Should some workers NEVER strike?

[Bitter Ashes]

This is going to be controversial and I know it! lol

In the recent resurgance of union militancy in the UK, there's been a quite unpleasant backlash against unions and workers for taking industrial action on the grounds of services to the public bieng witheld as a result.

Families not able to travel for Christmas when the BA strike was on the cards, people not getting thier bins emptied for weeks during the Leeds bin strikes, post including giros and paycheques delayed when Royal Mail took industrial action, to give a few examples. My personal belief is that these people are wrong to critisise the workers for taking action, especially if they themselves have made a committment to fund the bourgeois who are oppressing the aggreieved workers.

There is a "but" though...

While the stuff above is fairly trivial, some public services are absolutly vital, such as doctors and nurses in the NHS, workers who operate nuclear power stations and even argueably, the Police (we don't have a gift economy yet, so crimes against workers would increase). For people in such industries to take action would without a doubt cause substantial harm to more workers than those who would benefit from the final outcome. At the very least, it would servely damage solidarity for the actions.

Should they still strike, or should they pursue a different way to fight thier battles against the bourgeois who oppress them? Tricky, isnt it?

[RED DAVE]

The standard method used by militants is to permit vital services under their supervision. When this happens, it is the beginning of dual power and the raising of stakes to a new level.

RED DAVE

[h0m0revolutionary]

The police can't and although it's a democratic right to strike, i wouldn't fight for the police to have the ability to go out on strike, not until they get proper jobs. Same goes for Prison Officers. Although i do of course respect their right to unionise.

I can't think of any sector that shouldn't be able to go out on strike, if nurses were to go on strike given the consequences it would clearly be very real and significant discontent their were expressing and I imagine just the threat should galvanize public sympathy with their plight.

How the press would react is another story.

Like when the posties went on strike, the BBC on News24 had some crying little 5 yr old - crying because she never got her birthday card(s) in time. But they didn't have some crying 5 yr old, who's father was a postie, crying with hunger because daddy couldn't afford food, or heating, or to live!

So yeah, support all progressive strikers and their right to strike. But it's worth remembering too, that strikes can be reactionary. Any strike that pits one section of the class against another (for example the Dockers striking in support of Enoch Powell - dockers against immigrant laborers) obviously doesn't deserve our support.

The alternative to your dilemma is to entrust the state with the power to curb what is of course a potentially revolutionary act.

[Pirate turtle the 11th]

Strikes are supposed to make things unpleasent , its not nice but they would be uselss if they were convienent.

[Pogue]

I've spoken to nurses about this. The point is, they only strike when they are being bullied so much they can't really do anything but. I think we know the people most likely to know the impact of a nurses strike are nurses themselves. And we also know alot of strikes are about pay and conditions - nurses working for shit pay in shit conditions aren't going to be able to give as good a service to the patients, thus theres a need here.

Being a vital sector also makes strong unions. Look at the RMT for example. Thats the point of a union. Obviously no one takes a strike light-heartedly but then again no one strikes to spite other people.

When I was talking to some socialist inclined nurses about this we mentioned the idea of a 'political strike', as was done in a carribean country recently I believe, where the nurses essentially began operating a hospital idependently of management, thus meaning there were no profits going to the hospital, but patients could still be treated. This is obviously complicated but also affective and a viable option.

[Sleeper]

That's an excellent post, Pogue, but I still don't think that I would recommend a hospital be operated entirely by nurses in the event that someone should need a surgeon immediately.

In my view, this is exactly the reason that industries that are absolutely necessary need to have Government oversight, and actually, be a function of the Government. First of all, the Government is going to have a vested interest in ensuring that the workers in the industries are happy because the Government (as a collective) would prefer not to be overthrown and individuals do not want to be voted out. The second reason that the Government would be willing to keep workers happy is because the goal of these industries when controlled by Government would be to break-even or effectively be non-profit.

For-profit hospitals might desire to keep their employees happy, but they have more interest in a solid bottom line. The less you pay your employees, the more money that can potentially go to your bottom line.

[Vladimir Innit Lenin]

Why do people assume that there is a difference between 'strikers' and 'people'?

Millions of people, in the UK for instance, are members of Unions. These are people, with families, children etc.

[blake 3:17]

There are really interesting and creative union tactics that don;t necessarily involve strike action. Transit workers in Vancouver, Canada kept the busses running -- they didn't collect fares. They hurt the employer and made public transit free. Pretty good one.

