Log in

View Full Version : Occupy’s “precarious” general strike



Die Neue Zeit
9th April 2012, 04:22
Worth posting in two forums, being both political and economic:

http://www.salon.com/2012/04/02/occupys_precarious_general_strike/singleton/

With a general strike planned for May 1, Occupy is looking for new ways to organize the under- and unemployed

Of the many questions that the Occupy movement faces before its May 1 general strike, the most important may be who exactly will be striking. Due in part to restrictive U.S. strike laws, organized labor has not endorsed the action. And many of the protesters from which the Occupy movement has drawn its energy are the under- and unemployed who have been victimized most by the economy people who are not exactly in a great position to withhold their labor.

Thats where the Precarious and Service Workers Assemblies come in. These groups have been popping up around the country to try to forge links between unorganized laborers with tenuous employment. Last month, the first such meeting in New York drew 60 some people from an odd mix of professions writers, adjunct professors, bar backs, dog walkers, baristas, sex workers, movers and designers. Despite their very different backgrounds, they discussed the one thing they all shared: a precarious earning situation. This was more than just an occasion to share their fears. It was, as the event invitation noted, an organizing platform to engage together in upcoming actions like the May Day General Strike.

What this gathering and others like it suggest is that Occupy is taking a different approach to the general strike than the one you might expect one appropriate to precarious, non-unionized and largely service-oriented workers. When the Oakland Precarious and Service Workers Assembly gathered in early March, the organizers wrote, For many these days, our work is defined by its precarity. We lack job security, work for laughable wages, and have no healthcare or potential for advancement.

As the precarious workers assemblies and numerous articles and books suggest, many see the currently disparate army of insecure workers as a potent political force. Some theorists have even sought to frame precarious workers as an emerging social class the precariat, as described by Guy Standing, professor of economic security at Bath University. According to Standing, the precariat is a class in the making insofar as there are multiple examples of precarious workers joining together with a growing awareness of common vulnerability. There is some truth in this: In the Occupy Wall Street meetings dedicated to exploring the call for general strike, over-educated freelancers like myself met with migrant laundry workers to discuss lacking healthcare insurance and job security.

Some wonder, however, whether these new groups are capable of pulling off a general strike without support from organized labor. Without the support of unions, some have argued, workers will not have the confidence to miss work and take to the streets. Its a prisoners dilemma of sorts: Individual workers, some say, are afraid to strike in fear that other individuals will not even though the greater the pool of strikers (even non-unionized strikers) the more difficult it will be for employers to retaliate.

But the question of whether a general strike can take place without organized labors formal support seems to me moot at this point: No one is working under the impression that May Day in New York will resemble the general strikes of 1946, for example, or even contemporary general strikes elsewhere, like last week in Spain, when two powerful unions called a general strike and 3 million people took to the streets.

It is also worth noting that in Greece where mass strikes in recent years have been successful in temporarily paralyzing the economically beleaguered country some of the most celebrated strikes have been largely accredited to the Syntagma Square movement (an Occupy forebearer), not the unions. As Dimitris Dalakoglou, co-editor of the book Revolt and Crisis in Greece told me:

Greece saw some of its massive and most successful general strikes in summer 2011, because at that time the movement of Syntagma Square had brought the spirit of autonomous, self-organized struggle away from union executives and political parties The day of the strike, the majority of strikers did not bother with the unions afternoon rally, they went from the morning to Syntagma and fought against the economic and political sovereignty and the brutal violence of the police there next to the people who were occupying Syntagma for one month.

However, questions still remain about the specific challenges facing different precarious workers who might be interested in involving themselves in May Day. How, for example, can someone leave work or call in sick for the day if they know they will be fired and lack a union to defend them? Or, how might someone strike if they work flexibly and dont need to turn up to an office that day anyway? And how do unemployed people strike at all?

All these questions rely on a traditional notion of strike (withdrawing labor as leverage against an employer) or even general strike (that the majority of workers in a country or region walk off the job in solidarity with each other). Occupy organizers, though, are planning a very different type of general strike. Calls include a consumer strike (No Shopping! No Banking!), student debt strikes, school walkouts, a data strike (leave the smartphone at home), slow work days and, of course, calls to take the streets. The idea is that, given the variety and vulnerability of working situations, theres no one catch-all way to strike so a strike will need to have many diverse elements if it is going to be general.

