A general strike is a strike action by a critical mass of the labour force in a city, region, or country. While a general strike can be for political goals, economic goals, or both, it tends to gain its momentum from the ideological or class sympathies of the participants. It is also characterized by participation of workers in a multitude of workplaces, and tends to involve entire communities. The general strike has waxed and waned in popularity since the mid-19th century, and has characterized many historically important strikes.
General strikes have been done in order to seek "democracy, political representation and the provision of basic education and healthcare".[1] In Europe, General Strikes were very common in the 19th and early 20th century. It could be argued that many of them have contributed to rights, such as universal healthcare, low cost college education, and higher taxes on the rich.
In Portugal, a general strike has been called by the federation of public labor unions to avert austerity measures.[2]
In Honduras, a general strike has been called by Union workers, farmers and other organizations demanding better education, an increase in the minimum wage and against fuel price hikes.[3]
In Yemen, a general strike has been called by protesters to protest the presidency of that country.[4]
In Algeria, public sector workers have mounted a general strike for higher wages and improved working conditions.[5]
At any given moment, there may be general strikes in numerous nations around the world. Government leaders may seek to ban general strikes, and in some cases they are successful. In February, 1947, General Douglas MacArthur, as Supreme Commander of the Allied Powers in Japan, banned a planned general strike of 2,400,000 government workers, stating that "so deadly a social weapon" as the general strike should not be used in the impoverished and emaciated condition of Japan so soon after World War II. Japan's labour leaders complied with his ban.[6]
Ralph Chaplin, editor of the Industrial Workers of the World (IWW) newspaper Solidarity and later, of the Industrial Worker, identified four levels of general strike,
-
- A General Strike in a community.
- A General Strike in an Industry.
- A national General Strike.
- A revolutionary or class strike-- THE General Strike.[7]
In the 1905 pamphlet The Social General Strike, published in Chicago in 1905, Stephen Naft had previously acknowledged the same four levels of the general strike:
[The name "General Strike"] is often used to designate the strike of all branches in one trade; for instance the general strike of the miners; when helpers and hoisting engineers, etc. are all out. Then it is used as: General Strike of a city, i.e., "General Strike in Florence", or a General Strike in a whole country or province, for the purpose of gaining political rights, i.e., the right to vote; as in Belgium, or Sweden.[8]
The profoundest conception of the General Strike, however, [is] the one pointing to a thorough change of the present system: a social revolution of the world; an entire new reorganization; a demolition of the entire old system of all governments...[8]
Naft's 1905 pamphlet (translated from the German language) traced existing sentiment for this goal of the general strike to proletarians of Spain and Italy.[9]
The premise of The Social General Strike is that no matter how powerfully the working class organizes itself, it still has no significant power over a congress, or the executive (which has military force at its beck and call). Therefore a general strike called by an "energetic and enthusiastic" minority of workers, may be embraced by the mass of workers who remain unorganized.[9] Thus it may be possible,
...to completely interrupt production in the whole country, and stop communication and consumption for the ruling classes, and that for a time long enough to totally disorganize the capitalistic society; so that after the complete annihilation of the old system, the working people can take possession through its labor unions of all the means of production...[10]
The Social General Strike noted the complexity of modern industry, identifying the many stages in the manufacturing process and geographic dispersal of related manufacturing locations as weaknesses of the industrial process during any labor dispute.[10] The pamphlet notes the problem of hunger during a general strike, and recommends where warehouses are available for the purpose, that proletarians,
