United States: Lessons from the 2006 general strike — A participant’s account
First published at The Columbus Worker.
John Harris gave this talk on June 16th, 2025 at a workshop sponsored by the Boston May Day Coalition as a way to address strategy and tactics in today’s fight against the raids and deportations. May Day 2006 witnessed the largest nationwide general strike in decades, involving working people in their millions and shutting down workplaces around the country, and Harris was a protagonist in Boston. The strike shut down many factories and small businesses as well as the Port of Los Angeles. This transcript has been edited by N.S. to draw out some concepts and provide needed background to readers unfamiliar with these events.
I want to start by getting into the overall context of the massive upheaval that took place in 2006. The times we are currently living through have similarities to nineteen years ago, and comparisons are useful. The participants in 2006 focused better on clear demands but, like today, the demonstrations were massive. What migrant workers faced in December 2005 changed drastically overnight. While violations of migratory law are only breaches of civil law, the U.S. House of Representatives heedlessly passed a bill that would have obligated felony sentences of at least 10 years imprisonment for all undocumented migrants in cases of false documents. Other draconian measures were included in that bill, together producing great fear and anger among migrant workers, their families, friends, and supporters, provoking a desire to fight back. Also, the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan were raging at that time, leading to very significant anti-war protests, culminating in September of that year when 300,000 protested in the streets of Washington, DC. In this context, things began to explode, such as on April 29 when 100,000 people mobilized in New York City against the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan. Only two days later May Day exploded across the country. What had been going on?
During the winter of 2005-2006, coalitions defending immigrants sprung up around the country which were largely ad hoc in nature, unlike the types of formations that abound today. These were non-exclusionary formations that welcomed the entire left. These coalitions became very large before the spring. Additionally, the traditional organizations providing services for and advocating for immigrants and refugees began to grow as well. These organizations for the most part supported the Democratic Party and had confidence that the Democrats would deliver “Immigration Reform.” They felt that they knew what was best since the majority were themselves immigrants. They felt that they owned the protest franchise and that their own brand of organizing was best, which meant that these broad coalitions had no business challenging their authority. They considered these ad hoc formations to be illegitimate. This was the organizational context in which protests began to erupt in the winter.
The first huge mobilization erupted in Chicago. Organized by the ad hoc March 10 Coalition, Coalición Diez de Marzo, this formation was largely comprised of documented and undocumented immigrants, but included the organized left as well. Roughly half a million poured out into the streets that day — many thousands of immigrants, youth, and citizens. The most notable leader was Jorge Mujica; along with others I never had the pleasure to meet. They presented to the world a clear list of principled demands which were supported by the great majority of the movement.
Inspired by the times, a parallel ad hoc coalition in Los Angeles had begun organizing in the winter as well. They called for a Gran Marcha on March 25 and so came to be called the March 25th Coalition. They mobilized close to a million people who took over downtown Los Angeles. At the rally, they called for a national general strike on May Day. Traditional organizations were being left behind by history, and so they responded by calling a nationwide mobilization on April 10. Hundreds of thousands hit the streets all over the country: 500,000 in Dallas alone, 100,000 in New York City, as well as large mobilizations in San Diego, Atlanta, Nashville, Des Moines, Fort Meyers, San Jose, San Francisco, Denver, Seattle, Las Vegas, Boston, and in scores of other cities. Probably over a million attended in total. They called themselves Somos América (We are America). These actions were a product of a deep-going social crisis that was boiling over. We are seeing this crisis emerge again today.
The Democratic and Republican Parties went into deep crisis, and the Democratic Party was not capable of turning back the assault. Rather, they were part of it! Like today, working people, the oppressed, and youth faced a deeply polarized society, and we had to take matters into our own hands. However, a crucial difference is that fascism was not getting a wide hearing back then, and we did not see the emergence of a broader mass fascist movement like the one brewing today. Our strategies today need to take this into account.
