Publish to Newswire
Add an EventFrom the Open-Publishing Calendar
From the Open-Publishing Newswire
Indybay Feature
ONE-DAY NATIONWIDE GENERAL STRIKE PLANNING
Calling for a One Day Nationwide General Strike May 1rst 2003
planning meetings: Sundays Jan 12, and 19, 2003 3-5pm
humanist hall 390 27th Street, between Telegraph and Broadway oakland, cali
planning meetings: Sundays Jan 12, and 19, 2003 3-5pm
humanist hall 390 27th Street, between Telegraph and Broadway oakland, cali
Calling for a One Day
Nationwide General Strike
May 1rst 2003
Buy Nothing - No Work - No School
To STOP the War Against People Abroad and at Home
Come to a planning meeting:
Sundays Jan 12, and 19, 2003 3-5pm
humanist hall 390 27th Street, between Telegraph and Broadway
oakland, cali
mission statement:
We oppose war and call all People to unite with us. Why do we oppose war? We oppose economic war because People's labor is exploited for the profit
of few. We oppose military war because the government commits genocide on our sisters and brothers across the world. We oppose domestic war because the police act as occupying forces in our communities continually murdering and brutalizing our people. We demand that all of our political
prisoners be set free. We oppose ecological war because our land, air, and resources are being destroyed. We oppose political war because the
U.S. government is imposing its ideology on the People. For these reasons we must demonstrate the united power of the People and the need for unity
throughout the world. A nationwide one day general strike can create a powerful disruption to the U.S. ruling class. Hitting them where it hurts, their pocketbooks, will bring us one step closer to dismantling the war machine.
Present endorsers: Black August Coordinating Committee, Bay Area AIM, Prisoners Rights Union, Freedom Socialist Party, SF BayView Newspaper, Not in Our Name Bellingham, Huff Santa Cruz, Coalition on Homelesness, Justice for Palestinians, People's United Front, Prison Activist Resource Center, Asian Pacific Islander Coalition Against the War, Asian Pacific Islanders For Community Empowerment, A.F.R.I.C.A. Sac State, Third World Forum UC Davis, Sacramento Call For Peace, Cesar Cruz of 4 Winds Student Movement, Don Paul, Richard Aoki, Yuri Kochiyama, and more..
To endorse or for more info: onedaystrike [at] topica.com or bmwang [at] ucdavis.edu
Nationwide General Strike
May 1rst 2003
Buy Nothing - No Work - No School
To STOP the War Against People Abroad and at Home
Come to a planning meeting:
Sundays Jan 12, and 19, 2003 3-5pm
humanist hall 390 27th Street, between Telegraph and Broadway
oakland, cali
mission statement:
We oppose war and call all People to unite with us. Why do we oppose war? We oppose economic war because People's labor is exploited for the profit
of few. We oppose military war because the government commits genocide on our sisters and brothers across the world. We oppose domestic war because the police act as occupying forces in our communities continually murdering and brutalizing our people. We demand that all of our political
prisoners be set free. We oppose ecological war because our land, air, and resources are being destroyed. We oppose political war because the
U.S. government is imposing its ideology on the People. For these reasons we must demonstrate the united power of the People and the need for unity
throughout the world. A nationwide one day general strike can create a powerful disruption to the U.S. ruling class. Hitting them where it hurts, their pocketbooks, will bring us one step closer to dismantling the war machine.
Present endorsers: Black August Coordinating Committee, Bay Area AIM, Prisoners Rights Union, Freedom Socialist Party, SF BayView Newspaper, Not in Our Name Bellingham, Huff Santa Cruz, Coalition on Homelesness, Justice for Palestinians, People's United Front, Prison Activist Resource Center, Asian Pacific Islander Coalition Against the War, Asian Pacific Islanders For Community Empowerment, A.F.R.I.C.A. Sac State, Third World Forum UC Davis, Sacramento Call For Peace, Cesar Cruz of 4 Winds Student Movement, Don Paul, Richard Aoki, Yuri Kochiyama, and more..
