I’ll do you all a favor and tag the people and voices you should not listen to. They want you to live in subjugation.
Edit: there are 350 million people in the USA. We do not need concensus.
Edit2: do not ask for your rights. Do not argue for your rights. Fight for your rights.
I’m blocking you, per your request.
Please!!!
Don’t interact with me. Don’t respond to me. I get to talk to maybe 40 or 50 people at a time and it is wasted on you.
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.
We can’t just say “General Strike” on the internet and expect anything to happen.
This is why unions collect dues: so they can pay part of workers’ wages and people won’t lose their homes. We need to organize enough people in your workplace that your boss can’t just fire you and hire someone else.
I am pro strike, but these pictures on the internet are just silly.
In the UK we missed the gernal strike because there are too many people making decisions for unions with egos. :(
With unions we can change things little by little. A 10 day strike isn’t long enough to be effective though…
The goal of the strikes is to stop 10 days from ruining a person, because it never should take a year to recover that
Who the hell can afford to go one day without pay, let alone 10?
A well organized Union will have strike funds stashed away. Saving up is part of organizing a strike.
removed by mod
Start saving now
Saving what?
grow food
How do you do that in a small apartment?
make do with less.
You sound like you’ve never lived in poverty. Unfortunately, millions of Americans do.
removed by mod
I didn’t lecture you about anything, but if you grew up “dirt poor,” like you claim you did, then I would think that you would understand that people in poverty do not have anything to save.
Also, the idea that you could feed yourself and your kids with what you grow in small planters in an apartment (before they kick you out for not paying rent because you lost your job due to being out protesting) is not how the universe works.
I assume you are now going to make the suggestion I saw someone make the other day and let their kids eat out of dumpsters.
Also, I am sorry, but this is fucking stupid:
Or you can listen to the… idk, are they supposed solutions? And ignore what’s happening in our country and get some protection before they decide you have a mental illness and aren’t allowed to have one.
You do not automatically come up with good solutions which are beyond criticism and people who criticize them aren’t people who are just ignoring things.
Sorry, you’re not a god.
removed by mod
from someone who’s already ensured his safety
And there it is- “you ran away like a coward.”
removed by mod
Get a couple guns (a long one and a short one) and learn how to use them.
This is a pretty intense topic to get involved with.
I dithered a little bit about getting a firearm. I still do not have one. I know how to use them, in a cursory kind of way.
Part of why I’ve held back on getting one is this: Imagine playing a board game for the first time, and if you lose, you’re going to die. Or sitting down at a poker table to play for the first time in your life. How well are you going to play? Are you probably going to win? Also, the game only lasts for fifteen seconds.
Having a gun sounds like not a bad idea for what’s coming up in this country. Having a gun and no experience at all in the types of situations you might get yourself into, if you have a gun, sounds almost worse than just not having one. People freak out, they fuck up, they take the wrong decisions. It’s what naturally happens when you’re playing an adversarial game for the first time in your life. After a while, you learn the game, and you start making generally good decisions a lot more of the time. But the first time…
I’m not saying having a gun is a bad idea. There are days when I think I’m being stupid for not having one. But also, you need to know what you’re doing, and if you don’t have some kind of military or other professional training, you’re not going to know what you’re doing, and you can walk yourself into situations there’s no good way out of if you don’t know what you’re doing.
A gun is going to be at least what - $500?
If I had $500 lying around, that’d be a down payment on an apartment in a place where they can’t fire you for being a tranny.
You’ve had eight years to save up some money.
Block
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
You can not put an end date on it. That defeats the purpose
The purpose is to discourage voting. Messages like this serve that purpose well.
Having conversations around how ineffective voting is, is not equivalent to discouraging voting.
in the minds of many readers, it is.
Yeah, with all those general strikes we’ve had they must be really easy to organize!
Block
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.
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?)
Block
Have you noticed they’re always paired with messages encouraging voter apathy and disparticipation ?
I mean, I have 5 kids who need to eat. I would absolutely participate, but I just can’t afford it.
It’s OK, no one is asking you to. Just support the cause the best you can. Support the people participating. Support messaging. And lend a hand to people before and after.
Always.
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.
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.
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”.
“We need both” “It doesn’t have to be either or”
“I think you’re opening up a false dichotomy here”
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.”
Show me how this is not a dichotomy. Why are these the only options?
Discussing why not having voting invites other methods of deciding power struggles that are even less democratic, does not mean a false dichotomy. I am very clearly discussing why both voting and also using other means of people power, together, is the way.
What do you think is my main argument? If not that both together are the way?
Discussing why not having voting invites other methods of deciding power struggles that are even less democratic, does not mean a false dichotomy
Yes it is. It presupposes that parliamentary democracy is the only way of democratic governance.
You are literally demonstrating the effect of the media landscape that you’re criticizing: you’re acting like there’s no other democratic alternative than a parliamentary democracy.
Tell you what: Tell me more about the other democratic alternatives you say I am missing. I didn’t think that my examples at all presupposed the existence of a parliamentary democracy, but if I know more about your counterexamples, I can better make sense of whether or not I overlooked them.
