Thread by @ErikLoomis

This Day in Labor History: February 6, 1919. The Seattle General Strike begins. Let's talk about this very real challenge to American capital and also how general strike discourse today is too often a left version of politics without politics!

The Seattle General Strike began with a longshoremen’s strike, as shipyard workers protested two years without a pay raise. 35,000 workers walked off their jobs. They believed they would receive a raise after government wage controls during the war were ended.

Instead, the government-appointed leader of the Emergency Fleet Corporation, designed to promote the rapid construction of America’s Navy, conspired with business leaders to keep down wages.

A telegram meant for the business leaders fell into union hands, convinced the shipbuilders that they had no alternative but to strike. They walked off their jobs on January 21, 1919.

Over the next two weeks, business cut off strikers’ credit at grocery stores and police raided a cooperative set up to get food to the strikers.

The rest of Seattle labor saw this as the first strike against organized labor in one of America’s most militant cities and regions. The Metal Trades Council suggested a general strike, which was approved by the Central Labor Council and set for February 6.

On that day, an additional 25,000 workers went on strike, shutting down Seattle. This was the first large-scale general strike in American history. Radicals had discussed for a generation or more, but it had never been successfully pulled off.

The strikers sought to take over basic city services. They organized feeding tens of thousands of people, staffed hospitals, and ensured order in the streets. The city ran peacefully.

Most of the locals engaged in the general strike were affiliated with the AFL. This was a strike led by Seattle’s skilled labor. The IWW dominated agricultural and logging workforces played a very small role here.

But as was frequently the case throughout the late 19th and early 20th centuries, AFL locals were far more radical than the international leadership and especially than the federation itself.

And radicals, including Wobblies, were finding jobs in the shipyards, bringing new ideas onto the shop floor.

The strike soon collapsed under severe outside pressure. As one would expect, the forces of order in Seattle and the nation were outraged by the general strike’s existence and, perhaps more so, by its peaceful nature.

Perhaps union solidarity might have helped stand up to this pressure. But the American Federation of Labor leadership was equally outraged. AFL president Samuel Gompers had sought to make himself and his movement respectable during World War I.

Gompers sought to clamp down on strikes, isolate radicals, and show the AFL to be the responsible option that employers should negotiate with. This didn’t really work, as anti-labor employers hated all labor unions equally.

There’s a story of Gompers at a dinner with other high-powered people. Gompers talked of how respectable labor had acted during the war. A big capitalist then lambasted him, basically calling him a Bolshevik and saying that labor was the Allies’ greatest enemy during the war.

After, the capitalist received congratulations from his friends across business.

Gompers feared that not only was the Seattle action being run by extremists, but that it would give the AFL bad publicity and undermine organization efforts in the rest of the country. Gompers declared the strike unauthorized and withheld strike funds.

If this wasn’t bad enough, the predictable crackdown by business, police, the media, and politicians came with full force.

Declaring the strikers Bolsheviks, mayor Ole Hanson gave strikers an ultimatum: run City Light (the city electrical company) at full power or the National Guard would take it by force.

In an era when a lot of households did not have electricity, City Light was primarily used by business and running it at low capacity was a tool for strikers against business trying to force people onto the job.

Fearful of violence and dispirited by the lack of AFL support, a few workers started returning to work on February 8 and the strike was declared over on February 9.

In the end, the general strike strategy was a total failure because it showed Seattle business that they could take the biggest punch labor could deliver and survive. After the general strike collapsed, what could labor do next? The answer was not a whole lot.

Whereas in 1919 it seemed that Seattle labor was on the verge of starting a revolution in the United States, a decade later it was completely decimated in that city, weak, divided, and unable to stand up to the assaults of employers upon working-class lives.

Since general strikes are part of the organizing lexicon again, this is a question worth thinking about. If your general strike doesn’t work, then what? How do you raise the stakes from a general strike? These are tough questions with no easy answers.

