boycotts are ineffective and a waste of time

[Bolshevist]

Some people think that boycotts are an effective way of saying what consumers want, and to stop with illegitimate business tactics (As one example, boycotting Coca-Cola because they killed union leaders in India). However its not. It is just a waste of time. Here is some reasons why I think it is

* The company would not notice any less sale of their products because they are too big. And to make an impact on the company you would need to get many many people with you. Something that is hard, esp. when talking about such large-scale companies.

* As it is pretty much useless, you are wasting time that could be used in a much more productive way. Like the class struggle or anti racism.

* Even if you do somehow succeed, it will only result in the bad of the workers. The management of the company will most likely experience nothing, while the workers will face lay-off's and mass firings.

* Believing that some companies are "better" than others, like how you would drink Pepsi when boycotting Coca-Cola is wrong. Any such company exploit their workers, and there is no good or bad. They are all bad.

* It takes away the focus on that capitalism must be abolished through revolution (i.e. "lets boycott all those bad companies"). You cannot gain much by boycotting a company.


Open for criticism and discussion :)

[Guerrilla22]

Just because boycotting a certain company, may not effect that company in any way, doesn't mean you should support that company yourself. If you have convictions, stick to them.

But I agree, not drinking Coca Cola, but drinking Pepsi instead, really is quite dumb, as they both are massive corporations, with one only being slightly better than the other.

[redstar2000]

I think it sort of "depends"...boycotts of multi-national corporations are particularly difficult.

On the other hand, people in Europe and elsewhere who are trying to boycott all American products as a protest of U.S. imperialism in Afghanistan and Iraq may have a political impact that is far more significant than the economic effects.

It was, after all, the initial tactic of anti-Nazism in 1933...boycotting of German goods sent an important message.

It was the first effort to "wake people up" about the real meaning of Nazism.

I think it was "the right thing to do".

:redstar2000:

The Redstar2000 Papers (http://www.redstar2000papers.fightcapitalism.net)
A site about communist ideas

[pedro san pedro]

i agree with the general sentiment - boycotts, particually in the age of globalisation, are extremely hard to organise to a level where an effect will be felt by the corperation targetted.

shell has however been targetted twice - by greenpeace over the brett spar issue, and by many groups its appalling human rights/indigeous land rights in nigera.
there is also a fairly large boycott in the uk and parts of europe against exxon/mobil/esso.

the shell campaigns were fairly successful and the mobil on has gather momentum.

within the ge-free world, threats of boycotts have been fairly successful. tegal, the main producer of puoltry in new zealand was forced to go ge-free after KFC, its main customer, was targetted in a major brand attack.

arnotts, a large nz biscuit producer, went ge-free over the threat of a brand attack.

ingham, the largest peurchaser of ge material in australiasia - again poultry - i scurrently being targtted in both nz and oz - with a success in nz after mcdonalds was targetted by activists using very effective street theatre (ronald mcdonald went in and handed in his resignation, then chained himself to a macdonalds factory gate)

so, they can work in some instances - a compny brand image is its biggest asset - and often its biggest weakness

[Essential Insignificance]

I have personally, held that, self imposing sanctions and boycotts of consumer products, is to a certain degree incongruous and doltish. But this, does seem, to be quite reactionary on my part.

However, on the antithesis is may be an "tool" to stimulate the fire of revolution.

The boycott of products may cause-ideally:

1. A considerable amount of wage-labors unemployed.

2. In turn, causing invariable competition between—local, national and international- - proletarians, to suffice the daily prerequisites of life

3. Causing gross wage reductions.

4. In times of life and death, people become revolutionary.


Although the likelihood of collective masses of people abandoning material possessions in remonstration to civil society, is I think, superfluous. But history is, mostly unpredictable, so who knows what’s "round the corner".

The bourgeoisie can live longer without proletariat, then the proletariat can without the bourgeoisie. But not in all circumstances.

[pedro san pedro]

i think you have missed the point EI - boycotts run until a certian demand is met, as in the above examples. they cant be used effectively as a means of shutting down a corperation - they have too much of a tendency to 'run otta steam'

[Essential Insignificance]

i think you have missed the point EI - boycotts run until a certian demand is met, as in the above examples. they cant be used effectively as a means of shutting down a corperation - they have too much of a tendency to 'run otta steam'

That statement is ambiguous and contradictory.

First you say that "boycotts run until a certain demand is met".

Then;

"They have too much of a tendency to run out of steam".

How can any demand be assembled and completed (as you point out), if such demands have a tendency to run out of steam?

[pedro san pedro]

i had thought from your original post that you felt boycotts make an effective tool for shutting down coperations, leading to civil unrest then revolution.

i feel that you can use boycotts to change small aspects of a companies policy - for example wether or not they choose to use gmo's in their products. however, these are short term campaigns, aimed at damaging a brand (brand damage lasts a long time, even if a campaign does not). i cant see a large scale boycott lasting long enough to shut down factories etc.

a boycott can be used to damage profits, but not to cause losses

[Subversive Pessimist]

It takes away the focus on that capitalism must be abolished through revolution (i.e. "lets boycott all those bad companies"). You cannot gain much by boycotting a company.

