What would a general strike in the US actually look like?

This article What would a general strike in the US actually look like? was originally published by Waging Nonviolence.

Embed from Getty Images

Something is in the air: A perception that American democracy and livable conditions for working people may only be saved by the kind of large-scale nonviolent direct action variously called “general strikes,” “political strikes,” or, as I will refer to all of them, “social strikes.”

Calls for mass disruptive action are coming from unlikely places, like Anthony Romero, executive director of the ACLU, an organization normally associated with legal action through the courts. When Romero was asked in a recent interview what would happen if the Trump administration systematically defied court orders, he replied, “Then we’ve got to take to the streets in a different way. We’ve got to shut down this country.”

Similarly senior Democratic Rep. Jim McGovern said, “We can’t just sit back and let our democracy just fall apart. What we need to think about are things like maybe a national strike across this country.”

Some in organized labor are also entering the fray. Sara Nelson, head of the Association of Flight Attendants, recently said that American workers — no matter what they do or what sector they are in — now have “very few options but to join together to organize for a general strike.” (She led the organizing for a national general strike that successfully deterred Trump’s attempt to shut down the government in his first term.)

Meanwhile, online, there are even more ad hoc efforts demonstrating the tactic’s appeal right now. For instance, more than 300,000 people have signed cards pledging to participate in a general strike.

Calling for general strikes is a staple of the radical toolkit. (I’ve made questionable efforts to call two or three myself over the past half-century.) But why has the idea of such mass actions suddenly appeared on the lips of such a wide range of people? There are three principal reasons:

1. The wide range of people being harmed by the MAGA juggernaut gives credibility to actions based on wide public participation.

2. The demolition of key institutions of democracy, constitutionalism and the rule of law is threatening to leave few alternatives to popular uprising.

3. The fecklessness of the leadership of the Democratic Party, as sublimely illustrated by Sen. Chuck Schumer’s passage in March of the devastating MAGA budget, has led to despair about resistance within the institutions of government.

These inescapable realities are forcing people to think in unaccustomed ways.

I use the term “social strikes” to describe mass actions people take to exercise power by withdrawing cooperation from and disrupting the operation of society. The goal of a social strike is to affect not just the immediate employer, but a political regime or social structure. Such forms of mass direct action provide a possible alternative when institutional means of action prove ineffective. In all their varied forms they are based on Gandhi’s fundamental perception that “even the most powerful cannot rule without the cooperation of the ruled.”

What are social strikes?

Social strike is a broad term that encompasses a wide range of activities that use the withdrawal of cooperation and mass disruption to affect governments and social structures. While the U.S. has a tradition of social and labor movements using mass action and local general strikes, it does not have a tradition of using people power for the defense of democracy. However, in other countries where democratic institutions have been so weakened or eliminated that they provide no alternative to tyranny, such methods have been used effectively.

Previous Coverage

What the US can learn from South Koreans who stopped an authoritarian power-grab

Tyrannical regimes from Serbia to the Philippines to Brazil and many other places have been brought down by nonviolent revolts that made society ungovernable. More recent examples include the “popular impeachment” of the governor of Puerto Rico in 2019 after the leaking of scurrilous discussions in a chat group by top government leaders and the massive uprisings that removed the president of Korea as he instigated a coup last December. In March 2025 alone there were general strikes in Belgium, Argentina, Serbia and Korea — all directed against government austerity policies or, in the case of Korea, unconstitutional seizure of government power.

Various kinds of social strikes have occurred in U.S. history. The U.S. has seen at least half-a-dozen phases of intense class conflict like those Rosa Luxemburg called “periods of mass strike.” These often involved popular action that went far beyond, though usually included, the withdrawal of labor power that conventionally define a strike. Mass strikes have included general strikes, mass picketing, occupation of workplaces and government buildings, nonviolent direct action, shutdowns of commerce, blocking of traffic and other disruption of everyday activities. Mass strikes have often been met with severe repression and at times involved violent conflict with company guards, police, state militias and the U.S. Army.

The U.S. has also seen a handful of actions that fit the classical definition of a “general strike” as a coordinated work stoppage by trade unions in many different sectors.

The closest the U.S. has come to a national general strike was in 1886, when a strike for the eight-hour day became a general strike in Chicago and some other locations. Since then there have been a handful of general strikes in individual cities, for example the Seattle general strike in 1919 and the general strikes in Oakland and Stamford, Connecticut in 1946. They have all been sympathetic strikes to support particular groups of workers in struggles with their employers.

