way the industry works), this public boycott was able to make the struggle more visible. But it also tends to be a weaker strategy, and I think, if I remember correctly, the UFW actually did counterpose a strike with this boycott, saying that the boycott would be a safter road. But anyway, I can't quite remember and the point is that there are times when this tactic is useful, but I think in general terms of class struggle, strikes are more effective tactics for furthering working class self-emancipation.

...
And not only do I not oppose boycotts on principle or dogmatically, I was part of a coalition in LA that organized in solidarity with the immokalee workers against Taco Bell in 2001. I went to coalition meeting and helped organize weekly pickets outside of a Taco Bell where we made a big Taco Bell Dog sign and had people walking by throw tomatoes at it.

While this campaign, again, was useful for bringing public attention to a marginalized group of workers, the thing is that they had tried and couldn't effectively strike and so this was another tactic available to them. So again, a strike would have been more effective in some ways, but it's abstract to talk about it because it wasn't possible under the conditions, making a Boycott a very effective alternative that was possible.

EDIT: Oh and to clarify I pretty much agree with your entire post - sorry if this response came off as too argumentative.

No problem about your tone. Mine was a little argumentative too, so we're both correct and a little cranky?

I tried to get a Taco Bell boycott going here in 2002, but couldn't find folks to get involved. I did have some good correspondence with CIW folks about creative tactics.

I'd see boycotts of having being useful and valuable in three overlapping ways.

1) Helping to our side to win particular, immediate and contingent struggles.

2) Creating opportunities to educate about particular injustices while opening doors to talk about broader injustices.

3) Disciplining the exploiting class.

We've been losing lots of fights, and winning a few, but effective solidarity actions do help us win and put the bosses in their place. I've been active in solidarity campaigns where the bosses were particularly terrible and have enough bourgeois class consciousness that they were willing to win without winning. Boycotts, secondary strikes, civil disobedience etc give a sign to the dominant class to not do it again. I was at a food fair a few days ago, and was struck by the packaging of grapes from California -- they all had cartoon logos and funny names. There are enough people around that have some memory of the boycott or the taint of the boycott that the bosses need to make California grapes "fun". Knight Ridder felt the after effects of locking out Detroit newspaper workers for years and years -- maintaining USA Today boxes became very very expensive.

[Ele'ill]

This is a similar discussion on tactics to that other thread in politics- but I don't think boycotts work, I don't think they're very direct because it relies on a consistent critical mass in order to even begin to work.

[Die Neue Zeit]

Because there is nothing inherent to resistance at the point of production which implies a vision in a higher, worker-organized economy. Only actual political organization can inspire and create this consciousness. Frankly I'm surprised you haven't realized this since it's exactly what Lenin was arguing in What is to be done?

Arguing for tactics in the nature of "point-of-production" struggles is economism in essence since it's not actually inherently linked to a political alternative and political struggle.

LOL we're comparing boycott to strike or occupation, not strike to worker's revolution. I'm arguing that OUR POWER as workers is in producing, not consuming - therefore point of production struggle is a stronger tactic than boycotts.

The comrade wasn't even referring to "workers revolution" when writing of political action. There are more immediate forms of that than what happens during revolutionary periods.

[blake 3:17]

This is a similar discussion on tactics to that other thread in politics- but I don't think boycotts work, I don't think they're very direct because it relies on a consistent critical mass in order to even begin to work.

Does this apply to the Montgomery Bus boycott? The Taco Bell boycott?