Strike to End War? What Will It Take?

[OP ED]

umemployed people cannot strike.

[compared2what?]

umemployed people cannot strike.

I respectfully dissent.

[compared2what?]

I mean, poor people could go on strike against rich people.

Although as Uncle $cam has already more or less pointed out, albeit in somewhat more general terms, every time they try it, somebody shoots and kills Dr. King.

I'd still say it's the best available option, though.

[compared2what?]

Seriously ... thats what it always boils down to freedom or security. There are always consequences for protecting liberty, fear of the consequences is something that stops people doing it.

I seriously second this. There will never be an easy way. But there always is a way. There are many, many more of us than there are of them. That leaves the question of strategy, which isn't a minor one, by any means. But if you could ever get that settled, if you had solidarity, perseverance, conviction and patience, and everyone knew and was prepared to meet whatever hardships and losses might come their way, eventually you'd prevail.

Or so I like to believe, anyway. I obviously don't actually know. And can't even honestly say I'm in a position to form any very definite opinion about it. I mean, in the here and now, that's still so very, very, very much more "if" than anything in objective reality makes it reasonable to expect in the foreseeable future, it would be foolish and irresponsible really to advocate for it as a practical proposition. It's just one little belief. That's all.

[AlicetheKurious]

I recently read a very important book called Slavery by Another Name: The Re-Enslavement of Black Americans from the Civil War to World War II, which exposes one of the ugliest secrets in American history: that slavery in fact did not end with Emancipation, but actually became even more entrenched and more brutal in the South. Within a very short time after the Civil War, African-Americans were stripped of all their civil rights, and new laws were passed to allow a legal veneer to what was essentially the hunting down and capture of Black people so they could be sold to corporations as slaves.

One of those laws that were exclusively used against African-Americans was "vagrancy", which meant that any unemployed Black person was a criminal. Another was the law that made it a criminal act for a Black employee to leave a job without the written permission of his White boss. In combination with the lynchings and the indifference of the government in Washington, not to mention the increasingly open white supremacist Hollywood propaganda that was in fashion all over America at the time, Black people were absolutely terrorized and trapped, with no way out.

It was very difficult reading, more than 400 pages of descriptions of thousands of people forced to work in inhuman conditions, whipped and otherwise tortured daily, many of them kept naked or wearing the same rags for months or years and fed on rotten and vermin-infested rations until they dropped dead. Unlike the antebellum slaves, who cost their masters thousands of dollars, these new post-Civil War slaves could be had for a pittance, usually less than $20. They could be worked to death without the need to feed or clothe them adequately, because as long as there were Black people, those who died could so easily be replaced. The system was incredibly successful, and in fact this was the basis for the rapid industrialization and economic reconstruction of the South in the decades after the Civil War.

Half-way through the book I felt tired and wanted to stop reading: it was too horrible to take in all at once. The only thing that kept me reading to the end was the hope represented by the last four words of the book's title: to World War II. I wanted to know how this horror story ended, what was able to defeat this seemingly impervious system that was working out so well for so many very powerful people. Spoiler alert. When I finally got to the last few pages, the answer was like the punchline to a very sick joke: as America was preparing to enter WWII, the Germans and the Japanese were exposing these revolting atrocities in their war propaganda, using them to portray the United States as a racist, evil nation of enslavers and torturers, and to portray themselves as the civilised, decent alternative. Hah!

It was this, and only this, along with the genuine fear that Black Americans would indeed be transformed into a fifth column working for America's enemies, or at least would not be willing to fight America's wars, that finally galvanized Washington to take effective action to end this 'new' slavery. Even so, it was not until the early 1950s that the final legislative changes were made which unambiguously criminalized the owning of slaves. Interestingly, this was greatly facilitated by the switch from extremely racist pre-war propaganda and Hollywood films, to the anti-racist propaganda that accompanied America's war effort against the Nazis and the Japanese.

Anyway, for me, at least, it was a reminder that politics is about power and only power. "Right" and "wrong" mean nothing without the power to back them up. The parties that are mobilized, aware of all the resources at their disposal, and keep them ready to be used when necessary are the ones who are able to impose their narrative and their agenda on the rest.

Those who abdicate their weapons or leave them to rust, unused and ignored, will be crushed unmercifully. History teaches us that "hope" not based on a realistic assessment of the power configuration and the sometimes frightening decision to use every means at one's disposal, is a cruel mirage. Another lesson that history teaches us, is that there is no bottom: human depravity has no limit. Against it, "hope" by itself is truly dangerous, not just stupid. At the same time, history also teaches us that human beings always have more means at their disposal than they know, and that their belief in their own powerlessness is just another weapon in their enemies' arsenal.

