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.

  • JASN_DE@feddit.org
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    28
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    21 hours ago

    Boycotts in general do work, absolutely. But it has to be a near-complete boycott, e.g. 90+% participation. Just a few will never work.

    • village604@adultswim.fan
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      7
      ·
      edit-2
      15 hours ago

      It doesn’t take anywhere close to 90%. Disney lost 1.3% of their subscribers before reversing their decision on Kimmel.

      The key is getting media attention that survives one 24h cycle.

      • cloudy1999@sh.itjust.works
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        1
        ·
        5 hours ago

        Exactly. It doesn’t need to be all, or even most. Just enough to make them unprofitable for long enough to where they panic. That seems a much lower bar and easier to meet.

    • Anomnomnomaly@lemmy.org
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      8
      ·
      19 hours ago

      The last time there was a general strike in the USA that generated real change… it took just 11 million people… about 10% of the working age at the time. These days, you could do it with a few choice professions… air traffic control, truckers, dock workers… the people that move the people and the goods would cripple the country in a week, maybe 2.