Laying the Groundwork for Social Strikes

 

Listen to the audio version >>

Mass “people power” uprisings, general strikes, and other forms of withdrawal of popular acquiescence in tyranny have established or restored democracy in many countries. As we saw in the previous commentary, while the conditions for such “social strikes” are far from mature in the US at present, a time may come when they are both necessary and possible. How can that eventuality be prepared for? 

 

 

The terrain in which social strikes might occur in the US is mostly unknowable. So preparation can’t be for a specific type of event or action. We must be prepared for a wide range of possibilities. For example, a union-led general strike is unlikely but possible. A challenge to authorities led by the movement-based opposition might swell into a social strike. Or unbearable conditions might generate a sudden and unexpected uprising from below.

Similarly, there is no predicting how those in power would respond to a social strike. Repression is almost certain, but its forms, extent, and success are not. Under sufficient pressure regimes often negotiate, as happened for example in the roundtable discussions between the Polish government and the Solidarity union that ended authoritarian rule in Poland in 1989. Challenges to authoritarian regimes can end in their surrender, often in the form of resignation, flight, or arrest of top officials. They can also end in collapse, for example in the melting away of Serbian police and military forces on which the regime depended.

Although social strikes often seem to emerge suddenly and unexpectedly, they are often preceded by less visible organizing and smaller-scale actions. With the Democratic Party currently failing to effectively play the role of an opposition party, there is a need for a “non-electoral opposition” that can mobilize those harmed by MAGA, identify common interests, unify their programs and actions, and articulate alternatives. A movement-based opposition has developed since Trump’s election, exemplified by the participation of millions in protest days of action like Hands Off!, MayDayStrong, and No Kings Day, and the mass civil resistance to ICE raids and National Guard occupation in Los Angeles and around the country. That movement-based opposition is part of a developmental process that could, depending on circumstances, culminate in social strikes. Indivisible’s One Million Rising, which it describes as “a national effort to train one million people in the strategic logic and practice of non-cooperation,” could be a step in preparing the participants in mass protests for social strikes.

What I have elsewhere characterized as “social self-defense” can progressively incorporate elements of noncooperation and disruption that can evolve toward social strikes and serve as living representations of their potential power. They can combine strikes with non-workplace actions like boycotts, commercial shutdowns, mass picketing, blockades, occupations, and civil disobedience. Such actions will need to constantly seek the “sweet spot” between effective disruption of MAGA oppression and alienation of forces that might otherwise be won over.

Successful social strikes generally depend on support from sources of power that go far beyond established social movements. They require – and often acquire – support from sectors like educational, medical, and legal professionals; civil society institutions like universities, hospitals, and religious denominations; and political forces including local and state governments, legislators, judges, jurors, sectors of government agencies and security forces, and segments of political parties. Such forces often join social strikes not out of fondness for social movements, but from a growing understanding that eliminating an autocracy may be necessary for their own self-preservation and the preservation of society itself – for social self-defense.

A “general strike” is often advocated as a means to resist MAGA tyranny; calls for a general strike abound in anti-MAGA web meetings and a “general strike” website has received tens of thousands of pledges to join a general strike if one occurs. A general strike has conventionally been defined as a coordinated work stoppage by trade unions in many different sectors. In a variety of countries general strikes are relatively common, but as indicated in a previous commentary in this series, “Social Strikes in American History,” they have been a rarity in the US. Any proposal for a general strike must also take into account the fact that fewer than 10 percent of US workers are currently members of unions.

While an effective social strike will certainly require wide participation by union members, US unions are unlikely to join as a bloc — for example through the AFL-CIO — in a social strike. (The reasons for this, such as no-strike agreements in union contracts, legal restrictions on strikes about non-workplace issues, and union leadership opposition to unauthorized “wildcat strikes” are explained in a previous commentary.) Union participation can, however, be promoted in advance by resolutions and educational campaigns. For example, in the midst of the 2011 “Wisconsin Uprising,” the 90 unions belonging to the Madison region’s South Central Federation of Labor voted to set up a mechanism to promote discussion and education about general strikes.

Can unions plan for a general strike in the future that may not violate the terms of their contracts? The UAW has called to align all union contract terminations for May First, 2028 as a way to promote united action and perhaps even a general strike by circumventing the prohibition on striking during a union contract. That call has already promoted wider discussion of general strikes in labor and social movement circles.

Of course, different unions striking at the same time does not guarantee a united front around issues of common concern: The first half of 1946 saw nearly 3 million workers simultaneously on strike, including auto, steel, coal, railroad, and many other industries, but unions pursued separate demands, made little effort to pool their strength, and settled with little consideration of the impact on those remaining on strike. To avoid such a fate, simultaneous strikes by different unions will need common demands and a solidarity that keeps them united through the course of the struggle.

Self-organization at the grassroots will be a crucial ingredient for any social strike. This will be especially so under conditions of serious repression, when unions and other large-scale organizations are likely to be under immobilizing attack.

 

 

Historically, self-organization for social strikes in the absence of large-scale union participation has taken a variety of forms. One form is small “affinity groups” that send representatives to “spokes councils” — highly effective in the 1999 “Battle of Seattle” that shut down the city of Seattle and the founding convention of the World Trade Organization. Another form is “workers councils” where workgroups elect delegates to a representative body. This is particularly important where unions don’t exist or are unwilling to act. A third is general assemblies like those that played a central role in the Occupy Wall Street movement, open to anyone and often moderated by trained facilitators.

There are many potential seeds for such self-organization. Pro-democracy, anti-MAGA days of action have been organized in more than two thousand locations. These are generally sponsored and organized by local coordinating groups that may or may not be affiliated with one or another national organization. In many cases they have developed activities far more continuous than the periodic national days of action. And many are pursuing more disruptive forms of non-cooperation. They can begin to define one of their roles as building support and preparation for social strikes.

We can hope that social strikes will not be necessary to limit and ultimately end MAGA tyranny. Accomplishing that goal by less drastic forms of social self-defense inside and outside the electoral system would likely require less risk and less pain. But if other means are unavailing, experience around the world indicates that social strikes may provide a way for people facing authoritarian takeover to establish or reestablish democracy.