News & Views for Anarchists & Activists:
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/smygo
http://tinyurl.com/4nloo8
Ostracism and boycott are such closely related social tactics that one
is often considered a form of the other.
on Sunday 11 May 2008
by Wendy McElroy
The current disillusionment with politicians -- which may be Clinton's
true legacy -- will be positive only if it becomes disillusionment with
the political means itself. Otherwise, people will continue to look
primarily to the 'State' for solutions instead of to 'Society.'
State v. Society
The German sociologist Franz Oppenheimer explained the difference
between these two terms in his classic work, "The State." By State,
Oppenheimer meant "that summation of privileges and dominating positions
which are brought into being by extra-economic power." By Society, he
meant "the totality of concepts of all purely natural relations and
institutions between man and man..." In other words, the State uses the
political means -- or force -- to achieve wealth and power. Society uses
the economic means, or co-operation. An example of the political means
is to acquire wealth through taxation: an example of the economic means
is to acquire wealth through productive labor.
The goal of libertarianism is to persuade people to look to the economic
means, first and foremost, to achieve their goals. When this is
achieved, society will be both peaceful and voluntary. Thus, it is
necessary to demonstrate effective non-violent strategies that can
provide for social change and redress wrongs. Fortunately,
libertarianism has used non-violence for centuries and its history is a
textbook rich in such strategies. One of them is the boycott.
Defining Boycott
Ostracism and boycott are such closely related social tactics that one
is often considered a form of the other. Ostracism dates back to ancient
Greece (at least) and refers to the act of excluding an unacceptable
person from the fellow****p of society through general consent. The term
'boycott' was coined in 1880 by the Irish Home Rule leader Charles
Stewart Parnell to describe the version of ostracism being used against
a certain Captain Charles Cunningham Boycott by his Irish neighbors.
This specific form of ostracism became an effective tactic in the
struggle of the Irish peasants against English landlords who enjoyed
legal privileges. By contrast, Irish tenants faced legal barriers to
owner****p and paid racking rents that left them in near-starvation. In
1879, Parnell and Michael Davitt founded the Land League in order to
achieve the three "Fs": fair rent, free sale, and fixity of tenure. The
League evolved into a widespread peasant rebellion -- the first peaceful
mass uprising that Ireland had enjoyed.
The campaign against Captain Boycott was the League's most notable early
victory. The Captain was a much-hated overseer for an absentee landlord,
Lord Erne, in Mayo County. In 1880, when he refused to lower rents for
the tenants, an audacious scheme was hatched. Servants no longer worked
in his house, stores sold him nothing, no mail was delivered, and
laborers refused to bring in the harvest. Boycott im****ted politically
friendly labor from the county of Ulster but the expense of doing so
proved disastrous. A humiliated Boycott was forced to leave Ireland. The
rebel success galvanized Ireland and boycotts erupted across the island.
Landlords who evicted tenants suddenly found that no other family would
move into the vacated house.
A basic difference between ostracism and boycott becomes clear through
this example. Ostracism is often no more than the punishment of an
individual while boycott aims at achieving social change. Since boycott
is pursued to achieve a separate goal, it has a better claim to the word
'strategy.' And ostracism with a such a goal is best referred to as
'social boycott.' In a more general sense, boycott can be defined as "a
refusal to associate with someone or to purchase or participate in
something as an act of protest aimed at changing a policy or practice."
Libertarians and the Boycott
Boycott was a popular strategy with the 19th century libertarians who
congregated around Benjamin Tucker's pivotal periodical Liberty. Indeed,
it had been well received by the earlier New England Labor Reform League
for which Ezra Heywood's libertarian periodical The Word served as a
voice. Boycott seemed to provide a peaceful social means by which people
could address actions they considered so immoral as to be intolerable.
Without such a means, libertarians feared that people would turn to
government for relief.
Tucker was fascinated with the Irish No-rent movement, the main organ of
which was Patrick Ford's Irish World. "Liberty is not always satisfied
with it [Irish World]," Tucker wrote, "but, all things considered, deems
it the most potent agency for good now at work on this planet." Of Irish
Land League, he wrote, "Ireland's true order: the wonderful Land League,
the nearest approach, on a large scale, to perfect Anarchistic
organization..."
Tucker was not alone in his admiration. Two of Liberty's most frequent
contributors -- Henry Appleton and Sidney H. Morse -- also wrote columns
for Irish World under the pseudonyms of Honorius and Phillip,
respectively. Tucker eventually became disillusioned with the Land
League, however. He believed that the promise of the movement had been
sold out for political advantage by its leaders, especially by Parnell.
In Instead of a Book, Tucker lamented, "The Irish Land League failed
because the peasants were acting, not intelligently in obedience to
their wisdom, but blindly in obedience to leaders who betrayed them at
the critical moment."