In New York, we have already seen rumblings of the type of activity May Day might bring. In the last week of March, a number of activists self-affiliating with OWS who according to a communiqu were working in conjunction with rank and file workers from the Transport Workers Union Local 100 and the Amalgamated Transit Union chained the doors open of numerous subway stations and printed signs that resembled those of the Metro Transit Authority informing passengers Free Entry, No Fare. Please Enter Through The Service Gate.

Regardless of ones opinion on the particulars of the subway action, the fare strike gives one example of the type of strike a work force underpinned by precarity can engage in: those that did not pay the fare made a strike of sorts; those who chained the station doors open made a more daring one. In either case, it was certainly not endorsed by union bureaucracy.

Of course, the actions undertaken by certain groups to promote or partake in the general strike will not please everyone the fare strike alone has already received equal helpings of criticism and celebration both within and outside Occupy Wall Street discussions. Whats clear, however, is that with under 12 percent of the U.S. work force unionized, an autonomously, horizontally organized precariat could be a potent force for political and social rupture. As such, it might be high time that the media stop turning to union leaders to ask about what a general strike could mean.

Natasha Lennard covers the Occupy movement for Salon. A British-born, Brooklyn-based journalist, she has been covering Occupy Wall Street since before the first sleeping bag was unrolled in Zuccotti Park. One of the first journalists arrested at an Occupy action, she has managed to enrage Andrew Breitbart, Rush Limbaugh and Glenn Beck. You can follow her on Twitter (@natashalennard), and email her any Occupy updates/videos/ideas to [email protected] Natasha Lennard

Workers-Control-Over-Prod
9th April 2012, 05:37
Well, i don't really see any huge significance in this unemployed "strike". I don't understand what you mean by another "bourgeois revolution", the problem in the west at the moment is in my opinion a problem of first stereotyped consciousness and secondly that the economy still relatively functions. Hm...

Die Neue Zeit
9th April 2012, 06:41
If you read the various constitutional debates and tragedies of early US history, you would know what I mean by "another bourgeois revolution."

I was also making a veiled criticism of mass strike fetishes when I said here:

http://demrep.wordpress.com/2012/04/03/52/

I’d like to add something from a conversation I had with someone before he became an ultra-leftist on program and an abstentionist on the political front: Occupy seems to me that the US may need a second “bourgeois revolution.”

Consider what certain left-of-liberal Salon lefties wrote here:

http://www.salon.com/topic/occupy_wall_street/

(See in particular the “Precarious General Strike,” “Big Brother on Campus,” and “Occupy’s Heiress” article)

This is far from being a revolutionary period for the working class, but strike fetishes may be useful for mere regime change refreshing the proverbial tree of liberty “every now and then… with the blood of patriots and tyrants” (Jefferson) – economically republican patriots vs. plutocratic tyrants, in this case.

Ele'ill
9th April 2012, 06:46
Did this really need to be in two different forums?

Die Neue Zeit
9th April 2012, 06:48
^^^ One for the political aspect, the other for the economic (per my OP)?

[BTW, this one is the original thread, not the Worker Struggles one, ahead by about a minute.]

ckaihatsu
9th April 2012, 11:32
If the general strike tactic is being dismissed from the left as being too fetishistic and ineffective, then I'll put forth that a better call might be for nationalization / socialization, as a way to cut against the rampant privatization that continues unabated.

marl
9th April 2012, 16:28
Unfortunately, "take over you workplace!" might not be as... popular... as "call sick and take a day off!".

ckaihatsu
9th April 2012, 20:39
Unfortunately, "take over you workplace!" might not be as... popular... as "call sick and take a day off!".


Okay, granted, but the political *content* of the movement has been gradually fading away, as with the larger international momentum as well (beginning with Libya).

What exactly are the *demands* of this upcoming mobilization -- ?

Ele'ill
10th April 2012, 03:43
What exactly are the *demands* of this upcoming mobilization -- ?


None because when we demand we officially endorse their position of power. These should be actions against not suggestions for.

ckaihatsu
10th April 2012, 03:56
None because when we demand we officially endorse their position of power. These should be actions against not suggestions for.


Thanks.

I guess I'm trying to get at a certain point of coalescing -- I appreciate the anti-imperialism (anti-NATO) direction of where things are in general, but might it be good as well to have certain "benchmarks" or "milestones" to focus on -- ?

