• MudMan@kbin.social
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    2
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    1 year ago

    I mean… as the other guy says below, if you’re considering revolution surely a general strike is a notch below that level of commitment.

    But also, I’ve lived through multiple general strikes. I don’t know what to tell you, a party and a bunch of unions called for them, people followed them at will. Some changed stuff, others didn’t. Nobody lost their jobs or homes, among other things because it’s illegal to retalliate against a strike. Because, you know, we had strikes about that.

    We’re not even a particularly old democracy, we were an outright fascist country less than a century ago. My dad remembers running away from fascist police when he was in college. I don’t know what to tell you.

    • mrnotoriousman@kbin.social
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      5
      ·
      1 year ago

      Part of the problem for major reforms is that large areas of empty land have more power than the will of the people to get things through the Senate.

    • Emma_Gold_Man@lemmy.dbzer0.com
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      4
      ·
      1 year ago

      a party and a bunch of unions called for them

      In the US there are only two parties of any real significance. General strike is something neither of them would ever call for. Only about 10.1% of US workers have a union.

      Nobody lost their jobs or homes, among other things because it’s illegal to retalliate against a strike.

      In the US, strike retaliation, while technically illegal, is very rarely enforced. When it is, the penalty is … they have to undo the thing they did and were penalized for. No fine, no concession, no additional monitoring, and there was always the (very good) chance they’d get away with it.

      Sadly, in a country where guns are common and unions aren’t, armed revolt is just more imaginable than a general strike.