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.
If BDS didn’t work, it wouldn’t be illegal to promote BDS for Israel…
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.
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.
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.
This is the Achilles heel of so many of these people. They’re rich, powerful, can withstand almost anything. But the one thing they can’t always have is control over public opinion and that kills so many of them. But we seem to ignore how effective it is.
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.
Yes
Doesn’t mstter we have to do what is right
