If people simply drove the speed limit and didn’t speed, if they took longer at lights to make a left hand turn then traffic would back up. Its the same effect as a general strike but without the target on your back.
Like work-to-rule.
Don’t block traffic. I’m all for a general strike, but keeping people from getting places has a lot of potential consequences that we don’t need to be responsible for. Everything from medical events to job interviews to court times could have pretty expensive or otherwise costly fallout. It’s putting the risk/target on someone else’s back instead of you making the statement yourself. It’s not just inconveniencing people. If you want to take a stand, take the risk yourself.
Nobody to sell them a coffee? Nobody to unlock the store at opening time? That’s fine.
While I mostly agree with the sentiment, blocking traffic can still be effective. Maybe only block/hinder places like shopping malls and other capitalist structures. Leave the public roads and access to hospitals/courts alone. The goal is to bring nationwide GDP to as close to a halt as possible, since wealth is the only thing these people care about.
Blocking traffic doesn’t do shit and only pisses off the people in the lowest wage groups. It’s a way to get people to not be on your side.
Did you just ignore where I said to not block public roads? Sure sounds like you did
How about we just stay as far away from traffic as possible.
Obstructing freedom of movement really pisses off the general public, and drives them to seek authoritarian solutions.
Nothing turns people from “All Cops Are Bastards” to “Back The Blue” faster than cops driving through protest barricades.
Stay away from traffic.
deleted by creator
Conditionally I think that’s a better stand, but nonetheless it’s shifting the fallout to others with little/no risk to the activist. IMO I still don’t think it’s great.
Has a politician ever called for a general strike in US history? He’s actually encouraging crippling his own economy?
deleted by creator
Wut. We need to cripple the economy. The general strike is our most powerful tool
I’m saying that it would be remarkable for a politician to call for that, and asking if it’s the first time in history.
Sorry for my lack of reading comprehension. Entirely my fault. I was wrong.
Our economy is already dead unless you’re a tech monopoly.
If the US falls any further under oligarchy control there won’t be an economy to work with, either because it’ll all be more or less centralized under various groups and various levels of control or because it’ll get too top heavy and collapse. Better to burn the old growth and start over now rather than let it fester and deal with a far far bigger fire.
We operate in a faith based monetary system in a global economy. Dear leader is destroying the faith and the global ties. The economy is already dead, they are in the final stages of replacing you with computer and robot
It’s been a hot minute since a headline made me say “whoa” out loud
Untill they swear her in and while this government is shut down I’m not doing shit.
I’ve been holding on to a bunch of those exact stickers for awhile now. Hope I can start slapping them up places soon!
Her?
Sabo, the cat ;)
I believe a Congress women is not being sworn in since she said she would vote to release the files and the speaker of the house is blocking that. Without swearing in she is effectively unable to officially partake in votes.
Aaahhhh democracy.
I think they are referring to the US Speaker of the House refusing to swear in Adelita Grijalva after she won a special election in Arizona.
We need to stop paying taxes.
I stopped the day he was elected, opted out and put what would be going to taxes into a VT and VXUS index funds, hopefully to cover me when the time comes to pay.
I realize that’s investing in fascist companies enabling this, but I will Shashank Redemption crawl through fascist shit to not fund this administration and cover my own ass.
Best plan I could think of, I’m all ears if someone has a better idea. So far, I’m up.
I stopped paying taxes on the last tax day. My wife and I cheated our asses off on our taxes and I changed my business around to make my money much harder to track. I’ve also gotten very good at creating charitable donations and keeping records. My wife, unfortunately, works for the state gov, so its a lot harder to hide her money, but we do our best to pay as little as possible through use of charitable donations, depreciation of assets, and a host of other tricks. I doubt she’ll spend more than 5k in taxes this year. A huge decrease from what she spent last year. I will be paying nothing because, to the government, I appear unemployed.
If even roughly 30% of US taxpayers did this, it would absolutely cripple the federal government. They would not be able to fund their gestapo, they would be forced to make concessions and the executive administration would lose a ton of power. This is the way to bring down Trump. Not violent revolution – legitimate looking tax trickery. The IRS doesn’t have the staff to deal with it and with them receiving less and less money it would just be a downward spiral of helplessness for them.
This is TERRORISM under NSPM-7! If they DONT want to be Considered Terrorists they MUST shoot up a Church in a MAGA hat!
New event for the no kings movement. Along with taking to the streets people who normally cant make it or are to anti social can start calling out the same day.
