Do the right thing – FAQ

 

 

 

1.         Why not Israel? Why not Great Britain? Why not China? Why not…

 

2.         Is it an anti-global (new global) campaign?

 

3.         Is it a chauvinist pro-Europe campaign? Is it a campaign in favour of european production?

 

4.         Is this a political boycott?

 

5.         Is this campaign solely aimed at averting a war on Iraq, or does it have additional purposes?

 

6.         I can’t grasp this petrol thing, would you pls. explain?

 

7.         I can’t grasp this cartel thing, would you pls. explain?

 

8.         What do multis and american workers have to do with Bush, aside from the faults of Unocal and Exxon's (the main sponsors of the White House’s foreign policy)?

 

9.         What’s boycotting soap use for? Shouldn’t we boycott arms?

 

10.                    Shouldn’t we boycott all multis? Why not Unilever or Nestlè?

 

11.                    You fools, do you really think you’ll be able to get but the scantiest information about any success this campaign may have? They’ll pretend not to notice and go on with their foreign policy, won’t they?

 

12.                    There’s no alternatives in some merchandise sectors. What should i do?

 

13.                    I’m already following a campaign against x. How can I boycott my only alternative left?

 

14.                    But, how can i renounce my Big Mac, my MTV, my favourite sport apparel?

 

 

 

 

 

1.  Why not Israel? Why not Great Britain? Why not China? Why not…

This is a boycott aimed at drawing into a crisis the United States and at making evident, and using as an aggregating factor, the widespread dissent over their foreign policy. It’s not a form of vote-against, since there’s no such thing as a democracy in market, but a kind of constituent of democratic citizens, who will enter it by not consuming. There could be, for consumers and citizens, thousands of other targets deserving to be striken, but it’s not possible to strike them all at the same moment – even the military campaigns are waged against one target at a time. We have chosen the one we consider the most dangerous for the world and for our lives – Bush’s government and its economic foundations. See also the answers to questions number 7 and 10.

 

2.  Is it an anti-global (new global) campaign?

It is widely believed that one of the effects of any attack to the multinational corporations will be to give advantage to the local production (originally local, that is, of independent property). Sadly, given the current state of the global market, one in which the multis can rely on enormous juridical and political privileges, even against the states, and the local production is not being specially favoured by the consumers, the most likely thing to happen is that other corporations will grab the market shares lost by the boycotted ones. For this reason, we would not say that this campaign can possibly have positive effects for the local economies. The fight against multis’ superpower is to be led beside this initiative – anyway, we believe that any kind of boycott will not suffice in winning this fight in absence of a pars construens, which would serve the development of a local kind of economy and of global rights. That’s because we’re not interested in reforming the multis, but in having a chance to get a market alternative (in a loose sense) to them. That said, it’s true that we are also interested in bringing back closer to us the core of political decision-making, see with regard to this the answer to question 7.

 

3.     Is it a chauvinist pro-Europe campaign? Is it a campaign in favour of european production?

A – It is a campaign that in the end, we believe, can make even the european and worldwide corporations - the ones that enjoy today the trailing effect towards hardcore liberism exerted by the USA - become more “ethical”. Anyway, our line of reasoning is not an ethical one, but one involving a better balance between stronger and weaker powers, without which no talk about ethics can ever be possible. B – Yes, but also in support of somalian, brazilian, indian, and other countries’ goods.

 

4.   Is this a political boycott?

Every boycott that has economic consequences, in our view, is also a political boycott. And even when we speak of normal consumption, buying tomatoes or potatoes or toothpaste, we are making politics, if only for our silent acceptance of the policies on the production, diffusion and advertisement of goods, and of the laws regulating all this.

 

5.  Is this campaign solely aimed at averting a war on Iraq, or does it have additional purposes?

The war has begun well before the initial threats to Iraq, and, for that matter, well before 9/11/2001, given the fact that the attack on Afghanistan was indisputably prepared two years in advance. Therefore, this campaign aims at putting an end to the “Infinite war”. Even if a war on Iraq will not take place, we can’t accept the use by anyone of the military threat as a means of achieving political and economical ends.

 

6.   I can’t grasp this petrol thing, would you pls. explain?

It’s about an agreement between consumers on dividing on an arbitrary basis the brands of petrol (or other kinds of goods, but the idea was about petrol in the first place) into two groups, e.g. putting BP and Gulf into one group, and all the other brands into the other. Then, we will coordinately abstain from buying the brands belonging to the first group. In such circumstances, BP and Gulf will be forced to lower their prices, and that’s when we are going to buy only BP and Gulf’s petrol. This way the cartel will go off, and a real market competition will be triggered, one which will favour consumers. Nevertheless, one has even to expect that, in order to preserve the cartel, the oil corporations will “give their solidarity” by supporting the striken companies, until the boycott will wear out. This can only be made up for by holding out.

 

7.     I can’t grasp this cartel thing, would you pls. explain?

A cartel is a more or less secret agreement by the companies, aimed at sharing the market between them and at keeping prices high, all in detriment of consumers.

