Do boycotts work?

Submitted ⁨⁨7⁩ ⁨hours⁩ ago⁩ by ⁨artifactsofchina@lemmy.world⁩ to ⁨nostupidquestions@lemmy.world⁩

Like do they actually, reliably effect change in the way the activists intend?

Have they worked against Israel? Did they work against Apartheid South Africa? Could they work against Trump’s America?

My hunch is that they don’t, really, but can be a useful promotional tool for other issues. Like don’t buy American is a simple message. If people will listen to that, they may listen to reasons why, which maybe could build a movement.

But on the whole I am very sceptical, and would be interested in any reasons for or against boycotts.

source

Comments

Sort:hotnew top

Kornblumenratte@feddit.org ⁨17⁩ ⁨minutes⁩ ago
Well, back in the day they successfully ousted Mr. Boycott by boycotting him. So at least the first boycott successfully worked.

source
unmagical@lemmy.ml ⁨7⁩ ⁨hours⁩ ago
Disney allegedly lost 1.7 million customers after suspending Jimmy Kimmel. He was very quickly reinstated.

It’s not that boycotts don’t work, it’s more that they require a critical mass to work and that can be hard to achieve.

source
- Canconda@lemmy.ca ⁨7⁩ ⁨hours⁩ ago
  What people boycott matters. So many things are effectively monopolized that only things people are willing to actually go without can effectively be boycotted.
  
  It worked with Jimmy Kimmel because there’s neither a substitute entertainer that will satisfy cancelers nor is there an alternate disney owned streaming service they can funnel said canceler’s to.
  
  .
  
  source
- zxqwas@lemmy.world ⁨7⁩ ⁨hours⁩ ago
  In case of a country at war you need a lot more than a boycott.
  
  source
black_flag@lemmy.dbzer0.com ⁨7⁩ ⁨hours⁩ ago
Boycotts just brought back * Jimmy Kimmel like 2 weeks ago.

BDS worked on South Africa, but it was a pariah state at the national level in most of the world. You have to get your taxes to stop going to Israel for that to work tbh.

Doesn’t mean I don’t participate. What little we can do does a little, and is worth doing.

source
JASN_DE@feddit.org ⁨7⁩ ⁨hours⁩ ago
Boycotts in general do work, absolutely. But it has to be a near-complete boycott, e.g. 90+% participation. Just a few will never work.

source
- Anomnomnomaly@lemmy.org ⁨4⁩ ⁨hours⁩ ago
  The last time there was a general strike in the USA that generated real change… it took just 11 million people… about 10% of the working age at the time. These days, you could do it with a few choice professions… air traffic control, truckers, dock workers… the people that move the people and the goods would cripple the country in a week, maybe 2.
  
  source
givesomefucks@lemmy.world ⁨7⁩ ⁨hours⁩ ago
If BDS didn’t work, it wouldn’t be illegal to promote BDS for Israel…

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anti-BDS_laws

source
snooggums@piefed.world ⁨6⁩ ⁨hours⁩ ago
Like any kind of protest or political action they work often enough to get push back from those in power but are not a guarantee. Their scope also needs to be proportional to what they are boycotting, so the larger the company or political power the more coordination and number of people it takes to get results.

Last year there was a boycott of Sabra, which makes hummus, that successfully changed the ownership from half Pepsi Co and an Israeli company to get the Israeli company to divest. It had a clear goal and a single type of product that was easy for people to understand and get behind the boycott. If someone wanted to boycott Pepsi Co, which not only makes soda but also owns a ton of restaurants and other things, it would be extremely difficult as they could weather the losses in one area due to the scope of the company as a whole.

The Montgomery bus boycott during the US Civil Rights era was extremely successful.

source
eightpix@lemmy.world ⁨6⁩ ⁨hours⁩ ago
Know what works better than boycotts? A general strike. Stop the economy in its tracks. Have a clear, articulated goal. No leadership. No one to arrest. No one to identify as a troublemaker.

The trouble, when systemic, is the system. A boycott is meant to strike at an individual or group of allied organization(s). A general strike is the last level.

Governments tend to be allergic to general strikes. Their reactions are heavy-handed, thoughtless, and reactionary. Howard Zinn recounts several in A People’s History of the United States. But, when primed and done well, it is a demonstration of political will unlike any other. It is a change agent.

I was in Guatemala in 2015 for the one-day general strike that led to the arrest of then-President Otto Perez Molina. His party had been funnelling tax revenues into a slush fund. Look up #noletoca and #LaLinea. He was removed from the presidency, tried, convicted, and served time.

source
limerod@reddthat.com ⁨7⁩ ⁨hours⁩ ago
Depends. If a significant chunk of your userbase starts to leave you will have to rethink sooner rather than later.

source
arararagi@ani.social ⁨5⁩ ⁨hours⁩ ago
This isn’t a binary answer since it depends on the target and how many people are actually doing it.

