To boycott or not to boycott...

Submitted by martin on 2 September, 2003 - 2:17

Coca Cola, the World Bank, Israel. . .campaigns advocating a boycott of particular products, organisations or even countries are increasingly common on the left, but they have been around for quite a while. During the 1980s, for instance, the main campaign against the South African apartheid regime concentrated on arguing boycotting South African goods, while there is a longstanding campaign to boycott Nestlé because of its unscrupulous promotion of its products in the developing world.
Socialists' attitude to such campaigns cannot be determined simply by which side we instinctively feel we are on. Obviously, our first instinct will be to support action against the company or organisation which is abusing human rights, destroying the environment etc. Such anger at oppression and injustice is, for any socialist, the beginning of wisdom - but it is not the end. Rather than automatically supporting boycott campaigns as an emotional reaction, we need to analyse them rationally from the standpoint of working-class struggle.

Why the working class? What makes socialism more than just a good idea, a struggle to transform society as it is and not an abstract plan for a better world, is the that capitalism has for the first time in human history created the possibility of peace and plenty for everyone. It has done this both by massively increasing the amount humanity produces (so that, for instance, there is actually enough food to feed everyone) and by bringing into being an exploited class - the working class - unlike any other in history. Earlier "working classes" - e.g. peasants or slaves - could rebel against their oppression; sometimes their revolts brought down whole civilisations. But the result was always that a new exploiting class came to power in a new system of class oppression.

The modern working class is different because it works collectively, in shops and factories and offices as part of an integrated economy (rather than on isolated plots of land or whatever). Its struggles therefore tend to towards collective, democratic control of social wealth; it has the ability to take control of the huge resources capitalism has created and reorganise them democratically without exploiting anyone else. Socialists' fundamental perspective is therefore to help organise larger and larger numbers of the working-class; to win working-class activists to socialist ideas; and to mobilise the working-class as an independent social and political force. That doesn't mean that you have to be a worker to be a socialist; but it does mean that working-class struggle is the key test for any campaign.

That's why campaigns like No Sweat, which was set up by socialists, put their emphasis on workers' self-organisation and self-activity as the way to win change. It's also why Bolshy and the AWL argued that the anti-war movement shouldn't passively unite everyone who said they were against the war, regardless of politics; we wanted an anti-war movement that looked to the working class as the key force which could stop the war.

Boycott campaigns, by contrast, necessarily look to people as consumers rather than producers; they seek to mobilise people on a passive, atomised basis of changing their lifestyle (e.g. not buying Nestlé chocolate), rather than as a collective force to change society. That is why their most forceful advocates are often middle-class liberals, who have no particular relationship to the workers' movement and think of politics primarily in terms of personal spending. Even when they advocate a boycott because of a company's record on workers' rights, these people relate to the workers as worthy philanthropists rather than comrades seeking to assist in a common struggle. (The logical conclusion of this approach can be seen in the Bodyshop, whose owner Anita Roddick has launched a campaign against sweatshops but banned unions in her own workplaces. . .)

Another side of this problem can be seen if we consider boycotts of entire countries which are sometimes advocated. During the 1980s, there was an extremely strong campaign to boycott South Africa goods because of the apartheid regime there; there is now a rather feeble campaign, organised by the Socialist Workers' Party and a few others, to boycott Israeli products because of Israel's oppression of the Palestinians. The South African campaign was reasonably well-intentioned, while the Israeli campaign is motivated by the SWP's poisonous hostility to all things Israeli – even workers. But common to both is a failure to see things in terms of class and the class struggle. In South Africa, for instance, the right wing of the anti-apartheid movement around the African National Congress used the boycott to prevent South African workers making links with trade unions internationally - it claimed that such links undermined the fight against apartheid. Workers' Liberty did not condemn the boycott, but we did argue against the ANC's attempts to isolate the South African workers' movement. In Israel, similarly, a boycott can only drive Jewish workers in to the arms of Sharon and his right-wing government; it does not seek to relate to left-wing Israelis and the Israel workers’ movement, and in fact the SWP has even advocated that British universities boycott (refuse to employ) Israeli academics, even ones who support the Palestinians!

Clearly, the issue of boycotts poses all kind of difficult questions for the left, and these questions cannot be answered without a certain amount of tactical flexibility and subtlety. But advocating boycotts as a general method of campaigning is to abandon the idea of transforming society through struggle in favour of an attempt to live "outside" society. Ultimately, in capitalist society, all products are "unethical"; it is virtually impossible to find companies that do not abuse human rights or pollute the environment, and completely impossible to find companies which do not exploit workers. Much as eating different food, buying different t-shirts or wearing different trainers might make you feel better, therefore, it is not really a way of changing the world.

This website uses cookies, you can find out more and set your preferences here.
By continuing to use this website, you agree to our Privacy Policy and Terms & Conditions.