Discussion of general strikes, nonviolent “people power” popular uprisings, and similar forms of mass revolt has become widespread in the movement to resist the oncoming MAGA tyranny. The use of “social strikes” – mass action by a whole population — to overcome authoritarian regimes in Poland, the Philippines, Brazil, South Korea, and elsewhere lends credibility to such an approach. While today the U.S. is far from conditions that might lead to social strikes, the fact that they are even under discussion makes it worthwhile to consider what they might be like and how to conduct them.

It is difficult to envision concretely what social strikes would mean in the context of the struggle against Trumpian autocracy. We can presume that growing rage at Trump’s depredations may manifest itself at some point in some form, but what form will depend on many unpredictables: what the regime will do, what the people will do; what third parties will do. Many features of reality may be unknown and even unknowable.

Social strikes could look like the extended periods of labor conflict that Rosa Luxemburg dubbed “mass strikes,” which have occurred at least half-a-dozen times in U.S. history. Or they might resemble the mass political uprisings that have removed authoritarian dictatorships around the world. They might involve a period of mass strike growing into a political uprising. They are likely to combine features of planned action and unplanned responses to emerging conditions. They are likely to exhibit both strategic and emotive behavior.

By far the two largest outpourings of popular protest in recent decades were Occupy Wall Street and Black Lives Matter. Hardly anybody anticipated either of these movements, and the forms they took were very different from each other and from previous forms of action in the U.S. or, indeed, elsewhere in the world. In such a context of unpredictability, preconceived plans and assumptions can not only be wrong, they can be a disorganizing force. Any attempt to shape such events needs to start by recognizing their probable uniqueness.

Social strikes express power that results from the fundamental dependence of ruling groups on those they rule – a reality emphasized by both Marx and Gandhi. Social strikes cause a problem for the owners and managers of the businesses and institutions that they shut down. They appeal to and mobilize a wide public by embodying its values and interests in opposition to the regime. They demonstrate that the authorities depend on the cooperation and acquiescence of those they rule, and that they are vulnerable to the non-cooperation of the population.

These forms of efficacy can sometimes interfere with each other. For example, disorderly actions may frighten the authorities but at the same time also frighten a large part of the population. Much of the art of social strikes lies in appealing to a wide public while at the same time effectively confronting employers and the authorities.

Vigilante violence, police and military attacks, abductions, persecutions, prosecutions, slanders, and similar tactics are part of the normal playbook of authoritarians in power. Social strikes in the MAGA era will surely be met by such repression. If people have the necessary courage, they can not only stand up to such repression, they can use “political jujitsu” to define it as proof of the authoritarian, anti-democratic character of those perpetrating it.

Social Self-Defense against a creeping or galloping MAGA coup is most likely to succeed through a combination of electoral and social strike methods. The overcoming of authoritarian regimes in the Philippines, Serbia, and elsewhere, while accomplished under circumstances far different from those in the U.S. today — provide examples of how they can be combined.

Timelines

The detailed timelines of social strikes cannot be known in advance. They are likely to grow out of a gradual and not always visible buildup of harm — and resentment at harm. This is already occurring. It could lead to a series of escalating struggles, possibly punctuated by defeats or concessions generating temporary quiescence. Popular opposition could also diminish as a result of repression, MAGA counter-maneuvers, a sense of futility, or other “unknown unknowns.” A period of apparent quiescence with a rising sense of grievance might eventuate in a sudden explosion of popular rage and a mass uprising. Whether gradually or rapidly, social strikes will need to develop the power necessary to reduce MAGA power enough to bring an end to its rule through elections, collapse of political support, or social disruption.

There is a difference between a protest action, lasting perhaps a day or two, and an open-ended struggle for power. An effective one-day general strike would be a valuable augmentation of the marches, demonstrations, days of action, and other protests that are already in progress. Beyond that, in countries ranging from the Philippines to Tunesia to Korea, a protracted social strike has been the ultimate means to overcome tyranny.

Organization

Social strikes are most likely to involve a combination of existing and newly emerging forms of organization. They often require coordination of both formal organizations and rapidly improvised informal ones.

A cluster of organizations have taken the lead in organizing the Hands Off, Mayday, and No Kings days of action. The most prominent are Indivisible, 50501, and MaydayStrong, all highly decentralized networks with minimal national structure, originally developed in the first and second Trump presidencies respectively to oppose his rising authoritarianism. They have coordinated with more than 200 other organizations; without formal organizational umbrella or coalition structure they have so far been able to agree on program and strategy for the days of action.

Immediately after the October No Kings Day, sponsoring organizations announced a No Kings Alliance, “a nationwide rapid response network built to meet this moment: coordinating across our movement to push back in real time against authoritarian attacks.” Indivisible co-founder Ezra Levin  told a mass call with thousands of participants, “The alliance is an effort to coordinate the full diversity of our movement and use the leverage that we have with the people power we’ve collectively built.”

Experience indicates that informal coordination can be effective in resisting MAGA  authoritarianism. Expanded national coordination can play a further role in social strikes, but it will need to develop new capacities in order to do so. It will need to be able to:

• respond to rapidly changing states of the public mind
• function despite repression
• deepen its coordination, developing a common strategy and becoming able to act together on a daily basis
• “on-board” new constituencies and engage in new modes of action
• avoid factional splits

Labor unions are almost always a component of social strikes. However, in the U.S. the leading labor federations have never led a general strike – indeed, as we have seen in a previous commentary in this series, they have almost always opposed them. Organized labor’s participation in social strikes will therefore most likely depend on the development of networks of activists within and across unions who are willing to lead or join in emerging actions. They can also endeavor to draw official union structures and leaders into the struggle.

Self-organization at the grassroots will be a crucial ingredient for any social strike. This will be especially so under conditions of serious repression, when unions and other large-scale organizations are likely to be under immobilizing attack.

Historically, self-organization for U.S. social strikes in the absence of large-scale union leadership has taken a variety of forms. One is small “affinity groups” that send representatives to “spokescouncils” — highly effective in the 1999 “Battle of Seattle” that shut down the city of Seattle and the World Trade Organization’s founding convention. Another is “workers councils” where workgroups send delegates to a representative body. This is particularly important where unions don’t exist or are unwilling to act. Large wildcat strikes like the 1970 postal wildcat have sometimes been coordinated in this way. A third is general assemblies like those that played a central role in the Occupy Wall Street movement, open to anyone and generally moderated by trained facilitators.

There are currently many potential seeds for such self-organization. Pro-democracy, anti-MAGA days of action have been organized in more than two thousand seven hundred locations. These are generally sponsored and organized by local coordinating groups that may or may not be affiliated with one or another national organization but that often coordinate locally across organizational lines. In many cases they have developed activities far more continuous than the periodic national days of action. And many are pursuing more disruptive forms of action. They can begin to define one of their roles as building support and preparing for social strikes.

In a context of repression, multiple forms of communication within a movement are essential. Internet and social networking tools have proved themselves crucial in recent social strikes, but they need to be supplemented by a wide range of phone trees, personal networks, word-of-mouth communication, and other media beyond the reach of repressive authorities. Communication needs to perform two functions, each of which has its own requirements. Communication must allow for rapid formation of opinion and consensus. And it must make possible rapid coordination of action.

Social strikes against MAGA tyranny are unlikely to follow a preconceived plan. They require flexible improvisation. But that doesn’t mean there is no way to prepare for them. The best preparation is to have “cadres in place” — grassroots activists who understand the need for and possibility of social strikes. To paraphrase Flight Attendants Union president Sara Nelson, these are people who are already engaged in “coordinated solidarity” — and who are “ready to strike.”

---