If I missed 10 days of work it would take me a year to recover. The oligarchs are sitting pretty and they know it. It would take an army of Luigis to change anything.
In this political climate a 10 day general strike would be dealt with by deploying the army.
There’s also the chance that they’d just hunker down and outlast it. Giving them a definite timeline gives them a light at the end of the tunnel. After 10 days, it’s just business as usual again. A general strike without a posted timeline would lead to capitulation within only a few days. It wouldn’t even take all 10 days.
Kidney stones don’t suck just because they hurt. They suck because you don’t know how long they’re going to hurt for. They hurt until you have passed the stone, and you have no idea how long that will take. The pain is analogous to a muscle cramp. People can grit their teeth and bear it if they know it’s just a muscle cramp and will end soon. But when it has been six days and you don’t have any idea how much longer it will last, it makes you desperate.
Would it though?
Firstly, the general population is stretched so financially thin that a 10 day strike is unaffordable for most
Now, ten days to bring everything to a halt sounds great. But unless it's coordinated in certain areas, then there's just a freeze on everything. Remember the COVID pandemic? Even if only certain areas strike, the situation is so bad that alot of jobs would be covered.
Secondly, do you honestly believe that the general population is selfless enough to not place any e-commerce, online services or any sort of digital product purchases within that 10 days? No.
Lastly, what happens after those 10 days? The whip comes out, there's catching up to do.
One way to escalate such a strike is to have a limited, general, recurring and escalating strike.
So it's a day in January; two days in February; three in March, etc.
Its complicated, possibly too complicated for the typical worker, but it would give ramping escalation and allow for negotiation in process.
the problem remains the same: getting the general public to heed a strike. Short of people dying by hundreds of thousands, they don't seem motivated.
When a million Americans died of Covid people demanded to end Covid restrictions.
Get ready for 2028. That is the year, right?
US laws offers enough protections for legal strikes that unions follow the law so they can't do solidarity strikes. UAW is aligning their contract renewals for 2028, so it can happen then. But also if they repeal the nlra there will be little incentive to not start doing solidarity strikes.
UAW is calling for all unions to align their contracts to end on May 1st 2028 and calling for a general strike to start that day. That gives us 3 years to get organized, set up local strike funds for our communities, and make sure we have representation at the negotiating table whether we're in unions or not.
https://www.thenation.com/article/activism/general-strike-2028-unions-labor-movement/
In three years?
This has to be bait from the fascists. In three years you won't be able to strike. What a stupid idea.
I work for a union that predates the NLRB. And it will continue even if its gone. Unions did strikes when they were illegal. The law just makes strikes more peaceful, which is generally better for everyone involved, but it's not essential.
Presuming there are still elections, this is basically calling for a general strike when it will have the most electoral weight. So, basically it comes down to whether or not you believe there will be another presidential election or if we'll already be a fascist dictatorship by then.
It might seem out there, maybe a little too late.
But, organizing these things, attracting people to it, raising funds, building up oversight; those things take time. A lot of time.
Just the ‘attracting people to it’ part is an almost impossible task. 40% of the American population can’t even be bothered to vote. They aren’t going to get up and protect their labor without a MASSIVE push.
It might seem way out there, but getting it at all would be triumphant and victorious.
How can we help?
Get organized with a progressive or socialist organization. DSA, PSL, or just you and some homes. If you're completely isolated, an org like DSA is good because they have a lot of "at large" members that aren't in formal chapters, but at large members have access to national resources too (not in day 1, its a political org, but DSA is good for at large membership). But the people who seem "the most organized" in your area, who have good politics and active membership, is the best org for you to join since these things can vary drastically from place to place.
From there, get involved in local labor organizing, your group might even have like a labor group that focuses on it.
If you live in a place where you can get a job that is a part of UAW Union, you can try to get it and "salt", which means adding radical militant labor organizers to existing stagnant or bureaucratic unions, and start mobilization campaigns.
A pretty easy thing that would be super helpful, would be to fundraise for materials to create "strike-ready" kits, basically 5 gal bucket and lid full of supplies for an extended period, since strikes are long, difficult, protracted affairs. People get hungry, they get cold and wet, etc., mutual aid has a very low barrier to entry. I'm not a mutual aidist, but its something you could start basically today and have a bunch ready by that time.
If you can, don't go alone, bring like minded people in or find like minded people. The best individual thing you can do is to educate yourself so when the time comes you can educate others. Read! Class Struggle Unionism is a classic, but there are probably books about UAW specifically. Another favorite of mine is "Teamster's Rebellion" if you can find it
A strike that has a scheduled end date is a strike that's has scheduled its own failure. A ten day strike would achieve nothing except the suffering of it's participants.
