Dunno if you’re being ironic, but the whole point of the works I reference (The Mass Strike and Theory & Practice) is that the Mass Strike can’t be viewed as a singular isolated event sparked by a singular call to strike. That level of solidarity must be forged through smaller strikes and extended class struggle. The working class as a whole ain’t going to just read a couple well worded polemics and collectively risk their jobs. No it needs to be shown how solidarity and strikes and resistance helps them and those around them. Then as more and more people get engaged, they can see (with the help of and united struggle with educated, dedicated comrades) how their economic interests align with others and how political goals are necessary. Even then the Mass Strike doesn’t end up being a singular force with a singular goal; it has that big political goal, but constantly explodes in spontaneous regional outbursts over local issues. It is messy, chaotic, and it is historical. The 1905 Russian Revolution didn’t start in 1904, it started in the the mid-1890’s with the first smatterings of urban proletarian acts of resistance and solidarity - the socialist forces, which were not very strong beforehand, coming to prominence (after being primarily intellectuals for decades) over the next decade+ through escalating tensions, REPEATED struggles and attempts at spreading the Socialist message through the proles (and it was basically the same with a different timeline for SRs and the Peasants).

So no I don’t just want to read books. People can call for a general strike all they want, but don’t expect it to amount to anything other than weak agitation. Praxis and local struggles, like always, are the fucking key