Efficacy of Boycotts: Philosophy Forums

Philosophy Forums » Philosophy of Politics and Law » Efficacy of Boycotts » Efficacy of Boycotts

Efficacy of Boycotts

Page: 1 2

Efficacy of Boycotts

swstephe
Tenured Poster

Usergroup: Moderators
Joined: Apr 20, 2006
Location: borneo island

Total Topics: 28
Total Posts: 3304

Posted 01/14/09 - 09:10 PM: Subject: Efficacy of Boycotts	#1
Malaysia has begun a campaign of boycotting American goods. They have a list of about 100 products which will no longer be sold in Muslim restaurants. They see it as a way of stopping the perceived campaign of oppression against predominantly Muslim countries. On the one hand, it has already been criticized, locally, as being pretty ineffective. Coca-Cola is one of the products on the list, but since it is manufactured and bottled in Malaysia, the boycott will hurt local businesses more than the US headquarters that lent its name, brand and product policies. I've commented to several people that there are plenty of American and even Israeli, (which is supposedly banned already), products that are in wide and even popular usage. I mention that they most often work on Windows XP, using Intel CPU's and are quite proud of the, (cracked/jailbroken), iPhones, (even though iTunes don't allow Malaysians to buy apps). They should also be more careful about which companies support their government's policies and those that are opposed. Many people are very critical of boycotts, yet many "free-market" advocates claim that the choice of the consumer can even influence political paths. Other people are skeptical that boycotts can be effective when you are such a small percentage of a global corporation's earnings. Even if Coca-Cola received 100% of profits from sales to Malaysia, they probably don't even count Malaysian consumers as a critical market. But on the other hand, shouldn't non-violent protests, especially from Muslim countries, be encouraged and demonstrated to be an effective alternative to violent actions? Violent actions are popular because they get a response. If the response to violence and non-violence is about the same, people would prefer to use non-violent means. But in the current state of the world, a mass protest by thousands of people doesn't even make it to international news, while a single suicide bomber can get foreign countries to re-evaluate their relationship with those countries. In a way, it is the targeted countries who are deciding the level on which they wish to communicate. I'm looking for a pass/fail grade on whether boycotts are effective, how they could be made effective, or if there are other non-violent alternatives for foreigners to criticize the actions of a particular country.
Ethics is the measuring of morality. Morality is the measuring of good. Good is the measuring of benefit. Benefit is the measure of values.

Dr. Tyko Glas
banned

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Jun 24, 2007
Location: Jävla Sverige

Total Topics: 14
Total Posts: 277

Posted 01/14/09 - 10:34 PM:	#2
swstephe wrote: I'm looking for a pass/fail grade on whether boycotts are effective, how they could be made effective, or if there are other non-violent alternatives for foreigners to criticize the actions of a particular country. "Fail." I can't relate to a single boycott that has hurt a nation economically or affected its foreign policy. Large-scale economic sanctions, to the level of an embargo, need broad support in the international community. As you pointed out, a Malaysian boycott of American goods will only hurt local businesses and the suppliers in the region.
"In the sphere of thought, absurdity and perversity remain the masters of the world, and their dominion is suspended only for brief periods." -- Arthur Schopenhauer

swstephe
Tenured Poster

Usergroup: Moderators
Joined: Apr 20, 2006
Location: borneo island

Total Topics: 28
Total Posts: 3304

Posted 01/15/09 - 12:41 AM:	#3
Dr. Tyko Glas wrote: "Fail." I can't relate to a single boycott that has hurt a nation economically or affected its foreign policy. Large-scale economic sanctions, to the level of an embargo, need broad support in the international community. As you pointed out, a Malaysian boycott of American goods will only hurt local businesses and the suppliers in the region. If boycotts are not effective, and there is no other non-violent alternative, doesn't that justify violent "protest" like terrorism and threats of terrorist activity? At the same time, doesn't it justify a powerful nation using force, rather than economic sanctions against other countries? I know a lot of Americans are under the impression that the anti-apartheid boycott against South-Africa changed things. A movie I was watching argued that the most powerful economic protest is simply to threaten to dump currency. America used it on England and France over the Suez conflict, for example. China can probably get the USA to do just about anything these days. Then you only need to influence the Chinese.
Ethics is the measuring of morality. Morality is the measuring of good. Good is the measuring of benefit. Benefit is the measure of values.

