Since you’ve both missed the point entirely in favour of the same example (that is absolutely not unique to nestle), I’ll just copy paste my reply:
I am well aware of all of that information, and if you think others are less brazen, you’ve simply not been paying attention. Either way, you seem to have missed the point. Boycott them. But don’t think that’ll affect any change, because it won’t.
My goal was to say what some of their more egregious acts. I would hate for people to forget that Nestlé caused the slow painful death of infants because it was grouped in with general corporate behaviors.
I’m also aware of other atrocities performed by companies; the Banana Massacre by Chaquita (then United Fruit Company), Ford letting their customers burn to death instead of adding an $11 safety feature to the Ford Pinto, Apple using state sanctioned slave labor through Foxconn, etc etc. And when I get the chance, I share those acts of corporate malevolence.
I’m not excusing any of them. I’m just doing what I can to help prevent these acts from being forgotten.
For me, boycotting and / or protesting this behavior is not about changing the collective minds or behaviors of corporations. It’s about not accepting it and expressing personal outrage, even if it is commonplace.
For me, boycotting and / or protesting this behavior is not about changing the collective minds or behaviors of corporations. It’s about not accepting it and expressing personal outrage, even if it is commonplace.
And that right there is the problem, because if you’re not looking to change things, what’s the point? Outrage without action is not only futile, but it’s exactly what those at the top are counting on - for people to waste their time and energy on pointless boycotts that make them feel like they’re helping, while their machine chugs on uninterrupted. It’s a distraction, and it’s working.
Remembering, and reminding others of these atrocities is hollow if you don’t aim to destroy the system that enabled them in the first place (and which will continue to enable them, and others, to continue to do more, worse, atrocities, because capitalism isn’t getting any fucking friendlier or easier going on the working class).
So again - boycott whoever you want it if it makes you feel better, I boycott companies for all sorts of reasons, but don’t delude yourself in to thinking that is going to change anything on any level beyond your own personal feelings, because it won’t.
Join/create a union. Join/create a Food not Bombs. Actually invest your time reading up on socialism, anarchism, and becoming an anti capitalist in the way that personally suits you best, as well as what suits your community best, instead of expecting others to spoon feed you instructions.
I’m not trying to be an ass but I literally know nothing about you, where you are and what your local community needs, what your able and not to do, how much trouble you’re willing to get in to or how much time and resources you have to spare, and a whole load more variables that mean I couldn’t possibly tell you what to do or how.
Look up solidarity, look up dual power, look up building a community, take your own steps at your own pace.
Or don’t.
All I’m saying is don’t delude yourself (or others) in to thinking a boycott of a single company (or even all of them, but nothing beyond) is having any impact on anyone but you.
I think that we were both confused about what the other was trying to say. What I was hearing from you is “boycotts and protests are pointless and never change anything, so don’t even bother trying” and I think what you were hearing from me was “well, I stopped spending money on this one thing, that aught to fix society.” I do not think that was what either of us were trying to say.
Personally, I find that boycotting is only one step in a process of trying to break away from the influence of corporations. Once a person takes that step to say “I don’t need this.”, they are more inclined to look at other things in their life that they don’t like and find ways to remove them from their lives as well. They start to encourage others to take similar steps and find their own forms of freedom, maybe even get so upset that they start trying to enact reform. But it all starts with the self.
From my person experience, it takes a highly offensive act to get others to look beyond their personal convience and comfort. Hence my sharing the atrocities of Nestlé. It was never about influence a corporate mindset, it was about hoping to influence a persons mindset.
I would enjoy continuing our discussion, if you are up for it, though maybe through DMs or somewhere else more appropriate. For instance, I would be interested in hearing your views on large societies and impact they have on the individual as well as your thoughts on countering personal greed and how it corrupts efforts and movements intended to help others.
"boycotts and protests are pointless and never change anything, so don’t even bother trying”
First lets separate boycott from protest, because they differ quite a lot (specifically, in a protest you are using your body and putting yourself at risk which isn’t the case in a boycott), and we’re talking about one, not the other. As for the rest - yeah, that’s pretty much my position.
I’m glad to have more clarification on yours, but I don’t think my answer would change much (and to be clear, I’m not trying to be argumentative, I just think you can and should look deeper)
Once a person takes that step to say “I don’t need this.”, they are more inclined to look at other things in their life that they don’t like and find ways to remove them from their lives as well.
the problem, as has been demonstrated all over this thread, is that there are many people who simply can’t afford to do that (in money, or time, or for medical reasons or all of the above). They need essentials, and only shitty companies will sell them these essentials, they’re often not in a position to be dropping things completely, or even shopping around for other brands (99% of which are owned by companies just as bad as nestle anyway) because they’re already struggling to maintain the bare minimum and are too busy working however many jobs or struggling in other ways (like living in a food desert).