Sometime in the late 90s, a community group in conjunction with the postal workers set up pickets at a sorting plant and locked the bosses out for the day. People were getting harrassed on the job, and without managerial intereference people got their 8 or 10 hour shifts done in 6. Management started acting a whole lot nicer.

I work in social services, been on strike a couple of times and almost struck a few more. We spent a long time explaining the broader issues of privatization and what we were fighting for -- free public services, keeping programs open, and making sure that people providing the services were being treated right. It's not easy but it's necessary.

The union bureaucracies are generally happier with simple work stoppages. We've had a couple of short illegal transit strikes here which I fully supported. The biggest mistake the union made was just keeping members at home (pickets weren't necessary) -- they should have taken it to the streets and pushed a broader social agenda.

There can be some compromises around certain types of essential work. During a large municipal strike a few years ago the paramedics waffled (and waffled and waffled) about going out or staying in. I thought they should've made a clear decision and then stuck with it.

I've done jobs that a simple strike action wouldn't do a whole lot. In one workplace (non union (only two employees)) we were able to bargain pretty effectively just by backing each other up and speaking our minds.

There've been some pretty effective campaigns here where folks stayed on the job but did information pickets and were able to embarrass the employer into treating them better. Nothing illegal but disruptive to the cash flow or raises public awareness of employers abuses.

I'm against bans on strikes, but whether they are the right tactic or strategy depends on the situation. Sometimes more conservative members can be convinced to take part in quite militant actions if they're convinced of the tactics being effective and will shorten the strike. I was a member of a fairly poor but radical
amalgamated local that always made sure that any bargaining unit was in a legal strike position as of 12:01 am the day the contract expired. If a reasonable agreement wasn't reached the members were out and the employers knew it. We got good deals -- no shiffle shuffle back and forth BS of going months without a contract.

[Die Neue Zeit]

There are really interesting and creative union tactics that don;t necessarily involve strike action. Transit workers in Vancouver, Canada kept the busses running -- they didn't collect fares. They hurt the employer and made public transit free. Pretty good one.

I like to see more of that kind of "strike action," actually.

[Red Saxon]

All workers should have the right to strike, regardless of their position.

[Absolut]

I like to see more of that kind of "strike action," actually.

Same.

While I agree with the general idea that every worker should have the right to strike, striking can be hurtful to the working class as well. Take Athens during the riots this year, with the striking garbage collectors, as an example. While they obviously should strike and has all the right to do it, it does hurt the working class when garbage piles up in front of their houses and on the streets. What you could do then would be to simply collect the working classes garbage and perhaps dump it outside the parliament-building. Or, if nurses are on strike, only treat people from the working class (this might be a bit cruel, but Im sure someone can think of something less cruel but still effective). Thats just my view on it.

[Omi]

I like to see more of that kind of "strike action," actually.

A few years back in the Netherlands bus drivers went on strike too. They did it the same way: keep the busses running, but for free.

Problem was, that most of the income of the Bus-corporations came from funding from the government. Consequently, the bus drivers didn't do enough harm to the company by striking, and had to go on a more militant route and didn't drive the busses at all.
But by doing this, they lost a lot of solidarity with the rest of the working class, who couldn't get to their jobs and schools because of it, who of course were not sympathetic if you showed up late at work because the bus drivers were on strike. After a few days the strike ended with minimal CAO gains for the bus drivers. (CAO's are collective work agreements, the agreements where wages and work environments are standardized.)
This example shows that solidarity from within the working class is very important, and sometimes takeovers rather than strikes are a better way of keeping the solidarity with the rest of the class. But, we need to be carefull because sometimes the capitalists, by gaining funding from other sources, can easily overcome a takeover.

[Patchd]

I like to see more of that kind of "strike action," actually.
Unfortunately this can constitute as theft of property (pretrol/gasoline, and the buses itself) if the drivers continued this. In addition, in certain countries where the workplace is organised in large sections of the public sector, such as the NHS in Britain, people already don't have to pay upfront to receive a service, so what would continuing your work 'without payment' do for, say, nurses, they will simply be working for free and not disrupting anything.

I also don't support the right for the police or prison officers to unionise or strike. The role of such organs would only be to improve their own conditions ("oh, boo hoo, I need better helmets because a brick went through my last one" sort of thing), unless those organs specifically came out against the capitalist state (in which case, I'll be wondering why they were still serving it if they had such a position towards it). Although I'm curious at the idea of cops striking, I would just love to break their picket and them whilst they are powerless to do anything.

