effectiveness of boycotting & refusing "dirty money"

[Miss Caphat]

There is a discussion going on in one of my classes about these subjects.

I do boycott several things, and have my reasons why, but what do you say to someone who thinks it's ineffective or who doesn't understand the concept?

Also, there are people arguing that it's fine to take "dirty money" i.e. from a source whose views and/or practices are questionable or in opposition to your organization's mission, because at least you're putting their money to good use.

Thoughts?

 

[Miss Caphat]

anyone?

just looking for thoughts on boycotting and why/why not?
or about whether or not it's ok to accept donations from questionable sources, particularly for a non-profit or charity organization.
This is not for credit, I'm just really curious and would like to be able to add something more to the discussion.
Thanks

 

[frogwoman]

Personally i think boycotting is usually pointless. We are all living in a capitalist system and if you wanted to boycott all unethical companies you would have to go and live in a cave. I'm assuming you mean products here rather than eg: private education/healthcare btw, but that is a conscious choice to choose the state and support public services rather than a "boycott". I think for example, boycotting starbucks in favour of coffee republic etc is a pointless exercise.

as for accepting "dirty money" etc, it depends doesn't it - does the money have conditions attached to it? I've not done jobs for example based on ethical grounds (because the job involved ringing up people and trying to get them to buy a worthless but expensive medical "treatment"). Is it a simple donation? Basically we need money, we need money for the "struggle", and normally for the reasons given above I'd say that it was pointless worrying about the source, but I think a line has to be drawn somewhere tbh. For example I'd not accept money from a fash group in order to do something etc.

 

[frogwoman]

Or for example deliver tory leaflets etc ...

 

[Edie]

Dirty cash I want you, dirty cash I need you ahh-ahhh.

 

[Miss Caphat]

Dirty cash I want you, dirty cash I need you ahh-ahhh.

ha ha, I get that song in my head every single time I log onto the discussion.

 

[Miss Caphat]

Personally i think boycotting is usually pointless. We are all living in a capitalist system and if you wanted to boycott all unethical companies you would have to go and live in a cave. I'm assuming you mean products here rather than eg: private education/healthcare btw, but that is a conscious choice to choose the state and support public services rather than a "boycott". I think for example, boycotting starbucks in favour of coffee republic etc is a pointless exercise.

as for accepting "dirty money" etc, it depends doesn't it - does the money have conditions attached to it? I've not done jobs for example based on ethical grounds (because the job involved ringing up people and trying to get them to buy a worthless but expensive medical "treatment"). Is it a simple donation? Basically we need money, we need money for the "struggle", and normally for the reasons given above I'd say that it was pointless worrying about the source, but I think a line has to be drawn somewhere tbh. For example I'd not accept money from a fash group in order to do something etc.

but how about boycotting starbucks in favor of a local independent coffee shop? the more people who do that, the less Starbucks will be able to thrive. I tend to just boycott as many big chains as I can. For many reasons, including the fact that they tend to destroy the local culture and differences between towns and regions. Everything is becoming so homogenized.

the main argument against taking donations from dodgy sources is that it may backfire when other donors/supporters find out about where it came from.

 

[stuff_it]

Dirty cash I want you, dirty cash I need you ahh-ahhh.

Damn you!

*hums*

*shakes fist*

 

[frogwoman]

but how about boycotting starbucks in favor of a local independent coffee shop? the more people who do that, the less Starbucks will be able to thrive. I tend to just boycott as many big chains as I can. For many reasons, including the fact that they tend to destroy the local culture and differences between towns and regions. Everything is becoming so homogenized.

the main argument against taking donations from dodgy sources is that it may backfire when other donors/supporters find out about where it came from.

no the main arguement is that it compromises you. if a group is giving you money, are you likely to criticise them? to speak out against them? or will you keep quite and take the money?

 

[Maggot]

Personally i think boycotting is usually pointless. We are all living in a capitalist system and if you wanted to boycott all unethical companies you would have to go and live in a cave.

You don't have to boycott all unethical companies. Just pick the worst ones and concentrate on them.

 

[frogwoman]

You don't have to boycott all unethical companies. Just pick the worst ones and concentrate on them.

How will that make any difference? The system is unethical and let's say that some unethical companies do go bust, all that will happen is that others will take their place (and the ones that remain will do some sickening "outreach" work based on how they donated a brick to a school or whatever).

 

[Miss Caphat]

no the main arguement is that it compromises you. if a group is giving you money, are you likely to criticise them? to speak out against them? or will you keep quite and take the money?

yes, that too. I meant, the main argument people in my class have brought up as the reason not to do it. In response to others arguing that all money is dirty if you trace it back far enough, etc, etc and also many have been saying "why not take their money and put it to good use?"
But that is a VERY good point about the organization not being able to speak out against or criticize the donor. thank you.

 

[stuff_it]

*....mmmhmmm, money taaaaaalks, mmmmhmmm, money taaaall... oh*

The whole point of ethics is to help you decide where to draw the line. Clearly each case of money being offered must be taken under the individual circumstances and balanced against the overall possible benefits.

 

[Geri]

An individual boycott does fuck all apart from making the individual feel better about themselves.

A targetted boycott can be very effective, such as the one against South African goods.

 

[Spanky Longhorn]

You don't have to boycott all unethical companies. Just pick the worst ones and concentrate on them.

And how do you identify the worst ones?