If we think of all the cross links joining european and american multis (and worldwide ones) under the roof of the big financial capital, of World Bank and WTO, if we think of the common investments, of how the health of european stock exchanges depends on Wall Street’s, we can well say that, between the big powers of USA and EC, a cartel exists against the citizens of the world, aimed at diminishing our rights, our freedoms, and our buying power. Notwithstanding this, we believe that some divergences do exist about the management of resources and the world policy, and they have effectively revealed themselves with regards to iraqi crisis. We mean to stress and amplify these differences, in order to take back our rights and power. We’ll do this in no way relying upon a supposed better “humanity” or “ethicity” of the european economy, but bearing in mind a very simple reasoning: it’s easier to influence what happens closer to us. The hawks from USA government are outside the control of world citizenry, of UNO, and of their very “electors”, that’s for sure.

 

8.  What do multis and american workers have to do with Bush, aside from the faults of Unocal and Exxon’s (the main sponsors of the White House’s foreign policy)?

Sadly, we have to believe that a good share of americans is on the same positions as their government, as it emerges from a Gallup poll held in the first days of december 2002, according to which 58% of people of the United States is in favour of an attack on Iraq, and also keeping in count the triumph reported by the republicans in the november elections for the Congress. Probably, this support to the government also derives from the fact that many americans realize how this war can make for them the difference between keeping an “acceptable” standard of living and entering a crisis of scary proportions.

All american multis exploit their country’s political-military domination. Suffice it to think of all the contracts and the business chances they can enjoy in countries who live under USA blackmail, or ruled by puppet-governments, or the international tenders won thanks to their control over communications. Some examples: the story of the overthrowing by the USA, in the interest of United Fruit (today Chiquita), of the democratically elected government of Guatemala; the exploitation and destruction of the Amazon forest by the fast-food multinationals; the six billion worth contracts for the sale of Boeing and MD liner aircrafts to Saudi Arabia, the 300 million dollar worth ones for communication tech won by Hughes in Indonesia, the 1.4 billion ones for radar systems won by Raytheon in Brazil, all of them obtained by means of state espionage (source: Heise online -  http://www.heise.de/tp/deutsch/special/ech/7752/1.html).

There’s more: the american government, as the interface and syndicate of USA corporations, arrogates the right to decide on the behaviour not only of its multis, but of foreign ones as well, and acts with sanctions to direct these behaviours. See the case of l’Oreal, that had begun a withdrawal of its commercial activities from Israel, to answer the violations of human rights on israeli’s part, but had to retrace its steps before the application by USA of the “Anti-boycott bill” (source: Jerusalem Post - http://www.jpost.com/com/Archive/15.Jun.1999/Business/Article-5.html).

We apply economic sanctions, in the same fashion of those decided by the by-now-farsesque UNO, but characterised by a much greater democratic spirit, and way different from those imposed by the USA, for instance, on Cuba or on the very Iraq, be it with regards to motivations or to the consideration showed for the effects on the population (million of deaths in Iraq, long periods of starvation in Cuba).

To the democratic and progressist american citizens we say that this initiative is made for their sake as well, so that they can free themselves frow what looks more and more like a dictatorship, even if they’ll have to face difficulties and sufferings to achieve this – in fact, they will have to anyway. We believe they’ll be on our side.

 

9.       What’s boycotting soap use for? Shouldn’t we boycott arms?

Soap is not a joke, especially when it moves billions of dollars. All the chemical american (not only american) industry is based upon mass production of cheap products, and this brings advantages in an indirect way even to the military industry. Aside from productive sectors, USA soap corporations, too, are pressed close to the others in politically supporting their government in its current policies, and it is this very support that allows Bush keep on following his path.

 

10.          Shouldn’t we boycott all multis? Why not Unilever or Nestlè?

If we boycotted all the corporations, why should some of them change their strategies, adopt different ways towards their workers, or try to push their governments, or supernational institutions, in different directions? We have to hit just some of them instead, and in doing this motivate the boycott, in order to be strong together and single out our opponents, that is, those who “embody” and back up the kind of behaviour we want to eliminate. This is why we are also sceptical about such initiatives as the “Buy nothing day”. In fact, it is not clear what behaviour, and what opponent, we mean to strike with such an action. Consumerism, or the system of capital, seem not to be plausible targets, and it’s not possible to strike any opponent in particular which – more than others – carries these flags. As we already affirmed in the answers to questions 1 and 7, boycotting more than one target is possible, but it’s to be done in differet times and toggling between them, because only this way can the interests of the strong powers be separated from each other, and it will be possible to affect the system as a whole. Today, the multinational corporations, as a system, are not beatable. It is necessary to go through an intermediate phase, their weakening by a conscious “subject”.

 

11.     You fools, do you really think you’ll be able to get but the scantiest information about any success this campaign may have? They’ll pretend not to notice and go on with their foreign policy, won’t they?

Actually, it won’t be easy to get precise info about any obtained effects, at least in the beginning. But we are sure the personal satisfaction deriving from not giving money to those who destroy our world is so high that, alone, it can justify the boycott and induce us to commit to it. Today, we feel our power is in our pockets. Try and see!

 

12.      There’s no alternatives in some merchandise sectors. What should i do?

The only sector where there are actually no alternatives (yet) to the goods produced by american corporations is the computer processors’ one; anyway, there are alternatives for all other computer components. To extend your computer processor’s life, and for other good reasons, we advise the adoption of free software (Linux and relative programs), that, in some versions, needs smaller computing power.

 

13.      I’m already following a campaign against x. How can I boycott my only left alternative?

It is possible to do without many kind of commodities – not peace.

 

14.       But, how can i renounce my Big Mac, my MTV, my favourite sport apparel?

Try and you’ll make it!