The reason why capitalists don't go on strike is that they have no one to leech off of. Going on strike is only possible if productive people are still working to give you food and shelter during it.
The purpose of striking in the post-Internet world is to draw public attention to your cause. It should be used rarely. If public attention is in your favor, then the strike will likely succeed in some fashion, usually the ownership settling. However the strike should not be too long or inconvenient or else it will merely annoy the public, who will call you entitled babies with easy jobs any idiot could do. Increasingly the public no longer takes strikes seriously and is likely to view them in this fashion unless the strike is for a serious labor rights concern.
Success by unions is only justifiable insofar as they have a decent dispute against ownership which cannot be resolved by internal mechanisms. Furthermore the strikers must benefit only from sacrifices made by the business owners and not those made by the public, the unemployed, or other industries; if it's the union vs. the world then it is only sensible for the world to oppose the union.
Just pasting this here for future use.
No, it's people like you following obsolete marxist dogmas in an irrational religious frenzy who strengthen the capitalist system by failing to form and obstructing a serious critique that do not contribute to any real change or 'revolution' as you so romantically choose to write.
What I mainly want to tell you is that you are living in a 19th century dream and you should take a look at the real world. How you can avoid seeing the complete catastrophe of twentieth century revolutionary socialist movements is a really impressive feat of ignorance. Take a look, It's been done; the military marxist logic failed and democratic socialist movements have succeeded. The revolution that Marx thought could happen when the wealth gap was wide enough and that you are still advocating, has no other logical conclusion than stalinist and maoist terror, oppression and destruction. Instead, Democratic Socialists have achieved (in the west) healthcare, universal suffrage, public education, public media etc. Countries that followed the little red bible, like you're doing, don't have any of that and have mainly been pushed back into third-world or reformed to capitalism (china, vietnam f.e.).
Instead of the prediction that capitalism would eventually succumb to it's principle of accumulation, the welfare state was created. THis is by no means at all leftist, it was realised by Henry Ford f.e. that the workers needed higher wages to consume the products that were being produced. Capitalists simply need to ensure that their products will be consumed through state power. Furthermore we live at a time of global capitalism which has devided the system between states and nations. There is no longer much point in having workers of France and Germany unite, instead, I think, western consumers should find solidarity with third world 'workers' - slaves might be a more suitable description - as both are powerless at the bottom of the capitalist hierarchy.
I would argue, capitalism needed socialism to survive as it was out of their own interest that capitalists needed the people that fought for union rights, civil rights, healthcare and everything else achieved through leftist struggle. However capitalism may be able to survive without all the achievements by socialists in the twentieth century and we may lose them as China grows to a new position of dominance and possibly consumption no longer becomes a foundation of economy. Meanwhile I think capitalism (or any form of centralised power) has shown itself incapable around issues of intellectual property, environment (hence Occupy, Anonymous etc). So, as I see it, we have a choice, whether to reform the capitalist welfare state further into some sort of communist state where power truly cannot be centralised or (do what you want) and let all the achievements be lost and return to a minimal welfare state run by social democrats but really in slavery to the market - capitalism - and dream of lost revolution.
You can go on arguing whether a worker-owned factory is in fact private property or not, but no one cares, the same goes for every other topic coming by in the thread. It has absolutely nothing to add to a real discussion.
Just to address OP's question briefly: I think a house would count as personal property and there would be some sort of common rules on how people should go about it. Really though, it might well be that property does not exist in a truly communist society, rather that people live a sort of nomadic life finding all that we previously recognise to belong in a house to be outside and in public. The use of land and houses might be the subject of feverish democratic discussions while the ownership is never questioned at all. I actually doubt you would be at liberty to purchase land like that at all in a socialist or communist society. TBH I just don't think you can predict at all what such a society would look like.
AmericanNazBro posted:it's kind of cool how the entire ideological foundation of american libertarianism and their solution to the internal contradictions of capitalism is basically don't perturb capital otherwise it might strike and self-destruct, killing all of humanity along with it. stockholm syndrome as a nation wide political movement. hell yeah. badass
To be fair, the global Jew elite agrees with you.
Superabound posted:for anything other than obtaining media presence, wouldnt slowdowns and organized corporate sabotage be a much more effective lever than actual strikes? pretty hard to publicly demonize or even quantify Go Slowers like you can Strikers, and even harder to hire scabs for already-occupied seats. the fear of work stoppage seems like a greater threat than the reality, and it avoids the public backlash that necessarily comes from the public's perceived or actual loss of Convenience
Going to make lattes really slow for the next hour. Pretend to have a nervous breakdown while trying to work the milk steamer as the line gets longer and longer. Coworkers are pissed but I have a mental illness so say anything to me about it and I just might fly off the handle.
That would be extremely hilarious and awesome, because everyone would be confused and they would actually be able to do it without being banned.
deleuzer posted:the only union I know of that's still radical is the ilwu. I'm a teamster and we just passed another shitty new contract with concessions while the company turns record profits
It irks me that cis scum are allowed to post this bullshit and I can't even respond to them.
swirlsofhistory posted:Going to make lattes really slow for the next hour. Pretend to have a nervous breakdown while trying to work the milk steamer as the line gets longer and longer. Coworkers are pissed but I have a mental illness so say anything to me about it and I just might fly off the handle.
leave bad reviews for your coworkers on Yelp
