Democracy isn’t just about what (a short) majority of the voters have decided, it’s also about checks and balances, and protection of the individual, especially those from minority groups… and a lot more. There is nothing democratic about Trump’s rule and the fact that 52 or 53 or whatever percent of those citizens who went to actually cast a ballot voted for this doesn’t change that fact
Edit: Also, a general strike is not going to « tank the economy »
How would a general strike be neutral or positive for the economy?
General strikes have to involve a meaningful percentage of the working population and are only supposed to end when the demands are met. The people on strike stop working, reduce spending as much as possible and stop paying tax.
It’s hard to imagine a scenario where that wouldn’t affect it massively in a negative way, so I’m genuinely curious as to what you think would happen in that scenario
Edit: I’m not sure I understand why this has been met with downvotes and no comment? I don’t see how I’m saying anything false here
Unless it’s a misunderstanding that I’m saying people should not do a general strike, which couldn’t be more wrong. Tbf I think Americans should have started one long before this point.
Hurting the economy in a sustained manner is the mechanism through which general strikes are an effective tool of the working class
I think people don’t understand that a general strike is an ongoing shutdown. They think it’s like going on a march one Sunday afternoon.
Also, a general strike while hurting the billionaires, would also hurt the people and more so democrat supporting urban areas - to the point where many people would have no food. The billionaires could wait it out (they won’t starve), and the fascist federal forces would come down hard on the eventual riots.
Democracy isn’t just about what (a short) majority of the voters have decided, it’s also about checks and balances, and protection of the individual, especially those from minority groups… and a lot more. There is nothing democratic about Trump’s rule and the fact that 52 or 53 or whatever percent of those citizens who went to actually cast a ballot voted for this doesn’t change that fact
Edit: Also, a general strike is not going to « tank the economy »
It wasn’t even a majority. 49%.
A just system doesn’t appoint a king this way.
How would a general strike be neutral or positive for the economy?
General strikes have to involve a meaningful percentage of the working population and are only supposed to end when the demands are met. The people on strike stop working, reduce spending as much as possible and stop paying tax.
It’s hard to imagine a scenario where that wouldn’t affect it massively in a negative way, so I’m genuinely curious as to what you think would happen in that scenario
Edit: I’m not sure I understand why this has been met with downvotes and no comment? I don’t see how I’m saying anything false here
Unless it’s a misunderstanding that I’m saying people should not do a general strike, which couldn’t be more wrong. Tbf I think Americans should have started one long before this point.
Hurting the economy in a sustained manner is the mechanism through which general strikes are an effective tool of the working class
I think people don’t understand that a general strike is an ongoing shutdown. They think it’s like going on a march one Sunday afternoon.
Also, a general strike while hurting the billionaires, would also hurt the people and more so democrat supporting urban areas - to the point where many people would have no food. The billionaires could wait it out (they won’t starve), and the fascist federal forces would come down hard on the eventual riots.