I agree. The goal is getting rid of the bourgeoisie. That will not happen if we decide to stop buying a few merchandises from a company.


As one example, boycotting Coca-Cola because they killed union leaders in India

Boycotting Coca-Cola because they killed union leaders in India???

[Essential Insignificance]

i had thought from your original post that you felt boycotts make an effective tool for shutting down coperations, leading to civil unrest then revolution.

I was just suggestive of the matter, and therefore wasn’t implying that it could be an effectual "tool" for future revolution.

But it could be!


i feel that you can use boycotts to change small aspects of a companies policy - for example wether or not they choose to use gmo's in their products.

That’s true.



however, these are short term campaigns, aimed at damaging a brand (brand damage lasts a long time, even if a campaign does not). i cant see a large scale boycott lasting long enough to shut down factories etc.


It’s all conditional. Small rebellions can and have in the past accumulated into a complete national revolutions. St Petersburg March 1917 is a great example. Although I do realize that boycotts and staving masses are totally different; but, it still illustrates that "elfin" strikes can turn in to full-scale revolutions.

[pedro san pedro]

agreed - though there is not really the confrontation nessercary with a boycott. though direct action is often useful for getting a boycott on the radar.

[BOZG]

Generally, I agree with what Twisted has said. The idea of boycott also adds to the idea that we are merely consumers, when the working class is a producer.

There are certain cases when boycotts can be supported criticially such as the boycott of South African goods during Apartheid and the boycott which RS raised. The present Coca-Cola boycott is another one which could be supported criticially, not down to the circumstances but because it was one called by SINALTRAINAL itself. Boycotts though, should not be called at the drop of a hat. The subjective situation has to be looked at beforehand, consciousness about the issue by other people, consciousness of the workers themselves, better methods of raising awareness etc.

Pedro raised many cases of boycotts being called against GE/GM goods but from what I can see in nearly every case, there is massive opposition to such goods and therefore the likelyhood of a company bowing down is far more likely and far more effective.

I do think it's disgusting though to hear all this liberal claptrap (not in this thread) about being disgusted because someone says they shop here or they eat there when they're essentially preaching that we stop wearing clothes entirely etc and return to primitive times.

[pedro san pedro]

I do think it's disgusting though to hear all this liberal claptrap (not in this thread) about being disgusted because someone says they shop here or they eat there when they're essentially preaching that we stop wearing clothes entirely etc and return to primitive times.

i don't think that people that get upset about where people are shopping are calling for primitism - they are simply saying that they dont agree with a particular companies policies.

rather than wearing no clothes, they are suggesting that they wear different clothes.

i feel that every purchase i make is a polictical decision of some form - by giving a corperation my money, i am saying that i agree with there practices (or they are at least the lesser of 2 many evils).

supporting new, positive markets is also very important - helping them to gain a foothold.

[apathy maybe]

I think that you should always boycott (even if it is just yourself) major and/or nasty corporations. Don't drink Coke or Pepsi, drink water or milk or something.

The idea is that even if they don't notice any sales drop, you are still feeling good in yourself. That is not to say that a personal boycott is the only way to go, you should also write letters to papers (explaining a particular boycott and why others should follow your lead), and otherwise try to educate others.

The idea of a so called communist wearing nike clothes, makes me sick. Not only is it more expensive, you're saying that you support the sweatshops. Buy your stuff from an op-shop (charity store), you get good quality clothing (sometimes you may have to patch something), cheap, and you're supporting a good cause (even if the govt. should be looking after the poor).

[Lacrimi de Chiciură]

Alright, lets all go to Wal-Mart and get some sweat shop made T Shirts!

[Raisa]

Now my question about boycotts to everybody is, what if the workers told you to boycott their companies product?

[BOZG]

Raisa,


The present Coca-Cola boycott is another one which could be supported criticially, not down to the circumstances but because it was one called by SINALTRAINAL itself.

That should answer your question.

[Essential Insignificance]

Now my question about boycotts to everybody is, what if the workers told you to boycott their companies product?

I would properly boycott the companies product immediately on hearing of the workers resolution.

However, this would cause a predicament for the workers themselves; and seldom would I ever except to hear such a rarefied thing.

[h&s]

If you want to boycott just one company, I would boycott Heinz, as thats where John Kerry gets his money from.

[Faceless]

I would properly boycott the companies product immediately on hearing of the workers resolution.

and



The International Boycott of Coca Cola started on the 22 July 2003. It was called by SINALTRAINAL (Colombian Food and Drinks Workers’ Union). It is supported by the World Social Forum, and by the CUT and the CGTD (principle trade union federations in Colombia), and numerous social organisations around the world.

http://www.colombiasolidarity.org.uk/cocacolacampaign.html

the main food and drinks union has called a boycott to last one year from the 22 of July. I would urge all people to join it.

[Essential Insignificance]

"We ask Coca Cola to stop killing, and you to stop drinking Coke"
Carlos Julia, Sinaltrainal

Thus I shall.