I mean, way to go trying to build that "mass boycott movement" by discouraging individual boycotters from boycotting.
You can make the argument that discouraging individual boycotters from boycotting is a good idea becuase often individual boycotters find themselves occupying a place of moral highground based on the fact that they are doing the oh-so-noble-and-moral task of boycotting a bad company. This in turn leaves them in a place where they don't feel like they have to make any real "revolutionary" decisions because they're oh-so-noble-and-moral for boycotting a bad company.
This isn't necessarily an argument I would make, nor do I know if it's one that canonical would agree with, but I do think that criticizing canonical for being critical of individual boycotters is just as short-sighted as criticizing individual boycotters.
I do think Walmart is a symptom of a much larger problem and boycotting a symptom isn't going to have any great affect on the sickness that is causing the symptom. If a machine is outputting defective products, you need to fix the machine instead of attempting to fix each individual defective product being output.
Yeah, I watched a thing on Costco and the CEO a few days back on 20/20. Was pretty good. His contract was only one page and Costco has the lowest employee turnover rate in retailing.
Wal-mart have even taken over in the uk now after buying our biggest super market chain. In 20 years walmart will have swallowed all the competion up all over the world under cutting all the smaller business'. Then we wont have a choice but to use wallmart....its kinda like that episode of southpark. I say boo to wal-mart...booooo!
This hits a lot closer to home than some of you seem to think: Walmart is a HUGE percentage of all music sales in the US, but CDs are a tiny blip on the radar in the scheme of Walmarts total sales... i.e., they force the majors to bend over backwards to please them and the music biz can't do anything about it but bitch.... the reason all these fucking edited versions of every album exist and clog up the used sections is because of these guys...
Walmart has the music business' nuts in a vise... start caring
I mean, way to go trying to build that "mass boycott movement" by discouraging individual boycotters from boycotting.
You can make the argument that discouraging individual boycotters from boycotting is a good idea becuase often individual boycotters find themselves occupying a place of moral highground based on the fact that they are doing the oh-so-noble-and-moral task of boycotting a bad company. This in turn leaves them in a place where they don't feel like they have to make any real "revolutionary" decisions because they're oh-so-noble-and-moral for boycotting a bad company.
Thus far, your #1 plan, your good idea, for socking it to Wal-Mart and the "pre-conditions" for it's existence are as follows: STOP BOYCOTTING WAL-MART. I'm sure that this is what Wal-Mart and the pre-conditions for it's exisitence would suggest too. Bravo! It's brilliant, really, because once people become disengaged from whatever iota of thought they started to put into questioning symptoms, diseases, products, machines, etc. and acting upon those thoughts in any meaningful or token way will now go into other stuff; namely, resuming the spending of their dollars at Wal-Mart stores.
criticizing canonical for being critical of individual boycotters is just as short-sighted as criticizing individual boycotters.
Huhhh??? So it's short-sighted to criticize individual boycotters *AND* it's short-sighted to criticize criticism of individual boycotters? Are you sure you don't want to re-do your math on that one? You can't have it both ways, cause, um, calling a criticism "short-sighted" is, um, a criticism. And, furthermore, you don't even seem to believe that criticizing individual boycotters is short-sighted, as you do it yourself later in your response to me! Also, by the way, you have allowed yourself to apply the term "short-sighted" to me under the mistaken assumption that I fall into the category (much overplayed on yours and canonical's part) of those who can't see the forest for the trees when it comes to individual corporations and the conditions that created them. On the contrary, like many of us out here, I am interested in Wal-Mart individually (as a symtpom) precisely because I am aware of the condititions (the disease) that created it.
I do think Walmart is a symptom of a much larger problem and boycotting a symptom isn't going to have any great affect on the sickness that is causing the symptom. If a machine is outputting defective products, you need to fix the machine instead of attempting to fix each individual defective product being output.
It's the "instead of" that strikes me as a symptom of mere spineless posturing on the part of both you and canonical. That "instead of" could just as easily be an "in addition to", but you have both made a convenient choice not to realize that. I also think that you have the metaphor wrong- that is, that Wal-mart is a part of the machine, not a product of the machine, and that you fix a machine by fixing it's parts- but I will leave it at that.
