On The Effectiveness of Boycotting
Decentralized boycotts are not an effective means of instigating social change.
As one browses the online left, one of the most frequently discussed actions that individuals can use to change the world is some form of boycott. I intend to argue here that disorganized boycotts, as so often seen online, are a noble but misguided effort; and I’m going to offer an alternative.
Let us start out with the premise of an individual who is looking for ways to change the world. They see a policy in place they wish to change, a behavior by another they want to cease, or they have some cause or another that they wish to promote and spread. Let us also assume this individual is not part of a large, organized movement and is seeking ways they can contribute to a cause. They turn to the internet to find some action they can take. I believe it is not a stretch that among the first things suggested to them during their search would be to boycott products that are associated with what they want changed. They are satisfied, they have found an action that allows them to immediately begin taking direct efforts to contribute to a cause without even leaving the house.
The reasons that one would suggest a boycott are very obvious. The capitalist culture we live in sends us constant messaging that we are first and foremost consumers. We are told that everything corporations, industries, and entire countries do is made to please us as consumers. In a world where we vote for everything with our dollars, the customer is king. It’s only sensible that the way the king could change policy is by sending his money toward someone who supports a different policy. If enough people demand change, then change will be provided by the market.
The mixed metaphor should stand out though. If one were truly “king” they wouldn’t vote, they would dictate. Rather, what we have is a world where options are presented to us and we are told to pick one. That is one of the key deceptions of capitalism - the only choices are those given to us by the capitalists. I am of the opinion that supply exists first, and demand is manufactured.
The deception that demand creates supply (and the corollary that one can control supply by shifting demand) is supported multiple ways, from us being shown examples of successful boycotts since childhood, to being told directly by teachers, employers, and media that products only exist in response to our demands. Every economic textbook shown to us (and of course, the only ones published are those written by advocates of capitalism) tells us that demand precedes supply.
I view this very much as a recuperation of struggle. The ruling class has found a way of replacing struggle with consumption. Individuals are convinced by society (at the whims of the ruling class of society) that they are consumers, and the way they affect the world is through consumption. Activism is conflated with purchasing goods.
Several people more clever than I have attempted to challenge this deception directly with mixed success in convincing people. Indeed, if you were linked this article from someone trying to convince you boycotts aren’t useful - you are likely not at all convinced that individual demand has limited effect on supply. So instead, I want to make a different argument. I’m not going to try to argue that boycotts are not effective (though I believe they are not) but rather they are not as effective as other means available, and so boycotts efforts are promoted as a distraction to waste people’s efforts.
Boycotts in Practice
Let us use a few less esoteric examples: A company is trying to union bust, so the individual boycotts their products. The individual wants to reduce animal suffering and so boycotts meat products. A country engages in the widespread massacre of civilians and so the individual wishes to boycott products from all companies based in that country. With all of these examples, an individual is trying to influence something entirely on their own.
For the first example, let’s look at Starbucks. Recent unionization efforts have been attempted on a store-by-store basis. These small efforts have so far failed to secure a contract, and so people online have been discussing boycotting their products. People are trying to contribute to the unionization effort by buying different brands of coffee - their choice of brand is made into a political statement. This is merely the latest example of trying to use boycotts to push unionization, but unionization continues to fall in the U.S.
In the second, consider the vegan movement. A fast Google search will find plenty of articles arguing that veganism; that is refraining from purchasing anything containing animal products, is more akin to a political movement. Once again, political activism is being equated to purchasing decisions. Vegans remain a very small portion of the population and meat production increases annually.
For the third, the most well known campaign is the “BDS” movement. This refers to an attempt to drive people to boycott, divest themselves, and sanction Israeli products. The movement, while a bit broader than a mere boycott, is entirely a demand-driven movement. This is yet another example of attempting to shift policy by choosing what you buy. One look at the news today will show that Israel has not changed its policies at all, and is in fact doubling, or tripling down on the bombings in Gaza.
The fact all of these movement are decades old at this point (2023) should be evidence to the fact they haven’t worked, but again, I’m not here to argue if they do or do not - that way lies an eternal debate on what “works” means. I am more than willing to concede to anyone who chooses to argue they have “worked” in some way or another.
Rather, I want us to consider how much time and energy have gone into those efforts and what the results were.
Workers and Real Power
The boycott is one attempting to use one’s power as a customer to control others. However, this is a fraction compared to one’s power as a worker. As previously mentioned, we are trained to see ourselves as consumers - but in order to consume anything we must first work. Money and consumption do not spring from the ether, they must be made - we must work to be able to consume. What we consume is always only a fraction of what we create through our work. This is both because we only spend a fraction of our income on what we buy - but also because we are only paid a fraction of the value we create. It’s simple mathematics that more value is controlled with labor than it is consumption.