To endorse or for more info: onedaystrike [at] topica.com or bmwang [at] ucdavis.edu
Add Your Comments
Comments
(Hide Comments)
I think calling a general strike is a poor strategy at this time, because without large and strong organizations behind it, it will be a failure. We need to pursue strategies that will be seen as powerful, not as flops.
You don't drive and SUV, do you?
It's okay to try and not succeed. Sometimes that happens. But unless you have a crystal ball, no one actually knows at this point whether this could work or not.
It's okay to try and not succeed. Sometimes that happens. But unless you have a crystal ball, no one actually knows at this point whether this could work or not.
It's a mistake to assume you need the backing of a large organization to effectuate a 1-day national strike, although it certainly helps. The 1999 WTO protest began as a diverse coalition of groups, and although large union organizations also participated, it was not the leadership of the AFL-CIO so much as it was the sustained ability of so many seemingly disparate social, political, economic, and environmental advocacy groups to coordinate their efforts over the course of a year into one massive protest that had the largest effect. What's more, large bureaucracies tend towards political compromise and last-minute back-door deals, whereas building a movement on a diverse coalition with a common purpose has the potential to gain growing momentum that cannot be compromised away.
-AO
-AO
I think the call for a general strike heads in the right direction in one sense: It points to the working class as the force that can prevent the war. It also points to a key strength of our class - withdrawel of our labor.
However, second only to insurrection, a general strike is a very, very serious step. It won't be taken up lightly by workers. I think it would be better to call for a half day work stoppage as an intermediary step. More important than that, though, is how we call for it.
I think the call should be linked to the need to transform the unions, the need to take on the establishment union leadership that is passive in the face of the employers' attacks both at home and abroad. Some of the same union officials who are oh-so-"progressive" regarding such issues as the war, refuse to lead any fight against their own employers when it comes to decent contracts and contract enforcement. This is a continual complaint of most union members and unless they see the struggle as part of a campaign to change this, they will not get very much involved at this point.
Another point is that if we are serious, then we will focus our efforts in going door-to-door and work place to work place to build neighborhood and work place committees against the war.
However, second only to insurrection, a general strike is a very, very serious step. It won't be taken up lightly by workers. I think it would be better to call for a half day work stoppage as an intermediary step. More important than that, though, is how we call for it.
I think the call should be linked to the need to transform the unions, the need to take on the establishment union leadership that is passive in the face of the employers' attacks both at home and abroad. Some of the same union officials who are oh-so-"progressive" regarding such issues as the war, refuse to lead any fight against their own employers when it comes to decent contracts and contract enforcement. This is a continual complaint of most union members and unless they see the struggle as part of a campaign to change this, they will not get very much involved at this point.
Another point is that if we are serious, then we will focus our efforts in going door-to-door and work place to work place to build neighborhood and work place committees against the war.
The general strike issue came up at an event I was at tonight talking about the war. One of the speakers recommended a book - "The Dream of Debs" written in 1908. Anyone know it? That person was going to try to get me a copy.
Confronting Yankee-phobia on the Left will be Tony Blair's toughest task yet.
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/article/0,,482-536072,00.html
"Why then do the myths of America the Hateful take such powerful hold? Because anti-Americanism provides a useful emotional function which goes beyond logic and reaches deep into the darker recesses of the European soul. In centuries past those on the Left who wished to personalise their hatred of capitalism, who sought to make it emotionally resonant by fastening an envious political passion on to a blameless scapegoat people, embraced anti-Semitism. It was the socialism of fools. Which is what anti-Americanism is now."
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/article/0,,482-536072,00.html
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/article/0,,482-536072,00.html
"Why then do the myths of America the Hateful take such powerful hold? Because anti-Americanism provides a useful emotional function which goes beyond logic and reaches deep into the darker recesses of the European soul. In centuries past those on the Left who wished to personalise their hatred of capitalism, who sought to make it emotionally resonant by fastening an envious political passion on to a blameless scapegoat people, embraced anti-Semitism. It was the socialism of fools. Which is what anti-Americanism is now."
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/article/0,,482-536072,00.html
Anything to report from the meeting?
