Chicago Mayor Issues Defiant Call For A General Strike
10 months ago by Optional to c/politics
no, the official party platform of the GOOP is “whatever Drumpf says”.
this party also controls the legislature
And its donors haven’t felt it yet. Or if they have, they’re pretty sure they can buy up the wreckage after it all fails. Like they did after every other recession and depression since the 70s.
The last time people across the country organized general strike of sorts the government went into action to make a law that made it illegal for unions to organize such a thing.
And with this corrupt Congress and this idiot president and this ridiculous SCOTUS, I think it's likely they will worm their way into making a law that makes it illegal for any citizen to strike for any reason.
Trump already illegally outlawed government unions. And nothing, absolutely nothing, was done about it.
The people strike.
Congress says: that's illegal now!! Go back to work!
Why the fuck would we? Literally what could possibly convince people that the gov is going to arrest a million people for striking? Genuinely, how braindead are people that that is a concern?
I would suggest you not underestimate just how unbelievably stupid our current president is and how likely he is to actually use the United States army against its own people regardless of how legal or illegal it actually is. Not to mention his sycophantic Congress that will blithely stand by and let him do whatever the fuck he wants. This is what corruption looks like.
There’s never been a singular cause that affected all of those groups of people at the same time.
The attack on Pearl Harbor and 9/11 were both pretty unifying. The former had an immediate and unambiguous opponent with Imperial Japan. 9/11 took weeks and months to figure out what happened and who did it, so it didn't have as immediate a response.
For sure, there have been events that affected all Americans in various ways, good and bad, but the context of the conversation is events that would encourage a general labor strike. The moon landing, world wars, the Great Depression, the Macarena, big things happen. I probably could have been clearer by saying that nothing in history has unified the American working class as a singular political group to use our power as a labor force to exert pressure to stop oligarchical abuses by means of a general strike, but that seems overly pedantic.
You think soy bean farmers are working class?
"Farmer" has come to mean the corporate owner of fields in which crops are grown, rather than the people waking up at the ass crack of dawn to tend to the fields and bring in the harvest.
"Farm workers" are now the ones doing all the labor.
Small business owners do labor too, but that doesn't make them working class. Workers don't own shit, but these farmers own capital and land and directly profit from their own labor rather than being forced to sell their labor on the market.
It's a social class, defined by their relation to the means of production.
I'm seriously curious, why do you imply they aren't?
Being working class doesn't just mean you perform work. It's a social class defined by the relation to the means of production.
Soy farmers in the US own their fields, own their equipment, set their own hours, and directly profit from selling commodities on the market. They're small business owners, they are not workers. Workers don't own or control shit, they sell their labor to someone else who actually owns capital and land. Workers toil under a boss and soy farmers do not, they are their own boss.
Interesting. I can certainly see the distinction. Does that make them part of the middle class?
Yeah, the guy who owns the farm that borders my yard is just some dude with a full time job. He spends a couple days driving a big tractor thing planting in the spring, and several more days in the fall driving a different big tractor thing around to harvest it. Soybeans and corn on rotation.
Farmers do plenty of work besides driving their tractor around, but class relations are defined by their relations to property and capital and profit rather than how much work they do. He owns the land, and the tractor, and reaps all the profit. He's small business owner, and his politics probably align with other small business owners.
Yeah, there's certainly a fair petite bourgeois population among farmers, but I think you overestimate its size. Many farmers might own the land... if it weren't still under morgage to the bank. The tractor is almost certainly also still on loan from the dealership since the same "trade in for new, better equipment" scam is as prevalent there as it is for personal vehicles. The corn and especially soybeans aren't something that can be sold directly at scale (farmers' markets can only support so much) unlike dairy which you can theoretically turn to regional groceries for -- you're selling to one of a small number of processors and aggregators, and if they decide they don't need as much as you sold them last year you're left scrabbling for something to do with a lot of worthless product. At the end of the year, most of the profit has gone right back to the financiers rather than to the farmer themself.
The evident situation is different for a farmer than for a factory worker, but tenant farmers are proletarian, and modern commercial farming is often closer to tenant farming than it's advertised as being. The financial systems nowdays (especially around farming) are set up to give the trappings of small business ownership, without the degree of self-determination that came with that status back when the foundational theory was being written.
The value these small farmers obtain is still derived from their labor. They aren't passively owning a profit creating assets.
There has never been a true, nationwide general strike in the United States, though a series of post-World War II work stoppages remembered as the “great strike wave of 1946” mobilized five million American workers demanding leaders to address economic instability and untenable working conditions.