[Bitter Ashes]

I wouldnt totaly write the police off.
This is the exception, not the rule, but some police strikes have been benefitital to the rest of the working class such as the Baltimore Police Strike, which was a sympathy strike for other goverment employees.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Baltimore_police_strike

At the time police officers (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Police_officers) had their own wage demands, but they had sympathy with other city workers, likely having an effect on their readiness to strike.[2] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Baltimore_police_strike#cite_note-CJO-1) The strike of 1974 was tied up with other civilian employees of the city, including sanitation employees, correction officers (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Corrections_officer), Department of Recreation and Parks, and the Department of Education went on strike at the same time, causing a crisis type of atmosphere. Garbage began to pile along the streets, inmates began to riot, and within hours of the police walking off the job arson began to erupt, costing the city millions of dollars of property damage and at least one death.[3] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Baltimore_police_strike#cite_note-2)



On July 1 approximately 3,000 municipal sanitation workers, jail guards, and other non-police had gone on strike. The police at this time did not join in, but they did their best to obstruct and paralyze the law. Police officers would write lengthy reports on pennies found along the side of the road and would turn obvious samples of tobacco over to the police lab for drug analysis.[4] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Baltimore_police_strike#cite_note-3) It is estimated that nearly 1,500 police officers of the 2,000 went on strike. Non-striking officers worked 7 days a week in 12 hour shifts. Officers who did not strike were chastised for the decision by fellow officers.[5] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Baltimore_police_strike#cite_note-Doomsday-4)Let's be honest too. Yes, the police repress us. There's no doubt about that. If they do go on strike though, the streets suddenly become no-go areas for a lot of people. If you want to see anarchy without a gift economy or organisation then look at Somalia. The groundwork has to be in place before you remove the state, otherwise workers will suffer. It's why the anarchist motto is "Agitate. Educate. Organise." not "CHOAS TODAY!!!"

[h0m0revolutionary]

I wouldnt totaly write the police off.
That's an interesting example i've never come across before, nice one.

It poses the question though would you support their strike. I know it's going to sound what my good friend Robbie would call 'ultra-leftist', but even with their best intentions, local government workers should have no problem telling the police to go stick their solidarity gesture up...

There can conceivably be revolutionary police persons, that's why I support them unionising. Police coming together to organise is a good thing, but the product of that organisation has to be against the very job they do. And I can't imagine why they'd do such a thing, having chosen their occupation.


Let's be honest too. Yes, the police repress us. There's no doubt about that. If they do go on strike though, the streets suddenly become no-go areas for a lot of people. If you want to see anarchy without a gift economy or organisation then look at Somalia. The groundwork has to be in place before you remove the state, otherwise workers will suffer. It's why the anarchist motto is "Agitate. Educate. Organise." not "CHOAS TODAY!!!"

I'm not so sure of this, without class consciousness to bind one another together and in the here and now, yes it's not beyond possibility. But they would be replaced by another state apparatus, probably the armed forces.

In a revolutionary period if they went on strike, we'd hope the left would be big and vibrant enough to perform the benevolent aspects of their job description.

[jake williams]

I don't consider myself an anarchist except in a really general wishy washy meaningless way, but with all due respect: Somalia isn't an anarchist society, it's run by highly authoritarian warlords and a weak but not insignificant US-backed government in Mogadishu (that's the general picture I've picked up, I'm welcome to correction but I think that's more or less the story). I guess the point there is that the absence of a functioning 'state' per se does not entail the absence of authority. You might say it's not a monopoly on the use of force, it's an oligopoly on the use of force. That implies that it's not enough to get rid of the state to get rid of authority, but everyone here agrees on that anyway so far as I know.

At any rate, there are some good points made here but there are also enduringly difficult tactical questions that come out. There's also sort of the politics of, maybe they have the RIGHT to strike in some particular case (or all particular cases), but they really shouldn't do so in that manner. As has been pretty well described this can be done, people are pretty creative (not just our wonderful selves), in fact I think I've heard about interesting ways it's been done even in hospitals by nurses. My sister is a nurse and I've known a few others throughout my life. They're really not just gonna let patients die.

Another question that comes out is, there are a whole number of "essential" services in which if workers want to, 'theoretically' they can just extort as much as they want. Realistically though there's a limit before which strikes are gonna be broken, there's a point at which I think almost anyone is not going to meet infinite demands. More importantly, in practice it doesn't actually HAPPEN that people who have the collective power to shut down society and get whatever they want actually do so, partly because they know that there are limits to which anyone is going to be around to respect their strike and partly because most people just don't think like that. Sure there's a lot of nonsense and false consciousness, but people have at VERY least a minimal residual sense of society and class solidarity and not fucking everyone else over.