Yes, the economy would grind to a halt, yes people would likely die, yes it would financially hurt the powerful people in charge.
But do you really think those powerful people will give a shit? They know after ten days the gravy train will resume, but only for them and not the people who lost their jobs, got arrested, were injured, etc. The rich and powerful can afford to be patient, meanwhile everyone who sacrificed for ten days is going to have to question whether they can survive doing it again.
No, we're way past the point where our society can afford another failed effort to affect change. We need a general strike that doesn't end until the government capitulates to the needs of the people. It's all or nothing, now. ☹️
Reddit protest be like. Huffman literally said 'You only protest for 2 days? Sure, we'll wait'.
That's not always accurate. A strike where people sit at home and watch TV might have this result, but a 10 days of people on the streets talking and hyping each other up, can easily grow revolutionary, especially if during those 10-days people use direct action for their mutual aid to cover their needs
1-day strikes and random marches on the other hand are practically useless
A strike that has a scheduled end date is a strike that’s has scheduled its own failure.
A flex of power is a great way of demonstrating to both your own union members and your bosses/administrators. Proving that coworkers can and will dictate the terms of economic activity is an incredibly powerful statement that illustrates exactly who is in charge of the workfloor.
No, we’re way past the point where our society can afford another failed effort to affect change.
People are going to try things and those things are going to continue to have a mixed chance at success. The idea that an ill-defined indefinite general strike will work better than a highly coordinated short-term shutdown is predicated on a number of your own personal theories about how oligarchs will respond and how long union organizers can effectively maintain a work outage.
You're rolling dice just like the rest of us. Nothing you're suggesting guarantees a particular outcome.
We need a general strike that doesn’t end until the government capitulates to the needs of the people
Many cannot afford to strike but that is the way the system was set however we only need 10% participation to send a powerful message - any more is icing on the cake. Those who cannot fully can participate by cutting back 10% or more. Everyone should be able to cut back to some extent. Yet, expect the corporate controlled MSM to NOT report on the effects or participation of a general strike. Look for your news on independent sites, some reliable foreign sources and the Fediverse only.
The strike is not the end of the exercise, oh, no! To pull off a huge action like this will take coordination, spreading awareness, cultivating relationships of trust, establishing lines of communication, laying the foundations by organizing, and getting people primed for action. That's what we lack now.
Right now, we could all just choose to disobey together, and there are so many of us that they couldn't stop us. But it would take a lot of people; only a few here and there taking action would simply leave those few destitute or in jail.
A general strike is not the goal, it's the announcement that we're organized. That awareness, those relationships, that trust, doesn't just have to go away...
What about canceling a specific day of work every week? That would spread out the pain on both sides, but in a way that makes it less painful for workers because some may have sick days they can use. If literally nobody shows up on every Friday it sucks pretty bad for the bosses, even if they show up all the other days.
It is both.
Voting is a good system. The alternative is "let's just have a fight with guns, or with money, or connections to powerful people, every time there's a disagreement."
The problem is that we delegated the process of informing people what to vote for, to absolutely rotten media. And we delegated the process of figuring out the details of putting some candidates forward, to an absolutely craven, useless, and corrupt class of full-time political operatives who generally don't give a shit about the people.
We need to fix those things. And yes, getting organized labor to fight back whenever they are fucking us, which is pretty much every day, to add some bite to all those polite ballots we're sending in, sounds great.
But voting, as a concept, is good. It doesn't have to be either or. It can be a 10-day general strike, and also voting to get rid of the guy who wants to nuke Iceland, and also organizing our politics better, for some candidates that aren't so shit as these ones generally are. Each one will help the others get done.
There is also the issue of massive-scale gerrymandering, party politics preventing candidates we want from being given a chance to run in general elections, the electoral college, and widespread voter suppression and disenfranchisement as well-documented by Greg Palast and others. If they actually counted our votes we might get a more representative democracy, but what we have now is not that.
Yeah. That's why I agree with the general strike. Like I say, we've delegated the details of wielding political details to a whole class of exclusively-political people, and they've been rigging the game and keeping all the power for themselves. Fuck that.
I think you're opening up a false dichotomy here: it's not about voting vs. the law of the fist. It's about how the democratic systems are set up to keep the powerful in power.
The system is set up to promote those "absolutely craven, useless, and corrupt class of full-time political operatives who generally don't give a shit about the people". And "fixing" the media to not promote those things is like trying to teach a cat not to hunt mice.