In its aftermath, congress cracked down with the Taft-Hartley act, a legislation prohibiting a broad range of union tactics, including calling for political strikes. The 1947 law is still in place, despite repeated attempts to repeal it.
Oh, imagine that.
I got this question answered by the AI that's trying to replace us:
What happened to the average American who participaten in the great general strike wave of 1946?
The average American who participated in the great general strike wave of 1946 experienced both short-term gains in wages and conditions and long-term setbacks in labor power due to political and legislative backlash. This period marked a crucial turning point in U.S. labor history. The Immediate Experience (1945–1946)
Following World War II, over 4.3 to 5 million American workers across industries such as steel, auto, coal, rail, and public utilities went on strike in 1945–1946, making it the largest labor upheaval in U.S. history. Most workers demanded wage increases to offset postwar inflation and to restore pay parity after wartime restrictions. Many strikes succeeded in securing modest wage gains and better benefits, including the United Auto Workers’ victory over General Motors, which resulted in increased wages and improved workplace conditions.
Everyday Impact on Workers
The strikes were often exhausting and financially challenging for participants. The average work stoppage lasted about 24 days, three times longer than wartime strikes, forcing families to rely on savings or community support. Nonetheless, solidarity and union membership surged temporarily as workers saw their actions bring some tangible improvements in pay and bargaining power.
Political and Economic Consequences
Successes were short-lived. Media and political elites increasingly portrayed labor as disruptive, especially as nationwide strikes affected transportation and goods distribution, leading to food shortages and logistical chaos. This backlash fueled anti-union sentiment, culminating in the Taft–Hartley Act of 1947, which curtailed key labor rights such as secondary strikes and sympathy actions, required union leaders to sign anti-communist affidavits, and enabled “right-to-work” laws in several states.
Long-Term Outcomes
By the early 1950s, many of the workers who had gone on strike returned to relative economic stability, but with weakened collective bargaining power. Union growth plateaued after 1948, and labor’s political influence declined as conservative forces gained control of Congress in 1946, shifting U.S. labor relations toward employer dominance for decades.
In essence, the average worker from the 1946 general strike wave gained short-term material benefits but ultimately saw the labor movement’s power constrained—ushering in a postwar order defined by limited union influence and the rise of corporate-led industrial relations.
Did you compare this against a reliable source before sharing? If so, could you share a source?
I’m not necessarily disputing these particular factual claims — since I’m on not an expert on this moment in history — but please, please don’t rely uncritically on AI for factual questions.
Edit: a typo
No I did not. The AI had references and I removed them. I think it behooves us to use their machines against them and in the process pollute the pool so that AI companies cannot easily dig up facts from our daily conversations.
Its not important to tell where the info came from. Its more important to learn that all this has played before. We are on the brink of economical collapse and soon will be loosing our voice to even talk about the subject.
Its not important to tell where the info came from.
In other words: there’s no point in continuing this conversation. Later 👋
Its not important to tell where the info came from. Its more important to learn than all this has played before.
See, without verification (or a reader already being aware of the factual accuracy or inaccuracy of this AI output), what you posted is about as reliable as fanfiction. It is not appropriate to make a statement like "it's important to know this has happened before and how it went" even as you say you're unwilling to provide evidence for your claims.
The AI history output sounds reasonable. But if any of it is skewed in favor of the ruling class - or was manually edited in such a way - then the potential effect is readers having just a little bit more sense that any action in favor of Labor is doomed to fail. Quite shitty if that's the takeaway of something not actually accurate.
Summoning people of all backgrounds to unite and take a stand against President Donald Trump’s “tyranny,” the “ultra-wealthy” and corporate greed, Johnson said, “We are going to make them pay their fair share in taxes to fund our school, to fund jobs, to fund healthcare, to fund transportation.”
“Democracy will live on because of this generation,” he proclaimed. “Are you ready to take it to the courts and to the streets?”
It was an audacious declaration from the mayor, who has risen to the top of Trump’s list of enemies as he resists the vicious immigration operations and arrival of hundreds of National Guards currently shaking Chicago.
I'm dubious that a general strike is possible in the US. All of the other countries that have had massive strikes affecting large chunks of the market were driven by large unions. Our unions don't have that sort of sway and they rarely help others to maximize their diminishing bargaining power with the ongoing degradation of workers rights. Importantly this also happens on the supply side, the consumer side will just buy it tomorrow instead usually. A day of no productivity has much bigger consequences.
That being said, I'll definitely participate.
The UAW was planning a general strike for May 1st 2028. I don't know how willing they'd be to start a wildcat general strike, but they may join one.
What is the point if scheduling a strike so far in advance? Also, aren't UAW leadership aligned with Trump?
