• ZombiFrancis@sh.itjust.works
    6·
    5 days ago

    This came up in another thread and I am surprised it is not as well known: General strikes are illegal in the United States since 1947’s Taft-Hartley Act.

    https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Taft–Hartley_Act

    Attempts to organize and exert political and economic influence have to do so under the parameters of that act. Unions can’t support these things openly or officially without violating the act. So these things have to be called something other than a general strike to avoid persecution. They’re essentislly stripped of major legitimizing and organizing organ: labor unions, by default.

    • null_dot@lemmy.dbzer0.comEnglish
      71·
      6 days ago

      If this thread is like the others, there are no demands but a strong intention to express general discontent.

        • null_dot@lemmy.dbzer0.comEnglish
          5·
          6 days ago

          Yeah that’s a really good point.

          The general consensus seems to be that doing something is better than doing nothing.

          I really disagree though. After a few failed attempts people will lose heart and get in line.

          There seems to be half a dozen different protests now too, all on different days with no cohesive objectives

          • tetris11@lemmy.ml
            32·
            6 days ago

            with no cohesive objectives

            That’s a pro. As soon as there’s a clear motif or leader, it’s very easy to undermine that single point of weakness. A general rabble sends the clear vibe of “we are not impressed, and might burn things” with the air of uncertainty to keep the powers that be on their toes.

            • mathemachristian[he]@lemmy.ml
              3·
              6 days ago

              Well I guess you can’t undermine a protest that isn’t protesting anything but that still doesn’t explain what the point of this non-protest protest is? How would a bunch of people not buying stuff for a day keep “the powers that be” (who? the capitalists? Their politicians? The police?) on their toes?

              • tetris11@lemmy.ml
                2·
                6 days ago

                “We saw a blip in <sale/metric/police safety> and we think it correlates with the general unhappiness of the populace, as displayed here, here, and maybe here.”

                Blips can cause panic, even small ones

                • mathemachristian[he]@lemmy.ml
                  1·
                  6 days ago

                  Is it supposed to hit profit margins? Because I doubt it will, people will still be buying necessities at the same amount and call me cynical, but I believe almost everyone will be buying the non-necessities the days before and after.

                  To be candid, it just sounds like the most toothless, do-nothing, slacktivism kind of protest that’s only meant to generate backpats

            • null_dot@lemmy.dbzer0.comEnglish
              1·
              5 days ago

              No it’s not. A general rabble isn’t going to achieve anything because they’re not asking for anything. Morale is low and participants are easily disuaded because they can see they’re not achieving anything. No one wants to risk physical harm or incarceration for a cause that just doesn’t really exist.

        • ZeroHora@lemmy.mlEnglish
          2·
          6 days ago

          In my experience, in my country, a protest without a clear goal is a quick way for right wings to rally people with their agenda.

        • C126@sh.itjust.works
          23·
          6 days ago

          Don’t worry. The protest won’t matter at all and a large majority won’t even hear about it. Gives layabouts an excuse to layabout some more.

          • mathemachristian[he]@lemmy.ml
            3·
            6 days ago

            Don’t worry. The protest won’t matter at all and a large majority won’t even hear about it.

            But that’s precisely what worries me, people spending effort that goes to waste instead of organizing something that effects a change