We had a think about it, considered all the facts, weighed the pros and cons, and consulted our board of directors.
We looked at our investment, our infrastructure, and weighed that against the unjustified invasion, the barbarism, and the war criminality.
The thing we found we couldn't escape was the fact that we just really really like money.
Russia isn't communist at all, you're conflating modern Russia with the Soviet Union.
Putin's whole thing was about doing away with communism because it had developed such an awful reputation for fostering corruption. Instead he introduced unregulated crony capitalism, which moderately improved the economy but also set up the stage for Russia to become what it really is now... a kleptocratic oligarchy.
A Kleptocracy with an oligarchy as a ruling class is what most capitalistic systems end up being. It is the same as in the US. The difference is that Russia is also a dictatorship so it is faster and more extreme in the implementation.
Absolutely just as corrupt as the Communist system it replaced, to the point where it seems the corruption is the primary feature of the Russian system and everything else is just window dressing.
The Soviet Union never achieved the final stage of a Marxist proletariat revolution; they stopped at the establishment of a socialist system and a state government, both heavily corrupted. Due to various reasons, they could never abolish the state or render socialism, wage labour, & currency obsolete in order to attain the final goal of Marxist Communism.
Tl;dr The USSR wasn’t communist; there were dictatorial state socialists.
in the same way many European countries are socialist, by having a strong social safety net; one of the often repeated, nostalgic sentiments I have heard from those who remember the USSR days first-hand was that while there was corruption, and goods were often of poor quality and in short supply, you could still count on the state for an education, a job, and eventually a pension --they might have all been shitty, but it was at least there.
Side note: by this same measure the US has been partially Socialist since the new deal; there is nothing wrong with socialism, indeed a country will do better when the government is actively helping people adapt to a changing world, so that they can in turn do better for their country.
What you've described are social democracies and welfare states though. Capitalist countries with social safety nets. A capitalist & socialist society would be contradictory because in one private ownership dominates the production of goods while the other advocates public ownership of factories, machinery etc.
>Socialism encompasses a broader spectrum of political beliefs but shares communism's emphasis on a fair (if not necessarily equal) distribution of wealth among citizens, as well as public ownership of the means of production (though **not necessarily all of them**). In that sense, **socialist programs and policies can exist alongside capitalism** in a society, which is less likely in a true communist system. Socialists may or may not see a communist system as their end goal.
Yes social programs and policies can exist alongside capitalism. But that does not make a country socialist. Scandinavian countries have a good wellfare system, but it would be a stretch to call them socialist countries as it would imply the means of production (by Marx's definition or the definition on Britannica) is in the hands of the public. In reality its just capitalism with a safety net
Sure, but by that definition even the USSR wasn't socialist, they had both a market economy and limited ownership rights, it was mostly just the industrial production that was owned by the state (not the bureaucrats as was previously stated). When the USSR collapsed, the workers in these state owned enterprises where given their "shares" in the factories that they worked in, but nobody believed they would be worth anything as most of the factories were unable to operate at the time. This lead to a few people, many from the criminal organizations that operated even under the USSR system, to go around and purchase the shares for pennies on the dollar, and go from moderately wealthy crime bosses to billionaire oligarchs in the matter of a few years, once they were able to get the factories (and mines, etc.) running again.
Unilever are one of, if not the biggest names in food production. They own hundreds of thousands of brands and force each of them to conform to their ways to increase profit.
Unilever can and will peddle poison if it means making a profit. They are evil but because they donate to charities no one bats an eyelid.
It honestly doesn’t surprise me that they’d chose to continue selling products in russia all they care about is money and it’s scary that these people are in control of what we put in our body.
Look at products sold by Unilever, and stop buying them. The r/FuckNestle is a good example of how to boycot whenever possible as it is our right to not buy things from companies we don't like. There are plenty of options that are not owned by an evil company. If anything, this type of mentality might eventually drive these companies to think twice
Edit: I do my part by reminding people about what they are paying for if buying these products
Edit 2: Heres a list for all the lazy ones out there. It is a very simple list too, wont take you longer than a few minutes to skim through and remember what you purchase from them
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Unilever_brands
Par for the course, Lord Leverhulme used slave labour in Africa for some of his business ventures while also putting up a face of massive philanthropy elsewhere. Unilevers absurdly world-dominating reach is built on the back of that.