I mean, way to go trying to build that "mass boycott movement" by discouraging individual boycotters from boycotting.
You can make the argument that discouraging individual boycotters from boycotting is a good idea becuase often individual boycotters find themselves occupying a place of moral highground based on the fact that they are doing the oh-so-noble-and-moral task of boycotting a bad company. This in turn leaves them in a place where they don't feel like they have to make any real "revolutionary" decisions because they're oh-so-noble-and-moral for boycotting a bad company.
This isn't necessarily an argument I would make, nor do I know if it's one that canonical would agree with, but I do think that criticizing canonical for being critical of individual boycotters is just as short-sighted as criticizing individual boycotters.
I do think Walmart is a symptom of a much larger problem and boycotting a symptom isn't going to have any great affect on the sickness that is causing the symptom. If a machine is outputting defective products, you need to fix the machine instead of attempting to fix each individual defective product being output.
-e
e, your first paragraph doesnt make much sense to me. i would argue that even making little life decisions, like not patronizing a store, becomes habit forming. once you see how easy it is to vote with your wallet and shop selectively, you do more thoroughly....these people are usually in positions where they want to engage in more forms of direct or indirect activism. and what type of "revolutionary" acts & decisions do you think responsible shopping discourages?? to me that is all revolutionary behavior....turn your back on babylon.
walmart is a symptom of a larger problem. and no, me not shopping there isnt going to grind its operations to a alt. yall are thinking about destructing rather than constructing. my money goes to local food coops, local merchants, start up businesses, etc as much as possible. i want to support infrastrutcture on a community level. i give money to people trying to secure land rights for community gardens and cooperative, community beneficial projects. it might not be changing the world, but it gives me places to patronize and it helps me avoid box stores and other mcdonaldization of the world
I mean, way to go trying to build that "mass boycott movement" by discouraging individual boycotters from boycotting.
You can make the argument that discouraging individual boycotters from boycotting is a good idea becuase often individual boycotters find themselves occupying a place of moral highground based on the fact that they are doing the oh-so-noble-and-moral task of boycotting a bad company. This in turn leaves them in a place where they don't feel like they have to make any real "revolutionary" decisions because they're oh-so-nole-and-moral for boycotting a bad company.
Thus far, your #1 plan, your good idea, for socking it to Wal-Mart and the "pre-conditions" for it's existence are as follows: STOP BOYCOTTING WAL-MART. I'm sure that this is what Wal-Mart and the pre-conditions for it's exisitence would suggest too. Bravo! It's brilliant, really, because once people become disengaged from whatever iota of thought they started to put into questioning symptoms, diseases, products, machines, etc. and acting upon those thoughts in any meaningful or token way will now go into other stuff; namely, resuming the spending of their dollars at Wal-Mart stores.
You???re being reactionary and completely misreading what I was saying.
I wasn???t actually criticizing any boycotters nor proposing any plans of action, only showing a potential criticism of these boycotters and how unfair that particular criticism is. What I find particularly infuriating about folks like you who might claim to be revolutionary is your complete inability to fathom that there are different methods of being revolutionary and your insistence that your way is the correct way (in this case, boycotting). I am of the strain of thought that finds individual actions like boycotting Walmart might be useless in the grand scheme of things (though admittedly, I haven???t bought anything except a pack of Haribo gummi bears from that place in probably close to 3 or 4 years). I am not criticizing people who do boycott Walmart and encourage people to do so if they feel inclined to do so, but I get easily frustrated with people who are so violently against people like me and canonical who are critical of the current methods of political dissent (like boycotts, sit-ins, and protests). I don???t think it???s unreasonable to be critical of these methods of dissent and find that a lot of ???revolutionary??? folks don???t take seriously the idea that their might be different ways of protesting things than the ways that were successful in the ???60s.
Unfortunately, I???m not sure what the successful ways of protesting are just yet. It???s a complicated question with no easy answers and I don???t think it???s fair to pass off anybody who???s unwilling or unconcerned with boycotting as somehow ???spineless??? if you don???t know why they are against this boycotting.
