I completely agree with the idea that "thinking without action is pointless," but I feel like a lot of people are doing the opposite and are "acting without thinking," just going through the "revolutionary" motions without ever really having considered the effectivenss of these motions. -e
yo e, i really dont like how you throw "revolutionary" label on things. vitamin was doing the same thing the other day. its a little plaid out and stereotypes the people/actions youre talkinga bout...very loaded term.
and regarding effectiveness, somethings may only be good for piece of mind, but i do them anyway. lots of little pointless things. everyday. i feel stronger, more focused, etc. But BEST BELIEVE that those little things arent my pass to do nothing else. thats just rounding out the edges, dog. everything i do is about this shit and i get real hyped talking about my short term plans, long term plans, plans in progress, and plans in my mind garden.
except records...havent been able to legitimize those yet for real though, the records are medicine
to sum it up ala digdug: dont judge people by their actions that YOU may see as petty or ineffective
Short quote but this should be noticed by all the people who feel good cause they shop at Target; they do the same shit.
Wal-Mart is good on one hand because they demand the utmost efficiency; they're bad because they've taken that efficiency to insane levels that destroy their suppliers.
And for those that think that those little neighborhood stores were so great - back in the day, your local (example) hardware store would just mark shit up 40% across the board and call it a day. Who the fuck is going to pay 40% above cost these days? Nobody. Not you. Not me. Nobody. Shit is ludicrous and that's why they got crushed.
In my opinion, anyone who shops at walmart is wrong. Anyone who gives money to a company as well documented as walmart is is being damn ignorant. Those choices hurt my friends.
My mother has no qualms with walmart and I love her. But she is wrong.
Yes I do. And bacon. Raerly anything with the word vegetable in it. Walmart and Target are not the same. My personal decision not to shop at Walmart is based on one simple question. Why shop there? Whether it's the products they sell, their politics or the obnoxiousness of their stores, I can't come up with a single reason. So I don't shop there.
Whoa, I didn't check this thread for a minute. I'll just post some thoughts to clarify my points, though I think the discussion is dead.
emynd,
I want to remind you, or better clarify, that the original thrust of canonical's argument that I found so absurd was that he discouraged individual boycotting, while seemingly endorsing what he called a "mass boycott movement", as though a mass boycott isn't made up of a diverse group of individual boycotters[/b]. I think you have moved away from this point, although my original paraphrasing of his point was the sole quote that pulled you into this discussion. You doubt the efficacy of boycotting, period, which is a different issue. This is especially important because as we are talking about boycotts, we are starting to vacillate between meanings. Are we talking about criticizing boycotts as effective socio-political movements or are we talking about criticizing boycotts as a valid form of individual protest? Are we criticizing boycotting because it is actually destructive to "the cause" or are we critizing boycotts because they don't work (enough)? Just some questions to keep the discussion in line.
There is a difference between a mass boycott and individual boycotters (I feel like I should put a pasue there). In the case of a mass boycott, it will be an organised movement of people under leadership and program. This has potential of actually changing something, whereas a bunch of unorganized boycotters cannot have a hope in hell of changing anything. It's more a question of organization.
In clarification of my views, I'm a marxist, and the worst type of marxist, a trotskyist. To me, you can take down Wal-Mart, and something will replace it. For every "small business" we are supposed to support, some of them become succesfull, and they ultimately become a big business that will most likely practice the same reactionary principles that we all hate wal-mart for (union busting, minnimum wages, and that race to the bottom people call "profit"). If they didn't, they would go out of business. They may not conciously do this, nor want to, but in this economy there's not much room for fat wages and benefits for your employees.
So what do we do? Do we just boycott every wal-mart-esque store? Why? When the best we can hope for is to take wal-mart down only to have it replaced by something else we have to boycott. And the cycle continues. And this is simply because the problem is deeper than just Wal-Mart, and this becomes a whole other discussion.
Other than that, I agree with 99% of what emynd said.
Whoa, I didn't check this thread for a minute. I'll just post some thoughts to clarify my points, though I think the discussion is dead.
Actually, emynd pm'd me to take the discussion offline, so I'm gonna be repeating myself a little here. But the discussion isn't dead.
There is a difference between a mass boycott and individual boycotters (I feel like I should put a pasue there). In the case of a mass boycott, it will be an organised movement of people under leadership and program. This has potential of actually changing something, whereas a bunch of unorganized boycotters cannot have a hope in hell of changing anything. It's more a question of organization.
