Why a Nationwide Strike is the Next Step

[Marazinia]

A nationwide strike is the next logical step in the Occupy Movement.

First, it will require the clarification of goals and demands. The time is coming when that must be done and agreed upon by enough people throughout the nation so that further action can be taken. These protests are the spark, but the fire will be maintained by strikes.

Second, the unemployed and those protesting after work and on their days off are costing corporations nothing. In contrast, corporations will suffer greatly from a nationwide strike of non-essential workers.

Third, it will require but also accustom us all to a higher level of organization and self-sufficiency. We will, as communities, have to produce and distribute food for strikers as well as solve heating and electricity issues. This can be done by volunteers, hobby gardeners, independent farmers and truckers, and by essential workers threatening to leave even their jobs if strikers are refused food, medicine, and power during the strike.

Also, consider this: As the police become increasingly violent toward protesters, ask yourselves what they can do to people who simply refuse to get up and go to work every day until their demands are met? Will they come into our homes with teargas and nightsticks in order to force us to go to work? They wouldn't dare. A determined, large, and organized group of striking workers cannot be stopped. Even if we lose internet communication (and we probably will) with proper planning, the strike can continue until demands are met.

Finally, if enough Americans aren't prepared to take such a drastic step, perhaps the protests themselves are premature and we might have to try again in the future. If that's the case, we can use the time in between to organize and prepare so that eventually we do succeed. However, it can't wait long, if this is not the spark that brings changes, we risk the destruction of all momentum from an avalanche of national and world crisis as oil wars intensify and poverty increases.

[elocs]

1. Nice dream, but the reality is that it will not happen here in the U.S.

where there really is no history of national general strikes and our union membership is anemic compared to Europe.

I am sure that the protests and demonstrations will continue, but I would be very, very surprised if there is any kind of national strike of any substance.

[yurbud]

44. I wouldn't have thought something as large and persistent as the Occupy movement would happen until

it did.

[elleng]

2. Much too much involved for that to be the next step, imo,

and keep in mind difference between U.S. and other countries. Nationwide 'clarification of goals and demands' and 'higher level of organization' not going to happen here; its a BIG country w 50 States, thousands of cities, hundreds of towns. 'We' will continue to try, from henceforth, NOT going to stop until some time in the future. We'll see where and how it goes.
IMO

[Marazinia]

3. If you are both right (and I worry you might be)

Then in my opinion we will never succeed in bringing about significant change in this country. So I certainly hope either you are wrong or I am!

[Marazinia]

4. Oh and by the way

I say 'we' when I speak of this movement because I've been agitating and agitated about these very things for going on 20 years. The last few years less so, due to the crushing certainty that things will never change for the better. So this movement isn't anything new to me, but if it's a spark that relights the fire I carry around, then no matter how this phase turns out, I'm grateful. I'm not, however, new to any of it.

[jtuck004]

5. There are already 25 million people sitting down among the unemployed

and underemployed. I have asked, but no one has yet told me what of any real worth such a tactic would be expected to gain.

As you said, "First, it will require the clarification of goals and demands". That has to be on paper before any discussion of tactics.

How would one know what tactic to suggest, get any bang for the buck as it were, if there is no specific goal or demand? This strike asks the most vulnerable to hurt themselves. What if it has the opposite effect of what OWS might have wanted, or gets people hurt or killed for no reason? (That's what George Bush did, btw. Didn't really work out for a lot of people).

The post above asked "what they can do to people who simply refuse to get up and go to work every day until their demands are met". They don't need to call the police, they can just fire their ass. There are from 8 to 35 people looking for every open job, so the likelihood that someone else will just step into your job are quite high, and if anyone thinks they won't they are dreaming. Very likely corporations won't suffer at all from something like this, (they are sitting on $2 trillion, as one should remember. It would take 3 lifetimes to wait them out). The outcome could be a lot of replacement in the workforce and different people who can't pay their bills, and a lot of real anger at OWS. In any event, a movement that can't be evaluated and achieve useful results is nothing more than entertainment.

We are the 99%, but following the herd and depending on bad advice is part of what got us here.

[Marazinia]

6. Okay so we are so uneccesary to the wealthy that not working won't touch them?

I don't see how this can move forward without a strike as the next step. Without one, the protesters are going to get cleared off the streets eventually. If strikes won't change things, how can anyone expect people with signs to? And if strikes aren't the next step, what is?

Please don't say voting for Obama in 2012 and filling Congress up with Democrats, because that hasn't worked out at all so far.