So sure, in some weird hypothetical you can have a "strikers' dystopia", but in practice it doesn't really actually happen much, and where it does there's a pretty natural limit where people realize that strikes are only useful in the long run when they're an act by the working class, and not by particular segments of it against others.

[Psy]

There are really interesting and creative union tactics that don;t necessarily involve strike action. Transit workers in Vancouver, Canada kept the busses running -- they didn't collect fares. They hurt the employer and made public transit free. Pretty good one.

Sometime in the late 90s, a community group in conjunction with the postal workers set up pickets at a sorting plant and locked the bosses out for the day. People were getting harrassed on the job, and without managerial intereference people got their 8 or 10 hour shifts done in 6. Management started acting a whole lot nicer.

I work in social services, been on strike a couple of times and almost struck a few more. We spent a long time explaining the broader issues of privatization and what we were fighting for -- free public services, keeping programs open, and making sure that people providing the services were being treated right. It's not easy but it's necessary.

The union bureaucracies are generally happier with simple work stoppages. We've had a couple of short illegal transit strikes here which I fully supported. The biggest mistake the union made was just keeping members at home (pickets weren't necessary) -- they should have taken it to the streets and pushed a broader social agenda.

There can be some compromises around certain types of essential work. During a large municipal strike a few years ago the paramedics waffled (and waffled and waffled) about going out or staying in. I thought they should've made a clear decision and then stuck with it.

I've done jobs that a simple strike action wouldn't do a whole lot. In one workplace (non union (only two employees)) we were able to bargain pretty effectively just by backing each other up and speaking our minds.

There've been some pretty effective campaigns here where folks stayed on the job but did information pickets and were able to embarrass the employer into treating them better. Nothing illegal but disruptive to the cash flow or raises public awareness of employers abuses.

I'm against bans on strikes, but whether they are the right tactic or strategy depends on the situation. Sometimes more conservative members can be convinced to take part in quite militant actions if they're convinced of the tactics being effective and will shorten the strike. I was a member of a fairly poor but radical
amalgamated local that always made sure that any bargaining unit was in a legal strike position as of 12:01 am the day the contract expired. If a reasonable agreement wasn't reached the members were out and the employers knew it. We got good deals -- no shiffle shuffle back and forth BS of going months without a contract.
Japanese National Railways (when Japanese railways were nationalized) workers were not allowed to strike by law, instead Japanese rail workers has a massive work to rule protest on March 13, 1973 that grinned the system to a crawl and pissed off commuters as the railway workers where far ahead of class consciousness of their fellow workers (thus why JNR was eventually privatized since JNR workers become more and more conscious and militant). Maybe if JNR workers simply told all commuters they wouldn't check their tickets while running normal service their struggle would have been more succeful.

Yet this a constant problem, you have a massive vanguard of the working class struggles against the capitalists class yet since they are a vanguard the rest of the working class doesn't understand why they are disrupting society, to the vangurd such struggles are just a esculation of conflict bettwen them and the bosses while for the masses of the workers the disruptions come out of the blue as their personal struggle with bosses have not esuclated to that point.

[Ravachol]

A few years back in the Netherlands bus drivers went on strike too. They did it the same way: keep the busses running, but for free.

Problem was, that most of the income of the Bus-corporations came from funding from the government. Consequently, the bus drivers didn't do enough harm to the company by striking, and had to go on a more militant route and didn't drive the busses at all.
But by doing this, they lost a lot of solidarity with the rest of the working class, who couldn't get to their jobs and schools because of it, who of course were not sympathetic if you showed up late at work because the bus drivers were on strike. After a few days the strike ended with minimal CAO gains for the bus drivers. (CAO's are collective work agreements, the agreements where wages and work environments are standardized.)
This example shows that solidarity from within the working class is very important, and sometimes takeovers rather than strikes are a better way of keeping the solidarity with the rest of the class. But, we need to be carefull because sometimes the capitalists, by gaining funding from other sources, can easily overcome a takeover.

And this is why we need unions focussed on class-struggle and the working class as a whole and not just branch-benefits organisations.

[blake 3:17]

And that's exactly why we need to build socialist consciousness amongst the class as a whole. Workers will lend support to sectoral struggles when common cause would be made.

When I first radicalized, and had no involvement with unions at all, I was astounded by the retired auto workers coming down and helping out with student protests, both by being present and always providing drinks and food on cold cold days.