The Boston May Day Coalition was formed in the weeks leading up to the May Day general strike that swept the country and reverberated into Latin America as well. On Boston Common on April 10th, ten thousand mobilized and the traditional local Latino leadership decided that things had gone far enough. The Border Protection, Anti-terrorism, and Illegal Immigration Control Act of 2005 (H.R. 4437) passed by the U.S. House but was dropped from the Senate’s agenda, so these leaders felt their trust in the politicians had been vindicated. The leadership in L.A. and in Chicago, on the other hand, demanded amnesty, which would bring immediate legal permanent residence to all undocumented migrants.
For them, the struggle was not over but was only just beginning. The L.A. coalition put out a national call for May Day: No work! No school! No buying! No selling! Join the boycott! Here in the Boston area, local traditional leaders and nongovernmental organizations suggested local communities could mobilize separately on May Day — but by no means go on a general strike and by no means mobilize together. They opposed the general strike until it was inevitable. Yet the tsunami swept them along. The Boston May Day Coalition was initiated by radical youth, mostly socialists representing different tendencies. I was approached and asked whether I was on board or not: a simple Yes or No. They were in no mood to hear any esoteric bullshit! Sergio Reyes and I got together, and we formed the “Sinners Club” who were the older folks who decided to support the General Strike.
The Boston May Day Coalition (BMDC) started out in a meeting of nine people, yet rapidly grew to include 25 organizations. The organized left was largely united, although a few socialist and communist groups abstained totally, and a couple others got interested at the last moment right before May Day. The anarchists got on board early on. The Boston May Day Coalition was christened by Sergio Reyes who had gone out on the internet to search for a name that hadn’t already been taken. He became its central leader. He was from Chile and had been jailed and tortured in that country during the Pinochet dictatorship and was given political asylum here in the U.S., where he went on to lead a group called Latinos for Social Change.
The BMDC then proceeded to call for the general strike and voted to use info from the Los Angeles call to action and adopted the L.A. demands, while adding an additional demand of our own. We reserved the Boston Common and even offered to turn the permit over to any of the traditional groups for them to run the program. They refused. Negotiating was mainly done by socialists Kaveri Rajaraman and Hank Gonzales. I did a little, and others also lent a hand. The call went out far and wide in four languages. Thousands mobilized on the Common. A large group of at least 500 led by anarchists marched from Cambridge all the way to the Common and joined the mobilization. They were greeted by the chant “Primero de Mayo, Paro Nacional!”. Sergio was the Master of Ceremonies; I was voted to handle the English language media and Roberto Torres the Spanish language media. I was interviewed by Fox News and Roberto by Univision. The Gran Paro on May 1 mobilized several million across the country and shut many businesses down altogether. It was the culmination of a vast grassroots insurgency that swept the country during the winter and spring. The main demand was amnesty for all undocumented migrants. The Gran Paro or Day Without an Immigrant was called and supported by many organizations around the country and went well beyond the undocumented and well beyond non-citizens. Identity-based, top-down organizing favored by the liberals was superseded by broad-based organizing models that were inclusive and democratic. The western U.S., Chicago, and Midwest by far out mobilized the east because the eastern U.S. included the most moderate leaders by far. The Democratic Party presented the main obstacle to the general strike and continuing the struggle here on the east coast. In Los Angeles on the other hand, a million people mobilized downtown at noon on Monday, May 1. In true sectarian fashion the leadership of the Service Employees International Union (SEIU) called for a separate rally across town which drew 10,000.