There is also the fact that outrage and activism “fatigues” are a real thing that is happening (or being deliberately caused), and the more individual companies or practices you ask people to consciously avoid, the less they will be able to take on and eventually (or sometimes immediately), with none at all (again - this is by design, it’s another method of distraction and divide and conquer. While people fight this one company and end up getting frustrated and put off because it doesn’t achieve anything, or while they’re busy criticising other working class people for what they buy and eat and throw away, they’re not fighting the root of the problem, so more shit will just keep coming). It isn’t about not bothering at all though, it’s about focusing on the big picture and the actual source of the problems, rather than only dealing with some of the mildest symptoms of that system. It’s the difference between liberalism and leftism (I’ve only skimmed this, but it seems like a good piece that relates to all this in a little more depth).
If you’re going to use nestle’s atrocities, and by all means do, add them to a list of other atrocities companies committed for profit too, and use them all together to make the case against capitalism itself.
There is no reforming it, there is no asking for change, there is no way to play by their rules (“free market”) that will achieve change. It’s not a bug, it’s a feature, and the sooner you realise that pretty much all the shit we’re experiencing is by design, and not accidental, the closer you’ll be to actually being free of it.
As for the other topics you’ve suggested, in brief, on both - I think large societies aren’t the problem, nor is individual greed, but I think they both become a problem when we live under a system that rewards that greed, and manipulates big societies to serve a small few.
Good idea to share our definitions of boycott and protest. For me, a boycott is the attempt to remove yourself from contributing or supporting a situation, institution, or person. For example, not purchasing a product or paying for a service. A protest is actively speaking out against something and while it could involve putting yourself at physical risk, it does not have to. In my view, the people in this thread that have shared their discontent with Nestlé are taking part in a protest and those that have been willing and able to avoid purchasing Nestlé products are taking part in a boycott.
the problem, as has been demonstrated all over this thread, is that there are many people who simply can’t afford to do that (in money, or time, or for medical reasons or all of the above). They need essentials, and only shitty companies will sell them these essentials, they’re often not in a position to be dropping things completely, or even shopping around for other brands (99% of which are owned by companies just as bad as nestle anyway) because they’re already struggling to maintain the bare minimum and are too busy working however many jobs or struggling in other ways (like living in a food desert).
I think that my point was lost. I’m not suggesting that people do without essentials. If they are forced to do business they don’t like, they can still speak up about their dissatisfaction of the situation (a.k.a. protest). Their story may encourage somebody else to do the same and maybe that other person will be in a position to skip the Hagen Daz or switch from Peligrino water to flat water or change their cat food from Friskies to another brand. Will they likely end up giving their money to another evil corporation? Yeah. Most likely. But sometimes it is about picking a lesser evil (and I hate using that term, but it fits). And, optimistically, maybe the voices speaking up will get another corporation or maybe even an activist organization will see that there is a need for alternatives. Ultimately, my point is that nothing is served by staying quiet and doing nothing.
Even if your words and actions have no impact and changes nothing, the act itself still holds significance and meaning.
If you’re going to use nestle’s atrocities, and by all means do, add them to a list of other atrocities companies committed for profit too, and use them all together to make the case against capitalism itself.
For the record: Fuck capitalism. I think it is a Ponzi scheme that thrives on the subjugation of the masses for the benefit of the few. Sadly, I have never encountered a system of governance that did not ultimately fall to that same demise. Even the more idealistic systems (e.g. socialism and communism) fall guilty to this once the community gets large enough. I feel that they fail because they are ultimately built on an idealistic view of humans and ignore that we are, as a whole, selfish, corrupt, and are destructive to everything we encounter. Are there exceptions? Yes, that’s why small communities can make these ideologies work. Could we be better? Maybe, but I doubt it.
You are right about activism fatigue being real. I am a victim of it. I still speak out, but I am done with putting myself in harms way, thinking that the powers-that-be give a shit. I’ve shifted my energies to taking control of my life and usage of resources. For example, growing my own food and dealing directly with farmers, ranchers, and hunters for other food supplies. I’m far from where I want to be, but I continue to move to where I want to be.
I feel like you and I are very similar in our views. Not identical, and with some differences in our responses, but the core I feel that our beliefs are similar.
BTW: I do not think that you have come across as argumentative nor an ass (pretty sure you said something like that in a previous reply) and I have appreciated our exchange.