I think you are narrowly viewing these boycotts as random individual acts when that is hardly the case. As I already said to emynd offline, "the Wal-Mart boycott and a number of closely-related anti-Sweatshop campaigns have been among the most creative, successful, well-praised (by friends and foes), and UNIFIED social movements in decades. [There *is* leadership. There *is* a program]. Maybe it???s not effective or unified *enough*, but, hey, we???re working on it, ok??? What are you doing? If you want a unified body, you have to unite with people." You seem to have a mystical notion of how unification and organization happen. These things don't emerge from criticism at a distance. They emerge from active participation and a belief (right or wrong) that small victories add up. Failing that, how do you propose to unify people people behind the idea of boycotts by telling them that they are pointless? As a Trotskyist, how do demonstrate your convictions to your potential followers if not with actions?
In clarification of my views, I'm a marxist, and the worst type of marxist, a trotskyist. To me, you can take down Wal-Mart, and something will replace it. For every "small business" we are supposed to support, some of them become succesfull, and they ultimately become a big business that will most likely practice the same reactionary principles that we all hate wal-mart for (union busting, minnimum wages, and that race to the bottom people call "profit"). If they didn't, they would go out of business.
To me, this still strikes me as an excuse not to do anything. Of course something will replace Wal-Mart! Shame on anyone so naive as to believe otherwise. The problem with devils is that they never go away. But that doesn't make me resigned to giving them my money! Your motto here seems to be "shop at Wal-Mart to your heart's content, afterall, the anti-Walmart revolution is years away!"
They may not conciously do this, nor want to, but in this economy there's not much room for fat wages and benefits for your employees.
But there *is* room for better wages and benefits for employees. As a Marxist, you should know that it is a problem of distribution, not of unavailability. Furthermore, important changes have historically been brought about by relatively small social movements (not unlike this one) that have adjusted these ratios in ways that mean the difference between life and death for some people.
So what do we do? Do we just boycott every wal-mart-esque store? Why?
Why *not* boycott every wal-mart-esque store? I haven't made any grand claims for what this could accomplish, but just for the sake of your stomach, your conscience, and your soul, why would you *not* boycott something you opposed in principle?
When the best we can hope for is to take wal-mart down only to have it replaced by something else we have to boycott. And the cycle continues. And this is simply because the problem is deeper than just Wal-Mart, and this becomes a whole other discussion.
If the problem is deeper than just Wal-Mart (and I think it is), then by all means dig deeper. The leadership of this organized movement would love you! But unlike the random hypothetical participant in the boycott movement, I don't see any evidence that you have even begun to scratch the surface. Show me something material that you are doing when you are busy not boycotting Wal-Mart that me and three of my friends can do do dig at the deeper problem. For the record, I already think I am doing some of these things, but I want to know your answer.
Actually, emynd pm'd me to take the discussion offline, so I'm gonna be repeating myself a little here. But the discussion isn't dead.
Glad to know discussion isn't dead. I'm glad to keep it going
I think you are narrowly viewing these boycotts as random individual acts when that is hardly the case. As I already said to emynd offline, "the Wal-Mart boycott and a number of closely-related anti-Sweatshop campaigns have been among the most creative, successful, well-praised (by friends and foes), and UNIFIED social movements in decades. [There *is* leadership. There *is* a program]. Maybe it???s not effective or unified *enough*, but, hey, we???re working on it, ok???
Well, unfortunately most of the anti-WalMart campaigns I have come across are unorganized, lack leadership and program, and are mostly made up of people who unfortunately believe that their actions will bring down WalMart and leave concerete change. These people, with almost unlimited spirit work their asses off, only soon to become demoralized and are most likely to quit activism.
This is because, in my opinion, campaigns like those are not based on a solid analytical philosophy on the problems at hand. Like I said before, the problem isn't WalMart, the problem is capitalism. Period. Boycott capitalism, not walmart.
This isn't to diss your particular movement or anyones. I try to avoid shopping at WalMart for the same reasons you do, however I recognize that it is not a sustainable means to acheive concrete change. Even if everyone stopped shopping at walmart that's not going to change the way goods are distributed, it's not going to bring us more social problems, it's not going to guarentee that jobs in other countries are at the same standard at us and that our jobs also have an increasing standard of jobness (lack of words).
What are you doing? If you want a unified body, you have to unite with people." You seem to have a mystical notion of how unification and organization happen.
Sans marxist rhetoric, I work with the unions and political parties that have ties to the working class and affiliates of the working class. I am active in our federation of labour, support ongoing labour struggles, and active in the NDP (Canada's social democratic party). As well, I am actively involved in solidarity campaigns like Hands Off Venezuela.