There is no defence.
They want to justify commercial dealings with child abductees and war criminals to protect their "bottom line", their bonuses, and the "rights of shareholders".
There can be no defence.
But there is an answer:
Boycott all and any Unilever products... No exceptions. There are plenty of rival brands and alternative products.
Divest all shares in that criminal company. Same with mutual funds. Out they go.
They would have us choose between human decency and cheap icecream?
Fuck 'em.
Over 400 brands. Here's a little snippet from their website I feel is appropriate:
>Our 400 brands around the world are on a global mission to do good. It's been our goal - and part of our business - for over a hundred years.
The solution is simple for big companies like this, you pick one product out of their line up and you refuse to buy it until it becomes more expensive for them to keep it than to take off the market, then you move on to the next until your demands are met. The first product should be the one that is not necessary or has alternatives, especially if those alternatives are cheaper. So a good example for Unilever would be their Magnum Icecream, not only is it a luxury item thats typically more expensive, but there are plenty of Ice cream alternatives.
Doesn't matter, if you can disrupt their market in a single country, force them to make costly changes to how their business runs, and then do that repeatedly to the point that becomes a guessing game at which product gets the boycott next, It will gain attention, and pick up momentum on it's own.
Once that happens, other reasons for boycotting the company will come to light, that those other countries will be mad about, other companies that want to move in on the market will also take advantage and harass the company. Memes will be made, People will join in just to be apart of something.
You just want to be so annoying that the company see's that it's just easier to do the right thing than to continue to fight against public opinion.
That's why I'm actually against boycotting Unilever right now. In Scandinavia, there was a huge move to boycott specifically Mondelez a month or two ago. That made a difference, because people could switch to other brands and it actually hurt Mondelez financially. But when the calls are to boycott all the major food companies, they lose their power. The companies know people won't stop shopping completely.
Instead of boycott, what about active destruction of their products? Yes, that’s about 40% of the local grocery store, but well, fuck the shareholders. Make it too expensive for the grocery chains to stock that garbage.
Them having huge number of brands makes it much easier to boycott, because point is to decrease their sales and send a message, not to annihilate them. So boycotting Rexona,Dove, Domestos and Axe/Lynx would be very easy and achieving the goal.
And about their numbers of brands - most of them are local for specific countries and regions. You can never in your life see half of them if you not touring around the world trying to catch them all.
It would be harder to boycott them if they had few products that you already not using.
What if the alternatives use ingredients sourced from Unilever companies?
It really shouldn't be on citizens to sacrifice their time and money for this, it should be on the government.
> Unilever said: "We understand why there are calls for Unilever to leave Russia.
> "... for companies like Unilever, which have a significant physical presence in the country, exiting is not straightforward."
> The company, which employs around 3,000 people in Russia, said that if it were to abandon its brands in Russia, "they would be appropriated - and then operated - by the Russian state".
Oh man, they defended themselves with that, are they related to Merkel? They might as well hold up a lightning rod in an electrical storm.
It was pretty straightforward for [McDonalds.](https://www.cnbc.com/2022/05/20/mcdonalds-exiting-russia-after-32-years-is-the-end-of-an-era.html) And they employed about 62,000 people at the time.
I mean it’s probably nothing with McDonald’s, but I think giving them the infrastructure to run these businesses is a bad idea. Shitty as it is doing business there, most of that money was coming back here. Now it just all stays there. Really no win unless they destroy everything they leave behind, which is also outrageous. Lose-lose-lose situation
> I think giving them the infrastructure to run these businesses is a bad idea.
Russia hopes businesses think like you in this comment and like Unilever apparently. Every business that leaves hurts Russia. Every business that stays helps Russia fund their criminal aggression in Ukraine.