I feel like you and I are very similar in our views. Not identical, and with some differences in our responses, but the core I feel that our beliefs are similar.
This is probably true, and I feel like it’s leading us to talk in circles to a degree, so in an attempt to break away from that, I guess I’d hope to leave you with some more general points to consider:
Capitalism isn’t only an economic system. It is a lens through which we see the world, and it has skewed everything we know about humanity (humans are not, by default, greedy nor selfish). It has also convinced us that the lens is our own eyes and that this is how things have always been, but it isn’t, and we can remove this lens ourselves and see reality for what it truly is - corrupt by a system designed to reward corruption, and absolutely not the inevitable result of “human nature”.
To argue that a system like that is comparable to a system that is instead designed with an end goal of a classless and equal society where exploiting others would lead to expulsion rather than reward, tells me you would benefit from looking more deeply in to the alternatives (socialism which can develop in to both communism and/or anarchism, and horizontal governance in general but significantly, to humanity as it existed before “superpowers” and the days where single or a handful of individuals could claim superiority, hoard all the resources, and exploit everyone else, like Marx did. And while you might argue that the scale of sizes of these societies play a big part, I would argue that we can both exist in smaller but interconnected communities, but also that with the right framework those better systems could easily be scaled up. We already produce enough food to feed everyone and more, we just need distribution that is for feeding rather than for profit).
Sure, no attempt at full socialism or communism has succeeded so far, but that’s in a big part because the capitalist nations that continued to exist all around them intervened (most often by force, but also financially) because they saw these projects as an existential threat (which it is) as well as the existing capitalist mindset (and in some cases feudal, the precursor to capitalism) in those who did a power grab (Stalin, Mao, the Kim family, to name a few), because that’s all they’ve known from birth - those with the power are free and safe, but that’s exactly why we need to focus people on abolishing the system that rewards the power grab while building a viable alternative to it, instead of playing within its rules and expecting anything to shift.
I would also suggest, in the nicest possible way, that you check your privilege. There are many people out there who have never even seen a farm, let alone are able to access one for food, and the closest thing to a plot of land they’ll have their whole lives is a window box. And sure, you can grow food in those, but not enough to actually sustain anyone, and the energy it takes in caring for plants (especially for people like me who have a knack for killing them no matter what) simply isn’t worth it (or even there at all) for most people who are struggling.
I also think you vastly underestimate how much energy surviving at that level actually takes, there is no energy left to go around telling even just their better off friends how bad company x is and why they shouldn’t buy a fancy ice cream, when they themselves would buy it in an instant as a treat if only they could afford to. The poor person will just leave that conversation feeling deflated, and the better off person feel judged, and neither is likely to actually make any meaningful change in their behaviour.
None of this, of course, is to say there is anything wrong with what you’re doing, it’s just to point out that many simply don’t have those options, and you should set your expectations accordingly.
Since you’ve both missed the point entirely in favour of the same example (that is absolutely not unique to nestle), I’ll just copy paste my reply:
I am well aware of all of that information, and if you think others are less brazen, you’ve simply not been paying attention. Either way, you seem to have missed the point. Boycott them. But don’t think that’ll affect any change, because it won’t.
My goal was to say what some of their more egregious acts. I would hate for people to forget that Nestlé caused the slow painful death of infants because it was grouped in with general corporate behaviors.
I’m also aware of other atrocities performed by companies; the Banana Massacre by Chaquita (then United Fruit Company), Ford letting their customers burn to death instead of adding an $11 safety feature to the Ford Pinto, Apple using state sanctioned slave labor through Foxconn, etc etc. And when I get the chance, I share those acts of corporate malevolence.
I’m not excusing any of them. I’m just doing what I can to help prevent these acts from being forgotten.
For me, boycotting and / or protesting this behavior is not about changing the collective minds or behaviors of corporations. It’s about not accepting it and expressing personal outrage, even if it is commonplace.
And that right there is the problem, because if you’re not looking to change things, what’s the point? Outrage without action is not only futile, but it’s exactly what those at the top are counting on - for people to waste their time and energy on pointless boycotts that make them feel like they’re helping, while their machine chugs on uninterrupted. It’s a distraction, and it’s working.
Remembering, and reminding others of these atrocities is hollow if you don’t aim to destroy the system that enabled them in the first place (and which will continue to enable them, and others, to continue to do more, worse, atrocities, because capitalism isn’t getting any fucking friendlier or easier going on the working class).
So again - boycott whoever you want it if it makes you feel better, I boycott companies for all sorts of reasons, but don’t delude yourself in to thinking that is going to change anything on any level beyond your own personal feelings, because it won’t.