Your blog is well done, although I don't agree with 99% of what it says. Still, it looks good.
I was interested by your account of your transformation of opinion about the Palestinians after 9/11. In psychological terms, it appears that previous to 9/11 you identified with the victims (as many do in a society ruled by powerful elites that make us feel powerless). However, following 9/11 and it's horrific implications played over and over on TV, in order to escape that scene, you began to see the Palestinians as being the aggressors, and in this way you could switch sides, and now identify with a protected victim, the Israelis, while at the same time actually take some power back, since the Palestinians are trapped in, essentially, a 'camp' run by the UN and controlled under 24 hour a day curfews. Because they are a trapped society in which Israel can fire missles into and can control their every move with soldiers and tanks , it often feels better to identify with the side that is the aggressor, especially when 9/11 hit close to home.
It's an understandable response.
And the jets that you feature on your site also indicate your need to feel in control and powerful. Which is fine, we all have that need.
I would just say that your ability to identify with the Palestinians pre-9/11 is commendable - lot's couldn't ever feel that sort of compassion, crisis or not. And the average Palestinian on the street isn't blowing themselves up - mothers, kids, babies, 90 year old grandmothers . . . . most of the people there are like you and me, except they're confined to their houses 24 hours a day thanks to a select few that are bringing their plight to the attention of the world, and murdering others in the process. What are their options? They want to have their own country, and they themselves could not dismantle Hamas if they tried.
If you want to know something about Hamas, take a look at this - http://207.36.59.39/other/2002/2902isr_hamas.html
Who knows if it's true? The situation there is a lot more complex than you might realize. Good luck figuring it all out. I think the key is to continue to be open-minded and aware.
I was interested by your account of your transformation of opinion about the Palestinians after 9/11. In psychological terms, it appears that previous to 9/11 you identified with the victims (as many do in a society ruled by powerful elites that make us feel powerless). However, following 9/11 and it's horrific implications played over and over on TV, in order to escape that scene, you began to see the Palestinians as being the aggressors, and in this way you could switch sides, and now identify with a protected victim, the Israelis, while at the same time actually take some power back, since the Palestinians are trapped in, essentially, a 'camp' run by the UN and controlled under 24 hour a day curfews. Because they are a trapped society in which Israel can fire missles into and can control their every move with soldiers and tanks , it often feels better to identify with the side that is the aggressor, especially when 9/11 hit close to home.
It's an understandable response.
And the jets that you feature on your site also indicate your need to feel in control and powerful. Which is fine, we all have that need.
I would just say that your ability to identify with the Palestinians pre-9/11 is commendable - lot's couldn't ever feel that sort of compassion, crisis or not. And the average Palestinian on the street isn't blowing themselves up - mothers, kids, babies, 90 year old grandmothers . . . . most of the people there are like you and me, except they're confined to their houses 24 hours a day thanks to a select few that are bringing their plight to the attention of the world, and murdering others in the process. What are their options? They want to have their own country, and they themselves could not dismantle Hamas if they tried.
If you want to know something about Hamas, take a look at this - http://207.36.59.39/other/2002/2902isr_hamas.html
Who knows if it's true? The situation there is a lot more complex than you might realize. Good luck figuring it all out. I think the key is to continue to be open-minded and aware.
"that these same people could harbor so much hate and loathing for Israel and its citizens."
Like I said - the regular people aren't the ones blowing themselves up. They may hate the people and the government who are restricting them to their houses non-stop, just as the Israelis might hate them, but they aren't the ones committing the bombings.
Also, the Israelis were celebrating too - in case you hadn't heard about this -
http://makeashorterlink.com/?I28345413
"yet the IDF tries to minimize casualties"
Ah, so you're the one who thinks they do this. It seems bizarre to me. What about Iian Hook, the UN worker, and the woman worker also shot on the same day? Even just statistically, this is virtually impossible to consider as a coincidence. There are countless incidents now which are clearly beyond what could be considered an effort to avoid casualties - the man crushed in his wheelchair, the deaf man crushed in his house, the many many children that have been killed, the 95 year old woman shot in the neck, on and on and on. It's sick to even think about. If ANY military makes this many mistakes, they should have their weapons taken away. But it's clear that these aren't mistakes.
