Activists call for a nationwide general strike on February 17
- In a column for the Guardian on Monday, American writer Francine Prose called for a “nonviolent national general strike” to demonstrate “how many of us there are, how strong and committed we are, how much we can accomplish.”
- She wrote: “Let’s designate a day on which no one (that is, anyone who can do so without being fired) goes to work, a day when no one shops or spends money, a day on which we truly make our economic and political power felt.”
- Calls to do just that have been circulating online recently, with activists setting Feb. 17 — the Friday before President’s Day — as the day for a #nationalstrike against the presidency of Donald Trump. Read more
Even if you can’t not work, we can all not spend money for a day. I think this is a brilliant idea!
Thank you for the alternative for people who can’t afford to miss work! I feel like that gets ignored in a lot of strike talk.
But not spending money for a day, I can do!
Perhaps someone can set up a post for people who are striking but can’t afford the loss of a day’s wages to get their day’s pay covered by other more financially stable activists? The share economy is radical in itself; make it work for this situation too, really hammer the point of an economical ‘opt out’ home.
That would fix step one of what makes a strike work. Unfortunately step 2 is lacking. Historically a strike needs:
– a strike fund for all those who need to live without pay
– the commitment to be able to go on as long as it takesA strike is not a symbolic act. Traditionally a one day strike is a warning: “Do what we want or we will strike indefinitely until we get it.”
The next step, a long term strike, is a case of who can hold on to their opinion the longest. Does hunger force the people back to work or does the halted economy force the government to give in? That struggle is the nature of a strike.
A one day strike without the power to follow up with a full general strike will be seen for what it is: a rather weak symbolic act that the state can easily survive.
What about making one day strikes common? Like what if in the next year, there’s like 50- one day strikes? Doesn’t it eventually start to add up to a more powerful act? I
I’m just wondering, I don’t really know much about striking.
Theoretically yes. But why do it? Why give your opponent the time to recover from the damage you did and to plan counter acts?
Striking is not a conversation or a call for attention, it’s a fight. A very real fight focussed on who can hold out longest. If your opponent is determined to win he will try to starve you, criminalize you, arrest you and force you to return to work.
At the same time you try to make the strike as painful for your opponent as possible. If your opponent is a company, you try to stop them from making any products so they will be forced to accept the striker’s terms or face bankrupcy. If your opponent is the government, you try to make your strike so financially disrupting that the state must change it’s policies or go down in history as the government that let the country fall in ruins.
If your opponent is forced to give in before you do, you win.
You can give your opponent time off by striking only 1 day a week for a year but all that will do is give him time to recover. Your actions will hurt him less. It does not mean you will have time to recover. Your opponent will still come for you and will not hurt you less. Giving your opponent time to plan and execute attacks on your movement is not a good idea.
QueerAnarchism 