The point as I understand it is that they're allowing other unions to set their contract expiration to the same date, which increases the potential for pain during their next negotiations and makes for a quasi general strike across all unions who participated. It's a pretty good idea all in all.
Also, it's complicated who Sean Fain aligns with. He's pro-tariff and praised Trump for incentivizing cars to be made in the US, although it seems like that's the extent of it, and I wonder how he feels about it now that it's been fully unmasked to just be market manipulation by Trump's circle of billionaires. Sean's speech still hit most of the socialist talking points of pro labor even though it was to a bunch of Republican donors, leading to the funniest and most revealing awkward silences after sections about how the working class is who provides all of the value in an economy.
Pro-tariff makes sense purely from a "protecting American labor" point of view. The ideal of them is to encourage internal markets to favor domestic production. However, that first requires domestic production to exist, and it also needs to be done in a way that doesn't harm domestic production. The Trump tariffs aren't this, obviously.
What they are doing is asking all unions to set May 1st 2028 as the expiration date for their next labor contract. They aren't actually scheduling a strike, just laying the groundwork.
It was planned before the election, and they likely didn't anticipate Trump would win again.
From what I've seen the UAW leader is fairly left leaning.
Basically letting the turnip destroy the country for nearly 4 years...
I fear that the average american can't afford to strike, because of the lingering threat of poverty from losing employment and getting crushed by outstanding debt. But this is a sign, that there are already not enough worker's rights.
From far away it looks like a construct.
It's preferable to break that anti-labour red scare law if it means avoiding the country getting to the point where civil war happens instead.
Most strikes were illegal by polit definitions. Teamsters got into pitched club battles with cops and mob organized strike breakers.
Had guys with guns on standby in case of escalation too.
And they won, circa 19teens.
Anything that would cause real economic damage and put power back in the hands of workers will be treated as "illegal" regardless of what the books say. But what could they realistically do, arrest everyone in their homes who didn't go to work that day?
Wildcat strikes are "illegal" in the sense that your employer is allowed to retaliate with firing you or docking pay if you do so. I highly doubt someone's going to prison for not showing up at a regular job.
But what could they realistically do, arrest everyone in their homes who didn't go to work that day?
Considering that the US has the highest incarcerated population in the world, it's not like they aren't trying to do this very thing.
Just corporate dictatorship things...
When the economy falls we can organize enough to strike to hit critical mass, not yet.
I believe a Congress women is not being sworn in since she said she would vote to release the files and the speaker of the house is blocking that. Without swearing in she is effectively unable to officially partake in votes.
Aaahhhh democracy.
I think they are referring to the US Speaker of the House refusing to swear in Adelita Grijalva after she won a special election in Arizona.
It’s really needed at this point
Unironically let's go Brandon!
Can we do the next one on a weekday?
I would rather spend their days than our days
Thanks Huff post, we need this idea to get talked about throughout the media and start gaining momentum. Even just the threat of a general strike will get a response, and any kind of work stoppages even if short of a general strike will cause enough disruption to get a response.
Finally some political leadership. Now get UAW and teamsters and longshoremen on board. The teachers and nurses. The rest will fillow
The UAW I could see getting onboard, but the Teamsters are so full of MAGA members and Trump loving leadership, I'd be astonished if they did.
I think you misunderstand teamsters. Why do you have this perception?
I have this perception from:
- Sean O'Brian trying to cozy up to the republican party by speaking at the RNC
- The leadership choosing not to endorse Kamala during the election (since it would piss off their conservative members)
- the locals repeatedly endorsing local republican politicians this year, despite seeing the destruction of federal unions and anti-worker rhetoric from the republican party
- First hand account from many left-leaning teamsters that so many of their fellow members are self-procliamed MAGA or right wing Trump voters (according to a source from wikipedia, 60% of the membership voted for Trump) who are only in the union because it directly benefits them financially.
I'd love to see those right-wing members come to their senses and vote to join a general strike, but I just don't see it happening. They even voted not to strike while negotiating their UPS contract, which resulted in (IMO) only modest improvements, and couldn't even secure AC units to be retrofitted to their trucks to prevent people dying of heatstroke.
Sean O’Brian trying to cozy up to the republican party by speaking at the RNC
See I knew this would be the first one coming. Sean O'brian took the time the RNC afforded him and delivered possibly the most progressive speech in the history of US political conventions. Not one of the most, but possibly the most progressive speech of all time, perhaps even eclipsing Roosevelt. They were offered a platform, they took it and did what they wanted with it, uttered not one iota of support for Trump or Republicans. He literally called corporation's economic terrorists.
