Is it time to mobilize for a General Strike?

[coalition_unwilling]

I've been thinking this way because of two inter-connected issues:

A) No reliable electoral integrity

B) Government suveillance of citizenry

The lack of reliable electoral integrity and the fact that most Dem politicians don't seem to care means that every election from here on out can be stolen with impunity by Repukes. The recent revelation on NBC that the Pentagon is spying on anti-war groups and individuals can happen only because tax dollars, once appropriated by Congress, are not subject to effective oversight.

It seems to me that a general strike that denies government and business the resources necessary to carry on may be the only way to institute meaningful change.

Would there be any chance of mobilizing the 65% of Americans against the war to support said strike?

[400Years]

1. Sure, but for your second question: I doubt it.

[ck4829]

2. Yes

[OrangeCountyDemocrat]

3. Goodbye Job....

Hello Unemployment! A strike would just give the corporate leaders a chance to wipe the slate clean, and fire all the participants in such a strike. They may do it anyways, but this will make their decision for layoffs that much easier.

It's a good idea, but unfortunately, the sheepies would never have the guts to follow through.

[coalition_unwilling]

4. Hmm. I guess I see a General Stirike as prelude to revolution,

meaning over-turning the established order. If 65% of Americans were to stop working, consuming, producing, etc., I'm not sure the big corporations could weather it.

But it's a good point. (I'm unemployed currently, so stakes aren't as high for me as for others.)

[nadinbrzezinski]

5. not if it is a national strike

they can afford to fire a certain percentage but not all workers, even a 60% participation will put a kibbush on firing people. Now the leaders, absolutely, but that is to be expected.

Now can you get 60% participation in a national strike? I don't know, at this time I doubt it... people are still too fat and happy and dumb

[seriousstan]

6. Other than a few cities, a few times...when have any protests gotten 1%

of the population to attend? I live in Columbus Ohio and the biggest protest was (arguably) 4000 people. This is a city of almost 1.5 million.

It will never work. Protest, general strike and especially the mythical "revolution".

[radio4progressives]

8. the 1969 Peace Moratorium was really a General Strike ...

with a different name.

When over two million people show up in front of the white house in Washington DC that's a general strike by any definition - but it should have been called a General Strike - in order to put that event in proper perspective.

There's been some speculation, that the agents who had infiltrated and co-opted the peace movement, had pursuaded organziers to call it a "moratorium" instead of a "General Strike", convincing organizers that it would give the movement higher esteem and respect by the media and general public, when the intended purpose of course was to dilute the impact.

I suspect this will be debated for years.

[seriousstan]

9. Wrong, do you really believe all 2 million were from D.C.?

The population of D.C. was only 798,000. And you had to go back to '69 for a false example.

My point stands.

[TahitiNut]

7. The Bushoilinis would declare martial law in the blink of an eye.

The most unionized workers are in education, civil service, and transportation. I dream of the day when a General Strike is a reasonable possibility in the US - it'd be a condition that portrays a solution in and of itself.

[happyslug]

10. The last time the US had a General Strike was in 1877

And it was the result of YEARS of wage cuts. Basically the threat of LOSING their job was NOT that much of a threat (people were working at starvation levels already do to wage cuts during the recessions of 1873 and 1877)).

The General Strike of 1877 has been called the greatest civil disturbance since the Civil War, but concentrated in the cities (When most people still lived in Rural areas) and then only in Cities dependent on the Railroads (New York City did not participate). Thus the General Strike Started diN Baltimore spread to Pittsburgh, affected Chicago and St Louis. St Louis ended up being run by a Worker's Committee till the Strike was crushed and in Pittsburgh the Local National Guard unit abandoned their position and weapons when the Philadelphia National Guard opened fellow on their fellow Pittsburghers (This forced the Rest of the Pennsylvania National Guard to Abandoned Pittsburgh to the strikers). Support for the strikers were wide-spread (All but one of the City's Newspapers supported the Strike through not the subsequent violence, this at the time when Pittsburgh like most city of that time period had 9-10 newspapers). Furthermore after the Philadelphia Guard units opened Fired on the Strikers, the City's firearm merchants GAVE OUT GUNS TO THE STRIKERS TO DEFEND THEMSELVES.

This is how much support the Strike had, both from people striking and people who were NOT striking (Do to the fact their were self-employed). The Country is NOT at that level today, nor is it close to that level. Thus any talk of a General Strike is meaningless, for until you have 30-50 % of the population willing to strike NOT MATTER THE CONSEQUENCES, any General Strike will fail. My Father said George Meany should have called a General Strike when Reagan Fired Patco (The Air Traffic Controllers) AND EVERY LABORING PERSON SHOULD HAVE GONE ON STRIKE AT THAT TIME. Today, you have even less people in unions and less people willing to strike NOT for their own benefit but for the good of all.

My point here is that at present you can NOT get the needed turnout for a General Strike to work. It will take a lot more decline in society before people see such a strike as in their best interests. Not that everything is hopeless, you need to start discussing with your Friends, Neighbors and Co-workers about a General Strike. These talks are NOT to convince them to do so TODAY, but that sometime in the future a General Strike may be called for. This discussion should occur even if the people you discuss it with reject the whole concept. You are planting seeds NOT converting them to the Cause, as things go downhill more and more people will change from opposition to a General Strike to neutrality to support. Such a Conversion will NOT be rapid, but slow. Tell your Friends, Neighbors and Co-workers about the problems and that the only way to stop the decline is to go on a National Strike. Do NOT be discouraged if they reject what you have to say (and do NOT attack them for their position, remember you can only convert if you do not offend, so do not offend but make your point). Now it is often difficult to state a position and NOT offend someone but it is the only way to build the base needed for a General Strike to work in the Future. Before we talk of a General Strike and Revolution you need a solid base, which can only be made by converting people to the need of both.

[patcox2]

11. It is against the law in the US to conspire to strike or boycott.

Its called "criminal syndicalism" or "combination in restraint of trade." Strikes are only legal within the framework of conditions and circumstances set forth in the NLRA.

[LoZoccolo]

12. Have you even done anything else in the effort to...

A) Ensure reliable electoral integrity?
B) Decrease unnecessary government surveillance of citizenry?

For instance, have you joined an organization dedicated to reliable voting or civil liberties? Have you spent time working for them, increasing awareness (very important) and lobbying politicians, or getting ones who share your views elected? Do you know what people who are involved in these issues full time think is the most effective route to getting what you and they want?

It continues to confuse me why people here call for and talk about drastic measures and are little-involved in any of the day-to-day work that's currently going on surrounding what they're concerned about.

[The2ndWheel]

13. Mobilize what?

8% of the population is part of a union. It's one thing to be against the war, it's another to call for those against the war to strike because of election fraud and Big Brother. Especially when that would require a good amount of time, and people need to feed their kids.

If it could be done, it could work. I just don't see how it's even remotely possible.