In the same way that a completely controlling government and political system could stop literally anything, yes. The basis of collective bargaining does not inherently depend on government support and the proof is in it predating government support. It depends on governments not penning anti-unionisation legislation. There’s no need to be so snarky.

You realize that historically labor unions predated government laws about labor unions, right?

Sure, before labor unions existed, there were no laws about labor unions - why would there be?

But there were laws allowing freedom of association, so something like unions were default allowed, in the absence of any other laws.

You're missing the point of the comment you're replying to: labor organization does not require government permission to exist. It existed long before any sort of government quasi-protection.

There are many examples of this including Solidarity [1] and the Peasants' Revolt of 1381 [2] following attempts to freeze wages following the Black Death where demand suddenly exceeded supply and pushed up wages.

And this isn't even counting the cases where peasant and worker uprisings that led to revolutions.

The concept of a general strike is a relatively modern one but an extremely powerful one regardless of any legalities.

[1]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Solidarity_(Polish_trade_union...

[2]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Peasants%27_Revolt

I was agreeing with that point, with my comment about "default allowed".

The government stops them through things like outlawing secondary strikes.