I thought they would be all for boycotts because it would attack the capital assets of the bourgeois. But I was told that boycotts hurt the small people “so don’t do them” without suggesting other actions unironically even when they’re complicit in crimes. Why not direct your money to supporting smaller businesses so they can poach the workers with better pay and working conditions when the corporations fire them due to there being less revenue in that quarter. We can break apart corporations such as Loblaws or Nestle if we stopped buying their products even in situations where they’re have the regulatory capture as the source of their moneymaking scheme would be completely cut off. It will become less and less excusable in the public’s eyes that the governments of the world are subsiding and allowing price gauging to go unchecked. They will pay a massive political price and will be quickly on the way out alongside the corporation.

  • frezik
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    14
    ·
    19 hours ago

    Taking tankies out of the picture, in cases of union actions, you should follow their lead on boycotts. Sometimes, a boycott causes the business to say “sorry, we’re losing money now and couldn’t possibly raise wages”.

    Before a strike takes place, a union may or may not call for a boycott. Let them make that call.