"that rests solely in the hands of Arafat and his homies."
Why would you pick one side and blame them when we know that both sides are involved? And why pick the side that has the least amount of power over it's situation? Arafat is confined and cannot even participate in any conferences, while Sharon can travel the world. The Palestinian people are confined to their homes. How could anyone even work when they can't leave their house? Imagine, confining all of a city to their houses - don't you think you'd be turning it into a powder keg ready to blow any second? And take their jobs away, take away the ability to even go to a grocery store. What happens? Peace? The curfew and occupation is not the answer.
In my opinion an international peace force needs to come in and take over, since both sides cannot work it out on their own and one side has nukes. It's an incredibly dangerous situation to allow to continue, for the sake of the entire world as we potentially enter WWIII. An international peace force would bring some sense of fairness to the situation at least. Take it out of the hands of Sharon and Arafat.
Like I said - the regular people aren't the ones blowing themselves up. They may hate the people and the government who are restricting them to their houses non-stop, just as the Israelis might hate them, but they aren't the ones committing the bombings.
Also, the Israelis were celebrating too - in case you hadn't heard about this -
http://makeashorterlink.com/?I28345413
"yet the IDF tries to minimize casualties"
Ah, so you're the one who thinks they do this. It seems bizarre to me. What about Iian Hook, the UN worker, and the woman worker also shot on the same day? Even just statistically, this is virtually impossible to consider as a coincidence. There are countless incidents now which are clearly beyond what could be considered an effort to avoid casualties - the man crushed in his wheelchair, the deaf man crushed in his house, the many many children that have been killed, the 95 year old woman shot in the neck, on and on and on. It's sick to even think about. If ANY military makes this many mistakes, they should have their weapons taken away. But it's clear that these aren't mistakes.
"that rests solely in the hands of Arafat and his homies."
Why would you pick one side and blame them when we know that both sides are involved? And why pick the side that has the least amount of power over it's situation? Arafat is confined and cannot even participate in any conferences, while Sharon can travel the world. The Palestinian people are confined to their homes. How could anyone even work when they can't leave their house? Imagine, confining all of a city to their houses - don't you think you'd be turning it into a powder keg ready to blow any second? And take their jobs away, take away the ability to even go to a grocery store. What happens? Peace? The curfew and occupation is not the answer.
In my opinion an international peace force needs to come in and take over, since both sides cannot work it out on their own and one side has nukes. It's an incredibly dangerous situation to allow to continue, for the sake of the entire world as we potentially enter WWIII. An international peace force would bring some sense of fairness to the situation at least. Take it out of the hands of Sharon and Arafat.
I suddenly have an idea about what the pResident of the White House could do with all those troops he's sending to the Middle East.
Let's pretend we are going for Saddam and instead swing around and occupy Israel/Palestine.
I'll bet allies would be climbing over each other to join up!
It's a better idea than using our troops to get cheap gas for Americans who insist on their God-given right to drive huge SUVs.
We could send our troops to get the settlers out of the occupied territories, rebuild all the homes that the Israelis bulldozed with American supplied Caterpillar tractors, and maybe reestablish Jerusalem as an international city.
If we get any resistance we could use it as an excuse to re-establish the 1947 UN partition plan! That's sort of an eye for an eye, isn't it?
Or would it be a case of what goes around, comes around.
Let's pretend we are going for Saddam and instead swing around and occupy Israel/Palestine.
I'll bet allies would be climbing over each other to join up!
It's a better idea than using our troops to get cheap gas for Americans who insist on their God-given right to drive huge SUVs.
We could send our troops to get the settlers out of the occupied territories, rebuild all the homes that the Israelis bulldozed with American supplied Caterpillar tractors, and maybe reestablish Jerusalem as an international city.
If we get any resistance we could use it as an excuse to re-establish the 1947 UN partition plan! That's sort of an eye for an eye, isn't it?
Or would it be a case of what goes around, comes around.