There are more ways to have a democratic stucture of politics than "we decide onsour ruler every four years".
The media will always exist and people will always base their decisions on the information they receive in the media. This is inevitable in any society with the degree of complexity we have today. It is just not possible to gather all the information ourselves about any but the most personal of topics. That is why free, unbiased, and independent media is an extremely important part of liberal electoral democracy. And for the greater part of the past two centuries, this is what we more or less had. Yes, major media outlets have always been somewhat controlled by the upper class (whether in the form of media companies or local media magnates), but until quite recently, most of them didn't care about using those outlets as propaganda pieces; they just cared about continuing to collect their subscription money, which is likely the best-case scenario for privately owned for-profit media. It is astonishing that this system lasted as long as it did.
4 Boxes of liberty, use in order.
Maybe some amendment after the first ome need to be considered 👀
Electoral politics doesn't get the job done, but failing to attend to electoral politics can sure as shit make the job harder.
The question of "Who are we negotiating with" is all-important in every scenario except "Complete and total unconditional victory".
Failing to attend to electoral politics is also a great way to ensure that blood has to be spilled again to re-win battles that were already fought, as has been seen with many of those left of center sitting out elections for half a century, which just so happens to coincidence with decoupling of wages from productivity, increasing wealth inequality, and erosion of workers' rights.
If I thought people were consistent enough, I'd say that the founding of anti-electoralism was a right-wing, authoritarian conspiracy, but I don't think that's super likely.
They would start killing you until moral improves
Police brutality against the working class tends to make sympathists of onlookers, activists of sympathists, militants of activists and radical militants of ordinary militants.
So, one could only hope. They usually go this route, and then we have legendary responses like the French Résistance , or for that matter, the French Revolution.
Except in the twenty-first century, we get to record the brutality and fighting on video so the public can be inspired.
So until the general public is out numbered and outgunned by AI-commanded armies of swarming killer robots (a near future possibility), brutality by the state is always to the advantage of the movement, even if it doesn't go so well for the individuals who perish in the conflict. Mahsa Amini never got to enjoy the uprising she started (and ended with negotiation) in Iran, and that's a crying shame.
It says right there in the COIN manual (a running treatise of counter-insurgency in development for centuries) that you don't brutalize the protestors, but have to capture hearts and minds, and also respond with good governance. And curiously, every autocratic despot seems to refuse to try this.
Except in the twenty-first century, we get to record the brutality and fighting on video so the public can be inspired.
(And 20th century)
How well has that worked out for you when your example is from the 18th century
Yeah, with all those general strikes we've had they must be really easy to organize!
This is what bothers me so much about the constant calls for general strikes on social media. They’re almost never paired with serious organization (ex: where are the strike funds to support people who otherwise can’t afford to miss paychecks?)
Not to mention a large chunk of the public won't agree with the idea to begin with. Especially the top 20-30% of income earners.
Additionally, emergency/medical personnel not working would mean people are directly dying as a result of it, creating easy negative PR against the movement.
Asking 180+ million people to coordinate on anything is a farce, and for something like a general strike it is an absolute fantasy.
We’re in a country with very little organized labor compared to other countries in Europe or Latin America where strikes are common. Also cops here are highly militarized. Plus we are a massive country. Still, I think Americans need to consider a general strike and organize if need be. Is it easy? Obviously not. But I’ll happily take some optimism in these dark times.
Actions speak louder than words
Ministerialdirektor Friedrich Wilhelm Kritzinger of the Reich Chancellery: Who were those 30,000 [Jews] you say you shot, when you say, you shot?
SS-Sturmbannführer Dr Rudolf Lange, Commander of the Sicherheitsdienst in Latvia: In Riga, Latvia. 27,800 I have some responsibility for. And stood by with my men and allowed Latvian civilians to kill in mobs. I received memos directing the -- one would say evacuation of Jews -- who, shot and buried in soil and corpses, managed to crawl out, still alive. Not exactly war, is it? And gas chambers about to come?
Kritzinger: What gas chambers? Gas chambers?
Lange: I hear rumors, yes.
Kritzinger: This is more than war. Must be a different word for this.
Lange: Try chaos.
Kritzinger: Yes. The rest is argument, the curse of my profession.
Lange: I studied law as well.
Kritzinger: And how do you apply that education to what you do?
Lange: It has made me distrustful of language. A gun means what it says.-- Conspiracy 2001, based on the captured minutes of the Wannsee Conference
