Stop the war tomorrow (in one day)

[WhoCountsTheVotes]

It's actually rather easy, it's called a General Strike. Do not go to work. DO NOT BUY GASOLINE. Form picket lines around your local gas stations, and keep others from buying gas. Rally in front of Halliburton headquarters and the regional offices of Exxon-Mobil.

It will take courage. It will take some sacrifice. You may be fired or arrested. One day of a general strike will do more to stop than war than anything else we can do.

Or, we can post screeds on DU blaming the troops, and make technical arguments about who is responsible to what degree. The choice is ours.

[HFishbine]

1. It's a great idea

I propose that it be a general stike against Bush and all his policies -- not just the war. Maybe we could do it one day a month for the next year. Call in sick, don't shop, don't drive, don't watch TV -- just completely disengage as a show of dissent.

Can you imagine what a wake-up call it would be if the muddle-headed were left to wonder, "Where is everybody today?"

[WhoCountsTheVotes]

4. How many anti-war DUers will sacrifice something to stop the war?

It's easy to post, it's harder to live without some of the luxury that war brings us. I want to know if DU is ready to put their money where their mouth is.

[liberalman11]

2. Are you crazy?

Yeah and put many poor and low income wagers who work there out of a job..great idea!!

[WhoCountsTheVotes]

5. in one day?

Do you want to stop the war or not? I guarentee that voting Democratic in the presidential elections will have little, if any, effect. Direct action gets the goods. Speechifying doesn't.

[Kitsune]

3. Yeah, General Strikes are quite illegal in the land of the free

I'd certainly support a General Strike. I think it's obscene that they're illegal.

[BurtWorm]

6. WCTV, are you organizing this by yourself,

or is this notice from a larger movement? I like the idea but it won't work without a mass strike, which would require some time to reach critical mass.

[WhoCountsTheVotes]

7. So far it's me and HFishbine

are you in?

[muriel_volestrangler]

10. A 'general' strike means LOTS of people strike

not just activists. And I'd suggest that you'd be lucky to get arrested if you try to block gas stations. If you're unlucky, you'll get hit by a car.

[BurtWorm]

11. I don't think three people makes for a General Strike, BUT

I would be in if a more reasonable date is set that allows the word to get out and that would make for a truly meaningful strike that could count on the millions who marched against the war last year, plus the millions (?) who couldn't but would have. This is the next level, beyond mass protests, that really might stop the war, a message to Bushists and PNACers that we're not going to play by the rules any more than they are.

[WhoCountsTheVotes]

13. Links to groups around the world calling for a general strike over Iraq:

www.labournet.net/world/0305/ilwuwar1.html
www.eiro.eurofound.ie/2003/04/InBrief/ES0304203N.html
www.worldsocialist-cwi.org/eng/2003/04/01spain.html
resist.ca/story/2003/4/3/17238/88827
www.ludd.net/retort/msg00139.html
www.lrp-cofi.org/archive/generalstrike.html

[BurtWorm]

15. Great! Now it needs to be coordinated.

[WhoCountsTheVotes]

17. are you volunteering?

:evilgrin:

[Brotherjohn]

8. A general strike would only work if there was a MASSIVE movement...

... in support of it (and then only maybe). A movement MUCH larger than the largest protests we saw before the war. I'm sorry, but as strongly as I feel about Bush and the war, I don't think I'm helping anyone by putting myself, my wife, and my two kids out on the street.

By saying we can either strike or "post screeds on DU... make technical arguments... The choice is ours.", you are making the same fallacious "all or nothing" argument that Bush consistently makes. He did so every time he said we had to take Saddam out because we could either do "something" or "nothing", implying that the only thing we could do was invade and conquer.

There are many things we can do, including protesting, writing letters to papers and our Congressional delegation, donating to causes that are fighting to oust Bush, and actively participating in those causes.

I appreciate your idealism. But idealism without at least some pragmatism to balance it is almost always destined to fail.

[WhoCountsTheVotes]

12. okay, how about just NOT BUYING GAS?