[smiths]

in the lead up to the first world war the international socialist and labour groups were the most connected, engaged and empowered they have ever been,
they had moneyed powers on the run in ways we can only dream about,
many leaders in the movement did everything they could to commit the mass of working people to general strikes in the event of european war which they all knew was coming,
they felt sure that working people would understand that war was just another form of class war,
but as the drums of war banged louder many of the socialist leaders were horrified to discover that depsite proclaiming the international brotherhood of workers to be the first loyalty it wasnt,
workers all over europe turned on their own class to defend their nation and attack the other

a general strike in america is about as likely as a bill-hillary-obama threesome on the whitehouse lawn

withholding tax is far more effective, withdrawing and hiding money, and the organisation of localised networks of food, communication, barter curencies
the one thing that the modern state is terrified of is the citizens turning their back on the consumer culture and attempting to use no money and localised communities for necessities

[Nordic]

Those who abdicate their weapons or leave them to rust, unused and ignored, will be crushed unmercifully. History teaches us that "hope" not based on a realistic assessment of the power configuration and the sometimes frightening decision to use every means at one's disposal, is a cruel mirage. Another lesson that history teaches us, is that there is no bottom: human depravity has no limit. Against it, "hope" by itself is truly dangerous, not just stupid. At the same time, history also teaches us that human beings always have more means at their disposal than they know, and that their belief in their own powerlessness is just another weapon in their enemies' arsenal.

Absolutely. Which is why every now and then we need to show them who's boss.

Now is one of those times.

Yet everybody sits on their asses as their world crumbles around them.

I'm convinced that the Powers That Be are laughing their asses off as they push things more and more, like chasing ants around with the sun's beam through a magnifying glass, just fucking with us, seeing how much we'll put up with.

Even they must be amazed at how much we'll put up with.

[compared2what?]

in the lead up to the first world war the international socialist and labour groups were the most connected, engaged and empowered they have ever been,
they had moneyed powers on the run in ways we can only dream about,
many leaders in the movement did everything they could to commit the mass of working people to general strikes in the event of european war which they all knew was coming,
they felt sure that working people would understand that war was just another form of class war,
but as the drums of war banged louder many of the socialist leaders were horrified to discover that depsite proclaiming the international brotherhood of workers to be the first loyalty it wasnt,
workers all over europe turned on their own class to defend their nation and attack the other

a general strike in america is about as likely as a bill-hillary-obama threesome on the whitehouse lawn

withholding tax is far more effective, withdrawing and hiding money, and the organisation of localised networks of food, communication, barter curencies
the one thing that the modern state is terrified of is the citizens turning their back on the consumer culture and attempting to use no money and localised communities for necessities

You're right.

[SanDiegoBuffGuy]

OP ED said:

umemployed people cannot strike.

Why not? If you have nothing left to lose, what else is there?

I've mentioned this on another thread a while back, but look at ACT UP, the aggressive AIDS advocacy group. ACT UP was founded by people who were handed a death sentence and no one was paying attention to their concerns - not the Reagan Administration, not health care providers (for the most part) - and no one had compassion for them. So, these people organized themselves well, disrupted political speeches and even a few news broadcasts to push awareness of their cause through.

And were they successful? Look at the whole AIDS movement today compared to what it was like 20-25 years ago. It's night and day, due mostly to these guerrilla activists who had nothing to lose.

So, if you are unemployed, have lost your house, your health insurance, your car and your retirement savings, what are you going to do? You've been handed an American economic death sentence. Sure, we can't see Americans getting off the couch and breaking free from "American Idol" to do things, but the Powers That Be are underestimating us.

And they are in for a big surprise.

[23]

"During my student days I read Henry David Thoreau's essay On Civil Disobedience for the first time. Here, in this courageous New Englander's refusal to pay his taxes and his choice of jail rather than support a war that would spread slavery's territory into Mexico, I made my first contact with the theory of nonviolent resistance. Fascinated by the idea of refusing to cooperate with an evil system, I was so deeply moved that I reread the work several times.

I became convinced that noncooperation with evil is as much a moral obligation as is cooperation with good. No other person has been more eloquent and passionate in getting this idea across than Henry David Thoreau. As a result of his writings and personal witness, we are the heirs of a legacy of creative protest. The teachings of Thoreau came alive in our civil rights movement; indeed, they are more alive than ever before. Whether expressed in a sit-in at lunch counters, a freedom ride into Mississippi, a peaceful protest in Albany, Georgia, a bus boycott in Montgomery, Alabama, these are outgrowths of Thoreau's insistence that evil must be resisted and that no moral man can patiently adjust to injustice."

(Chapter 2 of The Autobiography of Martin Luther King, Jr.)

[norton ash]

The public has never been better equipped to organize, agitate, investigate, and disseminate information.

Flash mobs happen for no apparent reason; flash mobs could also shut down midtown traffic in every major city at the stroke of noon, simultaneous with a march on the Washington mall. Free concerts and speaker's stages could spring up coast-to-coast.

All it would take would be the WILL. But what could equip the public also anaesthetizes the public; they'd have to be slapped awake from WoW, porn, chatting and tweeting, and watching youtubes of "Ow, my balls!"

