No Shopping April 15-22!!!: National Boycott for Peace

[marmar]

National Boycott To Impeach
for Peace and Justice
Tax Day (April 15) 'til Earth Day (April 22)

January 1, 2007 - A national coaltion of citizens, including war veterans, distinguished academics, students, journalists, artists, and elected officials have joined with us to call for a nationwide boycott of all consumer activity, for one week in April..

The organizers of the boycott have recognized the fact, that our elected representatives have been unwilling to move forward on the public's overwhelming demands for impeachment and an end to the war in Iraq.

This boycott is a way of unifying the opposition to the Bush Administration; and according to Dr. Peter Phillips, who was the first to propose the idea in December,
"could well be the straw that broke the camel's back".

The boycott has been called in response to the statement by the new Speaker of The House Nancy Pelosi, that the issue of impeachment was "off the table".

Complete details are at: http://www.wearenotbuyingit.org/

[Smarmie Doofus]

1. I'm in. But the issues are getting confused at the outset.

This *always* happens.

Lot's of folks are against the war but not in favor of impeachment. ( For tactical or *whatever* reasons.) A boycott depends for it's success on *widespread* participation.

Why are we limiting the appeal of the boycott from the get go?

It should be a *boycott for peace*. Period.

Not impeachment, not equal marriage, not abortion rights, not immigration, etc. etc. etc. They're all important but let's get them to stop killing people first.

I'm boycotting anyway.

[marmar]

2. Agreed. They should just focus that one on peace.....

but I'm in too.

[bonito]

3. No one can do everything, but every one can do something

The power of the people. more from the link..

The economy is collapsing under the weight of debt beyond imagining, every single safeguard that we have had to protect the common people from the abuses of the rich and powerful have been systematically destroyed.

War threatens to engulf the entire world and still they profit. Our general, across the board boycott is aimed at taking the money away from those people. By hitting them where it hurts the most, their pocketbooks, maybe they will reconsider this ultimately self-destructive set of policies....before it is too late

[Nicole]

4. This will be easy. After paying my taxes I won't have the money to shop anyway.

Count me in.

[goforit]

5. Great point! Why that week? It should be the fourth of July!!

[theboss]

10. It should be never

In order for a boycot to work, you need to actually boycot something.

There are things I have to buy regularly: food, gas, my cholestoral medicine. So, fine, I don't buy on this random week. I will just stock up on Friday. Woo-hoo. I still contributed the exact same amount to consumer spending that month.

I want to know what this "Dr" has his degree in, because it ain't economics.

[kestrel91316]

6. That will be easy. I almost NEVER "shop". It requires money,

which is in chronic short supply in my home.

I get to boost my impact, though - I can extend the no-spending that week to my BUSINESS, with a little advance planning.

[theboss]

11. It won't make a difference

You are in business so you apparently understand how earnings are measured. If you typically earn $400/month. What difference does it make if instead of $100/week, you receive $200, $0, $0, $200 for 4 consecutive weeks? Maybe you would be a little concerned at the end of the third week, but by the end of week 4, all is back to normal.

What you would have to do is not spend any money for, like, a month without moving the spending to another month. Basically, you would have to do a money fast.

[TheWraith]

7. These things never work.

The theory is fundamentally flawed. What people really need or want to buy, they'll simply buy before or after the week. (Besides which, if you think anyone's going to give up buying groceries for a week, you're out of your mind.) The only way that boycotts work is if you're targeting one specific thing that you can continue to target indefinitely. This provides absolutely no incentive for anyone to do anything, even if they could: do you think one week of a couple hundred thousand people--at most--spending no money is going to make business leaders demand an end to the war? You'd be better off trying to convince people to boycott sending in their taxes.

[Pugee]

8. True, Snopes has even debunked this type of boycott when

everyone was pushing to not buy gas for a day. Here's why it won't work even though it is a week instead of a day. http://www.snopes.com/politics/gasoline/nogas.asp

[Smarmie Doofus]

13. Actually, sometimes they *do*. From the website:

"In 1990, ACT-UP staged a boycott of Phillip Morris that resulted in providing millions of dollars for AIDS` research.