...do the same thing as the ruling classes have done uninterruptedly for thousands of years: that is, "consume without producing." This deportment of the ruling classes the working class calls exploitation, and if the proletarians do it, the possessing classes call it plundering—and socialism calls it expropriation.[11]
However, the pamphlet asserts that,
The immense advantage of the general strike is that it begins entirely lawfully and without any danger for the workers, and for this reason thousands will take part...[12]
In 1966, in a study of revolutionary socialism, Milorad M. Drachkovitch of the Hoover Institution on War, Revolution, and Peace (a conservative/libertarian think tank), noted two tactical options which divided late 19th century and early 20th century anarchists from socialists: electoral politics, which the socialists embraced, but anarchists generally opposed; and, the general strike as a mechanism to prevent war, which anarchists supported, but socialists refused to endorse.[13]
As a group, the Socialists of the period repeatedly rejected the general strike as a tactic;[14] however, a number of Socialist leaders advocated its use for one reason or another.[15] Socialist leaders who embraced the general strike tended to see it as an instrument for obtaining political concessions.[14]
Drachkovitch identified five types of general strikes:
- the political mass strike, a general strike for political rights (such as the right to vote)
- the general strike as a revolutionary act that would transform society
- the general strike as a "revolutionary exercise" which would eventually lead to a transformation of society
- a one day demonstration general strike on May Day (International Workers' Day), aimed at identifying a "worldwide proletariat"
- commencing in 1891, a theoretical mechanism by which to stop wars between nation states[16]
Drachkovitch perceived the first two concepts, the socialist-friendly general strike for political rights within the system, and the general strike as a revolutionary mechanism to overthrow the existing order — which he associated with a "rising anarcho-syndicalist movement" — as in conflict.[17] Drachkovitch believed that the difficulty arose from the fact that the general strike was "one instrument", but was frequently considered "without distinction of underlying motives."[18]
Milorad M. Drachkovitch also observed the variable success of the general strike in actual use:
In Belgium a general strike movement, broken off in one instance without damage to the organizing forces, eventually led to universal suffrage; in Holland a general strike collapsed with disastrous consequences; in Sweden, a general strike was conducted and terminated with disciplined order but did not attain the desired results. In Italy, general strikes had been both socially effective and politically unproductive. On the other hand, the events of January 1905 in Russia once more seemed to underscore the suitability of the general strike as a decisively revolutionary action.[18]
Orthodox labor unions typically act as a representative from the workers to employers. They bargain over wages, hours, and working conditions.
Other labor organizations typically bargain for the same wage, hour, and conditions improvements, but embrace a critique of capital as establishing and maintaining a permanent working class and an elite ruling class. These unions therefore advocate a permanent solution to the circumstances of strikes, injunctions, and crossing other workers' picket lines.[19][20][21] Given the hierarchical relationships of the existing economic system, these other unions perceive the necessity of a radical change in the social order. In brief, these unions are radical in their orientation, and may accurately be described as revolutionary.
One labour movement philosophy of "peaceful revolution" is known as syndicalism. Its tactical method is the strike — the regular strike for protecting the material welfare of the workers, and the general strike as a means to accomplish the desired permanent solution to industrial strife.[22] Syndicalism has been a common union organizing principle in a number of European countries, including France, Spain, and Italy.
One variation of syndicalism is anarcho-syndicalism, which (in comparison to syndicalism) develops rank and file power with democratic traditions to maintain worker control over union leadership.