Since it happened there has been a bad faith interpretation on the part of some "leftists", especially here, that because he took an opportunity afforded to them, it makes them "bad person", because they utterly lack the curiosity to find out anything more than what their initial, team-sports reaction is. The reaction you are demonstrating says nothing about Sean O'Brian; it says everything about you.
As well, the Teamsters went on to not endorse Trump, even though it was the Republican convention they were invited to.
The guy is a mayor, and finds himself on the national stage. He is now a target of trumps. Staying in the public eye is self preservation. Not saying it can't lead in the right direction.
That said, the major unions are run by poloticians as well. And laws don't favor them on this. So they will stay out of it unless you get some new little guys who get elected to leadership by claiming they will do these things. But trump supporters are common enough in such unions that it would be challenging for that to happen. It's more likely the unions unofficially join in after critical mass is achieved. Thier leaders don't want to go to jail.
We need to stop paying taxes.
I stopped the day he was elected, opted out and put what would be going to taxes into a VT and VXUS index funds, hopefully to cover me when the time comes to pay.
I realize that's investing in fascist companies enabling this, but I will Shashank Redemption crawl through fascist shit to not fund this administration and cover my own ass.
Best plan I could think of, I'm all ears if someone has a better idea. So far, I'm up.
I stopped paying taxes on the last tax day. My wife and I cheated our asses off on our taxes and I changed my business around to make my money much harder to track. I've also gotten very good at creating charitable donations and keeping records. My wife, unfortunately, works for the state gov, so its a lot harder to hide her money, but we do our best to pay as little as possible through use of charitable donations, depreciation of assets, and a host of other tricks. I doubt she'll spend more than 5k in taxes this year. A huge decrease from what she spent last year. I will be paying nothing because, to the government, I appear unemployed.
If even roughly 30% of US taxpayers did this, it would absolutely cripple the federal government. They would not be able to fund their gestapo, they would be forced to make concessions and the executive administration would lose a ton of power. This is the way to bring down Trump. Not violent revolution -- legitimate looking tax trickery. The IRS doesn't have the staff to deal with it and with them receiving less and less money it would just be a downward spiral of helplessness for them.
The Europeans are way ahead of the Americans in this regard.
Jesus. Since when does BuzzFeed own HuffPost?
That hurts my brain. what!?
All you need to do is shutdown AWS for a few days. All the apps will fail and the corporations will lose all that advertising money.
This is TERRORISM under NSPM-7! If they DONT want to be Considered Terrorists they MUST shoot up a Church in a MAGA hat!
I don't think Americans have it in them to do a general strike. Too much apathy and cowardice.
Or anyone else for that matter. People are extremely stupid.
Americans are too over leveraged and in credit card and medical debt.
If people simply drove the speed limit and didn't speed, if they took longer at lights to make a left hand turn then traffic would back up. Its the same effect as a general strike but without the target on your back.
Don’t block traffic. I’m all for a general strike, but keeping people from getting places has a lot of potential consequences that we don’t need to be responsible for. Everything from medical events to job interviews to court times could have pretty expensive or otherwise costly fallout. It’s putting the risk/target on someone else’s back instead of you making the statement yourself. It’s not just inconveniencing people. If you want to take a stand, take the risk yourself.
Nobody to sell them a coffee? Nobody to unlock the store at opening time? That’s fine.
While I mostly agree with the sentiment, blocking traffic can still be effective. Maybe only block/hinder places like shopping malls and other capitalist structures. Leave the public roads and access to hospitals/courts alone. The goal is to bring nationwide GDP to as close to a halt as possible, since wealth is the only thing these people care about.
Conditionally I think that’s a better stand, but nonetheless it’s shifting the fallout to others with little/no risk to the activist. IMO I still don’t think it’s great.
Blocking traffic doesn't do shit and only pisses off the people in the lowest wage groups. It's a way to get people to not be on your side.
Like work-to-rule.
Has a politician ever called for a general strike in US history? He's actually encouraging crippling his own economy?
Our economy is already dead unless you're a tech monopoly.
We operate in a faith based monetary system in a global economy. Dear leader is destroying the faith and the global ties. The economy is already dead, they are in the final stages of replacing you with computer and robot
If the US falls any further under oligarchy control there won't be an economy to work with, either because it'll all be more or less centralized under various groups and various levels of control or because it'll get too top heavy and collapse. Better to burn the old growth and start over now rather than let it fester and deal with a far far bigger fire.
Wut. We need to cripple the economy. The general strike is our most powerful tool
I'm saying that it would be remarkable for a politician to call for that, and asking if it's the first time in history.
Sorry for my lack of reading comprehension. Entirely my fault. I was wrong.
@lemmy.world
Welcome to the discussion of US Politics!