These things don't emerge from criticism at a distance. They emerge from active participation and a belief (right or wrong) that small victories add up.
I totally agree. But blindly going and doing something without taking a critical look at what you are doing is a sure shot way to demoralize people.
Failing that, how do you propose to unify people people behind the idea of boycotts by telling them that they are pointless? As a Trotskyist, how do demonstrate your convictions to your potential followers if not with actions?
By providing them a critical analysis of the problems. By, and I use the phrase popularized by Lenin, "patiently explaining". Showing by example (hey look! there's venezuela and argentina!) and by pointing out that the struggle is much larger than just WalMart[/b].
I guess my main problem is people that limit their analysis to destroying walmart. Because the problem is so much more.
To me, this still strikes me as an excuse not to do anything. Of course something will replace Wal-Mart! Shame on anyone so naive as to believe otherwise. The problem with devils is that they never go away. But that doesn't make me resigned to giving them my money! Your motto here seems to be "shop at Wal-Mart to your heart's content, afterall, the anti-Walmart revolution is years away!" My motto is the problem is deeper than WalMart, the problem lies within the way goods are distributed, the class forces at play, and our globalized economy. Sure, don't shop at WalMart, but recognize that WalMart-ism is not going to dissapear until capitalism does[/b].
But there *is* room for better wages and benefits for employees. As a Marxist, you should know that it is a problem of distribution, not of unavailability. A very quick glance at history shows us that while it is the case that they are available, under this global economic system great strides towards change made by social democratic parties all over the world have gradually whithered away. They are only sustainable so long as the "economy" is good, and when it goes bad they are taken away by even the gold-hearted of social democratic leaders.
Furthermore, important changes have historically been brought about by relatively small social movements (not unlike this one) that have adjusted these ratios in ways that mean the difference between life and death for some people. This is true. Organizations like Red Cross and others do save peoples lives. However, and this is where analysis comes into play, I don't think the worlds problems will be solved until we are under a socialised planned economy. And therefore, while the Red Cross is saving lives, lives will continue to be lost until something else happens. In instances like those, NGO like Red Cross are bandages on the wound.
PLEASE NOTE THAT I AM NOT AGAINST NGO'S OR PEOPLE WHO WORK WITH THEM. THIS IS MAJOR CONSIDERING KATRINA. I am just providing a critical look at their long term effects. I don't want people to get it twisted about what I'm saying here. Please PM me if you are offended or whatever.
Why *not* boycott every wal-mart-esque store? I haven't made any grand claims for what this could accomplish, but just for the sake of your stomach, your conscience, and your soul, why would you *not* boycott something you opposed in principle? If I had to "just do" everything that every pseudo-acitvist, anarchist, socialism, marxist, etc told me to do just to see if it works I wouldn't be looking at the sun, I'd be eating plastic containers, walking underground, wearing burlap, and recording history through audio (to avoid using paper because it's bad for trees). That's a little much, but do you catch my drift?
If the problem is deeper than just Wal-Mart (and I think it is), then by all means dig deeper. The leadership of this organized movement would love you! But unlike the random hypothetical participant in the boycott movement, I don't see any evidence that you have even begun to scratch the surface. I am personally involved in a lot of organizations, NGO's that I perosnally don't think will effect anything in the long run. And for the same reasons that you stated, because they need leadership and people who are organized. And I use them as a launching platform to convey socialist ideas and provide an analytical and philosophical ground for them to stand on when such organizations fall apart or fail to provide one. This way, it's two birds with one stone.
Show me something material that you are doing when you are busy not boycotting Wal-Mart that me and three of my friends can do do dig at the deeper problem. For the record, I already think I am doing some of these things, but I want to know your answer. Please check PM's for this
In summary, my main critique is those who think that boycotting walmart is an end-all to the problems without realising that the problem is much deeper and lies within capitalism itself. I think you agree with me on all those points (maybe except for the last bit about capitalism).
Comments
yo e,
i really dont like how you throw "revolutionary" label on things. vitamin was doing the same thing the other day. its a little plaid out and stereotypes the people/actions youre talkinga bout...very loaded term.
and regarding effectiveness, somethings may only be good for piece of mind, but i do them anyway. lots of little pointless things. everyday. i feel stronger, more focused, etc. But BEST BELIEVE that those little things arent my pass to do nothing else. thats just rounding out the edges, dog. everything i do is about this shit and i get real hyped talking about my short term plans, long term plans, plans in progress, and plans in my mind garden.
except records...havent been able to legitimize those yet
for real though, the records are medicine
to sum it up ala digdug:
dont judge people by their actions that YOU may see as petty or ineffective
Short quote but this should be noticed by all the people who feel good cause they shop at Target; they do the same shit.