In the United States, Britain, and (to a lesser extent) Australia, the trend toward revolutionary unionism culminated in the growth of the Industrial Workers of the World (IWW). Technically, the IWW is described as a union that practices revolutionary industrial unionism. Some consider the revolutionary industrial unionism of the IWW to be a form of anarcho-syndicalism.[23] Others point out differences; for example, Ralph Chaplin has written,
...the I.W.W. concept of the General Strike differs almost as much from that of the anarcho-syndicalist as from that of the political or craft unionist. In form, structure and objective, the I.W.W. is more all-sufficient, more mature and more modern than any of its anarcho-syndicalist predecessors.[7]
The IWW began to fully embrace the general strike in 1910-1911.[24] The ultimate goal of the general strike, according to Industrial Workers of the World theory, is to displace capitalists and give control over the means of production to workers.[24][25] In a 1911 speech in New York City, IWW organizer Haywood explained his view of the economic situation, and why he believed a general strike was justified,
The capitalists have wealth; they have money. They invest the money in machinery, in the resources of the earth. They operate a factory, a mine, a railroad, a mill. They will keep that factory running just as long as there are profits coming in. When anything happens to disturb the profits, what do the capitalists do? They go on strike, don't they? They withdraw their finances from that particular mill. They close it down because there are no profits to be made there. They don't care what becomes of the working class. But the working class, on the other hand, has always been taught to take care of the capitalist's interest in the property.[26]
Bill Haywood believed that industrial unionism made possible the general strike, and the general strike made possible industrial democracy.[26] According to Wobbly theory, the conventional strike is an important (but not the only) weapon for improving wages, hours, and working conditions for working people. These strikes are also good training to help workers educate themselves about the class struggle, and about what it will take to execute an eventual general strike for the purpose of achieving industrial democracy.[27] During the final general strike, workers would not walk out of their shops, factories, mines, and mills, but would rather occupy their workplaces and take them over.[27] Prior to taking action to initiate industrial democracy, workers would need to educate themselves with technical and managerial knowledge in order to operate industry.[27]
According to labor historian Philip S. Foner, the Wobbly conception of industrial democracy is intentionally not presented in detail by IWW theorists; in that sense, the details are left to the "future development of society".[28] However, certain concepts are implicit. Industrial democracy will be "a new society [built] within the shell of the old."[29] Members of the industrial union educate themselves to operate industry according to democratic principles, and without the current hierarchical ownership/management structure. Issues such as production and distribution would be managed by the workers themselves.[29]
In 1927 the IWW called for a three day nationwide walkout — in essence, a demonstration general strike — to protest the execution of anarchists Ferdinando Nicola Sacco and Bartolomeo Vanzetti.[30] The most notable response to the call was in the Walsenburg coal district of Colorado, where 1,132 miners stayed off the job, and only 35 went to work,[31] a participation rate which led directly to the Colorado coal strike of 1927.
On March 18, 2011, the Industrial Workers of the World website (www.iww.org) supported an endorsement of a general strike as a followup to protests against Governor Scott Walker's proposed labor legislation in Wisconsin, following a motion passed by the South Central Federation of Labor (SCFL) of Wisconsin endorsing a statewide general strike as a response to those legislative proposals.[32][33] The SCFL website states,
At SCFL’s monthly meeting Monday, Feb. 21, delegates endorsed the following: "The SCFL endorses a general strike, possibly for the day Walker signs his 'budget repair bill.'" An ad hoc committee was formed to explore the details. SCFL did not CALL for a general strike because it does not have that authority.[33]
The year 1919 saw a number of general strikes throughout North America, including two that were considered significant — the Seattle General Strike, and the Winnipeg General Strike. While the IWW participated in the Seattle General Strike, that action was called by the Seattle Central Labor Union, affiliated with the American Federation of Labor (AFL, predecessor of the AFL-CIO).[34]
In June, 1919, the AFL national organization, in session in Atlantic City, New Jersey, passed resolutions in opposition to the general strike. The official report of these proceedings described the convention as the "largest and in all probability the most important Convention ever held" by the organization, in part for having engineered the "overwhelming defeat of the so-called Radical element" via crushing a "One Big Union proposition", and also for defeating a proposal for a nationwide general strike, both "by a vote of more than 20 to 1."[35] The AFL amended its constitution to disallow any central labor union (i.e., regional labor councils) from "taking a strike vote without prior authorization of the national officers of the union concerned."[35] The change was intended to "check the spread of general strike sentiment and prevent recurrences of what happened at Seattle and is now going on at Winnepeg."[35] The penalty for any unauthorized strike vote was revocation of that body's charter.[35]
The first general strike may have been the secessio plebis in ancient Rome. In the Outline Of History, H.G. Wells recorded "the general strike of the plebeians; the plebeians seem to have invented the strike, which now makes its first appearance in history."[36] Their first strike occurred because they "saw with indignation their friends, who had often served the state bravely in the legions, thrown into chains and reduced to slavery at the demand of patrician creditors."[36]
Wells noted that "[t]he patricians made a mean use of their political advantages to grow rich through the national conquests at the expense not only of the defeated enemy, but of the poorer plebeian..."[36] The plebeians, who were expected to obey the laws, but were not allowed to know the laws (which patricians were able to recite from memory),[37] were successful, winning the right to appeal any injustice to the general assembly.[36] In 450 BC., in a concession resulting from the rebellion of the plebeians, the laws of Rome were written for all to peruse.[37]
North American general strikes include the 1877 Saint Louis general strike, which grew out of the events of the Great Railroad Strike of 1877 across the United States, the 1892 New Orleans general strike, and the Winnipeg General Strike of 1919.
