A 10-day general strike would accomplish more for the working class majority than a century’s worth of elections. It would represent an immediate momentum shift by bringing the capitalist behemoth to its knees. Our true power is in our collective labor, not in a voting booth.
Or so says the Hampton Institute on Twitter.
I’ve seen this kind of argument before, and while I agree that a general strike probably would accomplish a lot and be an absolute game changer politically, I can’t help but wonder if the fact is actually practically useful, or if it’s akin to saying something like, “We’d have world peace if people were good.”
The main sticking point in my mind is that even if we had the mutual aid system necessary to keep everyone alive and well during a prolonged general strike, already a big if, I fear that there would still be a significant number of people who would resist the strike, enough that its effectiveness would be drastically diminished. My evidence is any current newspaper.
So is this possibility worth thinking about and advocating at all, or is this like waiting for the Second Coming? What would it take for a mass of regular citizens to put that kind of pressure on the governments and businesses that are locking people in concentration camps and taking water away from cities for datacenters?
That’s the problem, the capitalist behemoth is, apparently, planning to replace us unwashed masses with robots and AI. With no apparent plans for those displaced. Not even adrenochrome, meat, or biological batteries.
A 10-day general strike would give them a brief glimpse of their bright future where we are no longer their problem.
AI can’t plant, harvest, or transport food. Among many other activities essential for modern life. Despite the best efforts of the 1%, it’s still a bottom up economy.
I think the big problem for having a general strike is that so few of the 99% can go that long without pay. We’ll need to set up mutual aid, and soon.
Considering it’s hard to get 60% of eligible voters to turn out for a general election (and many of them have the option of voting by mail,) I’ll flatly say it’s impossible to get anywhere near that number to give up 10 days’ pay (and risk being fired) to take to the streets, or even just stay home and protest by their absence.
What number of the roughly 162 million people currently employed in the U.S. would have to strike to get the desired impact?
The taft-hartley act was designed to make mass general strikes nearly impossible. Because general strikes are highly effective, the government made them illegal in 1947.
What would it take for a general strike? I don’t know. A lot of people would fear unofficial retaliation if they engaged in one.
Which is the point sadly. The more desperate and precarious workers are, the less willing they are to take risks.
The bigger issue is that a lot of them would lose their jobs for missing work, general strike or not.
You make it sound like any of this is planned, and that it’s the “capitalist behemoth’s” problem in the first place. Nobody’s twirling any mustaches, nobody’s planning anything other than how to make a profit for their own company in the relatively short term. Anything else is essentially emergent properties of the system- Zuckerberg and the other social media tech CEOs weren’t really thinking about how social media is going to affect teenagers, they’re thinking about producing a bigger dividend for the next year. Just like nobody at YouTube has ever really considered how their algorithms tailor the videos and their effect on people; they just wrote them to reward views for better ad sales.
If anything, it’s a failure of government to regulate any of this or put guardrails into place. And really… the people are getting what they voted for. If I was the Democratic party leadership, I’d be writing up how to muzzle all this, and feverishly writing up how to hang all the problems on the GOP and Trump for letting it happen.
I agree, broadly, that the Left needs to collectively up its game, protest-wise. I also agree that a general strike would send the message. HOWEVER, as other posters have mentioned, it’s not feasible. I wouldn’t just lose income if I struck for ten days; I’d lose my job. Period. I could probably get away with calling in sick on the day of a one-day general strike.
Rather than a general strike, I propose Occupy Washington. A weeks-long or months-long (or however long it takes) sustained, ongoing protest in, um, some Eastern city. Get 200-300k or more people into town and have them protest for as long as it takes. We’d have to build up an infrastructure that could bring the protestors food and water and supplies, take people home if they need to leave, bring people in to replace them, etc.
You’re presupposing that there’s a huge united mass of people who all want the same thing and a shadowy overclass acting against their interests and preventing them for getting what they want and need, and if only the masses get their shit together and communicate their displeasure to the ruling class, we can all have what we want.