> an international peace force
by just thinking • Monday January 13, 2003 at 09:13 PM
> I suddenly have an idea about what the pResident of the White House could do with all those troops he's sending to the Middle East.
> Let's pretend we are going for Saddam and instead swing around and occupy Israel/Palestine.
> I'll bet allies would be climbing over each other to join up!
Actually, the idea of separating both sides with a U.S./international peace keeping force has been on the table for awhile. It's a viable prospect that both Israel and Palestine have considered.
> It's a better idea than using our troops to get cheap gas for Americans who insist on their God-given right to drive huge SUVs.
Don't fall for the propaganda touted here that going to war with Iraq is about oil/cheap gas. It's not and never has been.
Anyway, the first to complain when gas prices go up are not SUV owners - they bought the bloody things with the full knowledge of what happens when gas prices go up - but the Left, who blame oil companies for "gouging," irrespective of what OPEC does, or the laws of supply and demand.
by just thinking • Monday January 13, 2003 at 09:13 PM
> I suddenly have an idea about what the pResident of the White House could do with all those troops he's sending to the Middle East.
> Let's pretend we are going for Saddam and instead swing around and occupy Israel/Palestine.
> I'll bet allies would be climbing over each other to join up!
Actually, the idea of separating both sides with a U.S./international peace keeping force has been on the table for awhile. It's a viable prospect that both Israel and Palestine have considered.
> It's a better idea than using our troops to get cheap gas for Americans who insist on their God-given right to drive huge SUVs.
Don't fall for the propaganda touted here that going to war with Iraq is about oil/cheap gas. It's not and never has been.
Anyway, the first to complain when gas prices go up are not SUV owners - they bought the bloody things with the full knowledge of what happens when gas prices go up - but the Left, who blame oil companies for "gouging," irrespective of what OPEC does, or the laws of supply and demand.
>>> Calling for a One Day Nationwide General Strike May 1st 2003 <<<
I didn't realize the people who plan these things actually had real jobs to strike against
I didn't realize the people who plan these things actually had real jobs to strike against
Why not strike on the day the ground way breaks out?
And if a strike could work that way I'd support it. I'll even help plan for it if I can. But we also need to have the back-up plan of May Day since we don't know when any war will 'officially' start, as the bombing may simply just gradually escalate, etc.
I think there are many routes to increasing social justice and peace, but this notion of a general strike seems more than a little premature.
BOV posted about how "patriotism" reigns just outside the city limits, and more than that can probably be said that it reigns outside of a few centers of progressive thinking in the major urban areas of our country.
So my first argument is that the vast majority of American people live under the shadow of Corporate Media so they won't have a clue about your strike, so success seems doomed right from the start.
Second, if the general strike fails it will be seen as an embarrassment instead of as a moral victory.
Third it seems like the energy we might direct towards such a speculative venture could be used more effectively if we created a targeted boycott instead of a "general strike."
For example, if we took the time to find a vulnerable weapons profiteer, or a vulnerable oil company and create a highly visible, durable boycott with pickets and brochure handouts, we would probably accomplish more. We might even force symbolic changes when a company comes under fire from our pickets.
I've seen people touting SBC's decision to hire a billing service -- maybe we should devise an action against SBC. There are lots of potential targets that we might have success with if we single them out, but if we try to do something major like a general strike and fail, then we've wasted an opportunity.
Just a thought.
BOV posted about how "patriotism" reigns just outside the city limits, and more than that can probably be said that it reigns outside of a few centers of progressive thinking in the major urban areas of our country.
So my first argument is that the vast majority of American people live under the shadow of Corporate Media so they won't have a clue about your strike, so success seems doomed right from the start.
Second, if the general strike fails it will be seen as an embarrassment instead of as a moral victory.
Third it seems like the energy we might direct towards such a speculative venture could be used more effectively if we created a targeted boycott instead of a "general strike."
For example, if we took the time to find a vulnerable weapons profiteer, or a vulnerable oil company and create a highly visible, durable boycott with pickets and brochure handouts, we would probably accomplish more. We might even force symbolic changes when a company comes under fire from our pickets.
