One of the fundamental falsehoods that is being pushed, and not just by foreign propaganda, is that revolution can only be violent. If we were able to organize crippling work shutdowns we would start to see results. The oligarchs still require a great deal of human labor to get what they want. The public could, theoretically, withdraw that and use it as leverage to move things back toward wealth equity. The problem is that it requires a greater consensus that we have been able to achieve, at least so far.
It isn’t surprising when a government makes the methods for opposing it illegal. That increases the risk involved, but it does not change the reasons for doing it or the effectiveness of those tactics. It isn’t a matter of, “well, we might as well kill people, if both are illegal”. There are a lot of reasons for preferring non-violent protest, beyond legality. It comes down to figuring out what is most likely to cause the change we want to see.
There were several strikes involving the workers of the Putilov Mill over the years with the first one taking place in 1905, yet this particular strike in 1917 is considered the catalyst which sparked the February Revolution.
You know what happened after the February revolution right? Right?!
The October revolution! Many deaths.
This is what happens to strikes that are deemed illegal by the government:
The October Revolution has nothing to do with striking, what are you going on about? You are over here insinuating something but are too much of a coward to outright make a claim. Yes, there was a strike 7 years prior, you’re very astute there, and yes it was bloody because the conditions for it were not right. I am not claiming that all strikes are well thought out or planned, there needs to be a movement behind it or it will end bloody. That’s what you get when non-marxists strike. Now please refute my claim that it impacts the growth of capital or move on.
I upvoted for the hopeful sentiments, but I don’t think strikes alone can defeat conservatism. I really do think violence is required, unfortunately. We are in this situation because we didn’t finish the violent ending of the civil war. We let conservatives live and now we have concentration camps.
Could do sustained protests, could do a general strike, hell Americans consume so much even a “buying” freeze would probably get their attention cause it hurts theirs stock price. The problem is people are also selfish so organizing anything is next to impossible.
I’d say that’s true, but calling it a revolution waters down what the trolls are saying. I would put “crippling work shutdowns” in the work protest section to keep it clear.
One of the fundamental falsehoods that is being pushed, and not just by foreign propaganda, is that revolution can only be violent. If we were able to organize crippling work shutdowns we would start to see results. The oligarchs still require a great deal of human labor to get what they want. The public could, theoretically, withdraw that and use it as leverage to move things back toward wealth equity. The problem is that it requires a greater consensus that we have been able to achieve, at least so far.
What about legislation that makes it illegal to strike like when the rail workers wanted to strike under Biden?
Carney is passing similar legislation in Canada.
It isn’t surprising when a government makes the methods for opposing it illegal. That increases the risk involved, but it does not change the reasons for doing it or the effectiveness of those tactics. It isn’t a matter of, “well, we might as well kill people, if both are illegal”. There are a lot of reasons for preferring non-violent protest, beyond legality. It comes down to figuring out what is most likely to cause the change we want to see.
And if it’s illegal, and people still strike, what would be the outcome?
It would still cripple capital production
And historically, what has happened when people went on strike despite the government not condoning it? Plenty of examples to choose from
A few things
LOL either you’re cherry picking or really don’t know the history that led to the Bolshevik revolution.
You know what the Putilov Strike was preceded by? The Bloody Sunday revolution. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bloody_Sunday_(1905)
From your article:
You know what happened after the February revolution right? Right?!
The October revolution! Many deaths.
This is what happens to strikes that are deemed illegal by the government:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Winnipeg_general_strike
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pullman_Strike
The October Revolution has nothing to do with striking, what are you going on about? You are over here insinuating something but are too much of a coward to outright make a claim. Yes, there was a strike 7 years prior, you’re very astute there, and yes it was bloody because the conditions for it were not right. I am not claiming that all strikes are well thought out or planned, there needs to be a movement behind it or it will end bloody. That’s what you get when non-marxists strike. Now please refute my claim that it impacts the growth of capital or move on.
Violence happened. Be honest.
A lot of violence!
How many people died from this well timed strike, pray tell.
I upvoted for the hopeful sentiments, but I don’t think strikes alone can defeat conservatism. I really do think violence is required, unfortunately. We are in this situation because we didn’t finish the violent ending of the civil war. We let conservatives live and now we have concentration camps.
Could do sustained protests, could do a general strike, hell Americans consume so much even a “buying” freeze would probably get their attention cause it hurts theirs stock price. The problem is people are also selfish so organizing anything is next to impossible.
I’d say that’s true, but calling it a revolution waters down what the trolls are saying. I would put “crippling work shutdowns” in the work protest section to keep it clear.