That’s not really what’s going on. There are upper class and lower class supporters on both sides of nearly every issue. And while there are a growing number of people who just want to sweep away the capitalist system and start over, the visions these people have for what we should replace it with are diametrically opposed to one another.
My workplace is fairly conservative. Anyone who participated in this would be “outed” as a “liberal/progressive/commie,” which would be bad for their career.
I think a blatant move to dictatorship might do. Not a creeping defacto dictatorship, something more blatant like “there will be no election in November 2028 I will remain president indefinitely”.
As others have implied, an ogdamn Time Machine to prevent US society from spending the whole post-WW2 part of the 20th century evolving into one where (a) it is practically unfeasible and moreover (b) half (or maybe more) of the population would energetically oppose it. I mean people lost their minds over an epidemic lockdown, if we just chose to close things down to make a point we’re likely to get mass physical violence inflicted by those inconvenienced.
It will take a lot of Americans becoming fundamentally different people, and developing a fundamentally different understanding of their lives.
All of the above quotes illustrate my point: Even people who might like the idea of a General Strike live in fear of losing their jobs if they participate. Because they fundamentally don’t realize: They can’t fire everyone.
Okay, you lost your job? Well, so did everyone else in your town. So everyone just takes one step to the left, and does someone else’s job, because the whole point of a General Strike is to make them realize that they need workers. If you fire everyone, you fire no one.
Right now, that situation isn’t remotely an accurate description of reality. But if Trump suspended the election in Nov 2028, then there would be a domineering force imposing this on everyone, and there would be an overwhelming number of people united in their desire to not see that particular thing happen. So we probably could see a general strike in that scenario.
Of course, we’d probably have a bunch of subgroups that insist that a general strike demanding that elections be reinstated is not enough and that we must also demand [insert their pet issue here]. And since these subgroups will all think that their particular pet issue is so important that it’s not worth participating in the general strike unless that’s agreed to as a core demand, the movement will likely fall apart.
Everyone understands this just fine without needing to become fundamentally different people, whatever that means (it sounds like a veiled insult about their character, but I am unsure about that).
The problem is that we are nowhere near a situation where “everyone” is going to participate in a general strike. And they certainly can fire the three guys in the company with a BlueSky account.
That’s why the answer to “what would it take” is something like a suspension of elections. It would have to get bad enough that people are willing to risk losing what they have, and that usually happens when what they have is about to or has already become worthless. And despite the rhetoric from the Luigi-like figures out there, that’s just not the reality for the vast majority of Americans.
Sure, but getting several tens, if not hundreds of millions of workers pointed in the same direction and on the same page would seem impossible.
And really… who wants to test it? There would have to be concrete demands of specific organizations and people, concrete success criteria, and so forth. Not just ‘bring the capitalist behemoth to its knees’, which isn’t something I think the majority of Americans are really interested in at any rate.
So far, I haven’t heard anything close to anything concrete with relation to this hypothetical strike, and certainly nothing anyone would be willing to take major risks for.
Having been involved for years in labor organizing, I find the logistics of this to be completely overwhelming. It’s incredibly difficult to get a one-day strike going in much of the country. A ten-day general strike? I don’t think we have the organizational infrastructure that’s anywhere near capable of this.
A lot of folks think that organizing labor is like making a meme go viral. It ain’t.
I think you’re much more likely to see the shooting start and states starting to secede if elections were to be suspended, than a general strike by a large proportion of the population. This isn’t Europe, after all.
Things get so bad that the consequences of striking are seen as inevitable anyway or no worse than the consequences of things continuing in the track they are.
Somehow a Democratic trifecta finds the courage (and the will!) to dismantle all those ridiculous anti-strike laws and put some serious worker protection laws in their place. (To begin with no firing for striking and payment guaranteed in case of strike)