this post was submitted on 20 Oct 2025
723 points (98.5% liked)
Not The Onion
18428 readers
2015 users here now
Welcome
We're not The Onion! Not affiliated with them in any way! Not operated by them in any way! All the news here is real!
The Rules
Posts must be:
- Links to news stories from...
- ...credible sources, with...
- ...their original headlines, that...
- ...would make people who see the headline think, “That has got to be a story from The Onion, America’s Finest News Source.”
Please also avoid duplicates.
Comments and post content must abide by the server rules for Lemmy.world and generally abstain from trollish, bigoted, or otherwise disruptive behavior that makes this community less fun for everyone.
And that’s basically it!
founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
Helen Cox Richardson advises general strikes cause division among the organized groups striking (possibly in what terms as appropriate to relent), that targeted boycotts seem to prove more effective in the United States.
I can't be sure, having never seen general strikes manifest or boycotts that lasted. Boycotts also rule out those of us who live in poverty who can't afford to have opinions. Or as Marge Simpson put it We can't afford to shop at any store that has a philosophy. We just need a TV.
So boycotts are revolution by the petite bourgeoisie, rather than by the third estate, which is why France still contends with capitalism and authoritarian drift.
I, personally, don't know the right answer, or the most effective strategy against the current regime. I'd argue both are good methods, but maybe we should look for third and fourth fronts of attack.
Targeted boycotts have never removed a party from power. There has never been a general strike in the US either. But general strikes in other countries have been effective. I can't think of anywhere that boycotts have accomplished much unless they've been accompanied by mass action.
Look outside the US. US labor law has been rigged to prevent unions having any power, and the US has always sucked at worker solidarity (except for some sporadic outbreaks of rebellion in the early 20th century before the IWW was suppressed).
The swadeshi movement organized by Gandhi largely involved poor people resisting exploitation by state monopolies. It was pretty effective, though the boycott was only one part of a much broader strategy. The same could be said about the Montgomery bus boycott, though the goals of the SCLC were narrower than regime change (when King tried broadening it to something that looked a bit more social-democatic and applicable to all working Americans, he caught a bullet). Same thing happened to Fred Hampton when he proved effective at building alliances that defied the prevailing racially based divide-and-rule scheme. The elite really doesn't want us showing solidarity.
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.