a reply to: sapien82
Its a great idea, but heres the real problem with doing that...
It is incredibly difficult to arrange, on a national level, a general strike. To motivate enough people along the same direction of action, to make a
difference in this way, is so difficult in fact, that the last time a general strike was called here, was in 1926, where all or most industries had
some form of strike action, in support of miners who were being forced to work longer hours for less pay, which, in 1926 was basically like saying
"Here, increase your risk of death by hundreds and hundreds of percent, and be able to feed three less of your children".
The fact that there has been no general strike since, can be somewhat attributed to the fact that, following that general strike in 1926, general
action of this sort was made illegal for a short time. It is now legal, but there are stipulations that unions have to follow, in order to permit them
to strike. For example, the crucial factor in deciding whether any strike action is lawful, is whether or not the strike is held in contemplation or
furtherance of a trade dispute, that is, a dispute between the workers, and their employers, and must concern the objects of collective bargaining.
This means, that in effect, one cannot call a strike to protest about the government, unless one is:
a) An employee of the government directly
b) Protesting about the governments treatment of its workers, as opposed to any particular action otherwise, with which the unions membership
disagrees, no matter how heinous or dark it is perceived to be. For example, workers may not strike to protest against unjust wars, but may strike to
protest unfair pay and conditions for themselves
And with regard to those in the private sector, the issue is similar. One cannot simply strike to try and alter the course of policy in governance,
because those things cannot be directly connected to the pay and conditions received by the workers, and also because the company (allegedly) will
have no power to motivate government to change its course, even in the event that government were entirely responsible for pay and conditions.
And heres the real burner...
There is no allowance made for strike action against the entire structure of industry and government, and the forces which control it, because the
causal links between these are deliberately obfuscated to the point where a court of law could rule the entire effort illegal, and send in riot
Getting several unions to work together to affect positive change for their members is incredibly difficult, not only because herding cats is a fools
errand, but because keeping the action legal and protected by the law, is a fundamental duty of those organising the strike in the first place, and a
strike of the sort you are talking about, just on the national scale, would in all likelihood, be illegal. It would not be immoral, or wrong, but it
would break the law.
When you consider how hard it is to arrange a legal strike action on a relatively small scale, then consider how hard it will be for people to risk
their jobs and their "liberty", risk arrest and imprisonment, to strike illegally, and then consider trying to get this to happen where arrest is not
the worst possible outcome for the worker, you will see how desperately difficult it would be to organise, how bloody unlikely it is that a general,
global strike would even happen, leave alone be effective.
Unfortunately tactics involving protest, strikes, or diplomacy will not avail the human race of freedom from the sort of oppression it is
experiencing. The propaganda which hides the threat from the people is effective enough, enough of the time, that too few people accept the origins of
the threat for what they are, or that there even is one in many cases (right around the Bible belt in America, for example, where people refuse to
believe anything that does not fall from the glittering lips of Joel Osteen, or the hallowed, mutated face of Trump). So effective is it, that many
people simply do not know they are in any form of peril at all, an still more are totally misguided about where the threat actually comes from.
The enemies of mankind have designed matters, such that one cannot act against them diplomatically, one cannot act against them via union action
effectively, and any tactic one could apply in a short enough time frame to do any good at all, would be illegal, and likely violent, bordering on
terroristic as currently defined.