You pick out a few, possibly rotating targets to boycott at a time. BDS is targeted at the entire state of Israel, which manufactures all kinds of crap - so they picked out a small subset that they believed had a good balance between impact and being actionable.
There is currently a boycott campaign against Nabisco while the factory workers are on strike for safe conditions, better pay, and maintaining their healthcare benefits. While the call is to boycott the company's products, as part of a megacorp there are too many to actually tell people about in a normal conversation, so you tell them that there are a bunch, tell them where they can find a list, and mention the big ones like Oreos.
In both cases, the boycott isn't going to destroy the problem in question, not does anyone organizing for it expect it to do so. It is primarily about bringing awareness to them through the primary public social activity in the imperial core: buying shit at a store. And when a boycott actually does get attention from the targets and has some form of positive change (or at least PR), it feeds into the movement and is a valuable recruiting tool.
Tons of libs are happy to do this kind of stuff as well. Their activism usually starts and ends at voting and consumer choices, after all. We can't expect full radicalization from not eating an Oreo, but every bit helps: oh Nabisco is trying to fuck over their workers who just want very reasonable things, oh wow that's a huge corporation screwing over th little guy, oh hey [socialist organization] is pushing for this good thing, what are they about?" I've had lots of conversations with people who didn't know about any of the local socialist orgs but were very positive about our work.
Ok, so this is more about messaging than any end goals. There could be some minimal impact, like BDS in relation to Israel, but it is more about creating awareness. I suppose it's not the worst end goal, but I think you could've been clearer about that initially.
The Nabisco example is interesting, but I'm not sure how relevant it is to BDS for Texas, specifically in regards to the recent legislation. The Nabisco strike will end soon, that much is guaranteed. Mondelez has distribution capability all across North America, so production certainly wasn't hurt. Some plants were already closed or outsourced elsewhere, so most likely it means they can throw a bone to their current workers in the US, and not see their bottom line get hurt at all.
The tabling re: Nabisco worked more to make people aware of the strike than anything else. The boycott is a vehicle for messaging and a call to action that is doable in the context of a relatively unorganized left.
This is generally what boycotts have usually accomplished and what lefties want to see out of them. When they are large enough, they can have a significant material impact on the targets of the boycott, but even then nobody expected a boycott (or mild sanctions or divestment) to end slavery or apartheid. It's just one tactic that dovetails nicely with overall solidarity, recruiting, getting the word out.
Regardless of the topic, the vast majority of people you will meet will be completely or mostly unaware of any political issue nor who to look to for direction on it. We also don't control any aspect of the media. Direct calls to action like boycotts create an opportunity to bridge that gap.
You pick out a few, possibly rotating targets to boycott at a time. BDS is targeted at the entire state of Israel, which manufactures all kinds of crap - so they picked out a small subset that they believed had a good balance between impact and being actionable.
There is currently a boycott campaign against Nabisco while the factory workers are on strike for safe conditions, better pay, and maintaining their healthcare benefits. While the call is to boycott the company's products, as part of a megacorp there are too many to actually tell people about in a normal conversation, so you tell them that there are a bunch, tell them where they can find a list, and mention the big ones like Oreos.
In both cases, the boycott isn't going to destroy the problem in question, not does anyone organizing for it expect it to do so. It is primarily about bringing awareness to them through the primary public social activity in the imperial core: buying shit at a store. And when a boycott actually does get attention from the targets and has some form of positive change (or at least PR), it feeds into the movement and is a valuable recruiting tool.
Tons of libs are happy to do this kind of stuff as well. Their activism usually starts and ends at voting and consumer choices, after all. We can't expect full radicalization from not eating an Oreo, but every bit helps: oh Nabisco is trying to fuck over their workers who just want very reasonable things, oh wow that's a huge corporation screwing over th little guy, oh hey [socialist organization] is pushing for this good thing, what are they about?" I've had lots of conversations with people who didn't know about any of the local socialist orgs but were very positive about our work.
Ok, so this is more about messaging than any end goals. There could be some minimal impact, like BDS in relation to Israel, but it is more about creating awareness. I suppose it's not the worst end goal, but I think you could've been clearer about that initially.
The Nabisco example is interesting, but I'm not sure how relevant it is to BDS for Texas, specifically in regards to the recent legislation. The Nabisco strike will end soon, that much is guaranteed. Mondelez has distribution capability all across North America, so production certainly wasn't hurt. Some plants were already closed or outsourced elsewhere, so most likely it means they can throw a bone to their current workers in the US, and not see their bottom line get hurt at all.
The tabling re: Nabisco worked more to make people aware of the strike than anything else. The boycott is a vehicle for messaging and a call to action that is doable in the context of a relatively unorganized left.
This is generally what boycotts have usually accomplished and what lefties want to see out of them. When they are large enough, they can have a significant material impact on the targets of the boycott, but even then nobody expected a boycott (or mild sanctions or divestment) to end slavery or apartheid. It's just one tactic that dovetails nicely with overall solidarity, recruiting, getting the word out.
Regardless of the topic, the vast majority of people you will meet will be completely or mostly unaware of any political issue nor who to look to for direction on it. We also don't control any aspect of the media. Direct calls to action like boycotts create an opportunity to bridge that gap.