50501

2358 readers

9 users here now

50 States, 50 Protests, 1 Movement. https://fiftyfifty.one/ | #fiftyfiftyone
This is a backup community related to the 50501 movement. Find other communities at https://50501.chat/ and https://reddit.com/r/50501.

Rules

NO VIOLENCE: This is a non-violent political movement! We do not tolerate violence or calls to violence; if that's what you are interested in, you're in the wrong place. Any comments or posts discussing firearms, weapons, violence, or any form of incitement will result in an immediate and nonnegotiable ban.
RESPECT: Be respectful. Trolling, strawmanning, abuse, etc. will not be tolerated.
INCLUSION: This movement is for everyone. Exclusionary language will not be tolerated.
DOXXING/HARASSMENT: Doxxing or harassment will not be tolerated. Instant ban for violations of this rule.
NO SELF-PROMOTION

founded 11 months ago

MODERATORS

BaldProphet@piefed.social

Effectiveness of organizing national slowdown vs 1 day strikes/economic blackouts (piefed.social)

submitted 2 days ago by gnuthing@piefed.social to c/50501@piefed.social

7 comments fedilink hide all child comments

I've been thinking about these 1 day strikes and no shopping days we've been having. The economic blackouts seem to not have much effect, I've seen it compared to a day of bad weather like we recently had with the snow and ice. Likewise, the 1 day strikes aren't achieving an actual loss of revenue that is enough to lead to change. Most Americans can't go on strike long-term as we live paycheck to paycheck, we don't have savings and we don't have mutual aid networks in place. Perhaps doing a nationwide slowdown would be more effective as we would actually be decreasing profits for the rich. It is something that could pick up steam instead of fizzle out. We can combine this with very clear demands instead of a general I don't like this admin vibe

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments

[–] ProdigalFrog@slrpnk.net 3 points 2 days ago* (last edited 1 day ago) (1 children)

A slowdown wouldn't be a terrible option for some who absolutely cannot risk losing their job, but there is a reason a longer, multi-month general strike is so desired: we are on the precipice of complete dictatorship or civil war, where life will become far, far worse for all of us. It's do or die, and a long-term general strike is our last and most power weapon to employ nonviolently.

Consider that our great grandparents were willing and able to perform general strikes and sit-ins with even less safety nets, no worker protections, and under threat of beatings, horrific lynchings and death. If they could do it, we can too.

The country would be brought to its knees if suddenly deprived of profit and labor, allowing us to simply ignore the democrats and their lack of spine, and instead demand real changes (abolishing ICE should be towards the top of the list).

I want to emphasize how effective that tactic was in Chile in 2019, and had they not fallen for the trick of liberal reform, they would've had a successful revolution on their hands with virtually no bloodshed.

We do live paycheck to paycheck, but that's why unions are so important for us to be able to flex our collective power: unions have strike funds! These are used to pay members enough keep them going during a general strike.

If you're not in a union, now is the time to reach out to one for help organizing your own workplace. It's difficult, but extremely necessary to avoid this fascist takeover from succeeding.

If you can't unionize, you'll need to rely on mutual aid from your local community instead to get through the strike.

For instructions on how to do those two things please refer to this post here: https://slrpnk.net/post/33355300

[–] gnuthing@piefed.social 1 points 1 day ago (1 children)

A full strike is definitely more effective, but that doesn't mean that a slowdown strike does not have its place. It has been used historically by the same great grandparents that went on strike as well as more recently. It can be used on its own or as a precursor to a full strike

I don't think that we should discount the idea just because a full strike would be better. A slowdown strike could be organized next week, could expand as ppl learn about it, could be organized without waiting for people to form unions or set up mutual aid. The website you shared talks about earning trust in nonprofits for months to set up mutual aid networks. Setting up a union also takes time. People want to act now. A slowdown strike can also build worker unity

[–] ProdigalFrog@slrpnk.net 1 points 1 day ago* (last edited 1 day ago) (1 children)

I'm not opposed to a slowdown, it's absolutely a useful tactic, and could be used by those not in a union, I agree.

But we really, really need at the very least all unionized workers to commit to a general strike. That would be a little under 10% of the population, and a significant amount of them are in critical industries that virtually the entire country and most corporations rely on (Shipping ports, trains, trucking, healthcare, etc). Even if just those committed to a general strike, we could win.

Everyone else could join a purchasing boycott combined with a slowdown during that same time, but a general strike is the action that will cause the most fear in the corporate elites.

The website you shared talks about earning trust in nonprofits for months to set up mutual aid networks

That's if you don't have any existing mutual aid networks (mostly rural areas). But for anyone who has existing mutual aid groups, or a local Food Not Bombs chapter, you can join those and begin making connections immediately.

Setting up a union also takes time.

I have been publicly spreading the message to join a union for years at this point, personally. And we do not know exactly when a larger general strike will occur, it may be many months before it does, and in which time everyone who can should be starting to process to unionize by contacting a union now.

[–] ProdigalFrog@slrpnk.net 1 points 1 day ago* (last edited 1 day ago)