[jtuck004]

8. Exactly.

As was stated in the OP, goals and demands. And, btw, if they are going to get cleared out of the parks why not plan ahead and make that a moot point instead of getting people hurt for nothing? Protest during the daylight hours, save the civil disobedience for when it will gain you more. Holding the parks is not the goal, occupying is not the goal (I hope). The goal is economic justice. Goals that were worth putting a Marine in the hospital would be something like more opportunity for people who want to work, food for people who now must depend on the government to eat, taking care of our most vulnerable instead of insuring tens of millions of dollars in bonuses for the bankers who are laughing at the occupation.

We see the results of income inequality all around us, yet there have been at most a few thousands of people at the biggest march. An OWS with millions of people converging on the park would be a far different experience, eh? Why aren't they out there? Why aren't they as mad as we are? Maybe they don't understand that the wealthy have structured a life that has purposeful barriers to keep them in their place as a source of interest payments and fees? Maybe they don't see themselves in this? Perhaps they have no way to articulate what they feel, or no space to do it in. Maybe someone should ask?

Back in the early part of the last century there was an organizing school called Highlander (the school that Rosa Parks credited so highly. They moved away from that work over the years, but their old stuff is still available for purchase and is in libraries, great for training and developing a campaign). Myles Horton knew that to defeat the coal companies the workers had to join together, but they were black and white (a few Klan), long before the civil rights laws we have today. A call for a strike would have been attended by few, and gotten people killed with no result.

He started bringing them together to talk about their stories, to begin to express, in a public group, the ways they were taken advantage of. He did this in the warm weather of the SE, and the only water supply was one well, with one dipper. At first the white folks wouldn't drink from the same dipper, but when thirst got the better of them that opened them up to everyone realizing that it wasn't black vs white, it was wealthy vs the powerless. They began to develop a voice, determine exactly what was unfair, and develop their demands.

They built on that power to take on the companies, and won their demands. It's not the only way to do it, and it's slow, but it's a very, very powerful organizing tool when you are fighting something as large as a culture. (And you are). Then again, our current economic injustice has been building for 40+ years.

The Back of the Yards organization in Chicago also offers a useful model. The "Truth" campaign against smoking looks like it might have some good ideas for fighting "Goliath".

OWS needs to build their base, educate and train, figure out what problem they want to fight and then create the plan to change things.

I think it is very likely going to be years, because the corps have used the law and their own lack of morals to benefit themselves and ruin a lot of lives.

And no, I don't think the existing parties, at least from what I see of their leadership and goals, would be allies.

[Marazinia]

10. That said

My Great-Grandfather was Coal Miners Union, and they refused to allow race to affect membership. Yes, I'm proud of it. And what I know of union strikes is that when they went on strike, they had clear cut demands. My mindset is geared that way. Make demands, strike until those demands are met. I have a hard time thinking about this any other way, to be honest.

But I would hate to see a static leadership emerge because of what a COINTELPRO style attack will do to those leaders, and if clear cut demands must come from that sort of leadership, that's a problem right there.

On the other hand, the powerful are scared of OWS. If they weren't, the police wouldn't be trying to bully them off the streets. They're afraid of it sparking something. What I don't know. I'm hoping it's strikes in part because it might be that they fear riots.

[GreenStormCloud]

7. Here is what would happen if an extended general strike really happened.

Nobody who calls for an extended general strike seems to have thought it out.

No water. That means you can't drink, cook, bathe or flush your commode.
Grocery stores closed. How much food do you have stored up?
No communications. Without workers there would be no cell phones, no cable TV, no internet, no land line phones. How will the movement communicate?
No electricity. Who will be manning the power plants? How will they get to is the gas stations are shut down.
No gasoline. All the gas stations closed so nobody can fuel their car or truck.
Hospitals closed. Doctors and nurses and staff won't be able to get to work without gasoline.
No police. With no gas, communications, or electricity they won't be able to function either.
No railroads or trucking freight movements. No gasoline delivered to local stations. No freight movement of any kind. No medical supplies due to medical factories shutting down.

Ultimately, EVERYBODY is an essential worker. A general strike would completely kill the economy. How would you revive it when you can't even communicate?

However, a general strike is simply a pipe dream of some radicals. It won't happen. The average person is simply not that political.

[Marazinia]

9. Essential workers will still work

As long as water, power, and food aren't cut off to strikers. That's the idea, anyway. Admittedly, none of it is that cut and dried. But there's time for the planning of it, I'm hoping it's already started. Surely some others are considering it and discussing it.

And if a general strike won't work because the average person isn't political enough, once again I have to ask, what will protests in the street accomplish?

