One of the things I've always considered rather dystopic about the time that we live in is the ineffectual nature of boycotts in a global economy.
Boycotting and protesting is one of the oldest American institutions, being used and emphasized by the founding fathers even before the creation of the nation.
But it seems like when you are dealing with numbers as large as the consumer base of many of these corporations have(how do you effectively boycott Amazon?)
But the power of these corporations has given rise to a different kind of boycott, that of politicians and political positions.
This phenomenon isn't new, corporations tried to stymie Teddy Roosevelt's trust-busting agenda by relegating him to the Vice Presidency, which was seen as a position where one couldn't influence much. However, it has gained a lot of steam in recent years.
The biggest example I can think of recently was when Governor Kemp in Georgia passed a controversial abortion law which caused many film studios to either consider or fully pull out of the state.
Well, our state is back in the news again with the same problems.
Recently, Kemp passed a law that many consider draconian, and it has caused a lot of backlash.
As a result the MLB all star game has decided to move to Colorado.
That is the result of negative media coverage, affecting politics.
Blog Reply #12: 04-18-2021: Steven Moore: Corporate Push Back
ReplyDeleteYour point about the difficulty in organizing a boycott against large, multinational corporations is an interesting one. It difficult enough to organize a boycott against a corporation which is only located in the U.S as we have over 320 million people. To organize one across multiple countries seems impossible. A large multinational corporation, such Coca-Cola or Amazon like you mentioned, can essentially just wait out any blow back or threat of boycotts from people in the U.S as they have customers all across the globe. A corporation would have to do something absolutely egregious to even be threatened by an international boycott. However, I still think it is important for people to voice their disapproval of corporations behavior when they feel they should. While a direct boycott may not be seriously threatening to a corporation, critical coverage can leave a corporation’s named stained and lead to downstream effects to their pocketbook. Corporations know this which is why they try to keep their image as favorable as possible to the people who are the loudest critics, even if they may not be large enough to threaten the corporation with a direct boycott. I believe this is why corporations are so quick to acquiesce to attacks from the political left. The behavior of the MLB and companies like Coca-Cola regarding the recent voter law are a good example. Even though the critics of the bill were in the minority of people and were demonstrably wrong about what the bill actually did, they were extremely loud provocative which led to corporations attempting to behave and virtue signal in accordance with their demands despite the majority of Georgians not having a problem with the provisions in the bill such as voter ID. https://www.ajc.com/politics/ajc-poll-georgia-voters-back-absentee-id-but-oppose-new-restrictions/PPV2SLO7FRFUTKI2OOH4JGAQ7A/ .
I agree with you but it is unfortunate that they only do this to protect their interest and money, otherwise they would not do anything
DeleteAlthough I agree with your point that it is difficult to boycott large corporations such as Amazon due to their extensive network of consumers, it is still an effective way to bring about change when done properly. Thus, leading into your next point that we are now in a new era of boycotts in which the main targets have become politicians. By boycotting politicians, the pressure (placed by the various platforms of the media) is on them to make decisions which in turn, shift the pressure onto these corporations that seem somewhat untouchable. Therefore, proving yet again how the media has such a strong influence in regards to shaping decisions. In circumstances such as this, the pressure driven by the public (the mass media) is focused on politicians. However, it usually trickles down to these corporations regardless. Even though large corporations have gained such monetary and influential power, the media has shifted the focus of said boycotts to the decision makers who ultimately have a say in bringing about the desired outcomes.
ReplyDelete