General strikes and tax strikes are needed in America. It might bring about the revelation of the suspended sword and boot, but even this would shock as many Americans into awareness and action as it would frighten. And the whole world would indeed be watching.

[23]

Considering most people have taxes automatically removed from their paychecks, most of us don't even have THAT choice.

So would anyone be supportive of a bill like this one then? Even if its current short list of cosponsors are all Republicans (including libertarian Dr. Paul, of course)?

http://www.govtrack.us/congress/bill.xp ... ab=summary
H.R. 1919: Federal Withholding Tax Repeal Act of 2009
Federal Withholding Tax Repeal Act of 2009 - Repeals provisions of the Internal Revenue Code requiring withholding of income, social security, and railroad retirement taxes from wages.

[Sweejak]

withholding tax is far more effective, withdrawing and hiding money, and the organisation of localised networks of food, communication, barter curencies
the one thing that the modern state is terrified of is the citizens turning their back on the consumer culture and attempting to use no money and localised communities for necessities

I think all of that is part of a strike.

[Sweejak]

I wonder how many of us are already on strike.
How many refuse work for companies and corporations that you have ethical problems with? How about just overcharging them and giving the surplus to your favorite charity.
How many have killed their TVs, stopped buying junk food, started a garden, taken money out of your bank, taken care of a neighbor, given to a anti-government cause, joined in a benefit for a sick person and etc etc.

[smiths]

on local versus federal


How To Ruin Organic Farming by Gene Logsdon

This is supposed to be good news. Our dear government has finally recognized that organic farmers are at least as deserving of bribery as all those sinful chemical farmers. After all, industrial agriculture gets $17.2 billion dollars in direct payments every year so surely a little bit of money ought also to go to holy, humble, horse and hoe husbandmen who also help keep the world from starvation. In fact, organic farmers now have their very own farm subsidy program under the Environmental Quality Incentive Program to the tune of $50 million bucks. Ain’t that wonderful?

I will go as far out on the end of my bucket loader as I can and bet even money that this is the beginning of the end of organic farming. Government learned a long time ago that farmers, like everyone else, can be persuaded to do what the government wants done by handing out money. The result? Since government subsidy programs got serious about 70 years ago, the number of commercial farmers has plummeted from over 12 million to something less that one million. That’s how helpful the payments have been. Then along came small organic farmers who although unsubsidized for the most part, began doubling and tripling in number with each passing year. Whoa. Can’t have that, for heaven’s sake. That might mean that government subsidies don’t really help farmers. Maybe, perish the thought, government doesn’t know how to help farmers. Or, perish two thoughts, maybe government doesn’t really want to help farmers but just wants cheap food so the people can afford to buy more SUVs. Any trend toward farmers becoming successful without government subsidies has to be stopped. Uncle knows how to do that. Offer them money.

If you think I am only joking, examine the rules of this new game. The fifty million dollar “Organic Initiative” subsidy is to help organic farmers, and I quote, “implement conservation practices on the farm.” Hmmm. Isn’t every real organic farmer already doing that? Isn’t that part of any proper definition of organic farming?

Rule number two: “Conservation practices that farmers have already adopted are not eligible for payment.” Amazing grace. If you have already been doing what every responsible farmer should be doing, you don’t get any money, sucker. This isn’t the first time for this. A few years ago I learned about another government giveaway under the Conservation Reserve Program that paid farmers who stopped cultivating land next to creeks and rivers. Great. I had taken my creekside acres out of cultivation years ago. I triumphantly stomped into the Natural Resource Conservation office, and gleefully applied for my payment. The girls in the office, who must daily endure frustrated farmers grudgingly applying for their farm welfare payments, studied me over the rims of their glasses, wondering if it was safe to give me the bad news. They read me the rule: “Conservation practices already adopted do not qualify.” If I wanted a CRP payment, and I’m not joking now, I would have to plow up my creekside land, put it to corn for two years, and then put the land back to pasture! (This particular rule has been changed since then although not completely.)

Rule number 3: “Only organic and transitional farmers are eligible for Organic Initiative payments.” Aha. Pretending great solicitude for organic farmers, the government has finessed its way into being the arbiter of who is “organic’ and who is not. All of us involved in organic farming know how in the past the government has been partner to several attempts to water down organic rules to help large-scale farmers qualify. Now organic farmers will be more willing to go along with government definitions because they are all on the take. As for “transitional,” I am reminded of the alcoholic who insists he is going to quit drinking and to prove it, he now skips his usual brace of triple martinis on Sundays.

And finally, rule number 4: The NRCS ranks applications for Organic Initiative bribes on the basis of “predicted environmental impact.” Obviously the bigger the concentrated animal facility or the cultivated grain farm, the more will be the predictable impact if the situation is improved. Guess who will get the lion’s share of the money. Get big or get out. Goodbye, organic farmers.

http://thecontraryfarmer.wordpress.com/ ... c-farming/