Would it be wrong to view this as economic accelerationism? Even if businesses can adjust to consumption cycles, not all consumption needs on one day translate to the next.
Skipping lunch at the diner might mean you increase demand for pb&j sandwiches, but you’re putting the waitress and cook out of a job. Maybe that’s just freeing up their labor to be put to more… productive endeavors.
Honest question, what’s your stance on hunger strikes or other protests outside the workplace? I’m of the opinion that, in 2025, any disruption is good disruption.
I’m not going to tell people how to organize. But a single day boycott with no demands or goals is not organizing. It’s almost alienating in a way. Now, if you got together with friends and did something else like made sandwiches and went to a park. Awesome! You did something and probably all talked about issues together today. That’s positive.
But if you sat at home and said nothing to anyone and hoped for some news story about a massive drop in sale and economic instability. Well, that didn’t happen. And so people can have different reactions to that. My problem is that I think the net reaction is negative. It makes people feel like collective actions are useless. And they are when it comes to single day consumption.
But collective actions and organization are the fundamental power of working class movements. But the working class has its power in labor.
Now, economic boycotts can have power, but not in the way this is being done. Take South Africa BDS movements for example. These put real economic pressures on companies associated with South African apartheid. But these movements had clear demands and no time limit on the boycotts.
Single day boycotts are essentially useless in my eyes. I don’t think they can ever reach the scale to do so. At least they never have historically.
Hunger strikes are only as useful as the attention that they can bring. I’ll use Gaza as an example. The people of Gaza on March 2018 protested they Apartheid state of Israel in a peaceful march towards the walls around Gaza. Hundreds of men women and children were slaughtered by Israeli snipers. And nothing changed. Acts of peaceful protest like hunger strikes or civil disobedience are only effective if they put public pressure on a population that is inactive. The Gazan people have no one that cared of the injustice being placed upon them.
When these types of peaceful protest are met with violence and silence from the media the only actions that oppressed people have left are in violent revolution.
Labor organizing is the only real alternative to violent revolution that has been proven effective historically. But those movements are often met with violence from the state.
I don’t know if that answered your question. But I think I hit some of it.
Would it be wrong to view this as economic accelerationism? Even if businesses can adjust to consumption cycles, not all consumption needs on one day translate to the next.
Skipping lunch at the diner might mean you increase demand for pb&j sandwiches, but you’re putting the waitress and cook out of a job. Maybe that’s just freeing up their labor to be put to more… productive endeavors.
Honest question, what’s your stance on hunger strikes or other protests outside the workplace? I’m of the opinion that, in 2025, any disruption is good disruption.
I’m not going to tell people how to organize. But a single day boycott with no demands or goals is not organizing. It’s almost alienating in a way. Now, if you got together with friends and did something else like made sandwiches and went to a park. Awesome! You did something and probably all talked about issues together today. That’s positive.
But if you sat at home and said nothing to anyone and hoped for some news story about a massive drop in sale and economic instability. Well, that didn’t happen. And so people can have different reactions to that. My problem is that I think the net reaction is negative. It makes people feel like collective actions are useless. And they are when it comes to single day consumption.
But collective actions and organization are the fundamental power of working class movements. But the working class has its power in labor.
Now, economic boycotts can have power, but not in the way this is being done. Take South Africa BDS movements for example. These put real economic pressures on companies associated with South African apartheid. But these movements had clear demands and no time limit on the boycotts.
Single day boycotts are essentially useless in my eyes. I don’t think they can ever reach the scale to do so. At least they never have historically.
Hunger strikes are only as useful as the attention that they can bring. I’ll use Gaza as an example. The people of Gaza on March 2018 protested they Apartheid state of Israel in a peaceful march towards the walls around Gaza. Hundreds of men women and children were slaughtered by Israeli snipers. And nothing changed. Acts of peaceful protest like hunger strikes or civil disobedience are only effective if they put public pressure on a population that is inactive. The Gazan people have no one that cared of the injustice being placed upon them.
When these types of peaceful protest are met with violence and silence from the media the only actions that oppressed people have left are in violent revolution.
Labor organizing is the only real alternative to violent revolution that has been proven effective historically. But those movements are often met with violence from the state.
I don’t know if that answered your question. But I think I hit some of it.