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.

Try to look at it the other way around: Every single one of your actions shapes the world around you and thus is a vote for how you want the world to be. By the very act of visiting a country you declare that country to be worth visiting, by purchasing a product you endorse it, by using a service you support the continued existence of that service and all things connected to it.

Now why wouldn’t the reverse be true?

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.

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.

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.

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.

Yes

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

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.

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.

Well, back in the day they successfully ousted Mr. Boycott by boycotting him. So at least the first boycott successfully worked.

It works, albeit imperfectly. In particular, it’s sometimes a difficult prospect for would-be participants who don’t have the luxury of choice. Also attention/bandwidth can limit participation since no one can sustain an endless game of whack-a-mole. Ultimately, it’s just one of many tools, but it has often been effective.

When enough people care collectively yeah. Rare.

Canadians vs Heinz Ketchup in the past and I think that one has stuck around somewhat to present day.

Canadians again vs American booze in response to 51st state threats. Yesterday’s headlines were about a continued drop in sales, down 85% this year so far.

Travel is down too. Not enough in my opinion, but enough that a few states are whining about it including Newsom in California. Fuck the USA.

Usually no though.

They work if they’re organized, well-informed and well-planned.

They don’t work if they’re reliant on petitions, mixed messages and no structure.

It can work, the impact increases the more support it has.

Removed by mod