What actions do you suggest? I am open to suggestions.
Join/create a union. Join/create a Food not Bombs. Actually invest your time reading up on socialism, anarchism, and becoming an anti capitalist in the way that personally suits you best, as well as what suits your community best, instead of expecting others to spoon feed you instructions.
I’m not trying to be an ass but I literally know nothing about you, where you are and what your local community needs, what your able and not to do, how much trouble you’re willing to get in to or how much time and resources you have to spare, and a whole load more variables that mean I couldn’t possibly tell you what to do or how.
Look up solidarity, look up dual power, look up building a community, take your own steps at your own pace.
Or don’t.
All I’m saying is don’t delude yourself (or others) in to thinking a boycott of a single company (or even all of them, but nothing beyond) is having any impact on anyone but you.
I think that we were both confused about what the other was trying to say. What I was hearing from you is “boycotts and protests are pointless and never change anything, so don’t even bother trying” and I think what you were hearing from me was “well, I stopped spending money on this one thing, that aught to fix society.” I do not think that was what either of us were trying to say.
Personally, I find that boycotting is only one step in a process of trying to break away from the influence of corporations. Once a person takes that step to say “I don’t need this.”, they are more inclined to look at other things in their life that they don’t like and find ways to remove them from their lives as well. They start to encourage others to take similar steps and find their own forms of freedom, maybe even get so upset that they start trying to enact reform. But it all starts with the self.
From my person experience, it takes a highly offensive act to get others to look beyond their personal convience and comfort. Hence my sharing the atrocities of Nestlé. It was never about influence a corporate mindset, it was about hoping to influence a persons mindset.
I would enjoy continuing our discussion, if you are up for it, though maybe through DMs or somewhere else more appropriate. For instance, I would be interested in hearing your views on large societies and impact they have on the individual as well as your thoughts on countering personal greed and how it corrupts efforts and movements intended to help others.
First lets separate boycott from protest, because they differ quite a lot (specifically, in a protest you are using your body and putting yourself at risk which isn’t the case in a boycott), and we’re talking about one, not the other. As for the rest - yeah, that’s pretty much my position.
I’m glad to have more clarification on yours, but I don’t think my answer would change much (and to be clear, I’m not trying to be argumentative, I just think you can and should look deeper)
the problem, as has been demonstrated all over this thread, is that there are many people who simply can’t afford to do that (in money, or time, or for medical reasons or all of the above). They need essentials, and only shitty companies will sell them these essentials, they’re often not in a position to be dropping things completely, or even shopping around for other brands (99% of which are owned by companies just as bad as nestle anyway) because they’re already struggling to maintain the bare minimum and are too busy working however many jobs or struggling in other ways (like living in a food desert).
There is also the fact that outrage and activism “fatigues” are a real thing that is happening (or being deliberately caused), and the more individual companies or practices you ask people to consciously avoid, the less they will be able to take on and eventually (or sometimes immediately), with none at all (again - this is by design, it’s another method of distraction and divide and conquer. While people fight this one company and end up getting frustrated and put off because it doesn’t achieve anything, or while they’re busy criticising other working class people for what they buy and eat and throw away, they’re not fighting the root of the problem, so more shit will just keep coming). It isn’t about not bothering at all though, it’s about focusing on the big picture and the actual source of the problems, rather than only dealing with some of the mildest symptoms of that system. It’s the difference between liberalism and leftism (I’ve only skimmed this, but it seems like a good piece that relates to all this in a little more depth).
If you’re going to use nestle’s atrocities, and by all means do, add them to a list of other atrocities companies committed for profit too, and use them all together to make the case against capitalism itself.
There is no reforming it, there is no asking for change, there is no way to play by their rules (“free market”) that will achieve change. It’s not a bug, it’s a feature, and the sooner you realise that pretty much all the shit we’re experiencing is by design, and not accidental, the closer you’ll be to actually being free of it.
As for the other topics you’ve suggested, in brief, on both - I think large societies aren’t the problem, nor is individual greed, but I think they both become a problem when we live under a system that rewards that greed, and manipulates big societies to serve a small few.
Good idea to share our definitions of boycott and protest. For me, a boycott is the attempt to remove yourself from contributing or supporting a situation, institution, or person. For example, not purchasing a product or paying for a service. A protest is actively speaking out against something and while it could involve putting yourself at physical risk, it does not have to. In my view, the people in this thread that have shared their discontent with Nestlé are taking part in a protest and those that have been willing and able to avoid purchasing Nestlé products are taking part in a boycott.