Thoughtless
The Mad Scientist

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Jul 12, 2005

Total Topics: 26
Total Posts: 729

Posted 01/15/09 - 01:09 AM:	#4
swstephe wrote: If boycotts are not effective, and there is no other non-violent alternative, doesn't that justify violent "protest" like terrorism and threats of terrorist activity? That depends on what you're trying to accomplish. If someone is literally oppressing you, violence is justified as a form of self-defense. Is Coca-Cola oppressing Malaysia? Is the U.S. oppressing them? If so, then violence is justified. If we're not talking about literal oppression, but some hazy notion of "economic oppression" or even simple political disagreements, then no, violence is not justified. What is it, specifically, that the U.S. is doing to provoke these boycotts? I don't see how we're oppressing Muslim countries. Even if we were, violence would only be justified if directed against military forces in those Muslim countries, not against American corporations.
"Have you ever felt that the self is an illusion? That you're not really 'you', but just a sequence of neurological events?" "It's thought that, yes."

Benkei
Self-hating Dutchman

Usergroup: Moderators
Joined: Feb 06, 2004
Location: Netherlands

Total Topics: 61
Total Posts: 2372

Posted 01/15/09 - 01:26 AM:	#5
Boycotts can be a very effective means of communication. For a country to decide to boycott products seems a pretty weighty issue. The idea of it causing economic damage does not really seem the point (Malaysia only stops 100 products) but as a symbol of protest I would think it is effective.
Obama is humping the pump in an effort to re-inflate an economy that looks more like a balloon with a 55 caliber bullet hole in it. - Joe Bageant

Caldwell
Zuleiha's owner

Usergroup: Moderators
Joined: Apr 18, 2006
Location: Crawl space

Total Topics: 1
Total Posts: 2224

Posted 01/15/09 - 02:35 AM:	#6
swstephe wrote: Malaysia has begun a campaign of boycotting American goods. They have a list of about 100 products which will no longer be sold in Muslim restaurants. If they are boycotting the American goods, I hope they also mean Hollywood films and TV shows. They see it as a way of stopping the perceived campaign of oppression against predominantly Muslim countries. Good as symbolic gesture (as a means of communication as Benkei says), good for their nationalism, but boycotts are ineffective as a means of foreign policy -- you need political clout in the international level (Dr. Tyko Glas mentions this). Unless! and here now is the reality of international politics, you are one of the big markets. I wish they would define "oppression against predominantly Muslim countries", and make sure they're not confusing it with the American campaign against terrorism. Once they get their agenda straight, based on facts, and not propaganda, the best way is to make their politicians earn their worth. If they truly believe that the U.S. is oppressing Muslim countries, then organize rallies, street protest, and marches to the seat of their government, etc, etc. Boycotting is a lazy way of expressing political beliefs. It takes much more than that to defend your beliefs.

Dr. Tyko Glas
banned

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Jun 24, 2007
Location: Jävla Sverige