[GreenStormCloud]

11. How will so called essential workers get to work if the gas stations are closed?

How do you selectively keep water, power, and food just to the strikers and still cut them off to everybody else? EVERYBODY would lose water, power, and food. E-V-E-R-B-O-D-Y-!! The economy is too intermingled for such as that to work. And all professions are dependent upon all the other professions.

Consider if there is just a strike of truck drivers alone. EVERYTHING you have was on a truck once.

You haven't actually thought all the way through the idea of what really would happen in a general strike. You can't pick and choose what occupations will be allowed to function because they can't function without all the others that keep them going continuing to operate.

Protests in the street won't accomplish much. As a percentage of the the population the protesters are a tiny fraction of a percent.

And don't forget that about half of the country is right wing and actively hostile to the left. There are a lot of red states and red counties out there.

[Marazinia]

12. So keep the long haul fuel truckers and shipyard workers as essential

Problem solved. If it's essential work someone does, they don't strike, unless of course, the companies cut off power and food and water to the strikers, in which case, they do strike and nobody but the nuke plant and healthcare workers go to work. And they'd have to pretty much live on their jobs for awhile. Right now, protesters are living in worse conditions.

If it's too soon, it's too soon, nothing to say about that, and it might be. But if this continues and support builds, I still think strikes are the logical next step.

[GreenStormCloud]

13. Are gas station cashiers essential workers too?

If essential workers can't get gas for their cars, they can't get to work.

Are truck stop workers essential? If those trucks can't get fuel they don't go.

What about communications? You won't have phones of any kind, no TV, no internet, nothing.

Don't you get the idea? A general strike is a different animal than a specific industry, such a coal, being struck. In a general strike the whole damn system shuts down. No matter how hard you try, you can't have a general strike and still have so called essential people still working. Those essential people need the rest of the economy working for them to be able to work.

[Marazinia]

14. How can you be sure?

No one has ever tried it. Keep gas station workers on shift, move the trucks, move the food, keep the roads repaired. But not another dime for the wealthy from the shopping malls and the electronic stores and all the other things not essential for the bare minimum until demands are met. Either way though, if it has to shut down to change things, so be it, shut it all down. Or admit defeat and slave away the rest of our lives for pocket change and broken promises.

[GreenStormCloud]

15. Who decides who will and won't be allowed to work?

What do you do about people who refuse to strike? About half the nation is RW. Lots of red states and red counties in the nation. What do you do about them?

[Marazinia]

18. Problems that need solutions for sure

Who decides, and how to keep them from being huge targets and how to know who to trust to even make decisions the rest of us would want to follow is a huge issue.

As for the second issue, there's no solution. If enough Americans aren't ready, nothing, not strikes and not protests, are going to change anything. I have doubts that enough of us are ready myself. We'll see what happens over the next few months to a year.

But if all OWS does is get Obama and some dems reelected in 2012, it's a waste of time and a betrayal of those freezing their asses off right now trying to change things for the better.

[GreenStormCloud]

16. It is pretty easy to be sure. Just ask one simple question.

What happens if all of the people who work at job X stop working?

And remember that the idea of a general strike is for the entire alphabet of jobs to strike. If one letter is missing from the typesetter then you get a bunch of misspelled words but you can still mostly make out what was being printed. But if the whole alphbet isn't there, nothing is printed.

[Marazinia]

17. I don't see how that follows

That isn't logic. How many general strikes were even completely adhered to in a community, much less in a nation?

[GreenStormCloud]

19. That's why general strikes fail. They are nothing more than a radical's dream. N/T

[Marazinia]

20. Then you non-radicals better come up with some real solutions soon

Or we're all going to have nightmares together.

I freely acknowledge I'm a far leftist. We have no power in America. We've been marginalized and slandered to the point where even Albert Einstein didn't dare attempt open discourse on how to create a socialist society. As far as I know he made one public statement on it and said in his statement that our society was too hostile to the issue to discuss it. And it still is. you democrats are the closest thing we have to a group that can change things for the better.

If you don't, we're headed into a really bad time and there's not a damn thing the left can do about it.

[muriel_volestrangler]

22. You keep talking about 'cutting off food to the strikers'

which makes it sounds as if everyone as a pipe delivering food to their home, and the Powers That Be can selectively shut them off. Or is there some way of supermarkets telling who is a striker and refusing to serve them?

I'm having a really difficult time of working out what you envision as a 'general strike', and how you think the employers (which include all levels of government) will react.

[GreenStormCloud]

25. I think he doesn't know either.

He seems to think that you can have both a general strike and have all services still functioning at the same time.

