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.
Reaction of violence by the capitalist state is definitely a common side effect of larger strikes and is a certainty during revolution. But the effectiveness or revolutionary status of an action shouldn’t be measured by how violent a reaction it gets from the capitalist state. We should be striving for the greatest change with the least negative outcome, not aiming to risk dying or going to jail.
Of course a single small scale strike isn’t going to cause a revolution. But it’s still revolutionary in the fact that it builds class consciousness and paves the way for further action. A single strike certainly does more than voting.
We are pretty much in agreement, most of the point has been about the viewpoint we are choosing for the words. I am trying to look at it as an outsider who freezes the action today. In that situation, I would be strict in what is considered revolutionary by looking at which actions have led to noticeable response by a changing system. If you look at it from the people leading the change, multiple actions that don’t cause a huge ruckus are the backbone of the change and in fact the important part. A limited analogy is what appears in the elementary history books versus master’s degree analysis.
And while voting doesn’t produce the revolutionary changes, everybody except affluent white people is in a worse situation than they would be if “the most left wing of the large parties” had governed with consistency in any western country, so it does do something and it shouldn’t be discouraged but used as the least important tool for change, but a tool nonetheless. Also, elections are by far the best situation for the spreading of political ideas under neutral conditions and the information strategy is abysmal, so much more thought should be given about using elections instead of disparaging them.
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.
Sorry for late reply lol
Reaction of violence by the capitalist state is definitely a common side effect of larger strikes and is a certainty during revolution. But the effectiveness or revolutionary status of an action shouldn’t be measured by how violent a reaction it gets from the capitalist state. We should be striving for the greatest change with the least negative outcome, not aiming to risk dying or going to jail.
Of course a single small scale strike isn’t going to cause a revolution. But it’s still revolutionary in the fact that it builds class consciousness and paves the way for further action. A single strike certainly does more than voting.
We are pretty much in agreement, most of the point has been about the viewpoint we are choosing for the words. I am trying to look at it as an outsider who freezes the action today. In that situation, I would be strict in what is considered revolutionary by looking at which actions have led to noticeable response by a changing system. If you look at it from the people leading the change, multiple actions that don’t cause a huge ruckus are the backbone of the change and in fact the important part. A limited analogy is what appears in the elementary history books versus master’s degree analysis.
And while voting doesn’t produce the revolutionary changes, everybody except affluent white people is in a worse situation than they would be if “the most left wing of the large parties” had governed with consistency in any western country, so it does do something and it shouldn’t be discouraged but used as the least important tool for change, but a tool nonetheless. Also, elections are by far the best situation for the spreading of political ideas under neutral conditions and the information strategy is abysmal, so much more thought should be given about using elections instead of disparaging them.