There we saw the long arm of the politicians in action. While these folks sought to divide the working class, the truck drivers or Troqueros at the port of Los Angeles had a different plan. They closed each and every terminal at the busiest seaport in the Western Hemisphere — the entire Port of L.A. was shut down. These workers solidarized with the working-class movement that massed downtown and across the country. In my view, the central leaders of the Gran Paro in L.A. were Jesse Díaz, Gloria Saucedo, Javier Rodríguez, Ernesto Nevarez, and Elva Salinas who helped mobilize many to come in from San Diego and beyond. Jesse had brought up the idea for a May Day general strike in January. The general strike or “Great American Boycott” was called on March 25 by Gloria Saucedo. A critical element for L.A.’s success was the media campaign led by Javier Rodríguez. The Spanish language radio stations popularized the campaign on a daily basis and radio announcer/DJ “Piolín” led the charge. Ernesto Nevarez played a major role in the effort to shut down the port of L.A.
It is noteworthy that Ernesto was an anarchist, and probably still is. He was a radio dispatcher for trucks at the port. Elva Salinas was a professor at a University in San Diego with good organizing skills, helping to give the movement a regional character beyond L.A. All five of these leaders spoke Spanish, each was in their own world. They led a whole cast of characters, jointly constituting an awesome fighting team. Much more could be said about each of these folks, but most importantly, they involved hundreds of people in the organizing effort to mobilize a million people in Los Angeles on May Day.
That summer after May Day, BMDC flew Jesse Díaz here and toured him around Greater Boston. That’s how a lot of people found out about the movement in L.A. I had first gotten the chance to meet him and Elva at a conference in Virginia earlier that summer, representing the National Immigrant Solidarity Network at a conference on the east coast led by a Chinese organizer from L.A., Lee Siu Hin. We weren’t able to build a strong east coast movement in 2006 because those who followed the Democratic Party took control. Jesse proposed a march on Washington, yet the organized left did not respond adequately, and the westerners could not build a strong base in New York or Washington, D.C. The east coast left was too Balkanized and divided to rise to the occasion, and many were involved in mobilizing against the wars on Iraq and Afghanistan.
The Democrats swept Republican majorities from both houses of Congress that fall and then dominated over the east coast movement. The west coast leaders got demoralized, as did those in Chicago. That election sent the movement crashing and burning. The left and moderates eventually united in 2012 to mass picket the campaign offices of President Obama around the country. After that, DACA came into being. Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals was declared, which was all we were able to win in Obama’s eight-year term. Obama came to be known as “Deporter in Chief,” deporting more immigrants than the brazen, racist Donald Trump in his first term. Look at the record!
The outlook
Prospects for organizing now are quite good. This is what we are seeing today. And the lesson we should draw from 2006 is that mass actions are the key element for turning back the offensive against migrants and working folk in general. Fundamental social advances that have benefited the working masses have generally been achieved through mass social movements. Mass movements generally call into question the legitimacy of an established social order by demonstrating that there are large numbers who see aspects of the system as unjust and oppressive — and are willing to do something about it. Many lose some of their fear when they join together with thousands of others who see a need to get involved and act. More options for what to do and how to stay involved can be discussed. Lasting victories can only be won through the action of the great masses of people.
The action of the masses is what inspires confidence and helps break down the artificial barriers placed between migrants and folks born here. A mass action strategy has been demonstrated historically to be the most effective in the effort to politicize, activate, and organize the forces necessary to achieve our goals. So, our activities should therefore seek to involve as many people as possible. Small groups of determined heroes or well-connected gurus cannot get the job done in the long run. For uniting working people, regardless of country of origin, and winning victories, the best example to follow would be the example of the massive movement in 2006 and to be organizing around the central goal of immediate legal permanent residency for all undocumented immigrants.
We must demand that the raids and deportations end and that the current detainees be released immediately. We must oppose the border walls and all laws that criminalize migrants. And we should explain to folks why these attacks affect all working class communities. Our rights, pay, healthcare, educational opportunities, and conditions of life are driven down by the divisions we suffer caused by the systemic xenophobia and racism that continues today in the U.S. The effects are not only here in the U.S., but in Mexico as well! Opposing all walls points the finger to Mexico too for having capitulated to Trump’s pledge to “build the wall and Mexico will pay for it”, because that’s what happened — except that the wall wasn’t built with millions of bricks, but with thousands of Mexico’s own troops spread out along both its northern and southern borders. This shift in policy added militarization to the civil life in these regions.
