Are general strikes effective?

[IB_taking_over]

Here in the good old U.S. of A., we currently playing with the idea of strikes and protests as a way of voicing our disapproval of the current regime. So, I was curious what you all thought of the idea of strikes against the government. 

[Rosalina]

I have mixed feelings about these protests, mainly stemming from personal experiences.

Sure, protests and strikes are a much more peaceful alternative to voice displeasure against the government than other methods some employ. However, I've found them to be mostly ineffective in creating any substantial change in modern times. For every successful protest in Egypt, Tunisia and Ukraine, there are countless other protests against the government that produced little to no change (or even made the government tighten their hold)

Another aspect about protests and strikes is how it impacts the common citizen of the country. Depending on the scale and nature of the protest, there are chances that the country may start becoming unattractive to investors, causing the economy to take a hit. Protests and strikes may cause the city to go under a "lockdown" of sorts and close businesses/impact transportation for the duration of the protest, harming the citizen who wishes to just go on with their day to day life rather than get involved with their country's political climate. I also know of certain protests where the government seized shipping containers from traders in order to create a barrier around government buildings- this particular protest went on for almost half a year, while the trader had to deal with the loss. Again, an example of how people can be negatively affected by this.

The last issue I have with these protests in how I sometimes feel that the leaders of some protests, sometimes using the crowd as a sort of  human shield. They'll encourage the people to charge ahead and clash with police, while they themselves are staying in the back.

 

[talalrulez]

lol im syrian, and look at what a couple of innocent strikes turned to in my country. All though to be fair, governments in the middle-east have been despicable for decades, and enough evidence can be seen by the outreach of the Arab Spring. All cases of the arab spring, besides Tunisia has resulted in a civil war of sorts, with the most obvious and bloody case being Syria. 

However, in your case, where most Americans are not suffering from poverty, and every country has their eyes set on the USA, nothing as bad as those can happen. Trump, however, will perhaps ignore you the best he can. i mean, doesn't look like he cared about the "Muslim Ban"(im muslim, and i agree it wasn't a muslim ban, but a ban of sorts on muslims from those countries. lol. btw i cant enter america anymore  )

[aTeddy]

It could be argued that the inherent goal [it is different in every case] of strikes and protests is worth the costs that it leads to. 
For example, if you lived in a dictatorship and wanted to reform it into a democratic country, you would need a huge grassroots revolution in order to make that happen. I don't think people participate in strikes or protests without some knowledge that it will come at a cost to them. I think then the debate becomes a matter of does the end justify the means? I personally find myself adopting this type of framework and I would say the "yardstick" of 'effective' is does it achieve its goal. If it does, it is an effective protest.

[tim9800]

I think the modern day notion striking has fallen very much in effectiveness due to the success of preceding strikes. Think of a tool - it grows dull as one uses it. Applying this logic to protest, society's use of it in the past has already resulted in the most essential changes - I.e. black rights, women's rights. I am not attempting to imply that current issues are more or less important than those ones, however, it is the method - through protest - which has gotten 'old'. I mean old in the sense that the proportion of people actively promoting and opposing change has fallen dramatically in comparison to those who are indifferent. Maybe repetitive protesting creates the illusion that issues are less important than they seem, and until society thinks it is threatened again, strikes will be generally ineffective.

Edited March 13, 2017 by tim9800

[talalrulez]

7 minutes ago, tim9800 said:

I think the modern day notion striking has fallen very much in effectiveness due to the success of preceding strikes. Think of a tool - it grows dull as one uses it. Applying this logic to protest, society's use of it in the past has already resulted in the most essential changes - I.e. black rights, women's rights. I am not attempting to imply that current issues are more or less important than those ones, however, it is the method - through protest - which has gotten 'old'. I mean old in the sense that the proportion of people actively promoting and opposing change has fallen dramatically in comparison to those who are indifferent. Maybe repetitive protesting creates the illusion that issues are less important than they seem, and until society thinks it is threatened again, strikes will be generally ineffective.

that may be true in the western world, but definitely not in Africa, Asia, etc. Even Europe has seen a surge in the number of protests, usually to do with the subject of immigration. So, no tbh, i don't agree with you that protest has gone blunt. After all, especially in our modern world, with availability of the internet, a single strike no matter how large can reach the whole world and reflects to other countries on the perception of the target country's populace on recent policies. 

Although they definitely not as effective as they used to be, i believe because of the degree of the strike. Once a big European country (not big in size, but in its popularity, or a word like that?) has a major protest where there are significant clashes with police, and people perhaps go on strike, definitely the world will react. But for now, countries not associated with the West will in all honesty and let's not deny it here, have their protests, no matter the severity or the size of the protest, ignored completely, or if not ignored, people will know very little about it. 

[talalrulez]

On 2/17/2017 at 1:05 AM, IB_taking_over said:

Here in the good old U.S. of A., we currently playing with the idea of strikes and protests as a way of voicing our disapproval of the current regime. So, I was curious what you all thought of the idea of strikes against the government. 

Please don't call the USA a regime.A regime is according to online dictionary " a government, especially an authoritarian one." Authoritarian means " favouring or enforcing strict obedience to authority at the expense of personal freedom." America does not suffer from a regime, and you're calling it a regime, at least in my view, brings insult(?) to the people living under ACTUAL regimes.

[Rosalina]

5 hours ago, talalrulez said:

Please don't call the USA a regime.A regime is according to online dictionary " a government, especially an authoritarian one." Authoritarian means " favouring or enforcing strict obedience to authority at the expense of personal freedom." America does not suffer from a regime, and you're calling it a regime, at least in my view, brings insult(?) to the people living under ACTUAL regimes.

She's not referring to America as a regime in the authoritarian sense. She's probably referring to America's prevailing system of government. The word "regime" can also be used to indicate that.