On the important French Fry Question

[Dennis Perrin/Nancy Bauer]

>At 8:18 PM -0600 1/21/01, Carrol Cox wrote:
>>It seemed to me that the first two responses, from doug &
>>yoshie, gave a nearly exhaustive political analysis of the
>>issue of replacing political (i.e., collective) judgment with
>>inividualist moralism. Such individualist moralism is
>>primarily a rejection of class solidarity, replacing it with
>>mere private priggishness or national chauvinism.
>
>And, for once, I wholeheartedly agree with Leo Casey:
>
>At 3:39 PM -0500 1/21/01, LeoCasey at aol.com wrote:
>>There is, to my mind, one -- and one only -- criteria for "boycotting" a
>>particular product. That is: is there an effective, organized mass boycott
>>which could result in some really change in corporate policy for the better?
>>One boycotted non-union grapes or lettuce to the end of having corporate
>>agriculture recognize and negotiate with a union for the farmworkers who
>>picked the produce. And so on.
>>
>>Anything else is a modern day monastic moralism, in which one separates
>>oneself from the corrupt world, rather than seeks to transform it.
>>
>>Leo Casey
>
>Yoshie

Sing on, o Red Army Choir! But before you place a Maoist dunce cap on my
head, let me say that if you look hard enough, there are organzied boycotts
of many of the companies I choose not to buy from. Nike is perhaps the most
recognized, but there are various groups organzied against the fast food
industry (as well as union efforts within that industry). We've all seen the
reports pop up on this list. And this concept of "individualist" and 
"monastic moralism" is, for the most part, utter crap. Must all
consciousness be collectively determined? Everything begins with
individuals, people who sense that something is amiss and act upon their
suspicion and anger. Of course it takes collective action to achieve real
results. But individuals must take that step themselves -- unless you find
ant hills to be politically attractive.

DP