[Marazinia]

30. She does know

You can't have all services shut down in any general strike, unless you really want the nuclear plants to melt down. Sewage treatment workers, doctors, nurses, some truckers and yes, some gas station attendants should continue to go to work. There are jobs that have to be done and it would cost lives if they weren't done. A doctor or nurse refusing to show up in solidarity for striking workers would cost lives. Police and fire should also continue to work. Although that work shouldn't include confiscating generators!

Speaking of generators, anyone who can afford one right now might consider purchasing one. Preparation and food stores and grocery stores willing to take IOUs or less money for goods could keep hunger from breaking a general strike.

In fact, the best thing people can do right now is start buying food. Start saving up a supply of canned goods and any other non-perishables. Rotate them out to keep them fresh. Start a garden in the spring if you have a little land.

A general strike needs preparation, look to the unions for more information and look to history.

Again, if there isn't enough will for change to empower a general strike, what purpose do these demonstrations serve? Does anyone really think simply standing in the street with a sign after work or on your day off is going to change anything? This is just the starting point. It's a way to get people to support further action. And if that action isn't non-violent, it will be a terrible thing to see. A strike is non-violent, and that's why I'm hoping it will be effective.

[muriel_volestrangler]

31. "grocery stores willing to take IOUs"

which means you're expecting corporations to take IOUs to prolong a general strike. Even if the actual store is owned by an individual who knows and trusts their customers enough to be able to take IOUs (which is a small proportion of any food and grocery shopping), their wholesalers aren't. The food will stop coming to the stores. Your idea of some gas station attendants and some truckers implies a complete shadow organisation that controls the trucks and pumps and can decide who gets their goods delivered and who gets the gas. That organisation would need to own the stations and trucks - or to seize them, and prevent the police taking them back and arresting them.

Face it, the purpose of a general strike would be to shut down all stores, and stop everyone being able to buy basics. It's the ultimate weapon; and its purpose is to make everyone suffer so much that they demand government action - passing laws to force wage increases, provide government jobs or similar large-scale action. You need to have good reasons and good demands sorted out before you start planning a general strike. You'd need huge support for it - because everyone knows they and their families will personally suffer during the strike. You will have to convince people that they hate the government they have, and that the government must fundamentally change its ways. And I'd point out that means Obama's government. How are you going to make people hate Obama?

[GreenStormCloud]

32. And even then the refineries would need to keep working.

A lot of electrical power is generated from coal and natural gas. So the natural gas pumping plants need to stay online and the coal needs to be mined.

She really thinks that you can have a general strike and still have essential services operating.

[Marazinia]

36. She does indeed

With proper planning. Perhaps I'm an optimist. But that's better than giving up entirely, isn't it? And I'm not seeing any alternative suggestions that work. As much of a fan as I am of boycotts and the ballot, and of peaceful protests, they don't work in my experience. In my lifetime, I haven't seen one iota of change brought about by any of those things.

Well, the SOA changed their name. And then kept right on doing what they've been doing.

If anything, I've only seen things get worse. If you say this way won't work, you tell me what will bring change for the better. And not just for Americans. We can't keep using up the world's resources and stealing their labor forever. What kind of people does that make us, anyway?

[Chan790]

43. You clearly are not getting the "elevator take-away" here.

One sentence, 20-seconds or less:

"It is logistically impossible to have a general strike."

Period. Full Stop. End of Story.

There is no non-delusional rebuttal to that. Inter-connectivity of industry has made general strikes full-out impossible. There is no way to have a nationwide general strike. At-all. Quit it. At first you were amusing to read, now you're just being obtuse.

[Marazinia]

34. Not all grocery stores are run by corporations

Other food distribution methods are possible as well. But the idea is never to force suffering in order to force compliance from workers. The idea is to hurt fat pocketbooks because enough workers are fed up enough to say, "We're willing to suffer so that we can change things." Do you see the difference?

[muriel_volestrangler]

37. Many things 'are possible'; but they're not what the USA has

Unless you're in a highly rural area, most food only gets to you via corporations.

The idea is to hurt fat pocketbooks because enough workers are fed up enough to say, "We're willing to suffer so that we can change things."

And you really need to think whether a general strike is the way to achieve that. "Fat pocketbooks" make their money over the year, not day by day; people do need to buy food day by day. Corporations will not be the first to suffer in a general strike. People will, and then they'll demand a unified action to stop that - and that means the government. General strikes are aimed against governments, not corporations.

Specific strikes or boycotts against the corporations that have screwed up the economy are a much better idea. The call to move accounts to credit unions is great. To stop using credit cards, likewise. If it's oil companies you want to target, then try to blockade their refineries. That has almost the effect of a general strike, because it shuts down nearly all transport, but at least makes more sense if your demand is 'stop polluting the Gulf' or something.

