For a General Strike to work, there does need to be a somewhat unified vision of what the strike is against. That means getting workers educated about the situation as much as possible.
A boycott can sometimes work against individual corporations, but a boycott to make the government listen would require sustained participation from a massive section of the population, which seems unlikely to say the least. In contrast, a general strike only needs workers in critical unionized industries to join in to cause a virtual halt of economic activity (dock workers, train workers, truckers, etc). This lowers the numbers needed to be effective by an order of magnitude, and is thus much more feasible. History has shown it to be the most effective non-violent tool we have for over 100 years, and so far nothing else has come close.
Prefiguration could be considered a 3rd method. Building the alternative systems we want to see and use in the world to lower our dependence on the current system facilitates the ability to enact general strikes, boycotts, and reduces the leverage they have over us to not enact resistance.
A fourth method would be perhaps more extreme, like collectively destroying all of the world’s databases that contain financial debt records, Fightclub/Mr.Robot style. But that would require extreme coordination between established capable groups, and currently is not a feasible option.
In contrast, a general strike only needs workers in critical unionized industries to join in to cause a virtual halt of economic activity
There’s no requirement that they be unionized. Anyway, that’s unrealistic in the US.
History has shown it to be the most effective non-violent tool we have for over 100 years
Keep in mind that previous effective broadly-based strikes have not always been entirely nonviolent. Scabs are not always treated all that nicely, and neither are the police and private-sector goons who are sent in to beat down the strikers. During the most effective period of strike power being used, there were also attacks on assets and occasionally individuals. Non-violence is good, but there are some necessary conditions for it to be effective. And one big one is that the media cannot be controlled by the current ruling elite. Without that, there’s no way for mass action to sway public opinion.
There’s no requirement that they be unionized. Anyway, that’s unrealistic in the US.
It helps, because unions will have strike funds to supplement worker’s income during the strike. Most American’s have no savings and are living hand to mouth, which may discourage them from participating in a general strike.
For your second paragraph, I don’t disagree. Even with the potential for that, I consider it a mostly non-violent action, at least in comparison to a civil war.
For a General Strike to work, there does need to be a somewhat unified vision of what the strike is against. That means getting workers educated about the situation as much as possible.
A boycott can sometimes work against individual corporations, but a boycott to make the government listen would require sustained participation from a massive section of the population, which seems unlikely to say the least. In contrast, a general strike only needs workers in critical unionized industries to join in to cause a virtual halt of economic activity (dock workers, train workers, truckers, etc). This lowers the numbers needed to be effective by an order of magnitude, and is thus much more feasible. History has shown it to be the most effective non-violent tool we have for over 100 years, and so far nothing else has come close.
Prefiguration could be considered a 3rd method. Building the alternative systems we want to see and use in the world to lower our dependence on the current system facilitates the ability to enact general strikes, boycotts, and reduces the leverage they have over us to not enact resistance.
A fourth method would be perhaps more extreme, like collectively destroying all of the world’s databases that contain financial debt records, Fightclub/Mr.Robot style. But that would require extreme coordination between established capable groups, and currently is not a feasible option.
There’s no requirement that they be unionized. Anyway, that’s unrealistic in the US.
Keep in mind that previous effective broadly-based strikes have not always been entirely nonviolent. Scabs are not always treated all that nicely, and neither are the police and private-sector goons who are sent in to beat down the strikers. During the most effective period of strike power being used, there were also attacks on assets and occasionally individuals. Non-violence is good, but there are some necessary conditions for it to be effective. And one big one is that the media cannot be controlled by the current ruling elite. Without that, there’s no way for mass action to sway public opinion.
It helps, because unions will have strike funds to supplement worker’s income during the strike. Most American’s have no savings and are living hand to mouth, which may discourage them from participating in a general strike.
For your second paragraph, I don’t disagree. Even with the potential for that, I consider it a mostly non-violent action, at least in comparison to a civil war.