A successful form of democracy is Swiss style direct democracy. They also have a parliament and political parties, but public votes on all kinds of things happen very regular and are binding.
While I don’t have a perfect plan on democratic governance (sorry, I’m just a small, little boi), these examples came to mind right away:
What I also want to adress is that the things you’re criticizing in your first comment are structural problems of a liberal democracy. That means that they don’t stem from bad actors inside the system, but rather from the way the system is set up. Members of parliament have a free mandate and are under no direct obligation to enact policies on which they ran in elections. Yes, they can not get elected the next term, but this can also be an incentive to “get away with it” by e.g. manipulating the media landscape, lying, covering your tracks, searching for excuses, etc.
Also: you canwt vote the system away. When you’re voting, the only available opitions are ones that stabilize the parliamentary system. That’s why I don’t (or at least not completely) agree with “it needs both”. A general strike could lead to a more democratic system, while electoralism will always try to strengthen the current system.
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.
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.
There used to be a requirement of giving equal air time to opposing opinions - that was one of the earlier things Republicans successfully targeted. I’ve no idea how to make that work with the virtually unlimited possible sources available today.
That just opens you up to false balancing. See: the media landscape on climate change for the last 70 years.
And also only works when there are only two sides to represent to begin with, so it would reinforce the two party system
Also doesn’t work when one side is supported by evidence and the others are “opinions” but given equal consideration.
4 Boxes of liberty, use in order.
Maybe some amendment after the first ome need to be considered 👀
It’s the best way to let them know what issues concern us most and what policies we like.
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.
Sad but true.
Not all Americans called for it, just very vocal ones. The people that were fine with the lockdowns and restrictions were not represented in the debate because they were sheltering in place at home trying to keep more people from dying to the virus.
America’s national identity is based around individualism. Other people dying is less important than individual success.
That’s why it’s the economy that matters. a quarter of a percent of extra deaths isn’t something people care about as long as they aren’t the ones dying. But economic turmoil hits everyone individually.
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
We’ve actually seen the ubiquitous camera thing become an issue during the George Floyd protests of 2020, and yeah the police were brutal, pushed by President Trump, only causing the protests to double in size.
The French Résistance didn’t have the cameras, but the ill behavior of the Germans was ubiquitous, itself, despite e4fforts from the overseeing administration to advise them to be nice. They just couldn’t help themselves.
Technology is a factor, as are countless other circumstances. It’ll be interesting to see when video of the ICE raids start emerging again.
Block
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.
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.
Organizing a general strike is very difficult. You need to find a political position to rally behind and then build and maintain a huge network.
People will strike, if they feel if they feel it’s the only way.
I am a member of 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.
Yep! Peaceful legal strikes are a privilege that our ruling class currently benefits from. Everyone is better off if the ruling class remembers that.
Civil unrest needs outlets. Legal ones are a great tool.
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
The rich can wait it out longer than you
Block
Not if their plumbing needs fixing
Scabs exist. And fascism, the original one in Italy, rose as an answer to the left wing.
You can draw your own conclusions from this.
Ok, let me rephrase, not if their plumbing needs fixing and a specific green-hatted plumber is taking the job.
Fascism is a tool for autocrats to keep public discontent and unrest down for a while, but it is temporary, and invariably results in purge after purge after purge. Eventually the state has to resort to war against outward enemies, and if it’s not put down by assassination and revolution, it’s put down when the Allies are bombing the capitol.
The people lose a lot harder if the Allies reach Berlin, which is why there are thirty-nine known attempts to kill Hitler, culminating in the July 20 Plot.|
Scabs exist, but they’re expensive and universally hated by both sides.
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. ☹️
Once you have built the list of demands and the political alliance for a one day strike, the infrastructure stays around. So the next one day or longer strike is easier to execute.
Booooooo
Block
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
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.
Reddit protest be like. Huffman literally said ‘You only protest for 2 days? Sure, we’ll wait’.
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…
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.
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.
In a world where the average household has <$500 worth of savings, you’d have problems implementing a general strike for 2 days, never mind 2 weeks. Good luck ya’ll, I think the time for action was a while ago and I don’t see this being feasible right now.
You can try to prove me wrong, but explain how these households are going to make it two weeks.
“Electoral politics doesn’t get the job done” lmao bro wants to fight fascism with more fascism?
Workers strikes are the farthest possible thing from facism
That’s why I quoted the exact part that was the pretty much the definition of fascism, ending elections.
How the fuck did you get that from that? They weren’t saying to end elections, just that they’ve got very little power in today’s climate where the entire worlds rule of law is dictated by a small percentage of publicly traded hedge funds and companies.
The right globally has been dismantling all the progress we’ve made since the 70s in a fuckton of issues.
When a single representative of a company can sit with elected officials in a private setting and influence the law to favor industry over individual, elections really do mean shit. We’ve got to reinforce them. This starts with ending the power of the ogliarchs and rewriting shit on our terms.
How did I get there? That’s the fucking title. That’s what those words mean.