The Winnipeg General Strike of 1919 was one of the most influential strikes in Canadian history, and became the platform for future labour reforms.
Although many Canadian companies had enjoyed enormous profits on World War I contracts, wages and working conditions were dismal and labour regulations were mostly non-existent.
In Winnipeg, workers within the building and metal industries attempted to strengthen their bargaining ability by creating umbrella unions, the Building Trade Council and Metal Trade Council respectively, to encompass all metal and building unions. Although employers were willing to negotiate with each union separately, they refused to bargain with the Building and Metal Trade Councils, disapproving of the constituent unions that had joined the umbrella organization, and citing employers' inability to meet proposed wage demands. Restrictive labour policy in the 1900s meant that a union could be recognized voluntarily by employers, or through strike action, but in no other way. Workers from both industrial groupings therefore struck to gain union recognition and to compel recognition of their collective bargaining rights.
At 11:00 a.m. on Thursday May 15, 1919, virtually the entire working population of Winnipeg had gone on strike. Somewhere around 30,000 workers in the public and private sectors walked off their jobs.[38] Even essential public employees such as firefighters went on strike, but returned midway through the strike with the approval of the Strike Committee. Although relations with the police and City Council were tense, the strike was non-violent in its beginning stages until the confrontation on Bloody Saturday.
On June 10 the federal government ordered the arrest of eight strike leaders (including J.S. Woodsworth and Abraham Albert Heaps). A week later, about 25,000 strikers assembled for a demonstration at Market Square, where Winnipeg Mayor Charles Frederick Gray read the Riot Act. Troubled by the growing number of protestors and fearing violence, Mayor Gray called in the Royal Northwest Mounted Police who rode in on horseback charging into the crowd of strikers, beating them with clubs and firing weapons.[38] This violent action resulted in many people injured, numerous arrests and the death of two strikers. Four eastern European immigrants were also rounded up at this time and eventually two were deported, one voluntarily to the United States and the other to Eastern Europe. This day, which came to be known as “Bloody Saturday”,[39] ended with Winnipeg virtually under military occupation.
In Seattle, 35,000 shipyard workers went on strike for a pay increase. The Seattle Central Labor Council called for a city-wide strike in support. More than one hundred union locals voted to strike. Total number of strikers were sixty-thousand union workers, joined by 40,000 other workers who walked out in sympathy.[40]
The city was successfully shut down, except for essential needs such as fire protection and hospital laundry. Thirty-five neighborhood milk stations were set up throughout the city, and large kitchens prepared thirty thousand meals per day.[40]
National leadership of the American Federation of Labor and other top union officials opposed the strike, and successfully brought pressure to end it.[41]
According to Howard Zinn, participants in the strike were mostly affiliated with the American Federation of Labor, and there were only a few IWW locals.[42] Zinn observed,
The strike had been peaceful. But when it was over, there were raids and arrests: on the Socialist party headquarters, on a printing plant. Thirty-nine members of the IWW were jailed as "ring-leaders of anarchy."[42]
The term "general strike" is sometimes applied to large-scale strikes of all of the workers in a particular industry, such as the Textile workers strike (1934). Such "general" strikes, however massive they might be, involve workers only in a particular workplace.