In the aftermath of the strike, politicians sought to capitalize. Mayor Ole Hanson believed he had saved the United States from the Bolsheviks. Hanson, the son of Norwegian immigrants, had a pro-labor reputation.

As a state legislator in 1909, Hanson had been a strong supporter of organized labor and he was elected mayor with some labor support.

Only three days before the strike, the Seattle Union Record, the labor newspaper of note in the city and a paper very sympathetic to radicals, had commended Hanson for his calm leadership through these difficult times.

But during the 1919 General Strike, Hanson came down not only as anti-strike, but as the leader of those who thought the strike the greatest threat in history to this nation.

After his threat of martial law helped break the strike, Hanson became famous for his stand against anarchy and Bolshevism.

In a move later perfected by Sarah Palin, Hanson immediately resigned from the mayor’s chair, wrote a book, and went on a national speaking tour. He quickly became one of America’s most popular speakers on the dangers of anarchism and Bolshevism.

His core speech was basically "The peaceful nature of the strikers itself was a threat to order! The fact that workers could run a city for 72 hours without control by capitalists and police–what could be more threatening than this!"

Hanson was also one of the targets of the failed April 1919 anarchist mail-bomb campaign, although I’ve always wondered if this wasn’t a frame job. Probably not given the incompetence of anarchists.

As 1920 went on though and the nation began moving away from the most egregious violations of working-class rights, Hanson’s speech began to get old fast.

He hoped to capitalize by moving up in the Republican Party, but after giving his speech at the 1920 Republican National Convention, he was forgotten about and faded from view.

He then went on to found San Clemente, California, promoting Spanish Revival architecture by creating a clause in the city charter demanding that new buildings go before an architectural review board to ensure compliance with the city’s chosen architectural style.

Now, we need to talk about general strike discourse today. Because it really serves as a politics without politics, the desire for immediate change without doing the dirty work to make it happen.

Understand that general strikes are actually illegal in the United States today, at least for established unions. So there's that. But also understand that the limited history of general strikes in the U.S. also all come exclusively from established unions before it was illegal.

Today, there's a weird anarchy-syndicalist fantasy about the GENERAL STRIKE that would shut everything down and WE WOULD WIN. But this totally ignores the actual organizing such a thing takes. Which is why only established unions could ever use them. Who is doing this organizing?

Also, the general strike is often seen as a counter to established unions. But who do you think the people are?

Like, THE PEOPLE are your racist uncle and your coworkers that you hate. Those are the people who have to participate in your fantasy GENERAL STRIKE.

I am also continually mystified by GENERAL STRIKE fantasy people's belief that THE PEOPLE ACTUALLY HOLD MY PRECISE POLITICAL POSITIONS AND THUS THE GENERAL STRIKE WILL LEAD TO MY REVOLUTION!! Like, what evidence do you have that THE PEOPLE want what you want?

I sometimes get random e-mails from people asking me how we can have a general strike. My answer is always the same--go organize the people you don't like at work and your racist uncles. Because, again, that's what is required here.

In other words, a general strike could be amazing--it was in 1919 and 1934 and 1946. But that also requires organizing real people, not your fantasy working class that supposedly believes in your version of personal liberation.

In fact, I think most of the GENERAL STRIKE!!! discourse today is actively unhelpful unless you are a capitalist. That's because it is a total fantasy that shows how weak actual worker power is and we aren't even close to having the ability to pull off that kind of change.

If there ever is a general strike again, it's going to come from actual established unions, probably with the Teamsters being the real leaders here because they have the strongest solidarity culture in the entire labor movement. So think about that one if you want.

In short, building working class power is hard. It takes years and years of work. Hard work. And it takes dealing with real workers with complex beliefs, not fantasies. Like all fantasies, this general strike discourse is actively counterrevolutionary today.

In conclusion, let's learn what we can from the actual history of general strikes, cut out the fantasy working class stuff, and engage in the real politics and organizing that build actual working power in this nation and world. Maybe the general strike stuff can come later.

Back tomorrow to discuss the 1894 Cripple Creek strike.