So, rather than consumption related tools to protest like a boycott, I believe people should be using weapons like strike action and other organized efforts - these are far more powerful. Again, it is simple math - one person not buying coffee will cost a coffee shop a few dollars in lost revenue. One employee not working will cost them thousands, as they lose sales from slowed or even halted production. Five people not buying coffee will not even be noticed by a coffee shop - but five employees refusing to work will shut a shop down. Over 7 million Americans consider themselves vegetarian, and one million of those consider themselves vegan (and I believe that’s a strong underestimate). There are approximately 78,660 meat packers and slaughterhouse workers in the entire country. If vegetarians could motivate a mere 1% of people compared their number to shut down meat production - they could achieve their goal overnight. It’s very difficult to measure the effectiveness of the BDS movement, but estimates say that even if a full boycott were implemented, it would reduce Israel’s GDP by only 1% - and in reality the amount of effect it has had was around 0.004%. However, a mere handful of dock workers could end weapons deliveries to Israel overnight. Targeted efforts with workers organized in production require a tiny fraction of the work to achieve the entire objective.
I don’t think I’m saying anything monumental here. Likely, anyone reading this already knows strikes are effective tools. The obvious counterargument to what I am putting forward is that the random individual we created in our first hypothetical, does not have the ability to take a labor action. Perhaps they are not in a union; and know full well their individual strike will just result in them being fired. Perhaps their industry is not related to the one they wish to protest. So, people settle for boycotting - and they know they’re settling for a less effective tool.
I do not believe this is a valid counter argument. The working class is right now in a very undeveloped state. Most people are not in unions. Most people are not working in industries that can affect meaningful change. This is known - but not really an impediment. Rather, it just means we are starting from a weaker position, and so the direct action is to improve the position. Attempting to argue that one lacks the weapons to fight may be an acceptable argument against starting a fight today - but it is not an argument against starting to make those weapons - this is what I am trying to say.
Building our own weapons.
Rather than trying an ineffective direct action (boycotts); one with little effect or doomed to failure, we need to be working toward developing the weapons used against the ruling class. Time and energy should be spent doing a union drive, building strike funds, and talking to coworkers - or in some cases helping organize other workplaces. This is laying the groundwork and building the tools to be used in the battles.
One could say this isn’t direct action - and that’s correct. Using a strategy of spending time organizing means one doesn’t feel like they are fighting for the current issue. But, that is because they are not ready to actually fight for the current issue. They need to prepare for the next one.
The working class lacks the union power, the organizations, the strong leadership to stage really effective protests. Not only do we not have these things, we are really lacking even the tools to make those tools. The coffee shop employee could form a union and agitate for better wages and conditions - but that won’t help the underpaid workers harvesting the beans, it won’t stop billionaires from flattening rain forests, and it won’t shut down the country. We need to be putting our effort toward the most critical pieces in the production chain, and help organize those workers. We need to provide them with information, the tools to unionize, and most importantly, our solidarity and backing. If the Starbucks workers instead of calling for boycott, called for people to put their $5 toward a warchest to back a unionization drive among those harvesting the coffee, or the delivery drivers - they would create enormous leverage for their own position - those rural workers and drivers would return the favor in spades.
One last example to tie this all up: If a group of peasants wanted to overthrow their lord, refusing to buy and eat the lord's food, and instead burning crops to try to weaken him they would not overthrow him. It results only in their own starvation and the poverty of their fellow serfs. The lord can outlast them behind his walls and with the vast amount of capital he holds. Nor can they take direct action - charging headlong into the castle moat and walls; they will surely fail. The only hope is to organize, each person donating their labor to make the ropes, the catapults, the swords and armor. With those tools in hand, they can besiege the castle, and take back what is theirs.
And you say rightly, "I have no ropes, no catapult, no sword" But the problem is not your will, it is merely how undeveloped the working class is. We have the will to fight, our hypothetical person has the will to fight, and you have that will too. We are just not at the point where we can all donate our weapons to the cause. We need to build the rope winder, build the sawmill, build the smithy so we can fight later. You can take all of these actions today.
In practice, this means contributing to a strike fund, unionizing your coworkers, neighbors, and fellow tenants, educating yourself on how unionization works so you can educate others, and most importantly, joining and participating in an organization seeking serious revolutionary change.
These are among by far the best uses of your time and energy to create change - rather than putting that time toward convincing someone you met online to buy a different product.