On January 30 students walked out of schools and others withheld their labor and money in response to the call made by students at the University of Minnesota to strike against ICE violence. However, in the days preceding and following the national strike, there was much criticism about the nature of the strike and how it came about. But what has seldom been addressed is the success of the strike in building the revolutionary capacity of the youth, the forming of new coalitions, and the historical precedent for imperfect strikes and solidarity being the basis of anti-fascist struggles.
The call originated with the Somali Student Association at the University of Minnesota with the intent to build on the energy exhibited from the statewide strike of January 23. Though under the banner of a strike, the students intended the 30th to look much different than the 23rd, specifically calling on campus walk-outs and protests at federal immigration sites across the country. This call was taken up, and over three hundred actions were planned. Walkouts by college, high school, and middle school students drew some of the most attention—and institutional threats. In Texas, where I live, students walked out despite threats from school administration, state officials, and the Texas Education Agency threatening punishment against students and teachers.
The strike drew criticism from many corners. Some of the loudest criticism centered on the fact that the strike did not originate from labor unions and was not widely endorsed by labor unions.
Because the strike was not called for by a union, there were no agreed-upon stoppages across industries. People could not be sure that others would be striking due to the lack of authority calling for it. But especially in the student context, the call for a strike required people to talk to each other to plan walkouts and get others involved to build that coordination.
Uniting the action for January 30 under the banner of a strike does not lessen the meaning of the concept of a strike, but broadened the possibility of action to allow for greater participation that went beyond a general call for a “day of action”—to guide the actions toward withholding labor or walking out of school. So while it is true that the strike did not have a centralized authority calling and disseminating the strike, it forced organization efforts to begin to build where there was a lack of union authority or participation. In places like Texas, unionization rates are about half of the national average, workers face continuous challenges trying to build unions in a “right-to-work” state, and of unions that do exist, some often support right-wing policies and politicians.
The criticism that focuses heavily on the authority and participation of unions does not make space for the precedent of non-union strikes, the conditions that fostered this call, and the impact on the organizational development and political agency of the youth.
To take an example from history, strikes led by non-union organizations were critical to continued resistance against the Augusto Pinochet dictatorship in Chile. In 1983, monthly protests started against the regime, mostly led by labor unions and organizations, but these formations alone were not about to account for all sectors of the population that were wanting to fight against the dictatorship. In June, a union called for a strike, but it was not the union alone that went on strike. Students refused to attend classes and participated in sit-ins.
By October, students continued to be an important part of the resistance efforts. Students were continuing to organize protests, even as protests by the Democratic Alliance (Alianza Democratica)—who had been in talks with the government for the possibility of a democratic transition—had their permits revoked, resulting in other organizations like Comando Unitario Democratica [United Democratic Command] and PRODEN [National Development Project] to take charge and organize the protest in under 24 hours. Estimates varied between seventy to one hundred thousand people attended. This demonstrates that though infrastructure and authority to call for strikes may exist, they cannot always be the vehicle for everyone to participate in mass action. Organization of different sectors must be taken up to allow for the movement to have fluidity and adaptability when certain sectors come under increased repression, to ensure the movement can still be carried forward and is not overly reliant on the political capacity and organization skills of one section. While authority and organization is key to producing effective strikes, there must be a diversification of sectors of the population and how they are able to participate in political action beyond labor strikes.
Consider another example. In Thoughts on Change and the “Blind Language” (1968), Palestinian revolutionary Ghassan Kanafani discussed the overly-lamenting form of criticism that can take place after a defeat. He wrote, “The danger of a period of defeat—that carries within it both the seeds of construction and the seeds of destruction—requires a true grasp of what must be rejected and what must be defended.” Though the January 30 strike wasn’t a defeat, the criticism often framed it as such and often sowed seeds of destruction in the criticism rather than those of construction. It is our duty to analyze the strike through what must be rejected and what must be defended. If the belief was that the January 30 strike would end ICE operations indefinitely, then it failed, but though the strike was to oppose ICE operations, no one seriously expected those demands to be met after a one-day strike. But rather there are secondary goals that were achieved through this strike, and the strike’s ability to achieve those goals through this tactic is worthy of attention. The actions did build revolutionary capacity of the population, increased political consciousness, and served as the impetus for organizing among sectors of the youth, and met the people where they were at to begin building infrastructure for further strikes.
Students, the youngest group in society who likely have not participated in protesting or leading protests, took on the call to walk out of classes. Students were willing to make small sacrifices to stand up for immigrants. At Jersey Village High School in the Houston area, students were threatened with being restricted from extracurriculars and school bus services as well with the inability to make up assignments missed for the time they missed during the protest. In Georgia, a 15-year-old organizer, Zaire Hambrick, was threatened with suspension for planning a walkout at his high school. Rather than canceling the walkout amid repression, he called on his peers to think about the families being torn apart in a press conference. When facing the possibility of suspension, he referenced how students during the civil rights movement faced repression, but that sacrifices were worth making to ensure a just future for everyone. This shows that students are thinking about the potential consequences as part of a system that pits individual advancement against collective liberation and are conceptualizing themselves as political actors who have the capacity to incite material change.
The willingness to make a sacrifice often comes from seeing others being willing to do the same thing, take on the same repercussions. Students were able to build off of the courage that others displayed in the face of repression to face similar repercussions. A call for a general strike was needed to concentrate these efforts and demonstrate the willingness of others to face repression for their solidarity, sharpening the contradictions and allowing for people to act on that heightened sense of willingness to push back against repressive measures. Had the call for a general strike not happened and protests happened more slowly and with less public attention due to the lack of a national call, students might not have seen the steps others were willing to take and not participated in the walkouts. Students were able to discover their willingness to push back against repression because it happened within a national moment. That willingness to push back against repression does not stay in the moment but it is something that can then be built upon from that point. This allows for greater political action among the youth because of what they discovered in themselves and their peers when they responded to the call for a national strike.
This building of political consciousness, agency, and capacity is also something observed within the university student encampment movement in April and May of 2024. Starting with students at Columbia University and quickly spreading to campuses across the country and the world, students set up tents and occupied plazas and buildings, demanding their universities’ divestment from companies that profit and contribute to the genocide on Palestinians. Thousands of university students were arrested for their political action, but it was an inflection point. They discovered their willingness to make a sacrifice to fight for a people’s right to live free from occupation and genocide. The encampment movement also led to the creation of Students for Justice in Palestine chapters on campuses that previously didn’t have organizing for Palestine, leading to further sustained organizing efforts. A similar effect came from the January 30 national strike.
We can only grow from where we are, not where we want to be. Instead of saying things aren’t perfect and don’t align with theory, we need to assess conditions for why they exist in the way they do and what that means for how we can move forward. When students walked out on January 30, they created networks and organizations to organize against ICE where there had been none previously. There was a desire to participate in anti-ICE efforts that required a national call to strike to be realized. We cannot forsake the students who want to participate but do not currently have the infrastructure of a union. We must learn to develop these different sectors to make more broad action possible and to sustain diverse methods of future political action. Students are continuing to protest amid increased scrutiny and threats from schools and state officials. The national strike did not only provide one day of action against ICE. It served as a starting line for new organizing efforts that can carry the movement forward on more than just momentum.
Opinions expressed in signed articles do not necessarily represent the views of the editors or the Tempest Collective. For more information, see “About Tempest Collective.”
Featured Image credit: SDudley; modified by Tempest.
_02.jpg){kind=link}