this post was submitted on 20 Oct 2025
723 points (98.5% liked)
Not The Onion
18439 readers
1485 users here now
Welcome
We're not The Onion! Not affiliated with them in any way! Not operated by them in any way! All the news here is real!
The Rules
Posts must be:
- Links to news stories from...
- ...credible sources, with...
- ...their original headlines, that...
- ...would make people who see the headline think, “That has got to be a story from The Onion, America’s Finest News Source.”
Please also avoid duplicates.
Comments and post content must abide by the server rules for Lemmy.world and generally abstain from trollish, bigoted, or otherwise disruptive behavior that makes this community less fun for everyone.
And that’s basically it!
founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
There's no requirement that they be unionized. Anyway, that's unrealistic in the US.
Keep in mind that previous effective broadly-based strikes have not always been entirely nonviolent. Scabs are not always treated all that nicely, and neither are the police and private-sector goons who are sent in to beat down the strikers. During the most effective period of strike power being used, there were also attacks on assets and occasionally individuals. Non-violence is good, but there are some necessary conditions for it to be effective. And one big one is that the media cannot be controlled by the current ruling elite. Without that, there's no way for mass action to sway public opinion.
It helps, because unions will have strike funds to supplement worker's income during the strike. Most American's have no savings and are living hand to mouth, which may discourage them from participating in a general strike.
For your second paragraph, I don't disagree. Even with the potential for that, I consider it a mostly non-violent action, at least in comparison to a civil war.