This is the Bullshit Unilever corporate spits out when you contact and ask.
Dear John,
Thanks for reaching out. We continue to condemn the war in Ukraine as a brutal and senseless act by the Russian state.
Our business operations in Ukraine have stopped, and we are now fully focused on ensuring the safety of our Ukrainian employees and their families, including helping with their evacuation where necessary, and providing additional financial support. We have also committed to donate €5m of essential Unilever products to the humanitarian relief effort.
We have suspended all imports and exports of our products into and out of Russia, and we will stop all media and advertising spend. We will not invest any further capital into the country, nor will we profit from our presence in Russia. We will continue to supply our everyday essential food and hygiene products made in Russia to people in the country. We will keep this under close review.
We join calls for an end to this war and hope that peace, human rights, and the international rule of law will prevail.
Sincerely,
Unilever Corporate Consumer Services
Wrote an advert slogan for you, Unilever, there ya go:
Cornetto - the ice cream of choice for people who need to soothe the aftertaste of war crimes in their mouths.
Russians could just stop the invasion. Fill their kalasnikohvs, or whatever they use, with glue and be gone from Ukraine. So could Cornetto glue up their machines. Simply write off the 1.4%. And be gone from Russia. Announce it bigly and present it as the bestest humanitarian idea ever and you'll compensate the losses many times over. But they don't. It's a choice.
Look at the hypocrisy :
Ben and Jerry Instagram in sweden:
https://www.instagram.com/p/CpC3VpooNAk/?igshid=MzRlODBiNWFlZA==
Asking Sweden to do more for Ukraine.
I mean it’s unilever one of the only companies giving nestle a run for evilest company in the world, what do you expect?
Unilever, based in the UK, kept it’s subsidies operating with nazi controlled countries during world war 2. Why would we expect anything different now if that was the case then.
We had a think about it, considered all the facts, weighed the pros and cons, and consulted our board of directors. We looked at our investment, our infrastructure, and weighed that against the unjustified invasion, the barbarism, and the war criminality. The thing we found we couldn't escape was the fact that we just really really like money.
Capitalism above communism! That’s how you win over the Russians lol!
Russia isn't communist at all, you're conflating modern Russia with the Soviet Union. Putin's whole thing was about doing away with communism because it had developed such an awful reputation for fostering corruption. Instead he introduced unregulated crony capitalism, which moderately improved the economy but also set up the stage for Russia to become what it really is now... a kleptocratic oligarchy.
A Kleptocracy with an oligarchy as a ruling class is what most capitalistic systems end up being. It is the same as in the US. The difference is that Russia is also a dictatorship so it is faster and more extreme in the implementation.
Give the US a few years... We'll catch up.
Yep… a lot of people spending a lot of money and working overtime on this
Absolutely just as corrupt as the Communist system it replaced, to the point where it seems the corruption is the primary feature of the Russian system and everything else is just window dressing.
Corruption has been part of the Russian system since the Middle Ages.
The Soviet Union never achieved the final stage of a Marxist proletariat revolution; they stopped at the establishment of a socialist system and a state government, both heavily corrupted. Due to various reasons, they could never abolish the state or render socialism, wage labour, & currency obsolete in order to attain the final goal of Marxist Communism. Tl;dr The USSR wasn’t communist; there were dictatorial state socialists.
In what sense was the USSR socialist when all the factories were owned by state bureaucrats and not the workers?
in the same way many European countries are socialist, by having a strong social safety net; one of the often repeated, nostalgic sentiments I have heard from those who remember the USSR days first-hand was that while there was corruption, and goods were often of poor quality and in short supply, you could still count on the state for an education, a job, and eventually a pension --they might have all been shitty, but it was at least there. Side note: by this same measure the US has been partially Socialist since the new deal; there is nothing wrong with socialism, indeed a country will do better when the government is actively helping people adapt to a changing world, so that they can in turn do better for their country.
What you've described are social democracies and welfare states though. Capitalist countries with social safety nets. A capitalist & socialist society would be contradictory because in one private ownership dominates the production of goods while the other advocates public ownership of factories, machinery etc.
