Strikes are more revolutionary than adventurism, and historically have succeeded far more than simple assassination at getting concessions. They are also practice and discipline for actual revolution.
Sure, they are. But not the ones happening currently. And practice is not the act itself, which is my point. Never said that nothing being done is useful, just that it is not revolutionary. And we shouldn’t think that it is, lest we grow complacent by the level of action.
Striking is the bread and butter of revolutionary activity. The February revolution in Russia was a mass strike that escalated to a point the state could no longer control it. What do you think revolutionary activity looks like?
You are right, people are striking less now than they used to which is a major reason why things are getting worse: cost of living increasing, wages stagnating, the rich getting richer etc.
We need to unite as workers and strike, not vote, for the conditions we deserve.
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.
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?
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.
A strike currently is not revolutionary. And still not happening widely anyways.
Strikes are more revolutionary than adventurism, and historically have succeeded far more than simple assassination at getting concessions. They are also practice and discipline for actual revolution.
Sure, they are. But not the ones happening currently. And practice is not the act itself, which is my point. Never said that nothing being done is useful, just that it is not revolutionary. And we shouldn’t think that it is, lest we grow complacent by the level of action.
We need to advance organization, not just commit adventurism.
Never said anything different.
You were praising adventurism as revolutionary.
Not praising, describing.
It’s wrong either way.
Striking is the bread and butter of revolutionary activity. The February revolution in Russia was a mass strike that escalated to a point the state could no longer control it. What do you think revolutionary activity looks like?
You are right, people are striking less now than they used to which is a major reason why things are getting worse: cost of living increasing, wages stagnating, the rich getting richer etc.
We need to unite as workers and strike, not vote, for the conditions we deserve.
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.
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?
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.