Such union-called general strikes, however, have been a rarity in U.S. labor history. American unions are bound by laws specifically designed to prevent them from taking part in strikes about issues outside their own workplace, such as sympathy strikes and political strikes. In most cases their contracts include “no-strike” language that bans them from striking during the contract. Unions that violate these prohibitions are subject to crushing fines and loss of bargaining rights. Their leaders can be — and have been — packed off to jail.

Historically, American unions have often opposed their members’ participation in strikes that union officials have not authorized because they wished to exercise a monopoly of authority over their members’ collective action. In labor movement jargon, such unauthorized actions were condemned as “dual unionism.” U.S. unions have often disciplined and sometimes supported the firing and blacklisting of workers who struck without official authorization. As a result, unions have often deterred their members from participating in mass strike actions even when the rank and file wanted to.

While strikes for specifically political purposes like deposing political leaders or affecting legislation are common in other countries — as illustrated by many of the non-U.S. examples mentioned above — they are a rarity in the U.S. An exception was the 23-day strike by 42,000 West Virginia coal miners in 1969 that forced the state legislature to pass a law providing compensation for victims of black lung disease.

In recent decades the use of the terms “strike” and “general strike” has often been broadened beyond workers’ withdrawal of labor power to other forms of direct action, such as student strikes and general popular uprisings. There has been some complaint that this broader usage misses the unique power that results from workers’ ability to halt production through the withdrawal of their labor power. But the term “general strike” continues to be widely used for actions that may include striking unions but are based on a wider set of actors, tactics and objectives. I use the term “social strikes” to include this wider set.

An example was the “general strike” initiated by the Occupy Wall Street movement. In December 2011, Occupy Los Angeles proposed a general strike on May 1 “for migrant rights, jobs for all, a moratorium on foreclosures and peace — and to recognize housing, education and health care as human rights.” Occupy Wall Street in New York echoed with a call for “a day without the 99 percent, general strike and … no work, no school, no housework, no shopping.” On May Day, thousands engaged in such protests in dozens of cities including New York, Chicago, San Francisco, Oakland and Seattle. Several resulted in street battles and tear gassing by police.  

In December 2018, President Trump refused to sign any appropriations bill that did not fund his proposed Mexican border wall. The government shut down, putting more than a million employees out of work. TSA officers and air traffic controllers began calling in sick, and the entire airline industry teetered on the edge of collapse. Sara Nelson, president of the Association of Flight Attendants gave a speech saying, “Go back with the fierce urgency of now to talk with your locals and international unions about all workers joining together — to end this shutdown with a general strike.” She recorded a video message urging her union’s members to get to the offices of their congressional representatives until the shutdown was resolved. As flight delays spread, after 35 days of the shutdown Trump unexpectedly reversed course and agreed to a congressional resolution to fund the government — but only for three weeks.

Airline flight attendants then announced a new website called generalstrike2019.org with the headline “Imagine the Power of Working People Standing Together to Demand That Our Government Work for Us.” It called on “all Americans” to “join us in protest at our nation’s airports to show what workers can achieve together.” At the last minute, instead of shutting down the government Trump declared a state of emergency to build his wall. (Both the Democratic House and the Republican Senate soon voted to revoke the emergency.)

Sara Nelson summed up the lesson of the workers’ action: “Our country doesn’t run without the federal workers who make it run.”    

Social strikes vs. MAGA tyranny?

Could social strikes play a significant role in countering Trump’s developing autocracy?

As a study a century ago noted, “strike conditions are conditions of mind.” Social strikes are unlikely to happen before a large proportion of the population are enraged at the MAGA tyranny, dubious that more moderate forms of action will suffice, and willing to take personal and institutional risks to oppose it.

Such conditions do not exist at present. However, there are straws in the wind that indicate a growing public willingness to act. For example:

• The Crowd Counting Consortium, which began tracking protests during the first Trump administration, says that in February 2025 alone, “we have already tallied over 2,085 protests, which included major protests in support of federal workers, LGBTQ rights, immigrant rights, Palestinian self-determination, Ukraine, and demonstrations against Tesla and Trump’s agenda more generally. This is compared with 937 protests in the United States in February 2017.”

• Thirty-six percent of Americans told Harris pollsters they are or will be participating in “the boycotts that have been making headlines over the last few weeks,” making the boycotts one of the largest — if not the largest — protests in American history. Fifty-three percent of Gen Zers, 46 percent of millennials, 53 percent of African Americans and 51 percent of Latinos said they are boycotting. The top reason? “They want to show companies that consumers have economic power and influence and express their dissatisfaction with current government policies.”