Because of the destructive divisions we suffer, it is important that our movement demands equal rights, equal pay, and equal working conditions for all working people regardless of their country of origin. No firings based on immigration status. On the contrary, we stand for jobs for all at a living wage as well as public housing, health care, childcare, education, and other vital social services. These demands are intrinsically linked to the demands for immigrant rights. No, we can’t and don’t expect to win everything all at once, but it doesn’t follow that we set these demands aside either. With each victory we must press on. As Frederick Douglas said in an 1857 speech, “power concedes nothing without a demand. It never did and it never will.” That holds true today. L.A. had a mass action strategy and clear principled demands. So did Chicago. But also, what I call movement building organizational policies are key to building a sustainable mass movement.
Movement building organizational policies
In order to build a sustainable mass movement it is necessary to develop movement building organizational policies. The movement should begin with a policy welcoming all those who agree on goals and demands. All organizations that want to build the effort should be welcomed. Narrowing participation goes against the historical experience of successful social movements and leaves the movement in solidarity with migrants vulnerable to the agenda of the very forces which are carrying out the repression, and thereby facilitates derailing the movement. This is especially important now, as more politicians seek to impose a “kinder gentler” campaign against migrants.
A healthy movement that can stand up, unite the masses, and gain respect derives its strength from clarity in its political arguments, strategy, and tactics. Obstacles must not be placed in the way of activists and potential activists who see the urgency of getting involved — they must be encouraged and welcomed as participants, organizers, and decision makers. This is an important element of a mass action strategy. This was generally the policy in Los Angeles in 2006. Organizational forms should flow from today’s social realities, the movement building possibilities, and the tempo necessary to take advantage of the current situation. In the vast array of groups that function in local communities the tempo will vary.
Decision making for a mass movement should be democratic. As the movement grows, its influence expands, and possibilities improve, so grows the need for open planning meetings which are announced, publicized, and open to all who agree with the movement’s goals. Democratic decision-making, where our demands, strategies and tactics can be debated and voted on, has maximized the impact of movements for social change and strengthened the ability to effectively coordinate actions locally, regionally, and nationally. Democracy has been demonstrated to be critical in facilitating the correction of errors and in avoiding errors before they take place. Democracy helps to correct policy. Our goal should not be to organize an exclusive club, but to organize an inclusive, mass social movement.
Democratic decision making in open, public, and broad conferences that call regional and national mass actions have been able to unite the largest number of people and gather the broadest input from working people and oppressed social layers. Folks who participate in a process of democratic discussion and decision-making feel invested in the organizations and movements being built. In turn, the organizers of activities and mass actions feel more inclined to respect the decisions decided upon, increasing the unity, authority, and social impact of the movement. In 2006 Jesse Díaz traveled the country to visit existing coalitions trying to build consensus around the need to demand amnesty (permanent residence) and to mobilize on May Day. Large conferences were held later. The leaders of the Gran Paro emerged from this kind of process.
Building an independent movement, one that does not get its marching orders from the politicians, is an important movement building organizational policy. Political action independent of the twin parties of big business is what has served us well.
Always keep in mind that the Democratic and Republican Parties are controlled by big business owners, and their corporations are the ones who benefit from exploiting immigrant workers. The politicians still have a strong grip on the minds of many, allowing the Democratic Party to serve as the graveyard for rising social movements. Mass shifts in the opinions of millions accompanied by mass actions often translate into shifts in policy. Fundamentally, victories are won by the masses, not by the good will of enlightened “policy makers.” We must become the policy makers! Our time should not be spent on advising the rich or their politicians on what is in their best interests, but on advising working people, women, youth, and all the oppressed and exploited on what is in our best interests. When the masses lead, the “leaders” follow along.
