1

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.

| improve this question | |
  • 1
    Are you talking about general strikes? – Joseph Weissman♦ Dec 26 '16 at 15:04
  • @JosephWeissman there is a difference, tho i forget the exact definition of it. IIRC mass strike action may be more sponetaneous and so is less likely to be contained within the left of capital – user6917 Dec 26 '16 at 15:09
  • 3
    I'll say this -- a general strike may be a useful tactic, but I have a hard time imagining it as "essential" or necessary historically -- what remains historically necessary (for Marx...) is that the proletarian acquire the means of the production, but the means by which this acquisition takes place may certainly involve other kinds of industrial actions (slowdowns, etc) -- I'm not sure there's an essential link to strike, but maybe you could explore further some of the intuition you're articulating here? – Joseph Weissman♦ Dec 26 '16 at 15:13
1

Under Marxism, outdated class structures were supposed to be overthrown with force (revolution) instead of being replaced through patient modification.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.

See: Karl Marx’s View of Strikes

| improve this answer | |
  • i get what you're saying but am reluctant to agree that marxism allows for seizure of the state by a vanguard, i.e. anyone but the working class – user6917 Dec 28 '16 at 13:08
  • 1
    See the differences in 2 views:worldsocialism.org/spgb/socialist-standard/1970s/1970/… – SonOfThought Dec 28 '16 at 15:21
  • i find the spgb bewildering, and passionately disagree with your contention, but thanks, i appreciate the note, good of you – user6917 Jan 11 '17 at 15:40
0

This is rudimentary, but here's my recipe.

Workplaces of strategic importance:

  1. they should be highly visible
  2. they should be as internationally various as possible
  3. they should depend upon each other's products
  4. there should be a minimum of 50 on the 1st day...

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"?

| improve this answer | |
  • sci fi haha :-) – user28117 Aug 28 '17 at 22:43

Your Answer

By clicking “Post Your Answer”, you agree to our terms of service, privacy policy and cookie policy