|
Send to a friend
Strategies from the Past: Boycott, Part 2
by
Wendy McElroy, October
2000
Why, then, does
boycott in the form of strikes and blacklists elicit such public
condemnation? The 19th-century libertarian Steven Byington offered an
explanation: “The State is afraid of it. The boycott offers a means
for making another do as you wish without calling in the State’s
aid.” Byington believed that the state recognized the boycott as a
powerful competitor with whom it could not deal effectively. “They
[statists] have the advantage” in the use of force but “they
are paralyzed” when confronted by “non-invasive
methods.” The impotence of the state when confronted with
noncooperation is one of the things that prompted it to commit violence
and pass laws against strikers in the late 19th century. The inexcusable
violence of many strikers who attacked or otherwise interfered with
replacement workers justified such laws in the eyes of the public.
Boycott within modern
libertarianism
Boycott is not a common strategy
within modern libertarianism for several reasons. The most prominent
reason may be that government has usurped the strategy and made it
coercive by imposing boycotts on errant nations as a foreign-policy
measure. Such imposed boycotts — called “embargoes”
— not only violate the rights of those who wish to trade with people
in the targeted nations, they are also ineffective. This is inevitable
because an effective boycott requires voluntary noncooperation on the
part of the boycotters. If noncooperation is forced, black marketeers
merely skirt the restrictions and cash in on the higher profits brought by
higher risk.
Another form of boycott that has
fallen into disfavor within libertarianism is the social boycott —
that is, ostracism with a goal beyond punishment. Yet the refusal to
continue social relations with an unacceptable person was a mainstay of
19th-century libertarian strategy. In his publication The Periodical Letter
on the Principles and Progress of the Equity Movement (1854-58), the
libertarian Josiah Warren described the workings of an experimental
community named Modern Times. In its pages, a member of the community
explained how Modern Times protected itself against disruptive
individuals and preserved the core vision:
When we wish to rid ourselves of unpleasant persons, we simply let them
alone. We buy nothing of them, sell them nothing, exchange no words with
them — in short, by establishing a complete system of non-
interference with them we show them unmistakably that they are not
wanted here, and they usually go away on their own accord.
The effectiveness of social
boycott
Social boycott has more-flexible
goals than mere exclusion. In part 2 of his definitive three-volume work
on strategy, The Politics of Nonviolent Action, Gene Sharp
addressed three ways in which resistance movements have used social
boycott effectively. In some cases, the ostracism was meant to pressure
people into inclusion, rather than exclusion. In the first use, ostracism
could “induce large sections of a population to join” a
resistance movement, such as the Gandhian crusade in British India or the
French Resistance during World War II. A second use was to induce people
to refrain from collaboration with the enemy. Third, “to apply
pressure on ... the opponent’s representatives, especially his police
or troops.”
To be effective, social boycott need
not be conducted on a massive scale, however. Ostracism on a small scale
occurs almost naturally within organizations and ideologies, where it is
sometimes called “peer pressure.” Indeed, the strength of
social boycott is indicated by the fact that peer pressure occurs
spontaneously throughout all levels of human interaction. Thus, social
boycott does nothing more than purposefully coordinate a naturally
occurring human response in order to achieve a desired goal. The 19th-
century Tuckerite feminist Gertrude Kelly considered peer pressure to be
so powerful that she called it the foremost reason that women did not
rise to equality with men. In a Liberty article entitled
“A Woman’s Warning to Reformers,” Kelly declared,
Men ... have always denied to women the opportunity to think; and, if some
women have had courage enough to dare public opinion, and insist upon
thinking for themselves, they have been so beaten by that most powerful
weapon in society’s arsenal, ridicule, that it has effectively
prevented the great majority from making any attempt to come out of
slavery.
Fortunately, such pressure can also be
used to liberate rather than enslave.
Another expression of boycott is
political. Sharp explained that such boycott usually involves the
“temporary suspension of normal political obedience, cooperation,
and behavior.” A recent example of a political boycott was the
widespread refusal to provide information to Census 2000. Sharp’s
book offers no fewer than 38 methods through which “an almost
infinite variety” of political noncooperation can be expressed. One
of the methods is the “withdrawal from government educational
institutions,” which is basically what home schooling accomplishes.
Economic boycotts
Perhaps the most prominent form of
boycott is economic, which Sharp defines as “the refusal to
continue or to undertake certain economic relationships, especially the
buying, selling, or handling of goods and services.” In America,
economic boycott is associated with the labor movement that is
associated, in turn, with left-wing politics. This may be another reason
why libertarians overlook or dismiss the powerful strategy of economic
boycott.
The connection with the left is
particularly strong in the non-cooperation expressed through strikes and
unionizing, even though there is nothing inherently leftist or coercive
about such tactics. These characteristics can be attributed entirely to the
manner in which the labor movement evolved within the United States.
Around the turn of the 20th century, leftist radicals — with their
disdain for capitalism and property — came to dominate American
labor, if not through numbers, then through the impact of their ideology.
But 19th-century libertarians
vigorously defended both strikes and trade unions, which Tucker called
voluntary. He was not blind to the coercive nature of strikers who refused
to allow employers to hire replacement workers. “Trade unionists
frequently use force against non-unionist workmen,” he admitted,
“but the trades union is essentially a voluntary institution.”
But Tucker was aware of the Achilles heel of the labor movement: namely,
its inability to recognize the main enemy — government. Instead, the
labor movement looked to government for privileges through legislation
and for resolutions through compulsory arbitration. Nevertheless, the
Tucker circle promoted “peaceful” strikes that eschewed
government as a formidable weapon against tyranny. Indeed, the power of
a strike resided precisely in its ability to affect commerce while ignoring
the state. The downfall of the strike as a strategy for freedom came from
including the state within the process.
The best argument as to why
economic boycott should be redeemed within libertarian strategy may be a
mere listing of its diversity. Putting aside “secondary
boycott” (e.g., the strike), Sharp discussed a myriad of refinements
on the more basic form of economic boycott — refusing to buy, sell,
or engage in services. These refinements include:
Action by consumers:
- Consumer boycotts
- Nonconsumption of boycotted goods
- Policy of austerity
- Refusal to rent
- National consumers’ boycott
- International consumers’ boycott
Action by workers and producers:
- Workmen’s boycott
- Producers’ boycott
Action by middlemen:
- Suppliers’ and handlers’ boycott
Action by owners and management:
- Traders’ boycott
- Refusal to let or sell property
- Lockout
- Refusal of industrial assistance
- Merchants’ “general strike”
Action by holders of financial resources:
- Withdrawal of bank deposits
- Severance of funds and credit
- Revenue refusal
Each of these diverse strategies is
nonviolent, is consistent with libertarian principle, and has a proven
history of success.
Conclusion
As political disillusionment spreads
throughout the American psyche, it would be prudent to remember that
society — not government — is the true engine of social change.
Losing belief in the political means does not entail the loss of an
important strategy for freedom. Instead, it means eliminating an
important barrier.
Unfortunately, another obstacle to
freedom exists, namely, the tendency of modern libertarianism to dismiss
the voluntary strategies that were championed by its predecessors. The
application of boycott in its many forms has been refined and
sophisticated through centuries of use. Like any other strategy, boycott
will not address every situation and it can fail. But the greatest strategic
failure is to dismiss it out of hand.
Ms. McElroy is the author of The Reasonable Woman: A
Guide to Intellectual Survival, published by Prometheus Books in
1998.
Send to a friend
back to top
Subscribe to Freedom Daily.
|
