Nobody trying to meme it into existence has ever heard of a strike fund. And they generally don't have specific demands either. If you just say, "Everybody stop working until capitalism is abolished," then even if it somehow got off the ground, it wouldn't last or accomplish anything. Moreover, there's no organizational structure and no established trust, so it's not going to happen.

I think there's a widespread misunderstanding that radical methods go hand in hand with radical ideas and goals. But generally, radical methods go with basic, simple demands. Lenin and Mao promised to feed people who were starving. If you want to call a general strike, it needs to be in reaction to a specific thing that everyone is pissed about that could plausibly be changed.

For example: in Iran, in the late 1800s I believe, the shah (previous dynasty to the one you're thinking of) struck a deal to give the British monopolistic control over the tobacco industry which would permanently screw over tons of farmers, just to give the shah more cash for luxuries. The people responded with a tobacco boycott, which gained so much traction that religious leaders declared breaking the boycott to be haram and even members of the shah's own harem participated. It succeeded and the shah was forced to break the deal, but more importantly it established a precedent that would later lead to a revolution - a revolution that started by saying, "We want this one local magistrate fired for his brutality" and ended with, "If the shah accepts our constitution and cedes power to our newly established parliament, we will allow him to keep his head." Simple demands lead to mass movements, and mass movements can lead to more radical demands.

Many people these days have no understanding of how to use methods like strikes and protests strategically, and it just ends up being about individual aesthetic preferences. The "general strike now!" people aren't thinking about how to actually accomplish anything, they just want to sound radical.