Can we do the next one on a weekday?
Everyday should a be a part of the no kings movement. Week ends plus week days. Hell we got some holidays coming up. No kings day on halloween is going to be great.
I would rather spend their days than our days
There has never been a true, nationwide general strike in the United States, though a series of post-World War II work stoppages remembered as the “great strike wave of 1946” mobilized five million American workers demanding leaders to address economic instability and untenable working conditions.
In its aftermath, congress cracked down with the Taft-Hartley act, a legislation prohibiting a broad range of union tactics, including calling for political strikes. The 1947 law is still in place, despite repeated attempts to repeal it.
Oh, imagine that.
Can’t have the uppity peasants upending the status-quo, can we?
I got this question answered by the AI that’s trying to replace us:
What happened to the average American who participaten in the great general strike wave of 1946?
The average American who participated in the great general strike wave of 1946 experienced both short-term gains in wages and conditions and long-term setbacks in labor power due to political and legislative backlash. This period marked a crucial turning point in U.S. labor history. The Immediate Experience (1945–1946)
Following World War II, over 4.3 to 5 million American workers across industries such as steel, auto, coal, rail, and public utilities went on strike in 1945–1946, making it the largest labor upheaval in U.S. history. Most workers demanded wage increases to offset postwar inflation and to restore pay parity after wartime restrictions. Many strikes succeeded in securing modest wage gains and better benefits, including the United Auto Workers’ victory over General Motors, which resulted in increased wages and improved workplace conditions.
Everyday Impact on Workers
The strikes were often exhausting and financially challenging for participants. The average work stoppage lasted about 24 days, three times longer than wartime strikes, forcing families to rely on savings or community support. Nonetheless, solidarity and union membership surged temporarily as workers saw their actions bring some tangible improvements in pay and bargaining power.
Political and Economic Consequences
Successes were short-lived. Media and political elites increasingly portrayed labor as disruptive, especially as nationwide strikes affected transportation and goods distribution, leading to food shortages and logistical chaos. This backlash fueled anti-union sentiment, culminating in the Taft–Hartley Act of 1947, which curtailed key labor rights such as secondary strikes and sympathy actions, required union leaders to sign anti-communist affidavits, and enabled “right-to-work” laws in several states.
Long-Term Outcomes
By the early 1950s, many of the workers who had gone on strike returned to relative economic stability, but with weakened collective bargaining power. Union growth plateaued after 1948, and labor’s political influence declined as conservative forces gained control of Congress in 1946, shifting U.S. labor relations toward employer dominance for decades.
In essence, the average worker from the 1946 general strike wave gained short-term material benefits but ultimately saw the labor movement’s power constrained—ushering in a postwar order defined by limited union influence and the rise of corporate-led industrial relations.
Did you compare this against a reliable source before sharing? If so, could you share a source?
I’m not necessarily disputing these particular factual claims — since I’m
onnot an expert on this moment in history — but please, please don’t rely uncritically on AI for factual questions.Edit: a typo
No I did not. The AI had references and I removed them. I think it behooves us to use their machines against them and in the process pollute the pool so that AI companies cannot easily dig up facts from our daily conversations.
Its not important to tell where the info came from. Its more important to learn that all this has played before. We are on the brink of economical collapse and soon will be loosing our voice to even talk about the subject.
Its not important to tell where the info came from.
In other words: there’s no point in continuing this conversation. Later 👋
Its not important to tell where the info came from. Its more important to learn than all this has played before.
See, without verification (or a reader already being aware of the factual accuracy or inaccuracy of this AI output), what you posted is about as reliable as fanfiction. It is not appropriate to make a statement like “it’s important to know this has happened before and how it went” even as you say you’re unwilling to provide evidence for your claims.
The AI history output sounds reasonable. But if any of it is skewed in favor of the ruling class - or was manually edited in such a way - then the potential effect is readers having just a little bit more sense that any action in favor of Labor is doomed to fail. Quite shitty if that’s the takeaway of something not actually accurate.
deleted by creator
Finally someone calling for it. Let’s hope we can get it done and make it happen.
All you need to do is shutdown AWS for a few days. All the apps will fail and the corporations will lose all that advertising money.
The Europeans are way ahead of the Americans in this regard.
