By actually striking, or by waving a sign outside?
Don't get me wrong, anything is better than nothing, and many small streams may form into one big river, eventually. But short of a general strike across impactful industries, I think the current wave of protests won't actually achieve anything.
There is a reason "general strikes" are so feared by the political and wealthy class, and it's because there is no way for them to get rid of them without actually agreeing to some of the demands, otherwise the strikes actually impact their lives. Protesting by going out on the streets waving signs isn't gonna accomplish that, sadly.
> short of a general strike across impactful industries, I think the current wave of protests won't actually achieve anything
If like another 5% of eligible voters committed to voting every election, minor or not, and committed to calling their electeds on one issue every quarter, we’d likely see a sea change.
The threshold for laziness is very low, currently only 1 in 5 [1]. That’s both annoying and an opportunity.
The problem is not turnout. What the Democrats seem unable or unwilling to accept is that the American public doesn't agree with their platform and are also unable or unwilling to change their platform to something that voters will elect them for.
You’re only looking at the general. 5% more eligible voters turning out to primaries could easily flip the outcome, or at the very least, signal a political bloc that will show up for someone. 5% of eligible voters contacting their electeds would represent a 25% increase from baseline; this is the sort of power that makes e.g. regulating supplements impossible. (If you try your office’s phone lines get blown up by constituents.)
> unable or unwilling to change their platform
Changing your platform for a group that doesn’t turn out is incredibly risky. Sometimes it works. Most of the time, they keep up not turning out.
It's not that I'm a fan of the method, it is that it id historically the only non-violent way for a population at large to enact change, once the government stops listening to the people.
Protesting is very effective when you have a government that listens, which clearly isn't the case here, then besides a bunch of violent options, you're basically left with general strikes.
One of the major union leaders in the US—I forget exactly who; it might've been the head of the Teamsters, but this was a while back, so I don't have the details—has, in fact, called for a general strike, as soon as it can be effectively organized.
That's 2028.
General strikes are not something you can just Make Happen. They're certainly not something you can reasonably scoff at an individual (one who's not the head of a major union) for not having Made Happen. They require significant amounts of coordination between unions if you want them to have a prayer of success, and that takes a lot of time.
Don't denigrate protests of the sign-waving type. They are a very important rallying activity for the resistance. Among other things, they help ensure that people who want to fight back know they're not alone, and ensure people who want the fascists to win know their feelings are not universal.
General strikes are something you can make happen, as an individual, if you push others around you to follow you along. Sure, the US is lacking a lot in the department of having unions and a labor movement, but that doesn't mean it's somehow out of reach. The existing ones in other countries mostly started as grass-root movements, born out of a bunch of individuals going together and deciding they've had enough.
Relying on "union leaders" or political leaders of parties isn't gonna get you anywhere. What you need is active action, something that hurts the people who are trying to hurt you and non-violent protests every 6 months doesn't hurt them one bit.
I agree that protests are important, but they also have their time and place. When the government actively listens, then it's a great way to enact reform. Once the government stops listening though, you need to up your tactics, otherwise you're playing it straight into their pocket.
How, exactly, do you propose that someone with no connections, no authority, and no clout of any kind within major labor organisations of the country "can make happen" a general strike? And if you could, do you think you could make it happen in less than two years? Starting from nothing?
What, exactly, do you think "active action" is, if it doesn't have that kind of backing?
Where I'm from, we call that "crime", and it makes no ripples, it makes no difference, it only ends with you in jail.
We are facing systemic problems, perpetuated by systems that have been co-opted, at the highest levels, by fascists who are itching to kill everyone who doesn't bow to them. Attempting to fight them—like, actual violent fight—with individual solutions is suicide.
Don't get me wrong, anything is better than nothing, and many small streams may form into one big river, eventually. But short of a general strike across impactful industries, I think the current wave of protests won't actually achieve anything.
There is a reason "general strikes" are so feared by the political and wealthy class, and it's because there is no way for them to get rid of them without actually agreeing to some of the demands, otherwise the strikes actually impact their lives. Protesting by going out on the streets waving signs isn't gonna accomplish that, sadly.