The classic general strike involves workers (and members of the working-class) who may have no direct stake in the outcome of the strike. For example, in the San Francisco General Strike of 1934, both union and non-union workers struck for four days to protest the police and employers' tactics that had killed two picketers and in support of the longshoremen's and seamen's demands.
The distinction between a strike of different organizations, and a general strike is not always clear. In the Minneapolis Teamsters Strike of 1934, as an example, many building trades unions and organizations of unemployed workers in federal work projects struck in sympathy with striking truck drivers and to protest the police violence against picketers. Thousands of others participated in demonstrations to support the strikers. Those sympathy strikes, while sizable, never acquired the scope necessary to amount to a "general strike", however, and the organizers of the Teamsters' strike did not describe it as such.
In October 1946, women at two department stores went on strike. On December 1, 400 members of the city's police force were employed to break the strike. Police succeeded in breaking the picket line, but their actions created a spontaneous general strike throughout the city. An estimated 130,000 people stopped work, essentially shutting down the city.[43]
[edit] The Belgian experience and Rosa Luxemburg
Milorad M. Drachkovitch noted four mass strikes in Belgium — 1886, 1887, 1891, and 1893 — which eventually led to universal suffrage.[16]
Belgium was likely one of the first important industrial countries where a general strike happened, at least in Europe.[44] In 1886, there was the Walloon Jacquerie of 1886, but without an actual leading political organisation. The final strike was the Belgian general strike of 1893.[45]
In his book about Rosa Luxemburg, Paul Frölich quotes several experiences of general strikes, including the Belgian general strike for the universal suffrage in 1893. Although the strike succeeded, absolute equality of suffrage had yet to be obtained.
In 1902 the Belgian Labour Party launched an other strike, which failed. Many German social democrats thought such an experiment was absurd. Drachkovitch observed that German socialists were against the general strike because "under the Kaiser, supporting it was not very safe."[46]
Rosa Luxemburg had a different view, criticizing the Belgian Labour Party for perceived tactical incompetence: A general strike forged in advance within the fetters of legality is like a war demonstration with cannons dumped into a river within the very sight of the enemy.[47]
Carl E. Schorske wrote about the same Belgian phenomenon studied by Luxemburg as well as the German opposition to it:
In German Social Democratic circles, the general strike suffered from the hereditary taint of its anarchist origins (...) Rosa Luxemburg, who studied the Belgian strike, was particularly impressed with its success in activating the political consciousness of the backward portions of the population. She was not yet however, prepared to give it European-wide significance. Luxemburg felt it to be appropriate only in countries in which industry was geographically concentrated.[48]
The Walloon author Claude Renard explained the relative successes of the general strike by the relative small territory of Belgium (and especially Wallonia where the industry was concentrated). He also quoted Luxemburg who criticized Le Peuple, the official newspaper of the Belgian Labour Party who was again in favour of the German method after the General strike of 1902 failed. In Die Neue Zeit, she pointed out the small territory of Belgium, the fact that only 3 or 400 thousand workers were able to make a country strike-bound. But she insisted also about a climate of liberty and democracy where the working class is really stronger, in France as well as in Belgium.[49]
For several historians, it seemed that Wallonia sprang from these strikes[50] and likely from the last Belgian general strike the 1960-1961 Winter General Strike.
General strikes were frequent in Spain during the early 20th century, where revolutionary anarcho-syndicalism was most popular.
