What would actually happen if a business' workforce just occupied their workplace in modern times in an area that would be widely supportive of such a move and continued operating the business in a democratic fashion for as long as they still had supplies. What would the police actually do? The obvious answer is that they'd break it up violently but would this be practical for the police if the local populace supported the strikers and several minors worked at the establishment and were members of the strike?
What would actually happen if a business' workforce just occupied their workplace in modern times in an area that would...
Other urls found in this thread:
just beleaguer them
using what methods?
yeah, burger police have no issue with magdumping wheelchair bound people
Block the streets for example if it's a village or so? cut off water, electricity, internet. Modern economies are highly interconnected. But they woul orobably just storm your shit with gas, snipers, spec ops etc.
There’s like 15 police officers in town and they don’t have that shit, if they wanted to break it up violently they’d have to come in and shoot up the place up close and personal
So? When there is a hostage situation that city doesn't have an assault squad either. they just bring in the troops.
The police would just arrest and remove them for trespassing and refusing to leave.
Depends on squatters' rights for the area.
Even the most permissive in the US require 5 years of occupation, so that's likely not a help to OP, unfortunately
The obvious answer is the only answer. Police would arrest the workers for trespassing regardless of the local attitude.
Police would storm the workplaces and Zig Forums would REEEE about it because workers owning means of production is capitalism according to them.
That’s actually nonsense, absent of the profit motive a group of workers is free to produce to their own needs and the needs of others in a way where they understand those needs far better than a state with a planned economy.
You can avoid police violence entirely because police can't be everywhere at once, and if multiple workforces strike, they strike as long as police is not present, once police arrives, strikers immediately pause the strike (resume working), once the police moves on to the next strikers, the paused strike is resumed. That way the only way to keep a place working, is to have a permanent police presence. This strategy works if strike movement is big enough, and distributed over an area.
The question here what's the overall political context, because this alone does nothing, because capitalists have larger reserves then workers. You might want to consider bribing the police by proposing to them to split the cut the capitalist usually gets.
I agree with the mutualist fag.
Mutualist general when?
And why has the profit motive disappeared just because you fired the boss? Are any of the worker coops today free from the profit motive?
they use various tactics to drive a wedge to divide the populace (in this case the workplace) between bad criminals and good citizens. read Frank Kitsen’s Low Intensity Operations
Coops, by definition, are not for profit.
Why would you do more work for the sake of creating a profit when you could still cover your own and the business’ necessities with less?
Because under a capitalist economy you either expand profits continuously or you eventually go out of business.
Yeah but I’m talking about a post-capitalist Soviet where wage relations are abolished. Obviously one coop has to have a profit motive in a vacuum because they compete with capitalist enterprises
That’s what I get for phoneposting, I meant society