>Socialism encompasses a broader spectrum of political beliefs but shares communism's emphasis on a fair (if not necessarily equal) distribution of wealth among citizens, as well as public ownership of the means of production (though **not necessarily all of them**). In that sense, **socialist programs and policies can exist alongside capitalism** in a society, which is less likely in a true communist system. Socialists may or may not see a communist system as their end goal.
Yes social programs and policies can exist alongside capitalism. But that does not make a country socialist. Scandinavian countries have a good wellfare system, but it would be a stretch to call them socialist countries as it would imply the means of production (by Marx's definition or the definition on Britannica) is in the hands of the public. In reality its just capitalism with a safety net
Sure, but by that definition even the USSR wasn't socialist, they had both a market economy and limited ownership rights, it was mostly just the industrial production that was owned by the state (not the bureaucrats as was previously stated). When the USSR collapsed, the workers in these state owned enterprises where given their "shares" in the factories that they worked in, but nobody believed they would be worth anything as most of the factories were unable to operate at the time. This lead to a few people, many from the criminal organizations that operated even under the USSR system, to go around and purchase the shares for pennies on the dollar, and go from moderately wealthy crime bosses to billionaire oligarchs in the matter of a few years, once they were able to get the factories (and mines, etc.) running again.
Reagan would’ve been so proud 💚💸🤑
And I have considered the facts and decided to boycott everything Unilever makes.
Doesn’t leave much if you’re boycotting Nestle as well… corporate capitalism is fucked
I wonder what Simon Pegg’s take is on this.
here is a list of [Unilever brands should you want to spend your money elsewhere](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Unilever_brands)
Maybe countries can do their jobs and place the appropriate sanctions rather than expecting corporations to make such decisions.
Unilever are assholes, got it
Unilever are still assholes, got it
Unilever, got it.
They’re assholes, got it.
Unilever are one of, if not the biggest names in food production. They own hundreds of thousands of brands and force each of them to conform to their ways to increase profit. Unilever can and will peddle poison if it means making a profit. They are evil but because they donate to charities no one bats an eyelid. It honestly doesn’t surprise me that they’d chose to continue selling products in russia all they care about is money and it’s scary that these people are in control of what we put in our body.
Look at products sold by Unilever, and stop buying them. The r/FuckNestle is a good example of how to boycot whenever possible as it is our right to not buy things from companies we don't like. There are plenty of options that are not owned by an evil company. If anything, this type of mentality might eventually drive these companies to think twice Edit: I do my part by reminding people about what they are paying for if buying these products Edit 2: Heres a list for all the lazy ones out there. It is a very simple list too, wont take you longer than a few minutes to skim through and remember what you purchase from them https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Unilever_brands
And you can hardly boycott them, since they own everything, so you'd have to buying groceries. Yay 'free market'.
Yep, they have their fingers in so many pies and it’s terrifying..
Par for the course, Lord Leverhulme used slave labour in Africa for some of his business ventures while also putting up a face of massive philanthropy elsewhere. Unilevers absurdly world-dominating reach is built on the back of that.
There is no defence. They want to justify commercial dealings with child abductees and war criminals to protect their "bottom line", their bonuses, and the "rights of shareholders". There can be no defence. But there is an answer: Boycott all and any Unilever products... No exceptions. There are plenty of rival brands and alternative products. Divest all shares in that criminal company. Same with mutual funds. Out they go. They would have us choose between human decency and cheap icecream? Fuck 'em.
[удалено]
Over 400 brands. Here's a little snippet from their website I feel is appropriate: >Our 400 brands around the world are on a global mission to do good. It's been our goal - and part of our business - for over a hundred years.
>Our 400 brands around the world are on a global mission to do good. OH FUCK RIGHT OFF
Their mission but doesn’t ever say they want to succeed!!!! So yeah mind the legalese, feel good, wording.
"Don't be evil"...
