We Need A National Strike to Stop Trump.

[edhopper]

http://inthesetimes.com/article/19660/trump-inauguration-sick-out-general-strike

A general strike and boycott, or Sick Out, would be a commitment not to go to work or buy anything on January 20. It would not focus on any single cause or demand; instead, it would be a show of our collective power in opposition to Trump’s extremism.

This action will show the country and the world that we will not participate in Trump’s America as he has described it. It will do so in the most powerful way possible—by shutting down, as much as possible, the nation’s economy. The goal will be to force corporations and politicians to publicly distance themselves from Trump’s agenda. The U.S. economy is a massive, complicated machine that runs on predictability and regularity. Disrupting it through a general strike and boycott imposes a cost on accepting Trump’s extremism.

I agree with this. It may not be big enough this time, but as Trump sends this country down into ruins, a national strike seems to me the only way the people will be able to affect things. All other forms of protest will do little.

[cilla4progress]

1. Agreed

[NightWatcher]

3. You can't get half the country to vote...

You're not going to get enough to strike to be noticed.

[Va Lefty]

5. Sad but true

[ksoze]

4. Nice concept, bad execution

Only hurts businesses (90% are small) and gives PR fodder to the 49%. The only way Trump is defeated is to aggressively challenge his policies and appointments and then ensure he is voted out in 4 (long) years due to his clearly bad performance.

[MineralMan]

6. People call for general strikes all too often. Bottom line is that

people aren't going to participate in numbers high enough to make an impact, except on the participants' livelihoods. Those who don't participate will be rewarded, and those who do will be punished, basically. Now a business general strike might work, but the reality is that people who participate in an independent general strike will cause themselves more harm that it will cause Trump and his administration.

It's a nice idea, but this country is too large and too diverse to generate a wholesale general strike. You might get a few million people to walk out, but that would represent only a tiny percentage of Americans and would have no positive effect on much of anything.

Finally, the site at your link has virtually no influence on the population at large. It is more or less a clickbait site, designed to display its ads and to collect visitor contact information. Sign up there and you'll get more spam email.

[mopinko]

10. in these times is a respected publication.

especially here in chi, where it is printed. so stop that.

as far as the rest, it may sound wise, but everybody already knows how a strike works. yes, scabs win and union members lose. it has ever been thus. but strikes built the unions that built this country.
your offhand diss of the concept is just a little mind boggling.
do people call for them too often? well, call for them then dont pull them off, sure. but what would our lives be like today is all of us had just sat in the streets on jan 20, 2001?

it really is the only thing that will work. even if it only happened in big cities, it would work. it would put the fear of god into a lot of people who think they are god.

[MineralMan]

11. Is it? I see in the Wikipedia entry on it that one of its

contributors has been Glenn Greenwald, among many others in the so-called progressive movement. Here's a clue: Glenn Greenwald is not a progressive and never has been. He is a libertarian.

I know that In These Times is supposed to be a progressive publication. I'm not seeing it, frankly, and I've followed many links from here to its website.

Sorry, but I'm not buying it, frankly. Further, the author of that piece at the link doesn't even use a real name. I don't give much credence to journalists who hide behind pseudonyms.

[mopinko]

12. rly?

"Editor's note: Marianne Hastings is a pseudonym. The author of this piece chose not to use her real name out of concern that she could face workplace retaliation for speaking out against the Trump administration."

you have a problem w this?

eta- she isnt a journalist, she is an organizer.

[MineralMan]

13. I do, yes, have a problem with it.

If you have something to say, say it under your real name if you want to be treated as a journalist. Is she not working by writing for that website? What workplace is she talking about.

I have a pseudonym here on DU, but my real name is just one click away in my signature line.

I give zero credit to pseudonymous "journalists." Zero. That one doesn't have any real credibility with me. I have no idea who she is.

[mopinko]

14. she isnt a journalist. she is an organizer.

[FSogol]

15. "in these times is a respected publication." - Disagree.

[MineralMan]

17. Well, some people respect it.

I looked at their contributor list, which made me suspect it. Any place that lists Glenn Greenwald as a contributor gives me concern.

[pipi_k]

16. Maybe you can tell us

what our lives would be like today.

well, call for them then dont pull them off, sure. but what would our lives be like today is all of us had just sat in the streets on jan 20, 2001?

if we had all sat out in the streets on 1/20/01


From my POV, I can't see where anything would have been much different. Lots of people freezing their asses off thinking they're making a huge difference (like the people who thought they were gods didn't already KNOW a good portion of the country despised them anyway).

People calling out from work perhaps losing their jobs, and to what end?

Yep, I can see it now...all of us sitting in the streets in protest. Firefighters...cops...doctors...hospital workers...teachers...postal workers...people who provide home care and meals to the elderly, etc.

I think MM isn't so much "dissing" the idea as he is looking at it from a realistic POV.

If there's going to be a general and large-scale shutdown, it has to include everyone. And that's just not possible, or even smart.

[meaculpa2016]

7. Why would anyone call out on January 20...

and risk workplace retaliation when the person prodding the rest of us to call out uses a pseudonym for fear of workplace retaliation?

[MineralMan]

18. A very excellent point. She is doing exactly

what people who are afraid they'll get fired for their activism do. But, I guess it's OK if other people lose their jobs, according to her. I find that attitude to be a bit alarming. It's sort of the "Let's you and him fight" mentality.

[Trust Buster]

8. I have made a few luxury purchases recently ahead of the inauguration. By luxury, I'm talking

about a nice pair of dress shoes, a couple of nice dress shirts and pants etc. For the next four years I am planning on purchasing only necessities. I do not wish to contribute to the Trump economy beyond mere necessities.

[2naSalit]

9. Too soon...

there will probably be one in time, like before the end of this year. Have to have more people feeling the pain before they will participate.

[Bonx]

19. Time to revisit 'Not One Damn Dime' day?

[jmg257]

20. This was written like 49 days ago - how is the progress??