General Strike in Spain: Who Calls It?

General Strike in Spain: Who Calls It?

Can a country be stopped when the unions that should call it are, according to repeated accusations, "totally bought by the current government"? That is the starting point of a debate that begins with a concrete proposal: mobilizing the private sector —the public one, it is argued, does not matter— toward an indefinite general strike. The initial thesis does not mince words: "let's see who holds out longer," and objectives are set before calling because, it is maintained, it is the only real solution left.

The problem appears in the second sentence. If the unions do not call it, who signs the paper? The most repeated answer at the start is a mix of skepticism and anger: let the right-wing parties call it, we'll see, or else we all go down together. The underlying diagnosis is that classic worker representation is exhausted.

Who calls a general strike if unions won't

The paradox runs through the whole issue. Some point directly to a specific union linked to political right and ask what they are waiting for to call it. The answer given in the exchange itself is acidic: they don't want to make fools of themselves before their bosses, employers' associations, and the rich. The conclusion that imposes itself is that no one with legal capacity to call has incentive to do so.

Against that, the path proposed is spontaneous mobilization from the private sector. The argument is that private workers and self-employed (autónomos) are divided, that young people working hard have no future or hope, and that the country functions like a jungle where everyone fights for their own. Fragmentation —by ideology, gender, status, between civil servants and ordinary wage earners— is described as a deliberate obstacle.

Minimum services, pickets, and legal limits

The conversation gets tangled quickly in the fine print. It asks whether Civil Guard agents can protest, whether it would be legal, and recalls that even politicians attend demonstrations. The answer given is that there is no reason to forbid them from protesting. From there, it jumps to a more ambitious idea: that the army or security forces should stop obeying politicians and side with the people, because when they take off the uniform they live in the same society as everyone else.

The tone heats up when discussing minimum services. It is raised that if everything stops, including emergency health minimum services, "one would have to see the laughter." And the picket is mentioned as the classic instrument for those who do not support the strike. There the debate stops being economic and enters delicate territory.

How long can the State last without revenue

The most concrete economic proposal is duration. Not a one-day strike: indefinite, with an explicit objective, that the State collapses. The reasoning is that only when civil servants and pensioners stop getting paid will they realize the system is unsustainable. It is a harsh thesis, and in the exchange it is assumed without nuance.

The counterpoint comes via consumption. It is proposed to add to the strike a consumer strike and tax non-compliance. The correction is immediate: it will be non-compliance, because we already have too much compliance. That wordplay summarizes the general mood.

Calendar: Investiture as target date

The only temporal concreteness that appears is the investiture. It is proposed that the strike must be called beforehand and made to coincide with that day. Later it is stated that the 3rd has already been proposed for the general strike, without further detail. There is no confirmation of who calls it or if it succeeds.

The political framework of the moment permeates everything. Talk is of a "parliamentary coup d'état" and a "communist dictatorship," and it is maintained that a parliamentary majority is not above the law. It is also affirmed that the army should take power and restore the rule of law. These are statements circulating in the exchange, not verified facts.

Unionism past and present

The look to the past occupies several messages. It is recalled that social security, the 40-hour week, and the right to unemployment were conquests wrested from power by a left that then did fight for the worker. And an uncomfortable nuance is added: that financing has been a burden for the worker, with a perverse effect, because without credit one can no longer access housing due to inflation of goods.

The conclusion of that review is that defense of the worker has never existed except in the romantic beginnings of unionism, and that the State is both master and feudal lord disposing of lives and estates. With that starting point, the general strike is presented less as a union tool than as a complete social pulse.

---

In the end, the only figure handled with precision is the 3rd. Everything else —who signs, how long it lasts, how long the State holds— remains unanswered.