Can a boycott work? Sure. As a coordinated political action, the consumer-side equivalent of a strike. This takes just as much work and coordination as any other political activity.
I guess we might slightly miss each others point.
It really really should not take “as much work” if only people would just not be dumb consumers only. If at least 20-30% would actually only buy shit when it’s not shit, even excluding your point with “not caring ENOUGH”, it would be enough in each case. But we won’t.
Microsoft is the Antichrist, but I need office!
I hate Apple’s isolation, but look at this sleek design!
I hate not owning games anymore, but steam has SPÖ many!
Netflix is the worst, but everyone saw this show hence I need to too!
etc. It just hurts to see the obvious and most simple solution to be so rarely effective. And I’m surely not the epitome of intelligence and knowledge.
We won’t indeed. And that’s why the neoliberal fantasy where the market self-regulates is bullshit.
We won’t because our set of incentives isn’t infinitely fluid to the point where every negative, hostile or illegitimate action is unprofitable. And we shouldn’t have to, because there already is a mechanism to account for that fact, and it’s the law.
We’re not meant to judge our spending money in fungible commodities and entertainment based on political stances and larger considerations about long term convenience. We’re not meant to weigh whether Nintendo has a right to disable our device remotely as part of the choice to play a cute racing game.
That’s not the sphere where those choices belong. We’ve been told it is by neoliberal capitalists who don’t want a government to tell them what they can and cannot do, so they keep insisting that they can be as crappy as they want because if they do something the public won’t like they will “vote with their wallet” and the market will settle in the optimal spot of profit vs service. And if it doesn’t a competitor will give people what they want and they’ll buy that instead.
But that’s a lie. It never worked that way, and it doesn’t work anywhere close to that way in a global online oligarchy. You’re meant to be able to buy whatever the hell you fancy because there is supposed to be a state regulating things to be safe, fair and protected when you engage in small commercial exchanges.
Because you need Office, Microsoft doesn’t get to be the Antichrist. Because Netflix has the show everybody wants to watch it doesn’t get to be the worst. The idea is those companies are supposed to be held to the level of being-the-worst-Antichrist we all deem minimally acceptable. Market forces can play within that space, and no further.
So you want Netlfix to not be the worst? Get a legislator to enforce it and watch Stranger Things to your heart’s content. Because whether you like Stranger Things isn’t supposed to be connected in any way to how Netflix conducts its business or how abusive it can be in the process of doing so.
Can a boycott work? Sure. As a coordinated political action, the consumer-side equivalent of a strike. This takes just as much work and coordination as any other political activity.I guess we might slightly miss each others point. It really really should not take “as much work” if only people would just not be dumb consumers only. If at least 20-30% would actually only buy shit when it’s not shit, even excluding your point with “not caring ENOUGH”, it would be enough in each case. But we won’t.
Microsoft is the Antichrist, but I need office!
I hate Apple’s isolation, but look at this sleek design!
I hate not owning games anymore, but steam has SPÖ many!
Netflix is the worst, but everyone saw this show hence I need to too!
etc. It just hurts to see the obvious and most simple solution to be so rarely effective. And I’m surely not the epitome of intelligence and knowledge.
We won’t indeed. And that’s why the neoliberal fantasy where the market self-regulates is bullshit.
We won’t because our set of incentives isn’t infinitely fluid to the point where every negative, hostile or illegitimate action is unprofitable. And we shouldn’t have to, because there already is a mechanism to account for that fact, and it’s the law.
We’re not meant to judge our spending money in fungible commodities and entertainment based on political stances and larger considerations about long term convenience. We’re not meant to weigh whether Nintendo has a right to disable our device remotely as part of the choice to play a cute racing game.
That’s not the sphere where those choices belong. We’ve been told it is by neoliberal capitalists who don’t want a government to tell them what they can and cannot do, so they keep insisting that they can be as crappy as they want because if they do something the public won’t like they will “vote with their wallet” and the market will settle in the optimal spot of profit vs service. And if it doesn’t a competitor will give people what they want and they’ll buy that instead.
But that’s a lie. It never worked that way, and it doesn’t work anywhere close to that way in a global online oligarchy. You’re meant to be able to buy whatever the hell you fancy because there is supposed to be a state regulating things to be safe, fair and protected when you engage in small commercial exchanges.
Because you need Office, Microsoft doesn’t get to be the Antichrist. Because Netflix has the show everybody wants to watch it doesn’t get to be the worst. The idea is those companies are supposed to be held to the level of being-the-worst-Antichrist we all deem minimally acceptable. Market forces can play within that space, and no further.
So you want Netlfix to not be the worst? Get a legislator to enforce it and watch Stranger Things to your heart’s content. Because whether you like Stranger Things isn’t supposed to be connected in any way to how Netflix conducts its business or how abusive it can be in the process of doing so.