The only method which will directly raise wages are political action and union organization with strikes.
Expressions of discontent like arson will not raise wages themselves, but they are a reminder to the financial class what the cost of continual suppression of union organizing is.
I’m not really convinced random acts of violent disruption of industry has ever resulted in progress. For every time that a violent movement was followed by an act of legislative progress, there are many time where violence wasn’t required at all.
That said, the extremely wealthy do need to understand we are capable of organizing against them with threat of violence, but to burn down our own necessary supplies is stupid.
It’s less about violence itself leading to progress and more about violence expressing the capacity for violence, which necessitates taking negotiations seriously.
Powers do not generally make concessions out of the goodness of their hearts. Even democratic polities very easily become complacent if the monopoly on power is never meaningfully challenged. And when strikes and demonstrations become ritualized, it becomes easy for the polity to see them as harmless or meaningless.
I would posit the reverse - no grassroots change has ever been effected against the will of the elite without the credible threat of violence to back it. This doesn’t mean that the whole town has to be burned down before change is possible. If the elites have an ounce of competence, it may never escalate directly to violence, as an ounce of competence shows that the willingness to unlawfully gather in the face of state forces permitted and expected to use violence, even a peaceful gathering, is itself a challenge to the state monopoly on violence, and thus a crisis moment to anyone who can see further than their next hamburder.
But in the all-too-common case of sub-competent or outright incompetent elites, some amount of violence becomes necessary as a means of communication.
As I said elsewhere on the same topic - I’d never recommend burning down a warehouse, by risk-reward ratio alone. But that’s also not the same as saying that it’s meaningless or doesn’t have a positive effect on the rest of our negotiating position.
As MLK Jr. said, a riot is the language of the unheard.
The only method which will directly raise wages are political action and union organization with strikes.
Expressions of discontent like arson will not raise wages themselves, but they are a reminder to the financial class what the cost of continual suppression of union organizing is.
I rather like OG Teamster-style shit, myself. Bummer that we can’t do more of it, but in a surveillance state, I understand why.
I’m not really convinced random acts of violent disruption of industry has ever resulted in progress. For every time that a violent movement was followed by an act of legislative progress, there are many time where violence wasn’t required at all.
That said, the extremely wealthy do need to understand we are capable of organizing against them with threat of violence, but to burn down our own necessary supplies is stupid.
It’s less about violence itself leading to progress and more about violence expressing the capacity for violence, which necessitates taking negotiations seriously.
Powers do not generally make concessions out of the goodness of their hearts. Even democratic polities very easily become complacent if the monopoly on power is never meaningfully challenged. And when strikes and demonstrations become ritualized, it becomes easy for the polity to see them as harmless or meaningless.
I would posit the reverse - no grassroots change has ever been effected against the will of the elite without the credible threat of violence to back it. This doesn’t mean that the whole town has to be burned down before change is possible. If the elites have an ounce of competence, it may never escalate directly to violence, as an ounce of competence shows that the willingness to unlawfully gather in the face of state forces permitted and expected to use violence, even a peaceful gathering, is itself a challenge to the state monopoly on violence, and thus a crisis moment to anyone who can see further than their next hamburder.
But in the all-too-common case of sub-competent or outright incompetent elites, some amount of violence becomes necessary as a means of communication.
As I said elsewhere on the same topic - I’d never recommend burning down a warehouse, by risk-reward ratio alone. But that’s also not the same as saying that it’s meaningless or doesn’t have a positive effect on the rest of our negotiating position.
As MLK Jr. said, a riot is the language of the unheard.