There were several strikes involving the workers of the Putilov Mill over the years with the first one taking place in 1905, yet this particular strike in 1917 is considered the catalyst which sparked the February Revolution.
You know what happened after the February revolution right? Right?!
The October revolution! Many deaths.
This is what happens to strikes that are deemed illegal by the government:
The October Revolution has nothing to do with striking, what are you going on about? You are over here insinuating something but are too much of a coward to outright make a claim. Yes, there was a strike 7 years prior, you’re very astute there, and yes it was bloody because the conditions for it were not right. I am not claiming that all strikes are well thought out or planned, there needs to be a movement behind it or it will end bloody. That’s what you get when non-marxists strike. Now please refute my claim that it impacts the growth of capital or move on.
Now please refute my claim that it impacts the growth of capital or move on.
Bud, the topic is whether a non-violent strike changes the status quo.
Yes, strikes impact capital (I didn’t say they don’t) that’s why they’re powerful and also why they get a strong and violent reaction.
Notice how after the kumbaya strike (that the Tzar didn’t even know was happening, he even travelled there thinking all was fine!) that a puppet government was installed which still oppressed the people for several years and eventually led to the actual revolution. That had violence. A lot of it.
LOL either you’re cherry picking or really don’t know the history that led to the Bolshevik revolution.
You know what the Putilov Strike was preceded by? The Bloody Sunday revolution. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bloody_Sunday_(1905)
From your article:
You know what happened after the February revolution right? Right?!
The October revolution! Many deaths.
This is what happens to strikes that are deemed illegal by the government:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Winnipeg_general_strike
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pullman_Strike
The October Revolution has nothing to do with striking, what are you going on about? You are over here insinuating something but are too much of a coward to outright make a claim. Yes, there was a strike 7 years prior, you’re very astute there, and yes it was bloody because the conditions for it were not right. I am not claiming that all strikes are well thought out or planned, there needs to be a movement behind it or it will end bloody. That’s what you get when non-marxists strike. Now please refute my claim that it impacts the growth of capital or move on.
Bud, the topic is whether a non-violent strike changes the status quo.
Yes, strikes impact capital (I didn’t say they don’t) that’s why they’re powerful and also why they get a strong and violent reaction.
Notice how after the kumbaya strike (that the Tzar didn’t even know was happening, he even travelled there thinking all was fine!) that a puppet government was installed which still oppressed the people for several years and eventually led to the actual revolution. That had violence. A lot of it.