Because if we try to change anything, we run the (very high) risk of losing our jobs, then our homes, and ending up on the streets. If you have a way to get over 300 million people all on the same page for a general strike, who are all willing to risk losing their income, please let me know.
I don't think this really addresses the question. Revolution provides even more of an economic disruption?
Keep in mind the OP is not an American. They don't have the context.
I mean... as the other guy says below, if you're considering revolution surely a general strike is a notch below that level of commitment.
But also, I've lived through multiple general strikes. I don't know what to tell you, a party and a bunch of unions called for them, people followed them at will. Some changed stuff, others didn't. Nobody lost their jobs or homes, among other things because it's illegal to retalliate against a strike. Because, you know, we had strikes about that.
We're not even a particularly old democracy, we were an outright fascist country less than a century ago. My dad remembers running away from fascist police when he was in college. I don't know what to tell you.
Part of the problem for major reforms is that large areas of empty land have more power than the will of the people to get things through the Senate.
a party and a bunch of unions called for them
In the US there are only two parties of any real significance. General strike is something neither of them would ever call for. Only about 10.1% of US workers have a union.
Nobody lost their jobs or homes, among other things because it's illegal to retalliate against a strike.
In the US, strike retaliation, while technically illegal, is very rarely enforced. When it is, the penalty is ... they have to undo the thing they did and were penalized for. No fine, no concession, no additional monitoring, and there was always the (very good) chance they'd get away with it.
Sadly, in a country where guns are common and unions aren't, armed revolt is just more imaginable than a general strike.
Because if we try to change anything, we run the (very high) risk of losing our jobs, then our homes, and ending up on the streets. If you have a way to get over 300 million people all on the same page for a general strike, who are all willing to risk losing their income, please let me know.
I don't think this really addresses the question. Revolution provides even more of an economic disruption?
Keep in mind the OP is not an American. They don't have the context.
I mean... as the other guy says below, if you're considering revolution surely a general strike is a notch below that level of commitment.
But also, I've lived through multiple general strikes. I don't know what to tell you, a party and a bunch of unions called for them, people followed them at will. Some changed stuff, others didn't. Nobody lost their jobs or homes, among other things because it's illegal to retalliate against a strike. Because, you know, we had strikes about that.
We're not even a particularly old democracy, we were an outright fascist country less than a century ago. My dad remembers running away from fascist police when he was in college. I don't know what to tell you.
Part of the problem for major reforms is that large areas of empty land have more power than the will of the people to get things through the Senate.
In the US there are only two parties of any real significance. General strike is something neither of them would ever call for. Only about 10.1% of US workers have a union.
In the US, strike retaliation, while technically illegal, is very rarely enforced. When it is, the penalty is ... they have to undo the thing they did and were penalized for. No fine, no concession, no additional monitoring, and there was always the (very good) chance they'd get away with it.
Sadly, in a country where guns are common and unions aren't, armed revolt is just more imaginable than a general strike.
well said, thank you.