Hey. There are some of us discussing a general strike right now. As much as I would LOVE that, widespread boycotts are a strategically better option for several reasons. I don't want to get in an argument with allies who share our goals, so I thought I'd start the discussion here.
1 A strike isn't general unless we get at least 25% of the citizens involved. That would be 50% of dems and I don't think we can come close to that yet. A fizzled general strike makes us look weak.
2 To be effective a general strike needs to go nonstop until the other side caves and that could be weeks. I don't think we've got the backing for that yet.
3 Pervasive boycotts against every single company who donates, advertises or supports any candidate from any party who funds fascist news outlets or donates to fascist coup candidates can go on for months. It saves our side money. It grows over time. It's viral We don't lose pay etc.
A strike is dramatic, but boycotts are lasting, strategic and a lot more impact. They also allows companies to change sides, one by one. That's trickle/gush strategy where as 1 or 2 leave, more follow and more follow. It takes time for them to change and we can't maintain a strike for months.