Wal-Mart is good on one hand because they demand the utmost efficiency; they're bad because they've taken that efficiency to insane levels that destroy their suppliers.
And for those that think that those little neighborhood stores were so great - back in the day, your local (example) hardware store would just mark shit up 40% across the board and call it a day. Who the fuck is going to pay 40% above cost these days? Nobody. Not you. Not me. Nobody. Shit is ludicrous and that's why they got crushed.
There's a happy median here people.
Do you eat chicken?
just caused my local kickass hardware store to get bought by ace. now they play ace ads 24 7 in the store over the pr system.
Yes I do. And bacon. Raerly anything with the word vegetable in it. Walmart and Target are not the same. My personal decision not to shop at Walmart is based on one simple question. Why shop there? Whether it's the products they sell, their politics or the obnoxiousness of their stores, I can't come up with a single reason. So I don't shop there.
There is a difference between a mass boycott and individual boycotters (I feel like I should put a pasue there). In the case of a mass boycott, it will be an organised movement of people under leadership and program. This has potential of actually changing something, whereas a bunch of unorganized boycotters cannot have a hope in hell of changing anything. It's more a question of organization.
In clarification of my views, I'm a marxist, and the worst type of marxist, a trotskyist. To me, you can take down Wal-Mart, and something will replace it. For every "small business" we are supposed to support, some of them become succesfull, and they ultimately become a big business that will most likely practice the same reactionary principles that we all hate wal-mart for (union busting, minnimum wages, and that race to the bottom people call "profit"). If they didn't, they would go out of business. They may not conciously do this, nor want to, but in this economy there's not much room for fat wages and benefits for your employees.
So what do we do? Do we just boycott every wal-mart-esque store? Why? When the best we can hope for is to take wal-mart down only to have it replaced by something else we have to boycott. And the cycle continues. And this is simply because the problem is deeper than just Wal-Mart, and this becomes a whole other discussion.
Other than that, I agree with 99% of what emynd said.
Actually, emynd pm'd me to take the discussion offline, so I'm gonna be repeating myself a little here. But the discussion isn't dead.
I think you are narrowly viewing these boycotts as random individual acts when that is hardly the case. As I already said to emynd offline, "the Wal-Mart boycott and a number of closely-related anti-Sweatshop campaigns have been among the most creative, successful, well-praised (by friends and foes), and UNIFIED social movements in decades. [There *is* leadership. There *is* a program]. Maybe it???s not effective or unified *enough*, but, hey, we???re working on it, ok??? What are you doing? If you want a unified body, you have to unite with people." You seem to have a mystical notion of how unification and organization happen. These things don't emerge from criticism at a distance. They emerge from active participation and a belief (right or wrong) that small victories add up. Failing that, how do you propose to unify people people behind the idea of boycotts by telling them that they are pointless? As a Trotskyist, how do demonstrate your convictions to your potential followers if not with actions?
To me, this still strikes me as an excuse not to do anything. Of course something will replace Wal-Mart! Shame on anyone so naive as to believe otherwise. The problem with devils is that they never go away. But that doesn't make me resigned to giving them my money! Your motto here seems to be "shop at Wal-Mart to your heart's content, afterall, the anti-Walmart revolution is years away!"
But there *is* room for better wages and benefits for employees. As a Marxist, you should know that it is a problem of distribution, not of unavailability. Furthermore, important changes have historically been brought about by relatively small social movements (not unlike this one) that have adjusted these ratios in ways that mean the difference between life and death for some people.
Why *not* boycott every wal-mart-esque store? I haven't made any grand claims for what this could accomplish, but just for the sake of your stomach, your conscience, and your soul, why would you *not* boycott something you opposed in principle?
If the problem is deeper than just Wal-Mart (and I think it is), then by all means dig deeper. The leadership of this organized movement would love you! But unlike the random hypothetical participant in the boycott movement, I don't see any evidence that you have even begun to scratch the surface. Show me something material that you are doing when you are busy not boycotting Wal-Mart that me and three of my friends can do do dig at the deeper problem. For the record, I already think I am doing some of these things, but I want to know your answer.
Well, unfortunately most of the anti-WalMart campaigns I have come across are unorganized, lack leadership and program, and are mostly made up of people who unfortunately believe that their actions will bring down WalMart and leave concerete change. These people, with almost unlimited spirit work their asses off, only soon to become demoralized and are most likely to quit activism.