The largest general strike that ever stopped the economy of an advanced industrial country – and the first general wildcat strike in history – was May 1968 in France.[51] The prolonged strike involved eleven million workers for two weeks in a row,[51] and its impact was such that it almost caused the collapse of the de Gaulle government. Other notable general strikes include:
- 494 BC – The Aventine Secession, Ancient Rome, creating the Tribune of the Plebs
- 449 BC – A secessio plebis leading to the adoption of the Twelve Tables
- 287 BC – A secessio plebis leading to the adoption of the Lex Hortensia
- 1842 – 1842 General Strike, Great Britain
- 1886 - Walloon jacquerie of 1886 Wallonia
- 1893 - Belgian general strike of 1893 Belgium Wallonia
- 1902 – Geneva General Strike of 1902, Switzerland
- 1905 – The Great October Strike, Russia
- 1907 – Geneva General Strike of 1907, Switzerland
- 1907 - New Orleans Levee General Strike, United States
- 1909 – Swedish General Strike
- 1909 - Uprising of the 20,000
- 1912 – Brisbane General Strike, Australia
- 1912 – Zurich General Strike of 1912, Switzerland
- 1917 – Australian General Strike
- 1917 – Brazilian General Strike
- 1917 – Spanish General Strike
- 1918 – Swiss General Strike
- 1919 – Barcelona General Strike, Spain
- 1919 – Winnipeg General Strike, Canada
- 1919 – Seattle General Strike, US
- 1919 – General Strike in Basel and Zurich 1919, Switzerland
- 1920 – German Kapp Putsch Strike
- 1922 – Italian General Strike
- 1920 - German passive resistance strikes at the Ruhr
- 1926 – UK General Strike of 1926
- 1933 - French general strike of 1933
- 1932 – Geneva General Strike of 1932, Switzerland
- 1934 – West Coast Longshoremen's Strike, US
- 1934 – Minneapolis Teamsters Strike, US
- 1934 – Toledo Auto-Lite Strike, US
- 1936 – Palestinian general strike
- 1936 - French general strike of 1936
- 1936 – Syrian General Strike
- 1941 – February Strike, Netherlands
- 1942 – Luxembourgian General Strike
- 1946 – Indian General Strike
- 1946 - Oakland, California General Strike
- 1950 – Austrian General Strikes
- 1950 - General strike against Leopold III of Belgium
- 1953 - Hartal 1953, Ceylon
- 1954 - General strike of 1954, Honduras
- 1956 – Finnish General Strike
- 1958 - Bahamas General Strike
- 1960 - 1960-1961 Winter General Strike in Wallonia
- 1968 – French General Strike
- 1973 – Uruguayan General Strike
- 1974 – Ulster Workers Council Strike, Northern Ireland.
- 1984 – Uruguayan General Strike
- 1988 – Spanish General Strike
- 1989 – 2-hour general strike of all citizens of Czechoslovakia during the Velvet Revolution
- 1992 – Nepalese General Strike
- 1995 – French Public Sector Strikes
- 1995 – Days of Action, Canada
- 2000 – Cochabamba General Strike, Bolivia
- 2002 – Italian General Strike
- 2005 – Bolivian Gas Conflict
- 2006 - April 2006 Nepalese general strike
- 2007 – Guinea General Strike
- 2009 – French Caribbean General Strikes
- 2010 - Spanish General Strike
- 2011 - Oakland, California general strike
- ^ http://books.google.com/books?id=TmlYAAAAYAAJ&q=Labour+research+,+Volume+94&dq=Labour+research+,+Volume+94&hl=en&ei=FXGpTs2HMs734QTbhsT8Dw&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=1&ved=0CC0Q6AEwAA
- ^ The Wall Street Journal http://online.wsj.com/article/BT-CO-20110408-702627.html retrieved April 9, 2011
- ^ Seattle PI, http://www.seattlepi.com/news/article/Teachers-strike-fuels-unrest-in-polarized-Honduras-1317798.php retrieved April 9, 2011
- ^ ABC News, http://www.abc.net.au/pm/content/2011/s3185314.htm retrieved April 9, 2011
