I want to pose for discussion something that is a key contradiction for the working class in trying to create substantial change in state policy. While I'm in the U.S. and my perspective will be an American one, points of view from those in other countries are of course welcome.
As many of us know, the working class's primary coercive force is that basically all economic activity depends on us showing up to work every day — and if there were to be a general strike, the working class would be in a much better position to make leveraged demands to improve our collective situation.
BUT, what stops most of us from striking/demonstrating/protesting to the extent/frequency that the ruling elites would actually be inconvenienced is the fact that we are dependent on our jobs — not just for wages, but for healthcare, (unlikely) retirement, etc. None of us wants to starve, and none of us wants our dependents to starve.
So, this brings the main practical contradiction to the forefront: How can the working class harness their coercive potential for meaningful change, without having the working individual and their family suffer? Obviously, to completely avoid suffering is impossible in a successful strike — and often our reflex in response to this is to imagine ways that ourselves and our families would not suffer (for example, “I would strike if my job paid more and required fewer hours,” or even, “I would strike if I won the lottery”). But I think what would be more productive is to instead imagine circumstances that might act as a personal red line in helping the individual (me or you) to determine when are the circumstances so bad that my suffering, and the suffering of my dependents, is worth the potential for change that a strike would bring?
In other words, I'm curious, what would need to change* for you to strike?
*In recognizing that personal changes in circumstance (e.g. winning the lottery) are less likely to happen for everyone than it is likely for external changes in current events/state policy to turn up the heat in demanding our action, I really would like for answers to focus on what would have to change in external circumstances for you to strike.
I'll go first. I would strike if martial law were implemented long-term, if conservatives or fascists were successful in staging a coup, or if food shortages became too severe for people I know to access food. These red lines are fairly obvious, and I would think that there are threats that are less existential that would coerce me to strike, but I would like your help in brainstorming to find what they are. Historically, people have gone on strike to try to achieve much less — but they also had better job prospects, a more robust social safety net, much stronger civic institutions, and much less risk of being surveilled. I guess that secretly, I want you to convince me that even though the overturning of Roe v. Wade did not catalyze a general strike, something on the horizon might be bad enough to get the job done.