Fact of the matter is: you don???t know me, what I do, and how I engage the world around me. But, you are quick to attack me for being ???spineless??? because I am critical of the efficacy of something like individual boycotts? That???s pretty got damn fascistic if you ask me.
Also, by the way, you have allowed yourself to apply the term "short-sighted" to me under the mistaken assumption that I fall into the category (much overplayed on yours and canonical's part) of those who can't see the forest for the trees when it comes to individual corporations and the conditions that created them. On the contrary, like many of us out here, I am interested in Wal-Mart individually (as a symtpom) precisely because I am aware of the condititions (the disease) that created it.
I have not confused you for ???one who can???t see the forest for the trees.??? I don???t know you and am not criticizing you or your actions one bit. You are the one that thinks that just because we are critical of these forms of protest that we are too spineless to see the ???trees??? so we focus on the ???forest.???
It's the "instead of" that strikes me as a symptom of mere spineless posturing on the part of both you and canonical. That "instead of" could just as easily be an "in addition to", but you have both made a convenient choice not to realize that. I also think that you have the metaphor wrong- that is, that Wal-mart is a part of the machine, not a product of the machine, and that you fix a machine by fixing it's parts- but I will leave it at that.
See how unfair this is? Again, I repeat: you are basically saying that since we are critical of the efficacy and precision of your form of protest, that we are making a ???convenient choice??? and being ???spineless.??? That is an extremely insulting position that presumes that your position is ???right??? and that all else are somehow ???wrong.??? That???s a major tenant of fascism, my friend, and I don???t see how being fascistic is going to free us from our already oppressive society.
Why can???t this be a productive discussion instead of one where fingers are pointed?
Why is it so wrong to be critical of current forms of protest?
criticizing canonical for being critical of individual boycotters is just as short-sighted as criticizing individual boycotters.
Huhhh??? So it's short-sighted to criticize individual boycotters *AND* it's short-sighted to criticize criticism of individual boycotters? Are you sure you don't want to re-do your math on that one? You can't have it both ways, cause, um, calling a criticism "short-sighted" is, um, a criticism. And, furthermore, you don't even seem to believe that criticizing individual boycotters is short-sighted, as you do it yourself later in your response to me! Also, by the way, you have allowed yourself to apply the term "short-sighted" to me under the mistaken assumption that I fall into the category (much overplayed on yours and canonical's part) of those who can't see the forest for the trees when it comes to individual corporations and the conditions that created them. On the contrary, like many of us out here, I am interested in Wal-Mart individually (as a symtpom) precisely because I am aware of the condititions (the disease) that created it.
I do think Walmart is a symptom of a much larger problem and boycotting a symptom isn't going to have any great affect on the sickness that is causing the symptom. If a machine is outputting defective products, you need to fix the machine instead of attempting to fix each individual defective product being output.
It's the "instead of" that strikes me as a symptom of mere spineless posturing on the part of both you and canonical. That "instead of" could just as easily be an "in addition to", but you have both made a convenient choice not to realize that. I also think that you have the metaphor wrong- that is, that Wal-mart is a part of the machine, not a product of the machine, and that you fix a machine by fixing it's parts- but I will leave it at that.
Don't freak out, hommie, emynd's just an academic. This causes him to over-intellectualize trivial topics until they're broken down into their semantic constituents, thus leaving him alone in relativist wasteland where problems are never solved, just re-phrased and re-thought. It also causes him to use words like "navigate", "occupy" and "space". [/joke]
its about recognizing that EVERY dollar you spend is a political act, drop it according to what you wish to support...
This is a very complicated question, though. Especially considering that we all spend a lot of money on records. We can justify it a thousand different ways, but we can also criticize it a thousand different ways.
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.
its about recognizing that EVERY dollar you spend is a political act, drop it according to what you wish to support...
This is a very complicated question, though. Especially considering that we all spend a lot of money on records. We can justify it a thousand different ways, but we can also criticize it a thousand different ways.
I'd rather not waste energy justifying or criticizing!