Again, it seems that people *know* that Wall Street has made off like bandits, but shouldn't there be some call for 'reparations' -- for lack of a better term -- as a concrete political demand -- ?





Unfortunately, "take over you workplace!" might not be as... popular... as "call sick and take a day off!".


Also, this is mixing tactics with politics -- the popular *tactic* could be "Call sick and take a day off!" but the stated *purpose* of it could be to 'Bring back the public funds that were looted!' or something like that....





In a January 2012, review, it was reported that AIG still owed around $50 billion, GM about $25 billion and Ally about $12 billion.




http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Troubled_Asset_Relief_Program

bricolage
10th April 2012, 15:52
None because when we demand we officially endorse their position of power. These should be actions against not suggestions for.
I think people mistake demands as solely being things like this. when workers on strike and say, give us a pay rise, or re-employ these sacked workers, that's a demand but it's a demand in terms of 'give us that or we will keep causing economic damage'. it's very different from demands in terms of asking political parties to enact laws or handing petitions to the government. it's also very different from demands framed in terms of re-allocating funds or re-targetting cuts.

ellipsis
10th April 2012, 16:31
The precarious workers assembly in Oakland should be good. Viva San precario!

The Douche
10th April 2012, 18:30
I think people mistake demands as solely being things like this. when workers on strike and say, give us a pay rise, or re-employ these sacked workers, that's a demand but it's a demand in terms of 'give us that or we will keep causing economic damage'. it's very different from demands in terms of asking political parties to enact laws or handing petitions to the government. it's also very different from demands framed in terms of re-allocating funds or re-targetting cuts.

But occupy isn't an economic movement in the sense of organized labor or whatever.

Occupy is taking on capitalism (whether it admits this or acknowledges this or not), and not a specific set of bosses.

What demand can honestly be made to get at the issues that occupy is raising?

ckaihatsu
10th April 2012, 18:37
What demand can honestly be made to get at the issues that occupy is raising?


How about "Clean up your mess and either fix what's been broken or else admit that your system is bankrupt and untenable." -- !

The Douche
10th April 2012, 18:47
How about "Clean up your mess and either fix what's been broken or else admit that your system is bankrupt and untenable." -- !

That leaves the power dynamics of bourgeois democracy unchallenged. Demands like that (or "money for jobs/schools/whatever not war") reinforce the positions of the bosses.

The only answer is the negation of state and capital, thats why there aren't demands, and thats why there shouldn't be.

ckaihatsu
10th April 2012, 19:00
"Clean up your mess and either fix what's been broken or else admit that your system is bankrupt and untenable."





That leaves the power dynamics of bourgeois democracy unchallenged.


No, sorry, it directly *challenges* power to justify itself or else leave the room.





Demands like that (or "money for jobs/schools/whatever not war") reinforce the positions of the bosses.


I can see what you're saying here, but I don't think anyone protesting has any illusions that the bosses would actually capitulate to the demands of a few thousand in the street for a few hours -- that's why the demands are more of a *rallying point*, and are important as such.





The only answer is the negation of state and capital,


Certainly -- I'd *rather* see workers organizations that push past -- 'negate' -- bourgeois power.





thats why there aren't demands, and thats why there shouldn't be.


Yeah, not 'demands' in the sense of 'dialogue with power', but 'demands' in the sense of 'mass focused consciousness'.

The Douche
10th April 2012, 19:02
I think you're giving people to much credit. There is still widespread belief, around the world, that if you ask loud enough and often enough then your demands will be met. If this wasn't the dominant mode of thought then we would have seen a whole lot more revolutions in the world in the past 2 or so years.

ckaihatsu
10th April 2012, 19:07
I think you're giving people to much credit. There is still widespread belief, around the world, that if you ask loud enough and often enough then your demands will be met. If this wasn't the dominant mode of thought then we would have seen a whole lot more revolutions in the world in the past 2 or so years.


Oh, got it. Okay, agreed.

Many people can only cast off their illusions only after seeing for themselves the dead-end of populist-type campaigns....

bricolage
10th April 2012, 19:07
But occupy isn't an economic movement in the sense of organized labor or whatever.
but calling strikes is an economic action, people not going in to work for a political purpose is a process of organising labour.

What demand can honestly be made to get at the issues that occupy is raising?
I dunno, I'm not in america and I still don't really know what issues occupy is raising. it's not really my place to say. I was just countering the view that demands are never part of the praxis of the, revolutionary workers movement. they always have been and the issue has always been how the demands are met.

marl
10th April 2012, 20:02
The way I see it, Occupy's general strike is a giant middle finger to the ruling class. Let them tremble, amirite?