But the Land League had vindicated the strategy of boycott in the minds
of 19th century American libertarians. Tucker later commented on what he
called Ireland's shortest route to success, "no payment of rent now or
hereafter; no payment of compulsory taxes now or hereafter; utter
disregard of the British parliament and its so-called laws; entire
abstention from the polls henceforth; rigorous but
non-invasive 'boycotting' of deserters, cowards, traitors, and
oppressors..." Boycott was an integral part of the "passive but stubborn
resistance" that Tucker considered to be the only strategic alternative
to open revolution and terror, both of which he rejected. He favored
passive resistance, which he called "the most potent weapon ever wielded
by man against oppression" and "prominent features of every great
national movement."
Not all of Tucker's circle was as enthusiastic about boycott, however.
Indeed, some contributors considered the tactic to be invasive because
it interfered with another's ability to make a living. Again and again,
Tucker staunchly insisted that everyone had the right to ignore others
and that such treatment could not constitute invasion or interference.
Other contributors to Liberty accepted 'primary' boycott -- that is, the
personal refusal to deal with people or agencies -- but rejected
'secondary' boycott -- that is, the use of strikes or blacklists. The
latter tactics were termed 'secondary' because they were usually used to
aid and expand a 'primary' boycott. Many, if not most of Tucker's circle
had great reservations about 'secondary' boycott. Nevertheless, Tucker
defended even blacklists as nothing more than a form of "employer
boycott" and repeated that the refusal to co-operate or associate could
never be a form of coercion.
A century later, the free market economist Murray Rothbard would echo
Tucker. In The Ethics of Liberty, Rothbard wrote, "Furthermore,
'secondary' boycotts are also legitimate.... In a secondary boycott,
labor unions try to persuade consumers not to buy from firms who deal
with non-union (primary boycotted) firms.... [i] should be their right
to try such persuasion, just as it is the right of their opponents to
counter with an opposing boycott." Regarding what is arguably the most
hated and vilified type of boycott, Rothbard observed, "the blacklist --
a form of boycott -- would be legal in a free society."
The only problem Rothbard perceived with boycott lay in practices that
were closely associated with but entirely separable from the strategy.
For example, the common practice of picketing might be invasive if it
blocked access to private property or constituted a threat to so-called
'scabs' who crossed the line. But these associated practices did not
reflect badly upon boycott itself. Rothbard concluded, "the im****tant
thing about the boycott is that it is purely voluntary, an act of
attempted persuasion, and therefore that it is a perfectly legal and
licit instrument of action."
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 non-cooperation is one of the drives 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 served
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
non-cooperation on the part of the boycotters. If non-cooperation is
forced, black marketeers merely cash in on the higher profits brought by
higher risk and skirt the restrictions.
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 (1854-1858), 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 establi****ng 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."
Social boycott has more flexible goals than mere exclusion. In his
definitive three-volume work on strategy, The Politics of Nonviolent
Action (Part Two), 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
co-ordinate 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 why
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 op****tunity 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 be used to liberate rather than enslave.
Another expression of boycott is political. Sharp explained that such
boycott usually involves the "tem****ary 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 less than thirty-eight methods through
which "an almost infinite variety" of political non-cooperation can be
expressed. One of the methods is the "withdrawal from government
educational institutions," which is basically what home schooling
accomplishes.
Perhaps the most prominent form of boycott is economic, which Sharp
defines as "the refusal to continue or to undertake certain economic
relation****ps, 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, left 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' (for example, the strike), Sharp discussed a
myriad of refinements on the more basic form of economic boycott -- the
refusal to buy, sell, or engage in services. These refinements include:
Action by consumers:
* consumer boycotts
nonconsumption of boycotted goods
policy of austerity
rent withholding
refusal to rent
national consumers' boycott
international consumers' boycott
Action by Workers and Producers:
* workman's boycott
producer's 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
refusal to pay fees, dues and *****sments
refusal to pay debts or interest
severance of funds and credit
revenue refusal
Each of these diverse strategies is nonviolent, 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 im****tant strategy for freedom. Instead, it
means eliminating an im****tant 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.
--
Dan Clore
My collected fiction: _The Unspeakable and Others_
http://tinyurl.com/2gcoqt
Lord We˙rdgliffe & Necronomicon Page:
http://tinyurl.com/292yz9
News & Views for Anarchists & Activists:
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/smygo
Skipper: Professor, will you tell these people who is
in charge on this island?
Professor: Why, no one.
Skipper: No one?
Thurston Howell III: No one? Good heavens, this is anarchy!
-- _Gilligan's Island_, episode #6, "President Gilligan"
|