Let's be pragmatic. It was the oil and energy industry that put Bush into power, and were his major sponsors. It's the oil and gas energy that stands to benefit from the occupation in Iraq. Will you go without gasoline for ONE DAY?

"There are many things we can do, including protesting, writing letters to papers and our Congressional delegation, donating to causes that are fighting to oust Bush, and actively participating in those causes."

Yeah, writing letters, that *always* works :)

[Brotherjohn]

18. We are just going to have to agree to disagree on this one.

As Nihil pointed out in another post, "one day isn't an issue ... you fill up on the day before and, in the worst case, don't bother driving anywhere on 'the day of action'." I would go further to say boycotting Exxon isn't an issue either. It doesn't matter if you get your gas from somewhere else. They are all part and parcel to the same system.

But that is the world we live in. We ARE dependent on gasoline. We can and should work towards being less so, but we cannot make that happen overnight. Some of you may not be so dependent. You may have no kids, live in a downtwon area with good mass transportation, and within walking distance of your job. But again, with kids and a job, even not driving one day would not be feasible on a weekday, and it would be irrelevant on a weekend (I'd have already filled up the day before anyway). If, theoretically, the day's not driving would cost the oil companies $10 in gas, that would be, literally, a drop in the ocean. The fact of the matter is, not enough people are going to be capable of doing this, much less agreeing politically with it, for it to be effective.

I am of the opinion that if every person donated $10 to the Democratic candidate of their choice, or the progressive cause of their choice, or yes, wrote one letter to their Congressperson, it would have more of an effect than if those same people all stopped driving for a day. If the Bush campaign is going to flood the airwaves with $100 Million in ads, the reality is that this HAS to be countered with our own message. Getting that message out by boycotting or striking is one method, but you are then counting on the media to paint you in a positive light. IMHO, an ad from Dean is likely to convince a lot more folks than a newsbite of protestors. Not that it won't have any effect, and if it turned into repeated newsbites about massive protests, then all the better.

We simply differ on what we think are effective means to the same end. But we are all working towards the same end. Go ahead and try to make a general strike a reality, and I will go ahead and write those letters (and I should point out that we are not all simply blaming the troops; in fact very few of us are). In the end, the net sum of all of our actions will hopefully have the result we all desire.

[info being]

9. An Impeach Bush strike would be better

.

[Nihil]

14. Change the world in one day ... right ...

Don't kid yourself that your absence from work for one day will
make the US government change its policies overnight.

Even if you could persuade >80% of the working population to support
this (i.e., leaving essential services like doctors, police, firemen
out of it) then it would just be like an extra Thanksgiving holiday.

Blockade the petrol pumps? Yep, that can be done - and was done in
the UK during the "petrol strike" to some limited success - but again,
one day isn't an issue ... you fill up on the day before and, in the
worst case, don't bother driving anywhere on "the day of action".

Boycotting Exxon is a much better idea: their profits dipped when
environmentalists started to boycott them after the Valdez disaster
but all that was really achieved was an increase to the Exxon
publicity department's budget to improve their global image again.
How many things do *you* buy from Halliburton in a typical week?

As someone else pointed out, many of the jobs that would actually
make an impact with a strike (garbage collectors, shop assistants,
cleaners) are financially too vulnerable to risk a gamble like this.

At least it makes a DU topic that can't be interpreted as
anti-American or bashing the troops ... if only because no-one will
take it seriously enough. It appears that slandering a soldier is
the epitomy of evil but, face it, standing between an armed jeep
driver and his petrol pump is somewhere between comical and dangerous.

Mind you, proposing insurrection of this form is probably against
something in the U.S.A.P.A.T.R.I.O.T. act so that might cost you
some votes ... damn ...

Nihil

[WhoCountsTheVotes]

16. okay, let's boycott Exxon

and the rest of them. I'm not sure what will change the world, but I do know that blaming the troops for the war in Iraq is NOT going to end the war. Boycotting gasoline might.

But then again, boycotting gasoline, while it will hurt the profits of the warmongers, would require lots of inconvience. And blaming someone else is much easier.

I'd like to see DU put our money where our mouth is. Otherwise it's just a bunch of hot air isn't it?