Through continued outreach and mass protest, which is becoming the “new normal” of this era, we can shift the balance of power that will lead to justice. In my view we should also organize periodic confrontations as well against the institutions and people in positions of power who deepen, perpetuate, and enforce the system of state repression, xenophobia and racism. Thoughtful and carefully planned confrontations with these institutions and their leaders help to clarify for many people who the enemy is, while instilling a sense of urgency. However, tactical confrontations should be carried out in a way that points toward the need for organizing mass actions, and by no means as a substitute for them. Confrontations as part of an overall mass outreach and mass mobilization campaign are very effective. Such is the legacy from the massive 1960s Civil Rights Movement that finished off Jim Crow and won affirmative action. We saw this in any number of other successful social movements as well.
However, in my view, participants in the current movement should not always bow to spontaneity and support every tactic that is being used. Efforts should be made to build consensus around organized, mass confrontations. In my view, our targets should not be working people, but rather, the centers of power, targeting our sworn enemies in the power elite and their repressive institutions. Our rallies, when possible, should be organized on their doorsteps, at their companies, at their government buildings, and in the centers of major cities where the power is. Occupy Wall Street was a sterling example! Furthermore, a good rule of thumb should be that the best direct actions are massive direct actions aimed at the powerful, not working people. In the current period, we should be trying to form broad-based coalitions that demand concrete justice through mass confrontations & mass mobilizations.
Some existing groups have provided enormous social services for migrants. Look at their plans, but make sure that you have plans of your own as well. Look for opportunities for organizing joint actions around clear principled demands. Think outside of the box and approach all kinds of organizations as well as groups with a class struggle orientation. Make an effort to reach agreement on demands, as well as on specific actions and their targets. At the same time, look to establish longer term alliances, broaden the coalition, and seek agreement on long term objectives and actions down the road. Convincing folks to adopt a mass action strategy and movement building organizational policies takes time and patience. The point is that what we do is more important than who we are or how we identify.
One of those rare instances when Donald Trump makes sense is when he says that this struggle is about winning and losing. Some ideas win and some lose. Choices we make can lead to being part of the solution or, if we aren’t careful, can lead to being part of the problem. Millions have been unnecessarily killed or jailed due to the movement’s poor decisions. Each of us is making our own history, and our biggest enemies are our egos. Demands, strategy, and tactics should be what we follow, not “trusted leaders” or egos. The leaders in Chicago and L.A. focused on what was best for the movement and we should follow their example
It ain’t about egos
In Chicago, Jorge Mujica led weekly mobilizations drawing attention to the repression against migrants. He became well known and central to the movement there. I don’t pretend to know much about Chicago and only had the pleasure to meet Jorge on a couple of occasions. What I do know is that he led regular weekly events in Chicago. He was focused on regular visibility and action. Returning to L.A., Jesse went with folks in the so-called “Border Project” near the Mexican border, confronting the Minute Men and their wealthy supporters. They organized pickets and marches in border towns. He joined with volunteers, especially anarchists and others, going together right up near the fences. In the overall process he got to know socialists and communists. He participated in open conferences where decisions were taken to decide what actions to carry out. He kept in contact with the traditional groups but refused to restrict his plans for action. Jesse gained a lot of respect by confronting and discrediting the Minute Men in the southwest. He was also involved in organizing other mass actions in the L.A. area. When things began to explode, he stepped forward and organized locally. He also travelled the country building support for the general strike. Those who led were those who were able to unite and focus the movement. They were chosen by history, not by the foundations or Democrats or bureaucrats, but by what they did: organizing around principled demands using a mass action strategy and movement building organizational policies.