I know where most of my record dollars are going... and have no problems with it. I buy tiny label product new when I can afford it, the rest goes to local indie shops for used/promo stuff... I make VERY few purchases of new major label gear as I realize those companies are tied to the defense industry and other undesirables, not that I really need an excuse as I couldn't afford to buy everything I want new anyway...
One doesn't need to account for every dollar though, the important thing is to be thinking about it
e, i dont think it has to be complicated. i think the act of consciousness...having a reason for something...is already a useful check on overindulgent consumerism. some of the reasoning might be unfounded, misguided...but the process of considering ones actions already is a walk toward a righteous path
Its not about Walmart=devil, its about recognizing that EVERY dollar you spend is a political act, drop it according to what you wish to support...
Well put.
I like supporting small businesses whenever possible. My BF owns his own business, my dad does as well. I am really bummed about the massive gentrification my neigbourhood is undergoing and I never shop at Wal-Mart. I am definitely biased.
While small businesses don't employ (exploit) as many people, they do send a great message of community and self-starter-ship. I do realize that not everyone has the inclination or means to open their own hardware store, clothing store, grocery store, what have you.
A balance is the best thing and things are slipping towards huge corporations more and more.
all these big box stores are going to pay out the nose for increased energy costs - heating and transportation fuel, in particular. mom and pop shops have the edge there - less reliance on transport and energy.
big box economies rely on transportation/warehouse-models to keep overhead down, not to mention having hundreds/thousands+ locations...shipping goods to these locations and providing heat/energy resources for them, along w/ warehouses is going to mean less price breaks for consumers soon, as long as energy costs remain high and higher.
Just curious. How can a mom and pop store survive when a Walmart is selling the same items for cheaper than the small store buys them for? Walmart is notorious for harassing venders (companies that sell products to them) to get lower prices.
Their model was, Sell at below cost, take the loss while the small business go away since they cant afford to lose that kind of money. Not that this is illegal, just not ethical IMHO. And I'm still sick of my tax dollars subsidizing them and their workers health care.
One doesn't need to account for every dollar though, the important thing is to be thinking about it
No offense but thinking without action is pointless. I agree: it's not like you have to account for every dollar you spend but in the long run, if all you do is think but never change your habits, who the fuck cares how much you're thinking?
#1 rule among community organizers is this: it's very hard to change how people think or feel but someetimes, it's easier to change what they do. In other words, I may not be able to convince you that, say, gay marraige is good or bad or that higher taxes are necessary or unnecessary...but I can find ways of persuading you to accept what I'm promoting because it's in your best interests, even if it goes against what you feel in your heart. People make those compromises all the time.
I don't think it's at all pointless to individually boycott Wal-Mart just so long as people recognize that those individual choices won't bring an end to Wal-Mart any more than your individual decision not to own a gun or not to shoot heroin will either end gun violence or drug abuse. The issue here is that yes, change begins with the man in the mirror (cue Michael Jackson) but real social change requires something more potent and influential than just individual decision-making. I don't think I've said anything here that folks would disagree with.
E: I'm not sure what you're trying to accomplish however by criticizing social protest techniques of the past. You can't port the '60s into the '00s wholesale but look at how Cindy Sheehan has managed to galvanize all this anti-war sentiment through some very basic (though very media-savvy) strategies. Boycotts, protests and petitions all have their place so long as they're not your SOLE strategy.
Just curious. How can a mom and pop store survive when a Walmart is selling the same items for cheaper than the small store buys them for? Walmart is notorious for harassing venders (companies that sell products to them) to get lower prices.
Just curious. How can a mom and pop store survive when a Walmart is selling the same items for cheaper than the small store buys them for? Walmart is notorious for harassing venders (companies that sell products to them) to get lower prices.
One doesn't need to account for every dollar though, the important thing is to be thinking about it
No offense but thinking without action is pointless.
No offense taken- you misread
My point is that I'm thinking about how all 100 of my dollars are spent and am happy with and know where 80 of it is going, but I can't account for where the 20 that I spent on Chapstick, gasoline and beer are going... and thats unfortunate...
It would be interesting to research the amount of items we have in our homes that were made by children, prisoners, and sweatshops. You can't escape it.