Rules:
- Post only links to articles, Title must fairly describe link contents. If your title differs from the site’s, it should only be to add context or be more descriptive. Do not post entire articles in the body or in the comments.
Links must be to the original source, not an aggregator like Google Amp, MSN, or Yahoo.
Example:
- Articles must be relevant to politics. Links must be to quality and original content. Articles should be worth reading. Clickbait, stub articles, and rehosted or stolen content are not allowed. Check your source for Reliability and Bias here.
- Be civil, No violations of TOS. It’s OK to say the subject of an article is behaving like a (pejorative, pejorative). It’s NOT OK to say another USER is (pejorative). Strong language is fine, just not directed at other members. Engage in good-faith and with respect! This includes accusing another user of being a bot or paid actor. Trolling is uncivil and is grounds for removal and/or a community ban.
- No memes, trolling, or low-effort comments. Reposts, misinformation, off-topic, trolling, or offensive. Similarly, if you see posts along these lines, do not engage. Report them, block them, and live a happier life than they do. We see too many slapfights that boil down to "Mom! He's bugging me!" and "I'm not touching you!" Going forward, slapfights will result in removed comments and temp bans to cool off.
- Vote based on comment quality, not agreement. This community aims to foster discussion; please reward people for putting effort into articulating their viewpoint, even if you disagree with it.
- No hate speech, slurs, celebrating death, advocating violence, or abusive language. This will result in a ban. Usernames containing racist, or inappropriate slurs will be banned without warning
We ask that the users report any comment or post that violate the rules, to use critical thinking when reading, posting or commenting. Users that post off-topic spam, advocate violence, have multiple comments or posts removed, weaponize reports or violate the code of conduct will be banned.
All posts and comments will be reviewed on a case-by-case basis. This means that some content that violates the rules may be allowed, while other content that does not violate the rules may be removed. The moderators retain the right to remove any content and ban users.
That's all the rules!
Civic Links
• Congressional Awards Program
• Library of Congress Legislative Resources
• U.S. House of Representatives
Partnered Communities:
• News
go to feed...
@lemmy.world
Welcome to the discussion of US Politics!
Rules:
- Post only links to articles, Title must fairly describe link contents. If your title differs from the site’s, it should only be to add context or be more descriptive. Do not post entire articles in the body or in the comments.
Links must be to the original source, not an aggregator like Google Amp, MSN, or Yahoo.
Example:
- Articles must be relevant to politics. Links must be to quality and original content. Articles should be worth reading. Clickbait, stub articles, and rehosted or stolen content are not allowed. Check your source for Reliability and Bias here.
- Be civil, No violations of TOS. It’s OK to say the subject of an article is behaving like a (pejorative, pejorative). It’s NOT OK to say another USER is (pejorative). Strong language is fine, just not directed at other members. Engage in good-faith and with respect! This includes accusing another user of being a bot or paid actor. Trolling is uncivil and is grounds for removal and/or a community ban.
- No memes, trolling, or low-effort comments. Reposts, misinformation, off-topic, trolling, or offensive. Similarly, if you see posts along these lines, do not engage. Report them, block them, and live a happier life than they do. We see too many slapfights that boil down to "Mom! He's bugging me!" and "I'm not touching you!" Going forward, slapfights will result in removed comments and temp bans to cool off.
- Vote based on comment quality, not agreement. This community aims to foster discussion; please reward people for putting effort into articulating their viewpoint, even if you disagree with it.
- No hate speech, slurs, celebrating death, advocating violence, or abusive language. This will result in a ban. Usernames containing racist, or inappropriate slurs will be banned without warning
We ask that the users report any comment or post that violate the rules, to use critical thinking when reading, posting or commenting. Users that post off-topic spam, advocate violence, have multiple comments or posts removed, weaponize reports or violate the code of conduct will be banned.
All posts and comments will be reviewed on a case-by-case basis. This means that some content that violates the rules may be allowed, while other content that does not violate the rules may be removed. The moderators retain the right to remove any content and ban users.
That's all the rules!
Civic Links
• Congressional Awards Program
• Library of Congress Legislative Resources
• U.S. House of Representatives
Partnered Communities:
• News
go to feed...
It's never happened before because the working class has never been unified nationwide before. Soybean farmers in Utah are not connected to teachers in Boston or steelworkers in Pittsburgh or auto manufacturers in Michigan or nurses in San Diego. There's never been a singular cause that affected all of those groups of people at the same time.
If it ever could happen, it would be because the President was a colossal dipshit who fucked every aspect of the economy across the country, except that would almost certainly cause the legislature to put an end to such rampant and corrupt tyranny.
Right?
save