Many of the traditional organized groups stood aloof, looking down their noses on the rag tag, motley crew of organizers and newer activists who were flying by the seat of their pants, doing as well as they could. For Jesse, however, all were good enough for him and he got down in the dirt of the chaos and confusion, playing a central role in forging a team. Organizers like Jesse learned how to navigate democratic political space. In L.A. a million people marched in the streets. Jesse’s motto was that “if you are doing this for yourself, then you don’t deserve the respect of others.” The liberal left was preaching so-called “identity” and love for the barrio until those from the barrio actually seized control of the movement. Then all of a sudden Jesse and others came to be looked upon with disdain. Jesse responded by describing Somos América as “Somos Vendidos” (We’re Sellouts) since they stuck to the Democratic Party’s strategy and tactics. He branded César Chávez as the first Minute Man for having called ICE on migrants who crossed United Farm Workers picket lines. Jesse pointed up Humberto “Bert” Corona as a more legitimate leader of the masses of Aztlán (a colorful name for occupied Mexico, from Texas to Colorado to California). Here in Boston, we followed Los Angeles’s example in this regard.
Equally selfless is the story of the man I mentioned earlier, Ernesto Nevarez, who played a central role in the effort to shut down the Port of Los Angeles. He organized with a group called the Troqueros, the truck drivers that transported the containers going in and out of the seaport. The containers are unloaded from the ships and placed on trucks which travel to their destinations. If the trucks shut down, so does the port. Ernesto was a radio dispatcher and developed relationships with many Troqueros. Meetings were organized as May Day approached, so they were ready to take action, shutting down the entire port. On May 2, 2006, Ernesto began to prepare for the next shutdown, which was to come a year later on May 1, 2007. As May Day 2007 approached, the Troqueros prepared again, but naturally the Port Authority was ready this time — they decided to give all the dock workers an official holiday and closed the port for the day. We tried to generate interest in that process here in the port of Boston, passing out fliers to truck drivers here. A couple had some interest, but it didn’t go anywhere. But at least we tried.
The crux of the issue is that a small group of NGO masterminds are incapable of organizing or even calling a general strike or leading an effective mass movement. History has proven that. “Follow me and I’ll set you free” doesn’t work. In the spring of 2017, a Boston NGO called the general strike. Folks just scratched their heads. This doesn’t work. Did it ever? Collaboration among existing groups and coalitions tends to get better results. If all the existing groups slam the door shut then you can start organizing anyway, and that’s what we did. At times you start out alone and discover other groups that want to do the same thing. That is a plus. That is what happened in the spring of 2006. Sometimes there is more than one path to victory. Most successful leaders learn how to navigate democratic political space, and there is plenty of that space here in the U.S., unlike Latin America where it can be severely restricted. Organizers are often forced underground. In those countries, political space to discuss, decide, and act is a precious jewel to be used and cherished. Yet here on the east coast, political space is sometimes denigrated! Those who best know how to navigate political space in the social movements are generally best at navigating that space in the trade unions as well. Should that be a surprise? I did it for 23 years.
Many groups here don’t want to collaborate with each other, much less with broader movements. Each sees itself as the vanguard — and Liberals and Democrats are the worst offenders when it comes to delusional vanguardism! However, that isn’t to say that myself or anyone else has a monopoly on correct thoughts, or that we should try to exclude liberals from our activities. We should be capable of convincing folks that our demands make sense, that our strategy works, and that our tactics can win victories. If we cannot win these arguments and convince others, then we are pretty useless. There is far more unity among the organized left on the west coast, in large part because they have won more victories. Surprise, surprise! I lived out there in California for seven years. It is a different world. The left here often consumes itself in petty turf wars, “cancel culture,” and obsession with “identity.” Identifying with demands, strategy, and tactics are what powered the movement forward in L.A. — and in Boston as well.
The revolution will not be organized in secret. It has never been. Effective leadership knows how to win, what to do next, and how to convince folks to take the next steps. Victory depends on mass participation, demands, strategy, and tactics. A lot of what it takes can’t be learned in books. But so much can. My advice to you is to keep your feet in the streets, your eyes on the prize, your head in books, and to shoot for the stars.
