You’re right. We should do nothing until a self-organizing, grassroots, independently funded organization gets enough signatures to get enough permits and consent to formally complain.
You didn’t have to write anything. Instead, you argued semantics. Then you argued that progress needs to be made on your terms. (Also what is the difference between a national reaction and movement if not just time and effort? Most movements are reactions). This is exactly how you counter-message and push people away from the concept of activism.
I do agree that effective long-term change likely comes through critical and organized methods. But that is not to dissuade anyone from participating in resistance or activism. Change is rarely graceful, and does not need to conform to anyone’s prescription.
Gorilladrums@lemmy.world 2 days ago
You can’t go from 0 to a 100 and expect results. The national strike that the post is talking about is going to result in absolutely nothing. Barely anybody is going to participate if at all.
Why? Because most people aren’t even aware this is a thing, and to the small minority that is, they still won’t participate because they’re going to be the only people doing it. If one or two people from your workplace participate, they’re going to be penalized for not showing up. Same goes with boycotting or whatever else is planned.
My point is that there is currently no foundation to support such a strike. You can’t scale up if the people aren’t mobilized and onboard. How about instead of calling for a national strike, you work to convince your local unions to buy in? Two people participating at a workplace will do nothing, but if 70% of workers don’t show up at then that means something. It will send a message to the local community and might even make it to the local news. Then from there you coordinate the unions and other orgs (churches, schools, universities, nonprofits, etc) to organize a city wide strike, then a statewide strike, and then a regional strike, and if that succeeds then you can think about doing something on a national scale. However, trying to skip all the steps usually doesn’t result in real change, which is what’s going to happen here.
blueryth@lemmy.world 1 day ago
Yeah, this is armchair, if not just rationalization. Stay proud that it’d all have just worked had they just followed the steps like you told them.
Gorilladrums@lemmy.world 23 hours ago
I’m not giving steps, I’m merely stating a very basic fact. Movements need substance, that’s just reality. They need foundations to stand on to do anything meaningful. That’s the most basic of observations.
Like do you seriously think that the civil rights movement happened overnight because MLK decided one day to do a big march and everybody decided to randomly join? No the civil rights movement and all the other movements in history took decades of independent grassroots movements organizing, mobilizing, and coordinating with each other. That’s how they eventually consolidated to form unstoppable national political force.
You can be butthurt at what I said or deny it all you want, but reality isn’t going to change because what I said is a simple truth. If I was wrong then something would’ve happened today, but nothing did. January 30th is already over, and there was absolutely no impact or buzz surrounding this “strike”, not even on social media.
blueryth@lemmy.world 20 hours ago
Nobody’s butthurt here. I’m saying your rhetoric carries water for fascists. And every time you say “it’s just facts”, you reinforce that in everyone’s mind. It’s not about winning an argument about how progress gets made, its pointing out how the way speak identifies our politics. Its ok, lots of people agree with you. And more people will be shot in the streets while you’ll be correct about how progress works.