Is large scale strike action an essential element of Marxism?
I'm asking because something significant and unforeseen has to occur, I think, to make that at all possible.
Philosophy Stack Exchange is a question and answer site for those interested in the study of the fundamental nature of knowledge, reality, and existence. It only takes a minute to sign up.Sign up to join this community
Under Marxism, outdated class structures were supposed to be overthrown with force (revolution) instead of being replaced through patient modification. So, I believe strike action is an essential element of Marxism. But why large scale strike action always if it is not necessary?
Would this question arise if the rulers were Marxists? Would it be an essential element then?
Since Marxism is based on science up to a certain extent, I believe, large scale strike action is not its essential element.
If scientific, a mission can be accomplished even by a clever coup. In such case, there is no need of a large scale strike action. But I think Marxism will support large scale strike action in case of emergency.
To occur something significant and unforeseen, a clever coup is enough.
Marx said the results of the strikes were irrelevant and it was the nature of the protest that was important. He believed that through strikes and other class protests, workers won a moral and political victory. That means he gave importance to morality and the nature of strike.
This is rudimentary, but here's my recipe.
Workplaces of strategic importance:
We may well be able to imagine a few hundred or thousand workers forming a mass strike, without war or serious impoverishment, etc.. And that may be practically sufficient for revolution, I think, given that there is enough political ferment among the international proletariat against state brutality, such that if they can't just go in and crack skulls until everything goes back to normal. "It just works"?