- ^ Magharebia, http://www.magharebia.com/cocoon/awi/xhtml1/en_GB/features/awi/newsbriefs/general/2011/04/07/newsbrief-03 retrieved April 9, 2011
- ^ The Sydney Morning Herald, February 1, 1947, page 1
- ^ a b Ralph Chaplin, The General Strike, Pamphlet, Industrial Workers of the World, 1933 (from the 1985 republication of this pamphlet), http://www.iww.org/en/culture/official/strike/strike4.shtml retrieved April 8, 2011
- ^ a b Stephen Naft, The Social General Strike, Debating Club No. 1, Chicago, June 1905, pages 5-6, translated from the German language pamphlet of the same name by Arnold Roller
- ^ a b Stephen Naft, The Social General Strike, Debating Club No. 1, Chicago, June 1905, page 6, translated from the German language pamphlet of the same name by Arnold Roller
- ^ a b Stephen Naft, The Social General Strike, Debating Club No. 1, Chicago, June 1905, page 7, translated from the German language pamphlet of the same name by Arnold Roller
- ^ Stephen Naft, The Social General Strike, Debating Club No. 1, Chicago, June 1905, page 8, translated from the German language pamphlet of the same name by Arnold Roller
- ^ Stephen Naft, The Social General Strike, Debating Club No. 1, Chicago, June 1905, page 9, translated from the German language pamphlet of the same name by Arnold Roller
- ^ Milorad M. Drachkovitch, The revolutionary internationals, 1864-1943, Hoover Institution on War, Revolution, and Peace, Stanford University Press, 1966, page 81
- ^ a b Milorad M. Drachkovitch, The revolutionary internationals, 1864-1943, Hoover Institution on War, Revolution, and Peace, Stanford University Press, 1966, page 83
- ^ Milorad M. Drachkovitch, The revolutionary internationals, 1864-1943, Hoover Institution on War, Revolution, and Peace, Stanford University Press, 1966, pages 82-83
- ^ a b Milorad M. Drachkovitch, The revolutionary internationals, 1864-1943, Hoover Institution on War, Revolution, and Peace, Stanford University Press, 1966, pages 99-100
- ^ Milorad M. Drachkovitch, The revolutionary internationals, 1864-1943, Hoover Institution on War, Revolution, and Peace, Stanford University Press, 1966, page 99. His actual term was "mutually exclusive."
- ^ a b Milorad M. Drachkovitch, The revolutionary internationals, 1864-1943, Hoover Institution on War, Revolution, and Peace, Stanford University Press, 1966, page 100
- ^ Melvyn Dubofsky, We Shall Be All, A History of the Industrial Workers of the World, University of Illinois Press Abridged, 2000, page 88
- ^ Philip S. Foner, History of the Labor Movement in the United States, Vol. 4, The Industrial Workers of the World 1905-1917, International Publishers, 1997, page 18
- ^ Thomas J. Hagerty and W. E. Trautmann, One Big Union, An Outline of a Possible Industrial Organization of the Working Class, with Chart, 1st edition, Charles H. Kerr & Company, 1911.
- ^ Milorad M. Drachkovitch, The revolutionary internationals, 1864-1943, Hoover Institution on War, Revolution, and Peace, Stanford University Press, 1966, page 84
- ^ Paul Frederick Brissenden, The I.W.W. A Study of American Syndicalism, Columbia University, 1919, page 45
- ^ a b Philip S. Foner, History of the Labor Movement in the United States, Vol. 4, The Industrial Workers of the World 1905-1917, International Publishers, 1997, page 140
- ^ Melvyn Dubofsky, We Shall Be All, A History of the Industrial Workers of the World, University of Illinois Press Abridged, 2000, page 90
- ^ a b Bill Haywood, The General Strike (Chicago, n.d.), pamphlet, published by Industrial Workers of the World, from a New York City speech delivered March 16, 1911.