E: I'm not sure what you're trying to accomplish however by criticizing social protest techniques of the past. You can't port the '60s into the '00s wholesale but look at how Cindy Sheehan has managed to galvanize all this anti-war sentiment through some very basic (though very media-savvy) strategies. Boycotts, protests and petitions all have their place so long as they're not your SOLE strategy.
Well, the thing is, I'm not really trying to criticize social protest techniques of the past. I am however critical of how succesful they are in our current environment. It annoys the hell out of me that I get so much flack from folks when I question how effective these techniques are today. Folks just want to suggest that I'm being "lazy" or "spineless" or something because I don't automatically accept that attending a protest or boycotting something is automatically and always an effective means of bringing about social change.
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.
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. 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.
You???re being reactionary and completely misreading what I was saying... What I find particularly infuriating about folks like you who might claim to be revolutionary is your complete inability to fathom that there are different methods of being revolutionary and your insistence that your way is the correct way (in this case, boycotting).
I'm sorry, but this is at best a mistaken representation of everything I've said, at worst a perfect example of the pot calling the kettle black, as a) I do not believe, nor have I made any claims here of being "revolutionary" (it was you that put that word out there) or that the path of boycotting is the path to salvation, and, more importantly, b) YOU are the one demonstrating an inability to fathom different methods, as evidenced by your use- already cited by me and effectively ignored by you- of "instead of" rather that "in addition to" (please refer back to my critique). You offered the rigid, dichotomous choice in that example, whereas I offered the open-ended, kitchen sink, whatever works, every little bit counts approach. Critique that position for what it's worth, but at least represent it fairly.
I am of the strain of thought that finds individual actions like boycotting Walmart might be useless in the grand scheme of things
Here your argument more closely resembles canonical's in that it doesn't seem to get that individual boycotts, when considered in the "grand scheme of things", are in fact part of MASS BOYCOTT MOVEMENTS. Again, maybe you don't value mass boycott movements any more than individual boycotts, but I'm pretty sure canonical does, even if he seems muddled about the correlation between the two.
I get easily frustrated with people who are so violently against people like me and canonical who are critical of the current methods of political dissent (like boycotts, sit-ins, and protests). I don???t think it???s unreasonable to be critical of these methods of dissent and find that a lot of ???revolutionary??? folks don???t take seriously the idea that their might be different ways of protesting things than the ways that were successful in the ???60s.
Hmmmm...But I *am* critical (highly critical, in fact) about the state of the forms of protest you listed. I don't think it's at all unreasonable to be critical of them. All the same, that doesn't make we want to dismiss them altogether, as I know that some of my (our?) most proven, dedicated, allies are invested in those strategies. And I certainly don't want to turn my back on the people leading these efforts- many of them for decades- to follow someone with no idea on paper, no track record in the movement, no support, etc. etc. Criticism is fine, but at some point you've got to DO something.
Unfortunately, I???m not sure what the successful ways of protesting are just yet. It???s a complicated question with no easy answers and I don???t think it???s fair to pass off anybody who???s unwilling or unconcerned with boycotting as somehow ???spineless??? if you don???t know why they are against this boycotting.
YOu've had an oppotunity to make a case for the importance of not boycotting, though, and I haven't seen much yet. All of I've seen so far is a weak throwing the baby out with the bath water scenario that I reject (for reasons I explained) and some non-alternatives, non-explainations, etc. I understand that you're frustrated that boycotts are overrun with posers or something to that effect, but that seems to be a harsh, partly illusory, judgement, particularly in light of offering no alternative.
Again, I repeat: you are basically saying that since we are critical of the efficacy and precision of your form of protest, that we are making a ???convenient choice??? and being ???spineless.???
All of this is in your head, emynd. Again, I am just defending boycotts as a legitimate, humble act of protest. It is not THE way or even MY way particularly. It is just *a* way. Something not to be discouraged by otherwise likeminded individuals, PARTICULARLY ONES WITH NOTHING BETTER TO OFFER.
That is an extremely insulting position that presumes that your position is ???right??? and that all else are somehow ???wrong.??? That???s a major tenant of fascism, my friend, and I don???t see how being fascistic is going to free us from our already oppressive society.