• Resistance actions are burgeoning among government workers, education workers, immigrant workers and many other sectors of the working class.
• Nationwide “Hands Off” demonstrations on April 5 had more than a million participants at 1,300 locations demanding “to stop the most brazen power grab in modern history.” The day of action was backed by nearly two hundred organizations, including the AFL-CIO, the ACLU, several of the country’s largest unions, and many environmental, justice, civil rights, pro-democracy and other organizations.

• Plans are also under way in many locations for major action on May Day, which may in some locations, notably Chicago, involve significant worker participation, including strikes.

Such actions are a long way from social strikes. But they are harbingers of the kinds of developments that will have to happen on a larger scale to make social strikes possible.  

Laying the groundwork

Recognizing that the conditions for social strikes are far from mature at present, what can be done to increase the likelihood of their occurrence and success?

Actions like Hands Off! and those being planned for May Day can progressively incorporate forms of noncooperation and disruption that can evolve toward social strikes and serve as living representations of their potential power. They can combine strikes with non-workplace actions like boycotts, commercial shutdowns, mass picketing, blockades, occupations and civil disobedience.

Previous Coverage

Resistance is alive and well in the United States

While a social strike will certainly require wide participation by union members, U.S. unions are unlikely to join as a bloc — for example through the AFL-CIO — in a general strike. Union participation can be promoted by resolutions and educational campaigns. For example, in the midst of the 2011 “Wisconsin Uprising,” the 90 unions belonging to the Madison region’s South Central Federation Labor voted to set up a mechanism to educate people about general strikes.

But organized labor can plan for a general strike in the future that may not break the terms of their contracts. The UAW has called to align all union contract terminations for the same date in 2028 as a way to promote united action and perhaps even a general strike by circumventing the prohibition on striking during a union contract. That call has already promoted wider discussion of general strikes in labor and social movements.

Of course, different unions striking at the same time does not guarantee a united front around issues of common concern: The first half of 1946 saw nearly 3 million workers simultaneously on strike, including auto, steel, coal, railroad and many other industries, but unions pursued separate demands, made little effort to pool their strength, and settled with little consideration of the impact on those remaining on strike.

To avoid that fate, simultaneous strikes by different unions will need common demands and a solidarity that keeps them united through the course of the struggle.

With the Democratic Party currently failing to play the role of an opposition party, there is a need for a “non-electoral opposition” that can mobilize those harmed by MAGA, identify common interests, unify their programs and actions, and articulate alternatives. The Hands Off! and May Day coalitions represent a start in this direction.

Self-organization at the grassroots will be a crucial ingredient for any social strike. This will be especially so under conditions of serious repression, when unions and other large-scale organizations are likely to be under immobilizing attack.

Historically self-organization for social strikes has taken a number of forms. One is small “affinity groups” that send representatives to “spokes councils” — highly effective in the 1999 “Battle of Seattle” that shut down the city of Seattle and the World Trade Organization. Another is “workers councils” where workgroups elect delegates to a representative body. This is particularly important where unions don’t exist or are unwilling to act. (Fewer than 10 percent of U.S. workers are currently members of unions.) A third is general assemblies like those that played a central role in the Occupy Wall Street movement, open to anyone and generally moderated by trained facilitators.

Looking forward

Social strikes can play a role in the resistance to growing MAGA authoritarianism. But, in the wise words of 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 movement that will be necessary to overcome MAGA tyranny.

Vigilante violence, police and military attack, abductions, persecutions, prosecutions, slanders and similar tactics are part of the normal playbook of authoritarians in power. Social strikes will surely be met by such repression. If people have the necessary courage, they can not only stand up to such repression, they can use “political jujitsu” to define such repression as proof of the authoritarian, anti-democratic character of those perpetrating it.

There is a difference between a protest action, lasting perhaps a day or two, and an open-ended struggle for power. An effective one day “general strike” would be a valuable augmentation of the marches, demonstrations, days of action and other protests that are already in progress. Beyond that, in countries ranging from the Philippines to Egypt to Korea, a protracted social strike has been the final means to overcome tyranny. Such actions are unlikely until there is widespread anger, mass mobilization and willingness to take serious risks, but they can be part of our strategic horizon. Such actions demonstrate that, no matter what tyrants may do, ultimately the people have the means to defeat them.

This article What would a general strike in the US actually look like? was originally published by Waging Nonviolence.

People-powered news and analysis

Source: https://wagingnonviolence.org/2025/04/what-would-general-strike-in-the-us-look-like/