Total Topics: 14
Total Posts: 277

Posted 01/15/09 - 07:37 AM:	#7
swstephe wrote: If boycotts are not effective, and there is no other non-violent alternative, doesn't that justify violent "protest" like terrorism and threats of terrorist activity? No, it doesn't justify it. It never does. In spite of being tempted by the immediate remedy to powerlessness, violence is often the worst way of getting one's point across, especially the low-scale, disorganized version. Furthermore, violence is impossible as a national policy (which is what you are arguing for in place of the boycott). swstephe wrote: At the same time, doesn't it justify a powerful nation using force, rather than economic sanctions against other countries? No. Besides, stepping up from boycott to sanction demands a broad consensus among the absolute elite on the international scene; wars are costly matters that are generally avoided (Iraq being an obvious exception). swstephe wrote: A movie I was watching argued that the most powerful economic protest is simply to threaten to dump currency. America used it on England and France over the Suez conflict, for example. Yes, "dumping currency" is the only safe way of bypassing the mechanisms of economic interdependence. swstephe wrote: China can probably get the USA to do just about anything these days. Then you only need to influence the Chinese. I guess so (I started a thread on this issue in October, if you recall it?). What China lacks is experience in global power politics, not knowing how to "throw its weight around" like a proper superpower bully (at least not yet).
"In the sphere of thought, absurdity and perversity remain the masters of the world, and their dominion is suspended only for brief periods." -- Arthur Schopenhauer

unrealist42
Tenured Poster

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Jan 06, 2003
Location: City of Dreams

Total Topics: 10
Total Posts: 2252

Posted 01/15/09 - 01:20 PM:	#8
Boycottts can be seen as a first step in political dialog. Somewhat less drastic than economic sanctions but politically significant nonetheless. A boycott can also be used to gauge public support and rally public opinion. Economically boycotts are generally not very effective but it is the political message that has the most impact.

swstephe
Tenured Poster

Usergroup: Moderators
Joined: Apr 20, 2006
Location: borneo island

Total Topics: 28
Total Posts: 3304

Posted 01/16/09 - 01:46 AM:	#9
Thoughtless wrote: That depends on what you're trying to accomplish. If someone is literally oppressing you, violence is justified as a form of self-defense. Is Coca-Cola oppressing Malaysia? Is the U.S. oppressing them? If so, then violence is justified. If we're not talking about literal oppression, but some hazy notion of "economic oppression" or even simple political disagreements, then no, violence is not justified. What is it, specifically, that the U.S. is doing to provoke these boycotts? I don't see how we're oppressing Muslim countries. Even if we were, violence would only be justified if directed against military forces in those Muslim countries, not against American corporations. You are following the western tendency to strongly associate a person with their nationality. Malaysia, as a country, is not doing the boycott, only Malaysian Muslim, (and apparently only restaurant owners). It is out of solidarity, that Muslims are a united people and attacking one group of Muslims is an attack against all Muslims. The U.S. has invaded 2 Muslim countries, while providing direct support to oppressive regimes throughout the Muslim world. Since the military and foreign government support is financed by taxes on Americans and American corporations, it seems logical to want to restrict these funds.
Ethics is the measuring of morality. Morality is the measuring of good. Good is the measuring of benefit. Benefit is the measure of values.

Thoughtless
The Mad Scientist

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Jul 12, 2005

Total Topics: 26
Total Posts: 729

Posted 01/16/09 - 02:55 PM:	#10
swstephe wrote: You are following the western tendency to strongly associate a person with their nationality. Malaysia, as a country, is not doing the boycott, only Malaysian Muslim, (and apparently only restaurant owners). It is out of solidarity, that Muslims are a united people and attacking one group of Muslims is an attack against all Muslims. The U.S. has invaded 2 Muslim countries, while providing direct support to oppressive regimes throughout the Muslim world. Since the military and foreign government support is financed by taxes on Americans and American corporations, it seems logical to want to restrict these funds. The question I was responding to was, "If boycotts aren't effective, is violence justified?" I would say that violence is justified against the military of an oppressor (if it is truly an oppressor), but not against corporations run by civilians. Were you, in the post to which I was responding, suggesting that if boycotts are unsuccessful violence would be justified against a corporation? Or that violence would be justified against a military force?
"Have you ever felt that the self is an illusion? That you're not really 'you', but just a sequence of neurological events?" "It's thought that, yes."

Page: 1 2

Sorry, you don't have permission to post. Log in, or register if you haven't yet.