Moralizing is how we break solidarity.

This is exactly how I know you're looking at this from a privileged and chauvanistic perspective.

If you were actually interested in global solidarity then you'd see that supporting companies with particularly exploitative practices like child labor break solidarity much more strongly with the people being exploited. Your position is 100% correct if and only if you write those people off and only preoccupy yourself with not alienating other Westerners.

What you're arguing right now is that "Please consider not supporting child labor" is more of a breach of solidarity than supporting child labor is!

Boycotts that have worked in the past have worked not because they made a material dent in profits but because they were public relations disasters and brought social and ultimately legal attention to the behaviour that was being resisted.

Firstly, I'm not sure if that's true. But assuming it is for argument, then clearly what would be called "idealist liberal moralizing" has actually worked historically. More so than first-world "I can do anything I want because I've labelled myself proletarian, it's every other class who's morally compromised." Which is why you people switch from "morality doesn't exist" to "it's immoral to make '1st world workers' (actually you) not eat slave chocolate."

And you'll say, actually socialism is more effective at improving working conditions than boycotts, but it'll be based on a bad implication that boycotts hinder the advancement of socialism and can't be done at the same time.

The research is pretty clear on this that personal boycotts have zero impact on businesses.

There is inherent value in cultivating moral virtue because people are moral actors who must practice moral acts lest they falter or be derelict in their moral duty when faced with a moral dilemma. People don't have time to read tl;dr philosophical works and people will be faced with novel moral dilemmas that don't have tl;dr philosophical works written about them yet. Thus, they must have the tools developed to fly solo.

To use an overly used hypothetical, whether one decides pulling the lever is the morally correct choice is a very different question from asking what steps must be taken to make sure that the lever actually gets pulled when the trolley is about to cross the track. Writing paragraphs upon paragraphs about how you should pull the lever means nothing if you abandon your moral duty to pull the lever when the time comes. Only virtue ethics seems to at least see this as a very practical problem (their solutions admittedly leaves much to be desired).

The question should be whether abstaining from certain commodities constitutes a form of moral cultivation that's useful as far as cultivating moral agents who can automatically perform morally good acts is concerned. I do believe it is useful in that regard. You say that boycotts only work within an organizational context, but how would the org even stick to the boycott if no one in it has practical experience with abstaining and every one within it does not see its material value? For the org to even vote on the boycott, there must be members of the org who have already privately abstained from the commodities in question.

To use chocolate as an example, the members of the org won't vote to boycott chocolate unless there's already a critical mass of members who have already privately abstained from chocolate or a similar commodity like meat and who can then use their critical mass as leverage to convince the rest of the org that boycotting chocolate is the right tactical thing to do. Without practical experience, the boycott would most likely fail because individual members lack experience to flexibly adapt their daily lifestyle to a new normal nor have the tools equipped to face mounting social pressure, things that they would have if they actually have experience privately abstaining.

I mean I think the boycotts have been working to an extent thus far. "israeli" foods are being renamed / their origins are being hidden. I was at a store yesterday and a significant number of products that are under the cocacola brand now no longer have ANY labeling related to cocacola, even though they did previously have a mention of it somewhere on the label.

Starbucks shit down dozens of locations in my city alone, although I'm sure the financial situation in amerikkka plays a big role in part of this, I also do attribute it to the boycotts. There have been plenty of Yemeni / saudi (🤮) owned coffee shops popping up around where I live that are booming in business while Starbucks is faltering.

I don't buy anything that has a relation to the zionist entity, and if I'm out with more liberal acquaintances from work / sports teams, I'll organically offer an alternative location by calling it trash coffee / burgers / pizza / etc., and they always oblige with my request without me having to call them nazis for even considering those locations.

You could call this an organized boycott, but a lot of the places / food items aren't on the actual BDS list, it's just individuals collectively deciding they don't want to spend money on bloodshed.

💚

100% until the conclusion of the last sentence. We have fundamentally and thoroughly demonstrated that individual consumer choice has almost no impact on the externalities. Recycling is probably the most egregious example of this. What fixed the CFC problem was cap and trade regulation, not consumer choice. These problem were never caused by individual consumer choice so making individual consumers choices will never be the solution. Not purchasing candy is not a component cell of collective action. A component cell of collective action would be showing up to the meetings every week and holding the discipline agreed to within the group based on material analysis of the system you are trying to change. If we don't have groups that have meetings, then choosing not to buy chocolate is going to be about as effective as praying for the child laborers. Because that's what these private individual consumer choices ultimately are - a way to self-soothe while standing on a pile of corpses. Are we going to sit here and argue that even though that group over there may be fascists organizating to maintain a white supremacist aociety, at least they're recycling?

Action must be grounded in theory, theory must be grounded in material analysis. Material analysis must be grounded in action. We have seen this loop for personal consumer boycotts in the Global North and the result has been no material change in the conditions of the workers. We have also seen how this form of moralizing works against organizing and recruitment because it actively destroys relationships. And of course it does, it's literally the same type of proselytizing that Abrahamic religions use to divide populations against each other. When we look towards other models of communicating morality, we see that it is entirely possible to integrate with people who are behaving immorally (up to a point) and that the outcomes in the short and long term are substantially better.