I think that my point was lost. I’m not suggesting that people do without essentials. If they are forced to do business they don’t like, they can still speak up about their dissatisfaction of the situation (a.k.a. protest). Their story may encourage somebody else to do the same and maybe that other person will be in a position to skip the Hagen Daz or switch from Peligrino water to flat water or change their cat food from Friskies to another brand. Will they likely end up giving their money to another evil corporation? Yeah. Most likely. But sometimes it is about picking a lesser evil (and I hate using that term, but it fits). And, optimistically, maybe the voices speaking up will get another corporation or maybe even an activist organization will see that there is a need for alternatives. Ultimately, my point is that nothing is served by staying quiet and doing nothing.
Even if your words and actions have no impact and changes nothing, the act itself still holds significance and meaning.
For the record: Fuck capitalism. I think it is a Ponzi scheme that thrives on the subjugation of the masses for the benefit of the few. Sadly, I have never encountered a system of governance that did not ultimately fall to that same demise. Even the more idealistic systems (e.g. socialism and communism) fall guilty to this once the community gets large enough. I feel that they fail because they are ultimately built on an idealistic view of humans and ignore that we are, as a whole, selfish, corrupt, and are destructive to everything we encounter. Are there exceptions? Yes, that’s why small communities can make these ideologies work. Could we be better? Maybe, but I doubt it.
You are right about activism fatigue being real. I am a victim of it. I still speak out, but I am done with putting myself in harms way, thinking that the powers-that-be give a shit. I’ve shifted my energies to taking control of my life and usage of resources. For example, growing my own food and dealing directly with farmers, ranchers, and hunters for other food supplies. I’m far from where I want to be, but I continue to move to where I want to be.
I feel like you and I are very similar in our views. Not identical, and with some differences in our responses, but the core I feel that our beliefs are similar.
BTW: I do not think that you have come across as argumentative nor an ass (pretty sure you said something like that in a previous reply) and I have appreciated our exchange.
This is probably true, and I feel like it’s leading us to talk in circles to a degree, so in an attempt to break away from that, I guess I’d hope to leave you with some more general points to consider:
Capitalism isn’t only an economic system. It is a lens through which we see the world, and it has skewed everything we know about humanity (humans are not, by default, greedy nor selfish). It has also convinced us that the lens is our own eyes and that this is how things have always been, but it isn’t, and we can remove this lens ourselves and see reality for what it truly is - corrupt by a system designed to reward corruption, and absolutely not the inevitable result of “human nature”.
To argue that a system like that is comparable to a system that is instead designed with an end goal of a classless and equal society where exploiting others would lead to expulsion rather than reward, tells me you would benefit from looking more deeply in to the alternatives (socialism which can develop in to both communism and/or anarchism, and horizontal governance in general but significantly, to humanity as it existed before “superpowers” and the days where single or a handful of individuals could claim superiority, hoard all the resources, and exploit everyone else, like Marx did. And while you might argue that the scale of sizes of these societies play a big part, I would argue that we can both exist in smaller but interconnected communities, but also that with the right framework those better systems could easily be scaled up. We already produce enough food to feed everyone and more, we just need distribution that is for feeding rather than for profit).
Sure, no attempt at full socialism or communism has succeeded so far, but that’s in a big part because the capitalist nations that continued to exist all around them intervened (most often by force, but also financially) because they saw these projects as an existential threat (which it is) as well as the existing capitalist mindset (and in some cases feudal, the precursor to capitalism) in those who did a power grab (Stalin, Mao, the Kim family, to name a few), because that’s all they’ve known from birth - those with the power are free and safe, but that’s exactly why we need to focus people on abolishing the system that rewards the power grab while building a viable alternative to it, instead of playing within its rules and expecting anything to shift.
I would also suggest, in the nicest possible way, that you check your privilege. There are many people out there who have never even seen a farm, let alone are able to access one for food, and the closest thing to a plot of land they’ll have their whole lives is a window box. And sure, you can grow food in those, but not enough to actually sustain anyone, and the energy it takes in caring for plants (especially for people like me who have a knack for killing them no matter what) simply isn’t worth it (or even there at all) for most people who are struggling.
I also think you vastly underestimate how much energy surviving at that level actually takes, there is no energy left to go around telling even just their better off friends how bad company x is and why they shouldn’t buy a fancy ice cream, when they themselves would buy it in an instant as a treat if only they could afford to. The poor person will just leave that conversation feeling deflated, and the better off person feel judged, and neither is likely to actually make any meaningful change in their behaviour.
None of this, of course, is to say there is anything wrong with what you’re doing, it’s just to point out that many simply don’t have those options, and you should set your expectations accordingly.
(1/2 reached character limit lol)