In 1994, a boycott waged against Shell Oil, Kellog's and Coca Cola, helped to increase the momentum of the anti-apartheid movement. In 1995, the International Peace Bureau called for a boycott of all French products in oppositioon to nuclear testing.



The French wine industry was especially hard hit and the threat of "economic disruption" spurred President Chirac to sign the Comprehensive Test Ban Treaty. National polls now show that well over half of ALL Americans believe that this administration should be impeached. A much higher percentage want to see this war end and virtually everyone wants to know the truth behind the events of the last 7 years.

What the people want, and what they get, can be two entirely different things if left up to the consideration of career politicians.

The marches, books, movies, lectures and petitions all speak directly to the politicians...and they aren't listening. So let's put pressure on the people they do listen to 24 hours a day,365 days a year.

The boycott provides us with a way to send a wake-up call to the corporate backers of our political leaders. America, holding back on our spending for even one week will show the corporate powers that the
people are serious, we are determined and "We're not buying it anymore". To that end, we are building a network of individuals and organizations from coast to coast and around the world to support this action.

By uniting the work of so many millions of people into a single week of protest in which we make sure that the money talks loud and clear, we can give fair warning to our representatives that the time for truth has come, justice is demanded and a full accounting is expected from Washington and Wall Street."

Besides...the boycott has symbolic significance beyond the literal objections you pose. It has the potential to generate buzz , media attention, and raise conciousness among ordinary citizens.

Also provides a means for people who because of age and life circumstances... eg. raising children, and/or can't take time off from work... to demonstrate their opposition to the war. Not everyone can drop everything and travel to Washington DC for a weekend.

>>>>You'd be better off trying to convince people to boycott sending in their taxes.>>>

I'll do that also. Anyone working on that at this time?

[TheWraith]

14. Those are boycotts against specific targets, not the kind of thing we're talking about.

With a boycott against a company, it can go on indefinitely, which does produce pressure if there are enough people doing it. A general boycott does nothing, because people have to buy their goods somewhere. If you don't buy food and toilet paper at one store, you can buy them at another. But if you're not supposed to buy anywhere, you can only go a certain period of time, and then you have to break the boycott. So even if you got a million people on board, then companies can simply wait a week, and it's over. The need for goods and services doesn't go away.

">>>>You'd be better off trying to convince people to boycott sending in their taxes.>>>

I'll do that also. Anyone working on that at this time?"

Not that I'm aware of.

[Smarmie Doofus]

15. The goal of the organizers is not to produce a boycott...

on the model that you are describing.


It is intended to bring *attention* to the issue of the ongoing war and the political system's failure to implement the will of the people.

As far as this goes, the logic of the organizers is unassailable:

>>>>If the speeches are not heard, the marches are not witnessed, the votes are not counted and the voice of the people is not loud enough to get the attention of lawmakers then we must do something else. We must show our strength not only in political terms but also in economic terms.>>>>

The important element there is "we must do something else."



>>>>>A general boycott does nothing, because people have to buy their goods somewhere.>>>>

I disagree. Doing nothing, it can be stated with certainty, 'does nothing'.

A general boycott, OTOH, may or not produce results that are desirable. There are few historical parallels that are instructive ( that I'm aware of anyway) and it has not been employed in the modern era in the USA.

Therefeore, we can't know whether it will 'work' or not. For that reason alone, it should not be dismissed.

[theboss]

9. In order for a boycot to work, you have to boycot "something"

I don't see how my not spending any money on a few days is a protest of anything. I do that from time to time already and the economy has never collapsed.

Besides, I'm out of town that week on business. It would be exceptionally difficult to not spend money in San Diego unless I walked from the airport to my hotel while carrying a bag of peanut butter sandwiches and trail mix.

[Smarmie Doofus]

12. Kick. ( I like the idea). n/t