This is because, in my opinion, campaigns like those are not based on a solid analytical philosophy on the problems at hand. Like I said before, the problem isn't WalMart, the problem is capitalism. Period. Boycott capitalism, not walmart.
This isn't to diss your particular movement or anyones. I try to avoid shopping at WalMart for the same reasons you do, however I recognize that it is not a sustainable means to acheive concrete change. Even if everyone stopped shopping at walmart that's not going to change the way goods are distributed, it's not going to bring us more social problems, it's not going to guarentee that jobs in other countries are at the same standard at us and that our jobs also have an increasing standard of jobness (lack of words).
Sans marxist rhetoric, I work with the unions and political parties that have ties to the working class and affiliates of the working class. I am active in our federation of labour, support ongoing labour struggles, and active in the NDP (Canada's social democratic party). As well, I am actively involved in solidarity campaigns like Hands Off Venezuela.
I totally agree. But blindly going and doing something without taking a critical look at what you are doing is a sure shot way to demoralize people.
By providing them a critical analysis of the problems. By, and I use the phrase popularized by Lenin, "patiently explaining". Showing by example (hey look! there's venezuela and argentina!) and by pointing out that the struggle is much larger than just WalMart[/b].
I guess my main problem is people that limit their analysis to destroying walmart. Because the problem is so much more.
To me, this still strikes me as an excuse not to do anything. Of course something will replace Wal-Mart! Shame on anyone so naive as to believe otherwise. The problem with devils is that they never go away. But that doesn't make me resigned to giving them my money! Your motto here seems to be "shop at Wal-Mart to your heart's content, afterall, the anti-Walmart revolution is years away!"
My motto is the problem is deeper than WalMart, the problem lies within the way goods are distributed, the class forces at play, and our globalized economy. Sure, don't shop at WalMart, but recognize that WalMart-ism is not going to dissapear until capitalism does[/b].
But there *is* room for better wages and benefits for employees. As a Marxist, you should know that it is a problem of distribution, not of unavailability.
A very quick glance at history shows us that while it is the case that they are available, under this global economic system great strides towards change made by social democratic parties all over the world have gradually whithered away. They are only sustainable so long as the "economy" is good, and when it goes bad they are taken away by even the gold-hearted of social democratic leaders.
Furthermore, important changes have historically been brought about by relatively small social movements (not unlike this one) that have adjusted these ratios in ways that mean the difference between life and death for some people.
This is true. Organizations like Red Cross and others do save peoples lives. However, and this is where analysis comes into play, I don't think the worlds problems will be solved until we are under a socialised planned economy. And therefore, while the Red Cross is saving lives, lives will continue to be lost until something else happens. In instances like those, NGO like Red Cross are bandages on the wound.
PLEASE NOTE THAT I AM NOT AGAINST NGO'S OR PEOPLE WHO WORK WITH THEM. THIS IS MAJOR CONSIDERING KATRINA. I am just providing a critical look at their long term effects. I don't want people to get it twisted about what I'm saying here. Please PM me if you are offended or whatever.
Why *not* boycott every wal-mart-esque store? I haven't made any grand claims for what this could accomplish, but just for the sake of your stomach, your conscience, and your soul, why would you *not* boycott something you opposed in principle?
If I had to "just do" everything that every pseudo-acitvist, anarchist, socialism, marxist, etc told me to do just to see if it works I wouldn't be looking at the sun, I'd be eating plastic containers, walking underground, wearing burlap, and recording history through audio (to avoid using paper because it's bad for trees). That's a little much, but do you catch my drift?
If the problem is deeper than just Wal-Mart (and I think it is), then by all means dig deeper. The leadership of this organized movement would love you! But unlike the random hypothetical participant in the boycott movement, I don't see any evidence that you have even begun to scratch the surface.
I am personally involved in a lot of organizations, NGO's that I perosnally don't think will effect anything in the long run. And for the same reasons that you stated, because they need leadership and people who are organized. And I use them as a launching platform to convey socialist ideas and provide an analytical and philosophical ground for them to stand on when such organizations fall apart or fail to provide one. This way, it's two birds with one stone.
Show me something material that you are doing when you are busy not boycotting Wal-Mart that me and three of my friends can do do dig at the deeper problem. For the record, I already think I am doing some of these things, but I want to know your answer.
Please check PM's for this
In summary, my main critique is those who think that boycotting walmart is an end-all to the problems without realising that the problem is much deeper and lies within capitalism itself. I think you agree with me on all those points (maybe except for the last bit about capitalism).