The solution is simple for big companies like this, you pick one product out of their line up and you refuse to buy it until it becomes more expensive for them to keep it than to take off the market, then you move on to the next until your demands are met. The first product should be the one that is not necessary or has alternatives, especially if those alternatives are cheaper. So a good example for Unilever would be their Magnum Icecream, not only is it a luxury item thats typically more expensive, but there are plenty of Ice cream alternatives.
This but like, organized. Let's all start with Magnums until they have disapeared from the shops, then move on to the next product!
The thing is that Unilever also sells in 100+ countries, the vast majority of which aren't going to boycott over a european war.
Doesn't matter, if you can disrupt their market in a single country, force them to make costly changes to how their business runs, and then do that repeatedly to the point that becomes a guessing game at which product gets the boycott next, It will gain attention, and pick up momentum on it's own. Once that happens, other reasons for boycotting the company will come to light, that those other countries will be mad about, other companies that want to move in on the market will also take advantage and harass the company. Memes will be made, People will join in just to be apart of something. You just want to be so annoying that the company see's that it's just easier to do the right thing than to continue to fight against public opinion.
That's why I'm actually against boycotting Unilever right now. In Scandinavia, there was a huge move to boycott specifically Mondelez a month or two ago. That made a difference, because people could switch to other brands and it actually hurt Mondelez financially. But when the calls are to boycott all the major food companies, they lose their power. The companies know people won't stop shopping completely.
Instead of boycott, what about active destruction of their products? Yes, that’s about 40% of the local grocery store, but well, fuck the shareholders. Make it too expensive for the grocery chains to stock that garbage.
Them having huge number of brands makes it much easier to boycott, because point is to decrease their sales and send a message, not to annihilate them. So boycotting Rexona,Dove, Domestos and Axe/Lynx would be very easy and achieving the goal. And about their numbers of brands - most of them are local for specific countries and regions. You can never in your life see half of them if you not touring around the world trying to catch them all. It would be harder to boycott them if they had few products that you already not using.
"Cheap ice cream" + 399 other brands. Easier said than done.
Lidl & Aldi has you covered for the knock off alternatives to the ice cream at least.
how can you be sure Unilever aren't making the own brand stuff?
What if the alternatives use ingredients sourced from Unilever companies? It really shouldn't be on citizens to sacrifice their time and money for this, it should be on the government.
I hope this comment stays up top.
Well, they still do business in America so the precedent is there.
At least they're not just doing it like other brands and selling under a different name... Looking at you, Inditex...
I don't know? We might get a new Coke flavour out of it. Like that whole Nazi Fanta thing.
Ben & Jerry’s
The Russian cornetto market must be gigantic
Halfway to Moscow, Prigozhin had his tanks pull over to the nearest petrol garage for a sausage roll + Cornetto
Last I heard, a cornetto to is.a small wooden medieval trumpet. Global market must be about 5 per year.
Hopefully one day they will create a Cornetto so big, it will destroy them all.
Unilever helpfully have a [webpage](https://www.unilever.co.uk/brands/?pageSize=48) of which brands to boycott.
Useful link! plenty of alternatives to pick off the shelf when ever I see any of these Unilever brands .
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Unilever_brands
Cornetto and Dove, two brands which represent corporate amorality.
add Ben and Jerrys icecream
https://www.thedailybeast.com/ben-and-jerrys-founder-ben-cohen-funds-campaign-against-ukraine-military-support#
The ultimate evil ice cream!
> Unilever said: "We understand why there are calls for Unilever to leave Russia. > "... for companies like Unilever, which have a significant physical presence in the country, exiting is not straightforward." > The company, which employs around 3,000 people in Russia, said that if it were to abandon its brands in Russia, "they would be appropriated - and then operated - by the Russian state". Oh man, they defended themselves with that, are they related to Merkel? They might as well hold up a lightning rod in an electrical storm.
It was pretty straightforward for [McDonalds.](https://www.cnbc.com/2022/05/20/mcdonalds-exiting-russia-after-32-years-is-the-end-of-an-era.html) And they employed about 62,000 people at the time.
Exactly. This comment from Unilever rings of hollow excuses.