It’s never happened before because the working class has never been unified nationwide before. Soybean farmers in Utah are not connected to teachers in Boston or steelworkers in Pittsburgh or auto manufacturers in Michigan or nurses in San Diego. There’s never been a singular cause that affected all of those groups of people at the same time.
If it ever could happen, it would be because the President was a colossal dipshit who fucked every aspect of the economy across the country, except that would almost certainly cause the legislature to put an end to such rampant and corrupt tyranny.
Right?
Right?
no, the official party platform of the GOOP is “whatever Drumpf says”.
this party also controls the legislatureAnd its donors haven’t felt it yet. Or if they have, they’re pretty sure they can buy up the wreckage after it all fails. Like they did after every other recession and depression since the 70s.
The last time people across the country organized general strike of sorts the government went into action to make a law that made it illegal for unions to organize such a thing.
And with this corrupt Congress and this idiot president and this ridiculous SCOTUS, I think it’s likely they will worm their way into making a law that makes it illegal for any citizen to strike for any reason.
Trump already illegally outlawed government unions. And nothing, absolutely nothing, was done about it.
The people strike.
Congress says: that’s illegal now!! Go back to work!
Why the fuck would we? Literally what could possibly convince people that the gov is going to arrest a million people for striking? Genuinely, how braindead are people that that is a concern?
I would suggest you not underestimate just how unbelievably stupid our current president is and how likely he is to actually use the United States army against its own people regardless of how legal or illegal it actually is. Not to mention his sycophantic Congress that will blithely stand by and let him do whatever the fuck he wants. This is what corruption looks like.
You think soy bean farmers are working class?
Yeah, the guy who owns the farm that borders my yard is just some dude with a full time job. He spends a couple days driving a big tractor thing planting in the spring, and several more days in the fall driving a different big tractor thing around to harvest it. Soybeans and corn on rotation.
Farmers do plenty of work besides driving their tractor around, but class relations are defined by their relations to property and capital and profit rather than how much work they do. He owns the land, and the tractor, and reaps all the profit. He’s small business owner, and his politics probably align with other small business owners.
Yeah, there’s certainly a fair petite bourgeois population among farmers, but I think you overestimate its size. Many farmers might own the land… if it weren’t still under morgage to the bank. The tractor is almost certainly also still on loan from the dealership since the same “trade in for new, better equipment” scam is as prevalent there as it is for personal vehicles. The corn and especially soybeans aren’t something that can be sold directly at scale (farmers’ markets can only support so much) unlike dairy which you can theoretically turn to regional groceries for – you’re selling to one of a small number of processors and aggregators, and if they decide they don’t need as much as you sold them last year you’re left scrabbling for something to do with a lot of worthless product. At the end of the year, most of the profit has gone right back to the financiers rather than to the farmer themself.
The evident situation is different for a farmer than for a factory worker, but tenant farmers are proletarian, and modern commercial farming is often closer to tenant farming than it’s advertised as being. The financial systems nowdays (especially around farming) are set up to give the trappings of small business ownership, without the degree of self-determination that came with that status back when the foundational theory was being written.
You’ve basically defined all business owners as working class if they rent their storefronts or owe money to a bank.
But a small business owner that pays rents or loans is still not selling their labor to someone else. They own the full surplus value of their labor and then can use the profits they generate from their business to pay rents and loans. That’s the key difference. The fact that petite bourgeoisie are at the whims of the big bourgeoisie does not actually change the fact that their class interests align against the working class. There’s a reason farmers, like all small business owners, are so reactionary and anti-worker and anti-tax and anti-regulation and pro-business.
EDIT All that said? Your argument is actually the basis for Yanis Varoufakis’s technofeudalism theory. As he explains it, rents are triumphing over profits and so the feudalists (banks, tech firms) are able to capture business owners into loans and rents and feudal market places where they are unable to generate profits anymore. They’re still not working class, but more like wealthy landed peasantry paying taxes to their fief. That would actually open up opportunities for alliances between workers and farmers, because class antagonisms have changed.
I disagree. They’re petite bourgeoisie and their class interests are still aligned with the ruling class, and the “feudalists” are just monopoly capital, but it’s an interesting theory. I recommend reading the book, it’s not that long.
I’d say there’s a bit of a difference in that a shopkeeper’s goods don’t depend on any particular storefront (or even any storefront at all with the internet – or a traveller’s cart/van), while a farmer’s land is a crucial part of the means of the crops’ production. I’m also not saying that simply renting is sufficient to be working class, just that it removes one measure by which someone could be pushed out of it.