As socialists we need to see class struggle as class wide. And class struggle isn't just strike action, but how workers conduct themselves -- do you go to management when a co-worker is a few minutes late? How do you treat people differently depending on their immigration status? How do you explain the role of unions at work, in the community or in private life? I'm an unorganized worker working at a physical site with at least two unions present whose members I work with on a daily basis. One of the locals has 5 different bargaining units in my workplace. The other union has at least 2, might be up to 4. I'm giving myself a headache thinking about it.

One strike to fight was the Saskatchewan Doctors Strike of 1962. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Saskatchewan_Doctors'_Strike

What kinds of unions or associations are NHS doctors in?

[Bitter Ashes]

What kinds of unions or associations are NHS doctors in?
Generally it's Unison for the doctors and nurses and other skilled staff and GMB for the cleaners and other unskilled staff.

[Psy]

And that's exactly why we need to build socialist consciousness amongst the class as a whole. Workers will lend support to sectoral struggles when common cause would be made.

Class conscious workers tend to gravitate to other class conscious workers and be repelled by workers of low class consciousness. When workers of very different class consciousness are mixed together (mostly due to unionized workers being lay-offed and becoming contract workers in anti-union work place) a civil struggle among the proletariat erupts I have personally experienced going from working for the phone company (hugely unionized with highly militant workers) to a anti-union warehouse. The workers of anti-union workplaces don't understand when new militant workers come in and tell them the truth that their employer sucks, management are a bunch assholes their are exploiting them or why we do the minimal amount of work (and all of us old union workers share this information with each other so we can minimize the amount of work we do without jeopardizing our jobs).

[Invincible Summer]

Class conscious workers tend to gravitate to other class conscious workers and be repelled by workers of low class consciousness. When workers of very different class consciousness are mixed together (mostly due to unionized workers being lay-offed and becoming contract workers in anti-union work place) a civil struggle among the proletariat erupts I have personally experienced going from working for the phone company (hugely unionized with highly militant workers) to a anti-union warehouse. The workers of anti-union workplaces don't understand when new militant workers come in and tell them the truth that their employer sucks, management are a bunch assholes their are exploiting them or why we do the minimal amount of work (and all of us old union workers share this information with each other so we can minimize the amount of work we do without jeopardizing our jobs).


How would you suggest changing/approaching this problem?

[Vanguard1917]

While the stuff above is fairly trivial, some public services are absolutly vital, such as doctors and nurses in the NHS, workers who operate nuclear power stations and even argueably, the Police (we don't have a gift economy yet, so crimes against workers would increase). For people in such industries to take action would without a doubt cause substantial harm to more workers than those who would benefit from the final outcome. At the very least, it would servely damage solidarity for the actions.

A lack of general working class solidarity or sympathy with striking workers is due to low levels of class consciousness. It's a very serious political problem for socialists, not something 'normal' or natural. A politically advanced working class would not buy the employers' argument that workers should not stand up for themselves lest that causes 'public disruption'.

[Psy]

How would you suggest changing/approaching this problem?
This would require rethinking labor struggles of the vanguard, the Pullman strike 1894 failed because the vanguard had the simple tactic of without holding their labor, which is also why the UK miners strike of 1984 failed.

What we want is the Winnipeg soviet of 1919 were strikes grew into the formation of a soviet as means of production was taken over by workers and production was re-started under a workers committee (which we saw again in Paris May 1968). When a strike committee authorizes production it instantly creates dual power, it causes less conscious workers to start questioning their relationship. In contrast when the vanguard simply halts key productions it simply inconveniences the less conscious workers.

[Chicano Shamrock]

While the stuff above is fairly trivial, some public services are absolutly vital, such as ... the Police (we don't have a gift economy yet, so crimes against workers would increase).
This is why I feel so badly that people in the UK can't have guns. I can be my own police office if needed and protect my family here. They have taken away your ability to protect yours which sucks. This kind of post should stop all the ones about how guns suck.

I think if a group needs to strike they should be able to. The medical sector might be a hard one to justify. I think they could have their own style of strike while keeping the critical patients well cared for.

The postal service wouldn't be that badd. If someone needs a paycheck can't their work hold on to it instead of sending? Then you just have to get to your work to pick it up. It would be a little hassle but all for the greater good(that phrase reminds me of Hot Fuzz).

[ls]

This would require rethinking labor struggles of the vanguard, the Pullman strike 1894 failed because the vanguard had the simple tactic of without holding their labor, which is also why the UK miners strike of 1984 failed.

