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.
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.