Reply #37: Many things 'are possible'; but they're not what the USA has

[muriel_volestrangler]

Unless you're in a highly rural area, most food only gets to you via corporations.

The idea is to hurt fat pocketbooks because enough workers are fed up enough to say, "We're willing to suffer so that we can change things."

And you really need to think whether a general strike is the way to achieve that. "Fat pocketbooks" make their money over the year, not day by day; people do need to buy food day by day. Corporations will not be the first to suffer in a general strike. People will, and then they'll demand a unified action to stop that - and that means the government. General strikes are aimed against governments, not corporations.

Specific strikes or boycotts against the corporations that have screwed up the economy are a much better idea. The call to move accounts to credit unions is great. To stop using credit cards, likewise. If it's oil companies you want to target, then try to blockade their refineries. That has almost the effect of a general strike, because it shuts down nearly all transport, but at least makes more sense if your demand is 'stop polluting the Gulf' or something.

The thing is, people haven't yet expressed the desire for 'things to change' using the simple, painless process of voting in some decent politicians. They had a chance this time last year, and voted in worse ones, overall, at both the state and national level. I really don't think people are yet at the stage of huge support for a painful general strike when they haven't even tried a bit of sane voting yet. You won't get the support for a general strike. But the Occupy protests have shown a good level of support - and I hope that means some good candidates can run in 2012 with a realistic chance of getting elected. We need a lot more Elizabeth Warrens.