- ^ a b c Philip S. Foner, History of the Labor Movement in the United States, Vol. 4, The Industrial Workers of the World 1905-1917, International Publishers, 1997, page 141
- ^ Philip S. Foner, History of the Labor Movement in the United States, Vol. 4, The Industrial Workers of the World 1905-1917, International Publishers, 1997, pages 141-142
- ^ a b Philip S. Foner, History of the Labor Movement in the United States, Vol. 4, The Industrial Workers of the World 1905-1917, International Publishers, 1997, page 142
- ^ Donald J. McClurg, The Colorado Coal Strike of 1927 -- Tactical Leadership of the IWW, Labor History, Vol. 4, No. 1, Winter, 1963, page 71
- ^ Donald J. McClurg, The Colorado Coal Strike of 1927 -- Tactical Leadership of the IWW, Labor History, Vol. 4, No. 1, Winter, 1963, page 72
- ^ http://www.iww.org/en/genstrike retrieved April 9, 2011
- ^ a b http://www.scfl.org/ retrieved April 9, 2011
- ^ http://depts.washington.edu/labhist/strike/ retrieved April 9, 2011
- ^ a b c d Sheet Metal Workers' Journal, Amalgamated Sheet Metal Workers' International Alliance, Volumes 24-25, Chicago, Illinois, 1919, pages 265-267
- ^ a b c d H.G. Wells, Outline Of History, Waverly Book Company, 1920, page 225
- ^ a b H.G. Wells, Outline Of History, Waverly Book Company, 1920, pages 225-226
- ^ a b Francis, Daniel (1984). "1919: The Winnipeg General Strike". History Today 38: 4–8.
- ^ Bloody Saturday CBC Television documentary
- ^ a b Howard Zinn, A People's History of the United States, Harper Collins, 2010, page 377
- ^ Foner, Philip S., History of the Labor Movement in the United States, v.8 Postwar Struggles, 1918-1920 (NY: International Publishers, 1988), page 75
- ^ a b Howard Zinn, "Self Help in Hard Times", Chapter 15 of A People's History of the United States, http://www.iww.org/en/culture/articles/zinn15.shtml retrieved April 9, 2011
- ^ http://blog.sfgate.com/kalw/2011/11/02/remembering-the-1946-oakland-general-strike/
- ^ Carl Strikwerda (1997). A house divided: Catholics, Socialists, and Flemish nationalists in nineteenth-century Belgium. Rowman & Littlefield. p. 109. ISBN 978-0-8476-8527-1. http://books.google.com/books?id=RlR0B7Nkq-EC. Retrieved 23 September 2010.
- ^ Many Riots in Belgium, New York Times, 13 April 1893
- ^ Milorad M. Drachkovitch, The revolutionary internationals, 1864-1943, Hoover Institution on War, Revolution, and Peace, Stanford University Press, 1966, page 82
- ^ Paul Frölich (August 1994). Rosa Luxemburg, ideas in action. Pluto Press. p. 141. ISBN 978-0-902818-19-4. http://books.google.com/books?id=pIA7AYyZPfkC&pg=PA338. Retrieved 23 September 2010.
- ^ Carl E. Schorske (1983). German social democracy, 1905-1917: the development of the great schism. Harvard University Press. p. 34. ISBN 978-0-674-35125-7. http://books.google.com/books?id=VH5zW6GOAIoC. Retrieved 23 September 2010.
- ^ Rosa Luxemburg, The Belgian Experience, Die Neue Zeit, 14 may 1902, pp. 47 and the following pages. Quoted by Claude Renard, La conquête du suffrage universel en Belgique, Editions de la Fondation Jacquemotte, Bruxelles, 1966, pp. 224-226.
- ^ Marinette Bruwier 1886, La Wallonie née de la grève,Colloque Université de Liège, Editions Labor, Bruxelles, 1990 ISBN 2-8040-0522-4
- ^ a b The Beginning of an Era, from Situationist International No 12 (September 1969). Translated by Ken Knabb.