I also wonder if we’re talking past each other due to misaligned definitions. On one end of the spectrum you have large-scale agricultural business owners who spend their days in the office managing the people who do the actual labour; they’re definitely bourgeois. On the other you have the farmhands themselves who do largely fall into the proletariat. The people I’m talking about are the small farmers in between, who don’t have a boss per se but also don’t employ anyone in turn (at most they enlist a grown child or a long-time friend for a day or two’s parnership to rush the harvest in when weather begins building on the horizon); who only have the one or two fields stretching out behind their own house and who aren’t in any position to consider expanding.
And given the widespread political illiteracy driven by teamerism I don’t think we can rely on what any person or group of people supports to reflect their actual class interests. How much of the reactionary, anti-worker support is because of identifying with the party, as opposed to identifying with the party because of those beliefs? (Also, anti-tax and anti-regulation positions aren’t uniquely bourgeoise ones, they can also be libertarian/anarchist and intended, even if wrongly, as part of a larger system that is just as focused on empowering the working class.)
Thanks for the book recommendation, I’ll definitely check it out. It does indeed sound like something paralleling my position here. The feudal->capitalist economic distinction has always been a weak point in my understanding, and it’ll be interesting to see how Varoufakis characterizes them both.
The value these small farmers obtain is still derived from their labor. They aren’t passively owning a profit creating assets.
But they own their labor. They don’t have to sell their labor to someone else to access land or capital or markets.
A small business owner may derive value from their own labor but that doesn’t make them working class. The important thing is whether they own their own means of production, or they have to sell their labor and be exploited to create surplus value.
Yes, farmers do labor to produce things. That makes them workers.
“Farmer” has come to mean the corporate owner of fields in which crops are grown, rather than the people waking up at the ass crack of dawn to tend to the fields and bring in the harvest.
“Farm workers” are now the ones doing all the labor.
Small business owners do labor too, but that doesn’t make them working class. Workers don’t own shit, but these farmers own capital and land and directly profit from their own labor rather than being forced to sell their labor on the market.
It’s a social class, defined by their relation to the means of production.
I’m seriously curious, why do you imply they aren’t?
Being working class doesn’t just mean you perform work. It’s a social class defined by the relation to the means of production.
Soy farmers in the US own their fields, own their equipment, set their own hours, and directly profit from selling commodities on the market. They’re small business owners, they are not workers. Workers don’t own or control shit, they sell their labor to someone else who actually owns capital and land. Workers toil under a boss and soy farmers do not, they are their own boss.
Interesting. I can certainly see the distinction. Does that make them part of the middle class?
They’re basically small business owners.
But what class are they? Or are you saying they are a class themselves?
That said, most small business owners I know work way to hard and end up with very little in the end. It is hard to compete with the large corporations. But in the past, if the area they lived in experienced significant growth, they often made a killing on the business property alone. Farmers don’t really have that since they live on the business property.
Kinda feels like they should be their own class really. Though I suppose there is a big difference between farmers who own their land, and the ones where the bank essentially owns it… and they just pay rent with no real hope of wver paying it off.
In the past we’d call them wealthy landed peasantry, but under capitalism they’re just petite bourgeoisie.
There’s never been a singular cause that affected all of those groups of people at the same time.
The attack on Pearl Harbor and 9/11 were both pretty unifying. The former had an immediate and unambiguous opponent with Imperial Japan. 9/11 took weeks and months to figure out what happened and who did it, so it didn’t have as immediate a response.
For sure, there have been events that affected all Americans in various ways, good and bad, but the context of the conversation is events that would encourage a general labor strike. The moon landing, world wars, the Great Depression, the Macarena, big things happen. I probably could have been clearer by saying that nothing in history has unified the American working class as a singular political group to use our power as a labor force to exert pressure to stop oligarchical abuses by means of a general strike, but that seems overly pedantic.
Summoning people of all backgrounds to unite and take a stand against President Donald Trump’s “tyranny,” the “ultra-wealthy” and corporate greed, Johnson said, “We are going to make them pay their fair share in taxes to fund our school, to fund jobs, to fund healthcare, to fund transportation.”
“Democracy will live on because of this generation,” he proclaimed. “Are you ready to take it to the courts and to the streets?”
It was an audacious declaration from the mayor, who has risen to the top of Trump’s list of enemies as he resists the vicious immigration operations and arrival of hundreds of National Guards currently shaking Chicago.
