This is, to my mind, a fundamental challenge of organising via mass politics: "the masses" or "the people" or whatever one wishes to call the category of individually comparatively powerless folks, are /not/ a unified bloc. Some may be for revolution, others reform, others reaction, and any combination of these (coherent or not [see, e.g., fascism]) and other ideas.

If there's anything i think the Right has gotten right in recent decades, it's the understanding that a lot of political movement comes from cultural shifts. Certainly those of us on the so-called Left have made strides on certain fronts of the so-called Culture War; but so has the Right in its insistent messaging and political jockeying on its pet issues (such as its seemingly boundless fixation on deepening immiseration in an accelerationist race to a fascist bottom). Which is to say: i don't know that it's possible for organizers to swoop into the midst of a strike to direct it toward their own desired revolutionary ends like a vanguard, as most participants will likely already have their own political ideas (even if not well-thought-out). It is hard to direct the flow of a burst dam, which i would tend to think is often what spontaneous strikes amount to. The groundwork of building socio-cultural imagination for what is possible and what ought to be is at least as important as intervention. "The masses" (read: we) /will/ direct themselves when these moments arrive (remember: /we are [among] the masses, not separate from or, so much worse, above them/)