In the anti-sweatshop movement, many actual boycotts have been ineffective -- and the general vigilance, among the conscientious, to avoid clothing made in sweatshops, hasn't done all that much, either. But boycotts, or more often, the *threat* of boycotts, when very focused, in the context of a larger and more aggressive campaign, or amidst a very messy labor dispute, have frequently worked. The most effective consumer action occurs when consumers and workers work together: threaten both consumption and production at once, and capital gets scared. Consumption alone, as Jenny suggests, is a weak reed, particularly when you're talking about such profitable and large companies. (Obviously, if you've got a mom and pop store in your neighborhood exploiting workers, or the environment, and you start a boycott -- that's a different story.)
How all this applies to the anti-war boycotts...it's kind of tough to say, since this isn't a labor boycott and no one working on it has any connections to these companies' workers, or any idea that they'd be sympathetic. On the face of it, this seems unpromising to me. Also, while everyone is in some sense against "sweatshops" -- and everyone really is against child labor, forced labor, rape, some of the extreme sweatshop experiences -- it's not at all clear that enough of the public is against the war to threaten profits. When cafes on NYC's liberal/lefty Upper West Side are crossing out the word "French" on their menus and suffering no apparent fallout, it's hard to see the broader public voting against the war with their dollars.
Also, the threat of boycotts - often just implied -- has worked best with companies like Starbucks or Nike, whose names are familiar to customers and who depend on their brand/reputation/image to sell products. With the anti-war boycotts being suggested, the link between brand, customer and issue seems more confusing and potentially less effective.
I would guess the anti-war boycotts would make most sense at least as an educational tool, if they focussed either on only one very recognizable company that makes a lot of consumable goods and has a very obvious connection to war, and were combined with much more visible actions. (Since consumption is a private act, boycotts without loud public fanfare are completely ignored). The focus on Caterpillar, for instance, which makes the bulldozers used by the IDF, is, I think, very symbolically powerful (though so far, not likely to affect Caterpillar in the least).
basically, you can't just "vote with your dollars" - the Montgomery bus boycott, etc. would not have worked if people had simply not ridden the bus. a lot of other forces have to be at work too.
Liza
> From: JBrown72073 at cs.com
> Reply-To: lbo-talk at lbo-talk.org
> Date: Thu, 17 Apr 2003 02:11:09 EDT
> To: lbo-talk at lbo-talk.org
> Subject: [lbo-talk] Re: anti-war boycott
>
> Shane writes:
>> At the moment, a comprehensive boycott of companies in protest of the war
>> is very popular with our local anti-war group. I'm skeptical. I
>> countered that an effective boycott targets a specific company with a
>> clear grievance that directly relates to them, whereas this is too
>> scattershot, possibly in the wrong direction.
>>
>> Liza, what do you think? I haven't read your book on sweatshops yet, so
>> could you tell me a bit about just what boycotts are good for and what
>> they aren't?
>>
>> I thought the menacing gestures toward Syria should finally retire the
>> notion that this is about preserving lifestyles, more than hegemony.
>>
>> There's something off about this that I can't quite articulate.
>>
>> -- Shane
>
> A very focused boycott CAN work, for example the current one against Taco
> Bell to try to force the tomato growers and the buyers to negotiate with the
> farmworkers. FLOC did it with Mt. Olive (pickles, Ohio & NC) but it took 7
> years, I think. Thinking of the corporate campaigns and boycotts I'm
> familiar with, I'd say the boycott is one useful tool as part of an overall
> strategy of attack on a particular corporation. It's not a primary plan of
> attack, but it can inflict some damage. (Detroit News/Free Press, Staley).
> Without that, boycott is a slow-building long-term knawing effort. What
> demand are they hoping these sundry corporations will accede to? Or is the
> idea just to 'withdraw support'?
>
> There's a similar strain in the peace movement here--plant an organic garden,
> bike to work--it's really about taking a personal-moral stand rather than
> analyzing a situation and developing a strategy. I think it's useful, when
> faced with this stuff, to point out just whose lifestyles are being preserved
> and whose are being devastated. (I love the 'I already sacrificed my
> healthcare and education...') That's why I'm such a bore about the war not
> being about lower gas prices at the pump.
>
> (And, well, then there is that idea floating around that our power is
> concentrated at the point of production and diffuse at the point of
> consumption...)
> Cheers,
> Jenny Brown
> ___________________________________
> http://mailman.lbo-talk.org/mailman/listinfo/lbo-talk