Some attempts were made at winning support, especially during the miners strike, such as workers from Sheerness in Kent attempting to stand alongside metalworkers but getting smashed to pieces by cops. But anyway, it's completely correct that solidarity is needed among the workers who are likely to/are on strike, but we have to judge this carefully and do our best to get solidarity strikes happening out of.. solidarity, not just because they have specific economic demands. That can go hand in hand too, but the balance of forces needs to be measured carefully. It's true that had the miners perhaps made some more working slowdown strikes or other things like that, they may have gotten further, it was an amazing effort nonetheless though.

There are loads of examples of just that, pure solidarity strikes not based on any rational economic demands, of course they usually had shit at the workplace but it wasn't the essential reason for striking. These kinds of strikes are absolutely vital to us.


What we want is the Winnipeg soviet of 1919 were strikes grew into the formation of a soviet as means of production was taken over by workers and production was re-started under a workers committee (which we saw again in Paris May 1968). When a strike committee authorizes production it instantly creates dual power, it causes less conscious workers to start questioning their relationship. In contrast when the vanguard simply halts key productions it simply inconveniences the less conscious workers.That is absolutely correct, but the strike must also spread otherwise it will be defeated for sure, shame that the Seattle one did not last longer that same year and link up with the later Winnipeg one. Had they in Seattle, tried to expand the strike out of Seattle however, a solidarity strike may well have happened.

[blake 3:17]

This would require rethinking labor struggles of the vanguard, the Pullman strike 1894 failed because the vanguard had the simple tactic of without holding their labor, which is also why the UK miners strike of 1984 failed.


The Thatcher government was determined to beat it badly. It was also really a doomed industry. What alternative tactics and strategy would you suggest?


What we want is the Winnipeg soviet of 1919 were strikes grew into the formation of a soviet as means of production was taken over by workers and production was re-started under a workers committee (which we saw again in Paris May 1968). When a strike committee authorizes production it instantly creates dual power, it causes less conscious workers to start questioning their relationship. In contrast when the vanguard simply halts key productions it simply inconveniences the less conscious workers.

Excellent. Yes! I'm not a 100% on the equation of the Winnipeg General Strike and Paris 68 -- In terms of class consciousness and disruption of capitalist social relations the similarities are there. Did 68 have to make the same decisions about production and consumption? Geographically, Winnipeg and Paris are very different and 50 years apart -- means of transport, communication and production were also very different. Winnipeg didn't have workers parties (or were there?) and Paris 68 had the Socialist and Communist parties and the after effect of the anti-fascist resistance.

How do the objective and subjective factors line up?



Had they in Seattle, tried to expand the strike out of Seattle however, a solidarity strike may well have happened. Could it have spread? I'm very ignorant of the Seattle General Strike -- did the Socialist Party play a role or have legitimacy amongst the strikers? My sympathies are with the Wobblies but in their history they seemed only able to get so far and then not to have a game plan.

The Quebec Common Front strike, maybe the most radical mass strike in North American history, is terribly neglected in English language discussion.

[Psy]

The Thatcher government was determined to beat it badly.

That was to be expected



It was also really a doomed industry. What alternative tactics and strategy would you suggest?

Well getting train workers on their side would have meant coal trains wouldn't bee loading up in coal anyway (making it harder to break the strike) railway workers could have also used railway cars as barricades like in the the great railway strike of 1877 where railway workers had formed a unarmed revolutionary army of the masses of Baltimore that swarmed the armed National Guard and didn't ease up on them even when the National Guard opened fire (the people of Baltimore just fight harder with sticks and rocks), half of the National Guard deployed in Baltimore switched sides turning into a armed uprising in Baltimore as revolutionary elements of National Guard fought with the National Guard that remained loyal to the state forcing the state to deploy army regulars where the revolution was out gunned because there was no national revolution.



Excellent. Yes! I'm not a 100% on the equation of the Winnipeg General Strike and Paris 68 -- In terms of class consciousness and disruption of capitalist social relations the similarities are there. Did 68 have to make the same decisions about production and consumption?

Yes Paris 1968 had similar decisions about production and consumption.



Geographically, Winnipeg and Paris are very different and 50 years apart -- means of transport, communication and production were also very different. Winnipeg didn't have workers parties (or were there?) and Paris 68 had the Socialist and Communist parties and the after effect of the anti-fascist resistance.

True but at the macro level they both had similar decisions by the workers.



How do the objective and subjective factors line up?

There are differences but that was not my point.