No, thinking that you are right and someone else is wrong is not a tenant of fascism. Just for the record.
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.
Yeah, fuck those people. Don't be bothered by them. Just hope that they develop beyond that larval stage of their social consciousness. Or, better yet, call them on that shit maybe they'll step up their game. But don't try to sell me on the argument that it's a good idea to ACTIVELY DISCOURAGE boycotting simply because these hypothetical people- not me, mind you- are delusional about the difference they're making, or that the effect is only a drop in the bucket. Fuck that! What little difference they are making and that tiny drop in the bucket count more than no bucket, no drop, no nothing.
Why can???t this be a productive discussion instead of one where fingers are pointed?
Fair enough. I???ll try to tone down my responses from here on out. I only suggest in return that you be a little more thoughtful in your use of terms like "fascist".
walmart is a symptom of a larger problem. and no, me not shopping there isnt going to grind its operations to a alt. yall are thinking about destructing rather than constructing. my money goes to local food coops, local merchants, start up businesses, etc as much as possible. i want to support infrastrutcture on a community level. i give money to people trying to secure land rights for community gardens and cooperative, community beneficial projects. it might not be changing the world, but it gives me places to patronize and it helps me avoid box stores and other mcdonaldization of the world
Comments
You can make the argument that discouraging individual boycotters from boycotting is a good idea becuase often individual boycotters find themselves occupying a place of moral highground based on the fact that they are doing the oh-so-noble-and-moral task of boycotting a bad company. This in turn leaves them in a place where they don't feel like they have to make any real "revolutionary" decisions because they're oh-so-noble-and-moral for boycotting a bad company.
This isn't necessarily an argument I would make, nor do I know if it's one that canonical would agree with, but I do think that criticizing canonical for being critical of individual boycotters is just as short-sighted as criticizing individual boycotters.
I do think Walmart is a symptom of a much larger problem and boycotting a symptom isn't going to have any great affect on the sickness that is causing the symptom. If a machine is outputting defective products, you need to fix the machine instead of attempting to fix each individual defective product being output.
-e
Yeah, I watched a thing on Costco and the CEO a few days back on 20/20. Was pretty good. His contract was only one page and Costco has the lowest employee turnover rate in retailing.
They do, but they use it to make clothing...
Walmart has the music business' nuts in a vise... start caring
e, your first paragraph doesnt make much sense to me. i would argue that even making little life decisions, like not patronizing a store, becomes habit forming. once you see how easy it is to vote with your wallet and shop selectively, you do more thoroughly....these people are usually in positions where they want to engage in more forms of direct or indirect activism.
and what type of "revolutionary" acts & decisions do you think responsible shopping discourages?? to me that is all revolutionary behavior....turn your back on babylon.
walmart is a symptom of a larger problem. and no, me not shopping there isnt going to grind its operations to a alt. yall are thinking about destructing rather than constructing. my money goes to local food coops, local merchants, start up businesses, etc as much as possible. i want to support infrastrutcture on a community level. i give money to people trying to secure land rights for community gardens and cooperative, community beneficial projects. it might not be changing the world, but it gives me places to patronize and it helps me avoid box stores and other mcdonaldization of the world
sorry if i talk too much.
Its not about Walmart=devil, its about recognizing that EVERY dollar you spend is a political act, drop it according to what you wish to support...
You???re being reactionary and completely misreading what I was saying.
I wasn???t actually criticizing any boycotters nor proposing any plans of action, only showing a potential criticism of these boycotters and how unfair that particular criticism is. What I find particularly infuriating about folks like you who might claim to be revolutionary is your complete inability to fathom that there are different methods of being revolutionary and your insistence that your way is the correct way (in this case, boycotting). I am of the strain of thought that finds individual actions like boycotting Walmart might be useless in the grand scheme of things (though admittedly, I haven???t bought anything except a pack of Haribo gummi bears from that place in probably close to 3 or 4 years). I am not criticizing people who do boycott Walmart and encourage people to do so if they feel inclined to do so, but I get easily frustrated with people who are so violently against people like me and canonical who are critical of the current methods of political dissent (like boycotts, sit-ins, and protests). I don???t think it???s unreasonable to be critical of these methods of dissent and find that a lot of ???revolutionary??? folks don???t take seriously the idea that their might be different ways of protesting things than the ways that were successful in the ???60s.