I've seen people touting SBC's decision to hire a billing service -- maybe we should devise an action against SBC. There are lots of potential targets that we might have success with if we single them out, but if we try to do something major like a general strike and fail, then we've wasted an opportunity.
Just a thought.
Does anyone know if any of the major unions support this strike? What is the stance of AFL-CIO or their sub-unions (UAW, ILWT, IBT, CSEA, etc)? Which major union will support this one day strike?
Thanks for the thoughts.
"if the general strike fails it will be seen as an embarrassment"
By whom? The right wing? I don't really care what they think. The 'Liberals'? I also don't care what the SUV driving Starbucks liberals think. I'm not embarrassed about anything I take on. Everything we do is for a reason and I'm not particularly interested in PR. At this point anyone without a crystal ball cannot predict what the little moron will do and what the response must be.
"a targeted boycott"
Good idea. Come to the meeting and bring it up. I think talking about a general strike can bring up all sorts of great ideas, and some of them might beat it out, or else get developed simultaneously. So what? This won't detract in a major way from other stuff. Why? Because people do what is most meaningful to them, it comes naturally. Trying to redirect them will only work if you can excite them with something else equally as well.
But I think the general strike idea torch needs to be carried in the event that it can ever happen. Convincing the masses with image is meaningful sometimes, true, but we can't let that direct our actions. Each of us needs to work on what is right for us, and we all have a set of unique genes that gives us the right to follow our own bliss.
But thanks for the critique.
"if the general strike fails it will be seen as an embarrassment"
By whom? The right wing? I don't really care what they think. The 'Liberals'? I also don't care what the SUV driving Starbucks liberals think. I'm not embarrassed about anything I take on. Everything we do is for a reason and I'm not particularly interested in PR. At this point anyone without a crystal ball cannot predict what the little moron will do and what the response must be.
"a targeted boycott"
Good idea. Come to the meeting and bring it up. I think talking about a general strike can bring up all sorts of great ideas, and some of them might beat it out, or else get developed simultaneously. So what? This won't detract in a major way from other stuff. Why? Because people do what is most meaningful to them, it comes naturally. Trying to redirect them will only work if you can excite them with something else equally as well.
But I think the general strike idea torch needs to be carried in the event that it can ever happen. Convincing the masses with image is meaningful sometimes, true, but we can't let that direct our actions. Each of us needs to work on what is right for us, and we all have a set of unique genes that gives us the right to follow our own bliss.
But thanks for the critique.
"Because people do what is most meaningful to them, it comes naturally."
Indeed. Most people hold thier own self intrest above all else. If there is a "sick out", that might work, but active Nationwide protests will end up turning violent. We all know (or should know) the dynamics of mob-mentality. A rally turns riot in the throw of a rock or the swing of a billy-club. Give it a shot, but keep it indoors.
Unless you WANT violence... In that case you will have defeated your own purpose. Tread lightly and act wisely.
Indeed. Most people hold thier own self intrest above all else. If there is a "sick out", that might work, but active Nationwide protests will end up turning violent. We all know (or should know) the dynamics of mob-mentality. A rally turns riot in the throw of a rock or the swing of a billy-club. Give it a shot, but keep it indoors.
Unless you WANT violence... In that case you will have defeated your own purpose. Tread lightly and act wisely.
>>Do not throw tea in the harbor. Do not drive the money changers from the temple with a whip. Obey all laws.
These same phrases have been used in similar threads by the same individual. According to the editors, this constitutes 'Spam'.
These same phrases have been used in similar threads by the same individual. According to the editors, this constitutes 'Spam'.
"nessie can do anything he likes here. You can't. He's a member of the collective. You aren't.
:)
:)
Can we move this up a bit please? the appointed governing council of the US seems about ready to launch their 1st strike march 14th or 15th. Could we maybe send our message before that date?
We are 100% volunteer and depend on your participation to sustain our efforts!
Donate
$190.00 donated
in the past month
Get Involved
If you'd like to help with maintaining or developing the website, contact us.
Publish
Publish your stories and upcoming events on Indybay.
Topics
More
Search Indybay's Archives
Advanced Search
►
▼
IMC Network