The thing is, people haven't yet expressed the desire for 'things to change' using the simple, painless process of voting in some decent politicians. They had a chance this time last year, and voted in worse ones, overall, at both the state and national level. I really don't think people are yet at the stage of huge support for a painful general strike when they haven't even tried a bit of sane voting yet. You won't get the support for a general strike. But the Occupy protests have shown a good level of support - and I hope that means some good candidates can run in 2012 with a realistic chance of getting elected. We need a lot more Elizabeth Warrens.

[Marazinia]

38. I hope we'll have at least a Congress with marked differences from what we have now

But I don't believe it.

I'd love to be proven wrong, though. And if I am wrong, then boycotts and informed voting could bring change and I'll be right there supporting both.

As for a worst case scenario that requires more than what has been tried in the past, if independent truckers will haul food and gas stations are open for fueling, food can move.

I still think the best thing people can do just in case is start saving canned goods, though. If enough people would just do that it could sustain a strike for quite some time as long as that strike does not affect essential workers. I'm going to stash a can or two every week myself. It's all I can afford on my budget, but it adds up.

[GreenStormCloud]

33. What are you going to do about the red states and counties?

They hate the left. Do you expect them to go along?

[Marazinia]

35. Nothing can be done until support is widespread, I never tried to suggest otherwise

If support isn't widespread enough for a strike, though, it's not widespread enough for these demonstrations to help. Not unless worsening conditions coupled with the demonstrations sways public opinion (and that may well be happening). Until there is a large majority fed up enough to force change, things will go on as they are and will continue to get worse.

[swilton]

21. This should be essential reading!

A MEGA K&R!

[cyberpj]

23. I think the next step is Occupy Washington D.C. - across from White House or Capitol. nt

[onpatrol98]

24. Perhaps instead of a general strike

Maybe the movement could do a little of what anonymous does and pick one industry or start even smaller, one company to strike against. One the elites care about and shut it down, financially speaking. Put a "no shopping" target on it. Picket it, call its CEOs to complain about its practices, don't watch tv shows or magazines that carry its products. Pick just one...for starters. Make sure every sign has its name on it as a way to get the word out. Seems like you would hurt some good folk with the bad, though. Not every employee believes in their employers policies. Right now, a list of demands wouldn't do you any good...no real leverage. But if corporations truly believed you could wield enough power to stop the money...things would change.

Buy no..."gas at Exxon" until they change a particular policy. Any policy. It doesn't have to be an important one to start with..But, don't just announce a general strike against the entity. Picket it until people don't want to be seen anywhere near it...in any state. Basically hold it as a political hostage. But, of course, employees would have to feel safe going to work. No violence or harassing employees. But, make certain the world knows that until the demands are met and the offending policy is changed, the bottom line will trickle. Pick one in the industry and fully implement, and I think an entire industry can be changed.

[Marazinia]

29. I haven't bought Exxon gas in almost a decade

But it's not enough. They're still going strong. If enough people refused to buy Exxon gas, they'd sell it to other companies to sell under their own names. Pretty soon you wouldn't be able to get gas not mixed with Exxon gas. Just like you can't get clothes anymore not made in China or in other countries lacking workers rights. It's tough to do it by boycotts. However, given that Americans are beginning more and more to wake up and see where their apathy has gotten them, maybe in the future we can target one company and take it down that way. And Exxon would be my first pick!

[onpatrol98]

39. I didn't think of that...

These people are shrewd!!!

[Marazinia]

40. On the other hand

If we had a government in power that didn't let them get away with such shenanigans, it would be another matter.

[MasonJar]

26. It needs to include the population buying nothing, especially gas from

Exxon, etc. and washers,etc. from Whirlpool and GE. These companies need to suffer.

[Scruffy1]

27. The naysayers are always poised to slam direct action.

So what you gonna do after the ballot has failed? For some it will be hoping for an election that actually changes things. The general strike of 1934 in Minneapolis shows how mass action can work.

[onpatrol98]

28. I think mass targeted action definitely works

[socialist_n_TN]

41. Yep. Led by Trotskyists, I might add

:) When it comes to the working class, Trots don't play.

[socialist_n_TN]

42. I've been posting here for 3 or 4 years now........

and just in the last few weeks it's the FIRST time a general strike has been argued seriously.

The idea of direct working class action could be paraphrased by the Gandhi quote.

First, they ignore you. Check for YEARS the idea was ignored.
Second, they ridicule you. That's now as seen by a few posts in this thread.
Third, they fight you. That will happen when the so called "liberals" have to choose a side. Either the people or the system. They'll choose the system.
Fourth, you win. From my keyboard to God's ears. :)