Not opposed to both, but I’d argue a rent/mortgage strike is more feasible. It could literally be started tomorrow if it was organized already. The only action for people to take at that point is to stop paying, and don’t pay until the problems are fixed. Could even weaponise our homeless population by encouraging them to take up residence in empty homes.

Where as a general strike takes time to build up resources, and generally requires a strong union backing, and the people actively putting effort into organizing. They also need to spend these resources for food, and generally living until the strike bares fruit. So it requires people caring about organizing, and saving, more than the rest of the stuff they have going on in there lives. It’s also a much bigger first step towards civil disobedience, which is a harder sell.

On the other hand, focusing on a rent/mortgage strike builds up our resources by keeping more of them in our pockets, and weaponizes apathy/greed for civil disobedience as all we have to do is *stop paying *. Making it a much easier selling and starting point. Bonus, it can still find a general strike as an escalation after a couple/few months and still help build up organization.

Why is it always a general strike? Why not a rent/mortgage strike?

It’s only a matter of time till “birds aren’t real” isn’t satire. I for one welcome our new robot overlords

.

Guards might turn on them, robot dogs are forever loyal.

If they are going to process you as terrorist anyway, then you might as well make moves that are worthy of the label. After all the only real difference between a freedom fighter and terrorist is the narrative.

Maybe it’s time to grab some fellow employees and make an employee owned business.