• someoneelse@lemmy.ml
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    2
    ·
    1 day ago

    Of course it is. And that’s what I am pointing at. Any improvements happening right now due to organizing and striking are limited to specific industries and don’t ripple outside of it. For it to be revolutionary, it must be as you say massive, encompassing several/all industries and beyond control. We are so far from that situation, that I cannot accept current moves as revolutionary. Good and necessary, don’t get me wrong, but not revolutionary.

    • pineapple@lemmy.ml
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      3
      ·
      14 hours ago

      Popular support is needed for a revolution to happen. But striking even on a smaller scale is steel still a very effective way at gaining larger action from the population.

      Earlier you said risking being thrown in jail was something revolutionaries should do. What do you mean by that and why would it be more effective than going on strike?

      • someoneelse@lemmy.ml
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        1
        ·
        3 hours ago

        Striking is a magnificent tool.

        When I mentioned risking something, what I meant is that when the system notices an existential risk - a revolution - it reacts and goes for the people acting on it, prosecuting or killing them. If the system does not react, it doesn’t recognize the actions as dangerous. Now the system might be slow to react and fail to catch the initial revolutionary steps, that’s also true.

        So, if the anti-ICE protests in Minnesota had brought a general strike, even limited to the state, I would have considered that definitely as a significant step. I do think the government would have gone against the organizers, which is what I meant.

        All in all, there are many types of protests and actions outside the system that are fantastic and do a lot of good. But a revolution goes much further than that.