Jeremy Brecher, Labour4Sustainability || Social strikes represent the withdrawal of cooperation and acquiescence by a whole society, manifested for example in general strikes and mass popular “people power” uprisings. Previous commentaries in this series have examined the historic role of social strikes in overcoming tyranny worldwide; social strikes in the US; using social strikes against MAGA tyranny; how to lay the groundwork for social strikes; social strike timelines and organization; and goals and tactics for conducting social strikes. But how do social strikes succeed?
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8FZj0KyTO2w
Repressive authorities famously try a long string of tactics, including ridicule, ostracism, division, harassment, and repression, to defeat a movement. Only when all these have failed to quell the movement are the authorities likely to recognize that they will have to make concessions or face the threat of movement action without abatement. Movements that are ultimately victorious often seem to suffer a long string of defeats – witness, for example, the long struggle against apartheid in South Africa.
Movements need to be prepared to continue despite such defeats – that is what makes it possible for them to succeed in the end. They need to interpret such defeats as necessary steppingstones on the path to victory. And they need to master the art of strategic retreat, which, as Mao once indicated, consists of conducting small offensives within the context of a broader pull-back. Successful retreats make an opponent’s victories hollow. They establish that, despite repression, challenge from the movement will not go away. As Gene Sharp once wrote, “Massive stubbornness can have powerful political consequences.”
Sharp pointed out that most movements succeed less by overwhelming their opponents than by making their opponents — and the supporters on whom their opponents depend — conclude that the price of continuing the struggle is too high. That often takes the form of the emergence of “peace factions” among the authorities. Promoting such splits is a key strategic objective for social strikes. That requires that potential “peace faction” elements within the establishment not be driven into the arms of the “war faction.” That may mean that the possibility of a relatively peaceful and amicable resolution must be held out, even in the face of repression.
How do successful social strikes end? Of course, autocrats can simply resign or accede to electoral defeat. But in many instances (like President Trump in 2019) they are unwilling to leave office voluntarily. If the authorities are nonetheless unable to suppress the movement, at some point they are likely to turn to tacit or formal negotiations. In Poland after the movement’s strikes and factory occupations, this took the form of the “roundtable talks” between the regime and the emerging Solidarity union; in South Africa after the great COSATU strike it took the form of negotiations between the apartheid government and the African National Congress represented by Nelson Mandela. Even regimes that have sworn never to negotiate with their opponents may well do so at the point at which other alternatives look even worse. While this is hard to imagine with MAGA tyranny, it is also true that the slogan TACO – Trump Always Chickens Out – contains at least a grain of truth.
The idea of negotiations with “the enemy” is always uncomfortable for a social movement. There is always an opportunity for splits and sell-outs. But such negotiations are often part of the way that social movements and social strikes have led to significant change.
Movements are most likely to negotiate effectively if they have treated negotiations as an explicit goal of their action, so that the opening of negotiations is perceived as a victory, rather than a confusing diversion. Negotiations are most likely to be effective if the movement has had an effective process of establishing common goals, so that different groups cannot be split off by the offer of narrow concessions. The British did just this to the movement for Indian independence, splitting Hindus and Muslims and leading to the partition of India and Pakistan.
Movements need to establish ways to hold negotiators accountable. The negotiations that ended the first Gdansk general strike were conducted in front of TV cameras that broadcast every detail to tens of thousands of workers occupying the shipyard outside.
Finally, negotiations are most likely to succeed if they provide some means for graceful retreat by the authorities rather than requiring humiliating unconditional surrender. For this the movement must have a clear sense of what are its essential demands and what are incidental matters on which it can afford to compromise.
Negotiations are not an alternative to struggle, but another way of conducting it. They are often an on-again, off-again matter; movements must be prepared to walk away from fruitless negotiations and return to direct struggle. As Mao put it, “Talk talk, fight fight.”
“The power is in our solidarity”
Resisting the rise of tyranny will no doubt require sacrifice. After all, we are dealing with an aspiring tyrant who sends armed, masked agents into farms and restaurants to brutalize workers; endorses the roughing-up and arrest of elected political opponents; and lionizes foreign leaders who shoot down demonstrators in the street. But that sacrifice will not be primarily on behalf of one political party vs. another, of Democrats vs. Republicans. It will be a defense of democracy – defense of government of the people, by the people, and for the people.
Beyond that, it is the protection of that which makes our life together on earth possible. It is defense of the human rights of all people; of the conditions of our earth and its climate that make our life possible; of the constitutional principle that government must be accountable to law; of global cooperation to provide a secure future for our people and planet; and of our ability to live together in our communities, our country, and our world. A MAGA tyranny is a threat to all of us as members of society. Overcoming MAGA usurpation of power is social self-defense.
Social strikes can play a role in the resistance to growing MAGA authoritarianism. But, in the wise words of union leader Sara Nelson, “A general strike is a tactic, but the power in it is our solidarity.” We should think of social strikes not as ends in themselves but as one possible means to build the solidarity and power that will be necessary to overcome MAGA tyranny.
Social strikes are unlikely until there is widespread anger, mass mobilization, and willingness to take serious risks. But they can be part of the strategic horizon for social self-defense. They demonstrate that, no matter what tyrants may do, ultimately the people have the means to defeat them.
https://worldecology.info/category/towards-an-ecological-general-strike/
Discover more from Class Autonomy
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