Ele'ill
10th April 2012, 22:09
Not to make a point of taking one side or another for or against current labor activity as that isn't my point or my full/genuine opinion but labor greatly benefited from 'occupy' on several occasions through engagement by affinity group type actions (which had a lot of people participating). I don't know about the specific call for a 'general strike' but it has certainly gotten a lot of people wanting to participate. I have talked to several fellow workers who are not radicals who are very upset with work and who have a basic understanding of why capitalism is shit who are not very into or trusting of unionizing but are very interested in May 1st and will likely be participating with one of them stating that they were only interested if it's not going to be walking on the sidewalk cause they'd rather just stay home and drink if that's the case. I think that a general strike is something to work towards but what we have right now is more important because we have it and it's working and it's creating other opportunities and other projects. It's decentralized/autonomous mass movement that I think can assist work place struggles and assist communities with foreclosure and other issues. I really want to see neighborhood general assemblies this year. I think the call for 'general strike' is more something like 'hey we know we're all workers we think and we're students and we are working class so let's make a day to not participate in that system and instead attack it' so yeah it's kinda removed but I think it's on the right track.

Die Neue Zeit
11th April 2012, 03:21
I think people mistake demands as solely being things like this. when workers on strike and say, give us a pay rise, or re-employ these sacked workers, that's a demand but it's a demand in terms of 'give us that or we will keep causing economic damage'. it's very different from demands in terms of asking political parties to enact laws or handing petitions to the government. it's also very different from demands framed in terms of re-allocating funds or re-targetting cuts.

That's a very economistic take.

The first set of demands aren't political at all. Petitions are to be avoided. Political demands (i.e., not petitions), which naturally affect society as a whole, should be made.


I think you're giving people to much credit. There is still widespread belief, around the world, that if you ask loud enough and often enough then your demands will be met. If this wasn't the dominant mode of thought then we would have seen a whole lot more revolutions in the world in the past 2 or so years.

We have no illusions on the matter, but you're dismissing political action of the most basic sort.

ellipsis
11th April 2012, 03:46
folks should also look into San Precario, the patron saint of the precarious. i don't know a lot about it but some ya basta comrades from italy turned me on to the idea of the precarious through this iconographic art of san precario when i was being radicalized. now its gaining traction in the US.

bricolage
11th April 2012, 12:44
That's a very economistic take.

The first set of demands aren't political at all. Petitions are to be avoided. Political demands (i.e., not petitions), which naturally affect society as a whole, should be made.
so how are you gonna make these fabled demands?

Die Neue Zeit
11th April 2012, 15:37
I sorta answered the question by implying real political parties, but also spoilage campaigns, civil disobedience, other protest action, etc.

ckaihatsu
12th April 2012, 01:07
Political demands (i.e., not petitions), which naturally affect society as a whole, should be made.


Here's one:


A video message from the PSL's Lindsay/Osorio Presidential Campaign:

Why we say "Seize the Banks!"

http://www.pslweb.org/votepsl/2012/statements/why-we-say-seize-the-banks-1.html

Die Neue Zeit
12th April 2012, 02:02
^^^ Yeah, but the left syndicalists and other ultra-lefts here aren't for that kind of explicitly political stuff.

ckaihatsu
12th April 2012, 02:57
^^^ Yeah, but the left syndicalists and other ultra-lefts here aren't for that kind of explicitly political stuff.


Well, you may be stating facts but there's nothing to be gained by being sectarian, either....

Ele'ill
12th April 2012, 03:02
What exactly is the purpose of this thread or question this thread is asking?

ckaihatsu
12th April 2012, 09:33
"Seize the Banks!"


I have one for extending beyond 'Seize the Banks!' -- 'A wiki page to determine each and every thing.'

Die Neue Zeit
12th April 2012, 15:37
Well, you may be stating facts but there's nothing to be gained by being sectarian, either....

I wasn't being sectarian. I was being explicitly political.

bricolage
12th April 2012, 15:38
I sorta answered the question by implying real political parties, but also spoilage campaigns, civil disobedience, other protest action, etc.
there is no political party.

Die Neue Zeit
15th April 2012, 18:11
Thus right now there's no worker-class-for-itself, is there? What's your point?