Why Not Going To McDonalds Isn't As Ethical As It Seems

In the social media era, there has been a stellar growth of solidarity between ideological groups which do not share a common geographical border. Although such solidarity has its merits in raising awareness and bringing fresh ideas and debates into the contemporary realm, its caveats are often overlooked. One thing which must be laid out is that there certainly is a feel-good factor which emanates from social media and particularly within the keyboard warriors of social media (you do not have to point out the irony here). People have many times started successful movements directly from social media and have also aggrandised past and ongoing movements. The idea of a boycott is something which has grown extremely prevalent on socials, this even has a term, “political consumerism”.  

Nevertheless, while political involvement is always a great thing, one must not convolute the same. Boycotts over the past ten years have gained excessive traction, the majority of them for a good reason too. But a critical aspect which is often overlooked, is how these boycotts do more harm than good.

Historically, boycotts were often used in specific areas against a certain actor or entity. I do not have to reiterate the success rate of many, but what I must emphasise in my argument is that one of the key reasons for their success was that they related to a specific area where the role of the residents/actors could directly affect the oppressor. Nonetheless, this is not to say that modern-day boycotts do not have any effect. But is that effect as intended and/or worth it?

Ever since the conflict in Gaza re-escalated after October 7th, there has been a clear condemnation of companies (as there should be) that support the gruesome practices being subjected to Gaza. Two of the hallmarks of this situation have been Starbucks and McDonalds. As a reminder, Starbucks is being boycotted because the Starbucks Workers Union (SWU) made a tweet supporting Palestine, which subsequently resulted in Starbucks disowning its affiliation with the SWU. In the case of McDonald's, there have been reports of their franchises and/or branches directly supporting the Israeli Defence Forces. 

As one may expect this was followed up by a call for boycotting these companies, particularly from the left side of the political compass. From a rudimentary point of view, the boycotts do seem like a good thing after all no one would like to support a war in any way shape or form and it's always great to go after heavy capitalist enterprises. But is it actually that easy? For instance, there have been protests outside food joints that have supported the IDF in countries like the USA and there has been a growing call to do the same here to and just not eat at these joints as a sign of “moral support”. Now the obvious question in all of our minds is that this must be a good thing, we are taking money away from big capitalist enterprises and at the same time not being privy to a war. I would argue you must think again. 

Boycotts on a moral level are a great thing, but in practice, they do not necessarily result in any good. For instance, a report by the Washington Post in March 2024 stated that Starbucks stores in the Middle East have laid off 2000 mainly locally based employees due to the decline in their sales and revenue over the past six months. 

Picture credits - Palestine Chronicle

With the same in mind, I would like to ask all such boycotters, is this your objective? Did anyone ever factor in that working-class people who do not have any social or economic privileges would have to pay the price for someone else’s on-ground and ideological war? The Left is synonymous with being exceptionally pessimistic but it is rather astounding that their optimism made them feel that the capitalist class would simply face the ramifications of their actions in supporting the war, stop funding the IDF and the situation in Gaza will improve. Furthermore, from the moral standpoint, how exactly do the socially and economically privileged justify this? How have they decided that the underprivileged whose priority is to put food on the table for their family should be the collateral damage for a moral war against the IDF?

This is not to say one must not take a stand, it is elemental to society that people do take a stand but the stand should also take care of unintended consequences. At the time of writing, there clearly has not been a stop to Mcdonald's, Starbucks or anyone else’s support of the IDF but rather all I can find is how people have been laid off from these enterprises. While one may argue that this is a systematic issue with capitalism (which it is) until the system is present armchair activism would have to factor it in (yes, I am aware I am doing the same I am accusing others of, but that really is the point of this). 

And for anyone who thinks that boycotts always do good and to some limit collateral damage is justified, I would just like to remind them of the Bud Light boycott. Boycotts are not always progressive either, even if that is what the mainstream narrative projects, the Bud Light boycott has been a masterstroke for the conservative wing in the USA and has done immense damage to the advancement of queer rights. What we intend, what we may do and what may happen might not equate to what was expected. 

To conclude, I would like to state that this is in no way a support of the war in Gaza or the people who support it but rather merely a wake-up call to the difference makers who think that not going to a Mcdonald's will stop the war and end up unintentionally harming day to day workers.

It can be asserted that boycotts do more damage at a local level than restore peace at the international level. Now another critical question to ask is, is the boycott happening to save Gaza or to make the self-proclaimed leftists (who seem to now have the right to define what leftism is) feel worthwhile about themselves? 

And for everyone who disagrees, I would just state that if you are boycotting enterprises to make yourselves feel better at the cost of locals losing jobs, well then maybe all of us have made peace with being villains in someone’s story as long we are the saviours in ours.

---

The author invites submissions which may dispute the arguments as presented above. Writers are encouraged to share the same through the comments section or at consciencecollective.2024@gmail.com. For further details, one may refer to the submissions page on this website.