Unfortunately, I???m not sure what the successful ways of protesting are just yet. It???s a complicated question with no easy answers and I don???t think it???s fair to pass off anybody who???s unwilling or unconcerned with boycotting as somehow ???spineless??? if you don???t know why they are against this boycotting.
Fact of the matter is: you don???t know me, what I do, and how I engage the world around me. But, you are quick to attack me for being ???spineless??? because I am critical of the efficacy of something like individual boycotts? That???s pretty got damn fascistic if you ask me.
I have not confused you for ???one who can???t see the forest for the trees.??? I don???t know you and am not criticizing you or your actions one bit. You are the one that thinks that just because we are critical of these forms of protest that we are too spineless to see the ???trees??? so we focus on the ???forest.???
See how unfair this is? Again, I repeat: you are basically saying that since we are critical of the efficacy and precision of your form of protest, that we are making a ???convenient choice??? and being ???spineless.??? That is an extremely insulting position that presumes that your position is ???right??? and that all else are somehow ???wrong.??? That???s a major tenant of fascism, my friend, and I don???t see how being fascistic is going to free us from our already oppressive society.
Why can???t this be a productive discussion instead of one where fingers are pointed?
Why is it so wrong to be critical of current forms of protest?
-e
Don't freak out, hommie, emynd's just an academic. This causes him to over-intellectualize trivial topics until they're broken down into their semantic constituents, thus leaving him alone in relativist wasteland where problems are never solved, just re-phrased and re-thought. It also causes him to use words like "navigate", "occupy" and "space". [/joke]
This is a very complicated question, though. Especially considering that we all spend a lot of money on records. We can justify it a thousand different ways, but we can also criticize it a thousand different ways.
-e
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.
simple and to the point.
first step toward changing the world IMO
I'd rather not waste energy justifying or criticizing!
I know where most of my record dollars are going... and have no problems with it. I buy tiny label product new when I can afford it, the rest goes to local indie shops for used/promo stuff... I make VERY few purchases of new major label gear as I realize those companies are tied to the defense industry and other undesirables, not that I really need an excuse as I couldn't afford to buy everything I want new anyway...
One doesn't need to account for every dollar though, the important thing is to be thinking about it
Well put.
I like supporting small businesses whenever possible. My BF owns his own business, my dad does as well. I am really bummed about the massive gentrification my neigbourhood is undergoing and I never shop at Wal-Mart. I am definitely biased.
While small businesses don't employ (exploit) as many people, they do send a great message of community and self-starter-ship. I do realize that not everyone has the inclination or means to open their own hardware store, clothing store, grocery store, what have you.
A balance is the best thing and things are slipping towards huge corporations more and more.
big box economies rely on transportation/warehouse-models to keep overhead down, not to mention having hundreds/thousands+ locations...shipping goods to these locations and providing heat/energy resources for them, along w/ warehouses is going to mean less price breaks for consumers soon, as long as energy costs remain high and higher.
Their model was, Sell at below cost, take the loss while the small business go away since they cant afford to lose that kind of money. Not that this is illegal, just not ethical IMHO. And I'm still sick of my tax dollars subsidizing them and their workers health care.
No offense but thinking without action is pointless. I agree: it's not like you have to account for every dollar you spend but in the long run, if all you do is think but never change your habits, who the fuck cares how much you're thinking?
#1 rule among community organizers is this: it's very hard to change how people think or feel but someetimes, it's easier to change what they do. In other words, I may not be able to convince you that, say, gay marraige is good or bad or that higher taxes are necessary or unnecessary...but I can find ways of persuading you to accept what I'm promoting because it's in your best interests, even if it goes against what you feel in your heart. People make those compromises all the time.
