this post was submitted on 19 Sep 2026
134 points (86.8% liked)

Political Memes

2675 readers
492 users here now

Non political memes: !memes@sopuli.xyz

founded 4 years ago
MODERATORS
 
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] Rat_in_a_hat@lemmy.ca 2 points 2 weeks ago (1 children)

And historically, what has happened when people went on strike despite the government not condoning it? Plenty of examples to choose from

[–] Calfpupa@lemmy.ml 2 points 2 weeks ago (2 children)
[–] Rat_in_a_hat@lemmy.ca 2 points 2 weeks ago (1 children)

LOL either you're cherry picking or really don't know the history that led to the Bolshevik revolution.

You know what the Putilov Strike was preceded by? The Bloody Sunday revolution. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bloody_Sunday_(1905)

From your article:

There were several strikes involving the workers of the Putilov Mill over the years with the first one taking place in 1905, yet this particular strike in 1917 is considered the catalyst which sparked the February Revolution.

You know what happened after the February revolution right? Right?!

The October revolution! Many deaths.

This is what happens to strikes that are deemed illegal by the government:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Winnipeg_general_strike

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pullman_Strike

[–] Calfpupa@lemmy.ml 0 points 2 weeks ago (1 children)

The October Revolution has nothing to do with striking, what are you going on about? You are over here insinuating something but are too much of a coward to outright make a claim. Yes, there was a strike 7 years prior, you're very astute there, and yes it was bloody because the conditions for it were not right. I am not claiming that all strikes are well thought out or planned, there needs to be a movement behind it or it will end bloody. That's what you get when non-marxists strike. Now please refute my claim that it impacts the growth of capital or move on.

[–] Rat_in_a_hat@lemmy.ca 2 points 2 weeks ago

Now please refute my claim that it impacts the growth of capital or move on.

Bud, the topic is whether a non-violent strike changes the status quo.

Yes, strikes impact capital (I didn't say they don't) that's why they're powerful and also why they get a strong and violent reaction.

Notice how after the kumbaya strike (that the Tzar didn't even know was happening, he even travelled there thinking all was fine!) that a puppet government was installed which still oppressed the people for several years and eventually led to the actual revolution. That had violence. A lot of it.

[–] Amnesigenic@lemmy.ml 0 points 2 weeks ago (2 children)

Violence happened. Be honest.

[–] Calfpupa@lemmy.ml 2 points 2 weeks ago (1 children)

How many people died from this well timed strike, pray tell.

[–] Amnesigenic@lemmy.ml -1 points 2 weeks ago (1 children)

What happened after that? Be honest

[–] Calfpupa@lemmy.ml 3 points 2 weeks ago (1 children)

Make the claim you want to make, be honest.

[–] Amnesigenic@lemmy.ml -2 points 1 week ago* (last edited 1 week ago) (1 children)

Nobody in history has ever won their freedom from an oppressor by asking nicely or voting. You are completely wrong, and either too goddamn dumb to walk and chew safely at the same time or a lying sack of shit.

[–] Calfpupa@lemmy.ml 2 points 1 week ago (1 children)

Where did I say that? I fully realize what must be done to win freedom; a strike alone will not win it, but it is still a useful tool in instigating revolution.

[–] Amnesigenic@lemmy.ml -1 points 1 week ago

The question was

historically, what has happened when people went on strike despite the government not condoning it?

And your answer was dishonest and evasive because you know you're wrong and you don't want to admit it

[–] Rat_in_a_hat@lemmy.ca 2 points 2 weeks ago

A lot of violence!