Many people in the UK for example who see themselves as "on the left" would like to boycott Tescos and Sainsburys in favour of local independent shops, yet both supermarket chains recognise trade unions for collective bargaining, pay better, and have incremental transparent career and pay progression unlike your average independent shop.

That's not to rule out targeted mass boycotts like that against SA, or the BDS campaign against Israel although to be effective they have needed the support of elements of big capital and the state to be effective, on a more local level organised mass boycotts can be an effective tool when used as part of a wider range of tactics for instance pickets and leafletting against say a restaurant that hasn't paid a worker.

 

[Miss Caphat]

An individual boycott does fuck all apart from making the individual feel better about themselves.

A targetted boycott can be very effective, such as the one against South African goods.

I agree that individual boycotts don't accomplish much, but does that mean you shouldn't do it? Also, if you're vocal about it, you might influence others to do the same, or to think more about who they give their money to.
I guess my point is, I don't see a good reason not to boycott individually.

 

[Spanky Longhorn]

I agree that individual boycotts don't accomplish much, but does that mean you shouldn't do it? Also, if you're vocal about it, you might influence others to do the same, or to think more about who they give their money to.
I guess my point is, I don't see a good reason not to boycott individually.

Cool, go for it.

 

[frogwoman]

The problem though is that its just encouraging people to take part in this type of "safe" activity that will never lead anywhere and could potentially end up being co-opted, indeed requires the support of large elements of capital etc to succeed - go to this shop and not that because it's "more ethical". Why is it more ethical? Where are they getting the ingredients from ultimately? As spanky says, chains like Sainsbury's and Tesco's frequently treat workers better. It doesn't end up challenging captialism itself. Don't get me wrong, I think boycotts such as the boycott of the Sun in Liverpool can be very effective and I think it's worthwhile campaigning against tesco's and things opening up in places too sometimes. but it isn't going to do anything.

 

[frogwoman]

I agree that individual boycotts don't accomplish much, but does that mean you shouldn't do it? Also, if you're vocal about it, you might influence others to do the same, or to think more about who they give their money to.
I guess my point is, I don't see a good reason not to boycott individually.

if you want to, then yeah, fair enough. there are things i dont buy.

 

[Geri]

I agree that individual boycotts don't accomplish much, but does that mean you shouldn't do it? Also, if you're vocal about it, you might influence others to do the same, or to think more about who they give their money to.
I guess my point is, I don't see a good reason not to boycott individually.

I'm not saying you shouldn't do it, but your original question was about it's effectiveness. There are certain shops I've boycotted over the years for various reasons, but I just don't kid myself that it's making a blind bit of difference.

 

[Maggot]

An individual boycott does fuck all apart from making the individual feel better about themselves.

Isn't feeling better about yourself a good enough reason alone to do it?

 

[Geri]

Isn't feeling better about yourself a good enough reason alone to do it?

Yes, but it still isn't effective in the terms the OP means.

 

[Spanky Longhorn]

Isn't feeling better about yourself a good enough reason alone to do it?

If that's your sole aim then yes.

 

[frogwoman]

By all means do it but don't kid yourself that it's going to work.

 

[Miss Caphat]

The problem though is that its just encouraging people to take part in this type of "safe" activity that will never lead anywhere and could potentially end up being co-opted, indeed requires the support of large elements of capital etc to succeed - go to this shop and not that because it's "more ethical". Why is it more ethical? Where are they getting the ingredients from ultimately? As spanky says, chains like Sainsbury's and Tesco's frequently treat workers better. It doesn't end up challenging captialism itself. Don't get me wrong, I think boycotts such as the boycott of the Sun in Liverpool can be very effective and I think it's worthwhile campaigning against tesco's and things opening up in places too sometimes. but it isn't going to do anything.

have you heard about what has just happened with Netflix and Bank of America in the states?
Those were both mostly unorganized boycotts, because people were really pissed off about how they were being treated as customers. And they worked very well, both companies had to scrap their plans (in the case of BOA, to start charging monthly debit card fees, and for Netflix, to split their services into two different departments which would have been inconvenient for customers and the increase their fees as well)
I was a bit surprised that people did actually take action and sever relations with both of these companies to the point where they were forced to listen to customers. I think it's going to make a lot of other companies think twice before acting arrogantly in the future.

 

[Spanky Longhorn]

have you heard about what has just happened with Netflix and Bank of America in the states?
Those were both mostly unorganized boycotts, because people were really pissed off about how they were being treated as customers. And they worked very well, both companies had to scrap their plans (in the case of BOA, to start charging monthly debit card fees, and for Netflix, to split their services into two different departments which would have been inconvenient for customers and the increase their fees as well)
I was a bit surprised that people did actually take action and sever relations with both of these companies to the point where they were forced to listen to customers. I think it's going to make a lot of other companies think twice before acting arrogantly in the future.

They are both good things with a positive result - not unorganised though.

 

[Maggot]

Yes, but it still isn't effective in the terms the OP means.

That depends on how many people are prepared to feel good about themselves.

 

[Miss Caphat]

They are both good things with a positive result - not unorganised though.

well, yes and no. there were organized boycotts but the majority of people just made a personal decision to cancel service or switch to a different bank

 

[Miss Caphat]

also, it must be done at this point

 

[sptme]

I'm not generally fond of consumerist politics.
Its better to see your power lying in what you create and produce than what you consume.