For example Disney+ boycott worked since an actual lot of people participated in it, it’s also easy to cancel a subscription, but on the other side, Hogwarts Legacy’s boycott didn’t do shit because almost no one cares that much about sending a message, and there was no substitute for the fantasy of living a virtual life in a magic school, yet.

While politics boycott need a large enough mass of people to accomplish anything, and this my may ruffles some feather but, violence is often needed just like what happened in Nepal.

source
mrdown@lemmy.world ⁨7⁩ ⁨hours⁩ ago
Doesn’t mstter we have to do what is right

source
cecilkorik@lemmy.ca ⁨6⁩ ⁨hours⁩ ago
Sometimes they do. Sometimes they are a useful promotional tool for the cause. Sometimes they don’t work at all. How do you know which will be which? You don’t.

Every person who supports a boycott very slightly improves its effectiveness, either directly or to create more awareness of the cause.

Avoid black-or-white thinking. it does not have to “win” to be part of a change, it only has to have the chance for change or contribute to change, and we won’t know how much of a contribution it made, if any at all, until and unless the change eventually happens. It may be the butterfly flapping its wings that causes a hurricane, or it may be a butterfly flapping its wings that does absolutely nothing at all. Either way, let the butterfly flap its wings first, and then we’ll see what happens. It is neither guaranteed to succeed, nor guaranteed to fail. That’s the kind of black-or-white thinking you need to avoid. We don’t live in a world of certainty, the world is a complex place full of uncertainty. We try because there’s a chance, not because it’s guaranteed, and the chance to make a change is the worthwhile part you should be pursuing. Seeking absolute certainty from future events is a form of self-sabotage.

source
porksnort@slrpnk.net ⁨6⁩ ⁨hours⁩ ago
Unequivocally yes, but not always. You need a coordinated media campaign, a potent symbol, a dedicated core of supporters and the right combo of circumstances.

The Indian Independence movement depended in large part on boycotts. Ghandi’s followers wove their own cloth and wore traditional dhoti, both as a boycott of British cloth and as a public symbol of solidarity.

My favorite was the Salt March, wherein Ghandi used the general unfocused bitchiness around new salt taxes to make a media spectacle and demonstrate that Indians didn’t need British salt. Or anything British at all.

He marched down to the beach over a period of days gathering followers and media attention. Then he stood in the water and made salt in his bare hands using seawater and the bright hot sunshine.

18 years later they won their independence in a relatively bloodless way.

As an example Salt March

source
janonymous@lemmy.world ⁨7⁩ ⁨hours⁩ ago
I don’t think you can effectively boycott whole countries if you aren’t doing so on a country level.

Consumer level boycotts against companies on the other hand seem to work very well.

source
- porcoesphino@mander.xyz ⁨6⁩ ⁨hours⁩ ago
  I wish there was momentum to boycott US tech companies
  
  source
  - palordrolap@fedia.io ⁨3⁩ ⁨hours⁩ ago
    Ouch. AMD and Intel are both US based. Intel was easy enough, but I'd have to do a lot of soul searching and research to give up AMD, their graphics cards and the x86 architecture.
    
    And this is from someone in Britain, where ARM - probably the next best alternative - is based. (As in located, not the new sense of based. Though they might actually be that too.)
    
    source
    -> View More Comments
HubertManne@piefed.social ⁨6⁩ ⁨hours⁩ ago
For me it sorta does not matter. When I boycott usually the thing disgusts me and any revenue less for them and more for their competitors especially in regards to how I act (consume) is important to me. Because its my actions. Like there is a lot of indication that the plastic recycling I do likely does not get recycled, but im still going to stubbornly do it. If I was in europe I would totally do the buy european. Will it change what trump is doing, unlikely, but it will help europe gdp over us.

source
MudMan@fedia.io ⁨6⁩ ⁨hours⁩ ago
Boycotts, yes.

"I was on the fence about buying this and I want to sound engaged on the Internet, may still get it later" voting-with-your-wallet nonsense? No.

source
Melvin_Ferd@lemmy.world ⁨7⁩ ⁨hours⁩ ago
No, only thing I’ve found that works is affecting the public image. Public image is critical because once the public opinion changes, the issue gets so much pressure building up. It’s an affect of digital age. It’s really underutilized. Boycott doesn’t work because these entities have more than one way to handle that. What they haven’t figured out is bad PR in a digital world.

source
SoftestSapphic@lemmy.world ⁨5⁩ ⁨hours⁩ ago
Yes

source