I don't think it's at all pointless to individually boycott Wal-Mart just so long as people recognize that those individual choices won't bring an end to Wal-Mart any more than your individual decision not to own a gun or not to shoot heroin will either end gun violence or drug abuse. The issue here is that yes, change begins with the man in the mirror (cue Michael Jackson) but real social change requires something more potent and influential than just individual decision-making. I don't think I've said anything here that folks would disagree with.
E: I'm not sure what you're trying to accomplish however by criticizing social protest techniques of the past. You can't port the '60s into the '00s wholesale but look at how Cindy Sheehan has managed to galvanize all this anti-war sentiment through some very basic (though very media-savvy) strategies. Boycotts, protests and petitions all have their place so long as they're not your SOLE strategy.
Get better products - specialize.
So you work for Walmart?
No offense taken- you misread
My point is that I'm thinking about how all 100 of my dollars are spent and am happy with and know where 80 of it is going, but I can't account for where the 20 that I spent on Chapstick, gasoline and beer are going... and thats unfortunate...
Well, the thing is, I'm not really trying to criticize social protest techniques of the past. I am however critical of how succesful they are in our current environment. It annoys the hell out of me that I get so much flack from folks when I question how effective these techniques are today. Folks just want to suggest that I'm being "lazy" or "spineless" or something because I don't automatically accept that attending a protest or boycotting something is automatically and always an effective means of bringing about social change.
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
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. 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.
I'm sorry, but this is at best a mistaken representation of everything I've said, at worst a perfect example of the pot calling the kettle black, as a) I do not believe, nor have I made any claims here of being "revolutionary" (it was you that put that word out there) or that the path of boycotting is the path to salvation, and, more importantly, b) YOU are the one demonstrating an inability to fathom different methods, as evidenced by your use- already cited by me and effectively ignored by you- of "instead of" rather that "in addition to" (please refer back to my critique). You offered the rigid, dichotomous choice in that example, whereas I offered the open-ended, kitchen sink, whatever works, every little bit counts approach. Critique that position for what it's worth, but at least represent it fairly.
Here your argument more closely resembles canonical's in that it doesn't seem to get that individual boycotts, when considered in the "grand scheme of things", are in fact part of MASS BOYCOTT MOVEMENTS. Again, maybe you don't value mass boycott movements any more than individual boycotts, but I'm pretty sure canonical does, even if he seems muddled about the correlation between the two.
Hmmmm...But I *am* critical (highly critical, in fact) about the state of the forms of protest you listed. I don't think it's at all unreasonable to be critical of them. All the same, that doesn't make we want to dismiss them altogether, as I know that some of my (our?) most proven, dedicated, allies are invested in those strategies. And I certainly don't want to turn my back on the people leading these efforts- many of them for decades- to follow someone with no idea on paper, no track record in the movement, no support, etc. etc. Criticism is fine, but at some point you've got to DO something.
YOu've had an oppotunity to make a case for the importance of not boycotting, though, and I haven't seen much yet. All of I've seen so far is a weak throwing the baby out with the bath water scenario that I reject (for reasons I explained) and some non-alternatives, non-explainations, etc. I understand that you're frustrated that boycotts are overrun with posers or something to that effect, but that seems to be a harsh, partly illusory, judgement, particularly in light of offering no alternative.
All of this is in your head, emynd. Again, I am just defending boycotts as a legitimate, humble act of protest. It is not THE way or even MY way particularly. It is just *a* way. Something not to be discouraged by otherwise likeminded individuals, PARTICULARLY ONES WITH NOTHING BETTER TO OFFER.
No, thinking that you are right and someone else is wrong is not a tenant of fascism. Just for the record.
Yeah, fuck those people. Don't be bothered by them. Just hope that they develop beyond that larval stage of their social consciousness. Or, better yet, call them on that shit maybe they'll step up their game. But don't try to sell me on the argument that it's a good idea to ACTIVELY DISCOURAGE boycotting simply because these hypothetical people- not me, mind you- are delusional about the difference they're making, or that the effect is only a drop in the bucket. Fuck that! What little difference they are making and that tiny drop in the bucket count more than no bucket, no drop, no nothing.
Fair enough. I???ll try to tone down my responses from here on out. I only suggest in return that you be a little more thoughtful in your use of terms like "fascist".