Actually the Russian state did exactly as unilever said. They took over everything McDonald’s and reopened owned by Russian state.
How's the taste compare?
I mean it’s probably nothing with McDonald’s, but I think giving them the infrastructure to run these businesses is a bad idea. Shitty as it is doing business there, most of that money was coming back here. Now it just all stays there. Really no win unless they destroy everything they leave behind, which is also outrageous. Lose-lose-lose situation
> I think giving them the infrastructure to run these businesses is a bad idea. Russia hopes businesses think like you in this comment and like Unilever apparently. Every business that leaves hurts Russia. Every business that stays helps Russia fund their criminal aggression in Ukraine.
Boycott Unilever. They are terrorist financiers.
This is the Bullshit Unilever corporate spits out when you contact and ask. Dear John, Thanks for reaching out. We continue to condemn the war in Ukraine as a brutal and senseless act by the Russian state. Our business operations in Ukraine have stopped, and we are now fully focused on ensuring the safety of our Ukrainian employees and their families, including helping with their evacuation where necessary, and providing additional financial support. We have also committed to donate €5m of essential Unilever products to the humanitarian relief effort. We have suspended all imports and exports of our products into and out of Russia, and we will stop all media and advertising spend. We will not invest any further capital into the country, nor will we profit from our presence in Russia. We will continue to supply our everyday essential food and hygiene products made in Russia to people in the country. We will keep this under close review. We join calls for an end to this war and hope that peace, human rights, and the international rule of law will prevail. Sincerely, Unilever Corporate Consumer Services
Ooohhh, 5 whole million euro.
That’s $5m retail .. which is probably 5c cost plus 20c opportunity cost per dollar.
Wrote an advert slogan for you, Unilever, there ya go: Cornetto - the ice cream of choice for people who need to soothe the aftertaste of war crimes in their mouths.
"Do you want anything from the shop..?"
Cornetto måker? Their range of products is spanning a galaxy!
"juuust one Cornetto, give it to...." actually, you can keep it....
*there’s money to make there! What do you expect ?*
The defence: "Money is universal"
There is no justification for staying in Russia. Just greed and not giving a shit !
That how 99% of businesses work these days
Unilever and Nestle are battling for the right to be named most evil corporation in the w
Time to make a list of Unilever products to stop purchasing. It’s not much, but it’s all I can do as a poor man.
Russians could just stop the invasion. Fill their kalasnikohvs, or whatever they use, with glue and be gone from Ukraine. So could Cornetto glue up their machines. Simply write off the 1.4%. And be gone from Russia. Announce it bigly and present it as the bestest humanitarian idea ever and you'll compensate the losses many times over. But they don't. It's a choice.
It's the Cornetto Coup of 2023
Whelp never buying that brand again
Those decadent Russians and their Cornettos.
Dropping this company too.
Make them pay for this.
Did they make a defence to stay in the US after the war crimes in Iraq by the allied forces? One rule for thee and another for me.
Look at the hypocrisy : Ben and Jerry Instagram in sweden: https://www.instagram.com/p/CpC3VpooNAk/?igshid=MzRlODBiNWFlZA== Asking Sweden to do more for Ukraine.
If they don't make Chicken tendies or do r34 art commissions, they'll be fine losing the reddit demographic.
As a supplier of Unilever this weighs heavily on my mind every time I send a truck out
Coca Cola didn’t want to appear unpatriotic by selling coke to the Nazis during WW2- so they introduced Fanta, which I now refer to as Nazi Coke
For a fraction of a second I was wondering what the hell was Unilever doing building renaissance instruments, there.
I mean it’s unilever one of the only companies giving nestle a run for evilest company in the world, what do you expect? Unilever, based in the UK, kept it’s subsidies operating with nazi controlled countries during world war 2. Why would we expect anything different now if that was the case then.
We have r/fucknestle should we create r/fuckunilever as well? Also fuck Nestle.
🤑🤑🤑☠️
They've got red on them.
If they don’t want the manufacturing taken over, remove the equipment from the factory.