Skip to main content

All Out or All for Socialism?

RMT general secretary Bob Crow, Unite leader Len McCluskey and civil servants’ union PCS general secretary Mark Serwotka have backed a general strike. TUC delegates voted last year to look into holding a general strike in 2013. POA assistant general secretary Glyn Travis, whose union pushed the motion, said he was “upbeat” about the discussions so far. It is clear though that those trade union officials are talking about a one-day token gesture,  a glorified day of protest, rather than a revolutionary challenge for power. Even if union executives were to set the wheels of a strike wave in motion, the rank and file would be woefully unprepared for it. The strike would be seen by many as simply another day’s pay lost. The government would have little to fear from a 24-hour stoppage and it would just be a matter of "business as usual" the next day.

The Chartists in Britain were the first raised the question of a general strike. They called it a National Holiday and the Holy Month. In the writings of James Connolly and Tom Mann it was syndicalism and industrial unionism that would express the power of the workers at the point of production and by the general strike take over society. It would also provide the framework for the future workers’ republic.

In the case of the preparations for a General Strike in the UK in the period 1919 – 1921 despite the detailed planning, several hundred local Councils of Action were formed, a National Council of Action formed by the executives of trade unions and organisations affiliated to the Labour Party was called to arrange a general strike. plus extensive support among workers, the trade union leadership of the day were able to sabotage the entire project. When the circumstances had changed and the previous preparations had disappeared, the 1926 General Strike was relatively easily defeated with long-lasting set-backs for working people. The Greeks and the Spanish  have had a number of general strikes recently. What has been accomplished and what are the lessons? Austerity has continued, if not intensified, despite those general strikes.

The very question of such a momentous stage in the struggle against capitalism, needs lengthy discussion and the clear presentation of the successes and failures such strikes have had. For if such an idea is not already being widely discussed and absorbed among the organised and unorganised workers it has little chance of occurring. Plus if it has not become widely accepted by the majority that such a step is possible and practical, its consequences could be self-defeating. People will not enter any industrial struggle unless they can envision what a victory would look like and hold a belief that an alternative policy is both feasible and available. An ill-prepared or poorly supported general strike could be an enormous self-inflicted defeat for the working class. Empty sloganeering gets us nowhere. If we are to build towards a general strike, we need to lay foundations in every workplace and every community and we need to ensure that no one is under any illusions that this will be an easy fight.

Importantly, it should be noted that 24 hour general strike would be evidence of the potential power and organisation of the working class and the level of organisation beforehand that would be required to make it a carrying it off a success would indicate a rise in political consciousness to independently organise.  But after 24 hours everyone would have to go back to work and the question would be "What now?" An indefinite general strike to challenge for political power in one form or another? Who really believes the  working class is currently in a position to issue such a challenge and prevail?

It is simply impossible to end capitalism by trade union militancy alone. Engels wrote to Laura Lafargue (Marx's daughter) "whenever we are in a position to try the universal strike, we shall be able to get what we want for the mere asking for it, without the roundabout way of the universal strike" As Luxemburg asserted: "In reality the mass strike does not produce the revolution, but the revolution produces the mass strike."
 Our aim is not a general strike but advancing the organisation, consciousness and power of the working class movement which will require an effective potent working class political party, built on solid foundations of the workers themselves, and confident of the success of the practical and achievable objective of socialism.


Popular posts from this blog

What do we mean by no leaders

"Where are the leaders and what are their demands?" will be the question puzzled professional politicians and media pundits will be asking when the Revolution comes. They will find it inconceivable that a socialist movement could survive without an elite at the top. This view will be shared by some at the bottom. Lenin and his Bolshevik cohorts argued that we couldn't expect the masses to become effective revolutionaries spontaneously, all on their own. To achieve liberation they needed the guidance of a "vanguard party" comprised of an expert political leadership with a clear programme. The Trotskyist/Leninist Left may remix the song over and over again all they want but the tune remains the same: leaders and the cadres of the vanguard can find the answer; the mass movements of the people cannot liberate themselves. The case for leadership is simple. Most working-class people are too busy to have opinions or engage in political action. There’s a need for some…

Lenin and the Myth of 1917

A myth pervades that 1917 was a 'socialist' revolution rather it was the continuation of the capitalist one. What justification is there, then, for terming the upheaval in Russia a Socialist Revolution? None whatever beyond the fact that the leaders in the November movement claim to be Marxian Socialists. M. Litvinoff practically admits this when he says:In seizing the reigns of power the Bolsheviks were obviously playing a game with high stake. Petrograd had shown itself entirely on their side. To what extent would the masses of the proletariat and the peasant army in the rest of the country support them?”This is a clear confession that the Bolsheviks themselves did not know the views of the mass when they took control. At a subsequent congress of the soviets the Bolsheviks had 390 out of a total of 676. It is worthy of note that none of the capitalist papers gave any description of the method of electing either the Soviets or the delegates to the Congress. And still more cu…

No More Propertyless

Socialism is the name given to that form of society in which there is no such thing as a propertyless class, but in which the whole community has become a working community owning the means of production—the land, factories, mills, mines, transport and all the means whereby wealth is created and distributed to the community. The first condition of success for Socialism is that its adherents should explain its aim and its essential characteristics clearly, so that they can be understood by every one. This has always been the primary purpose of the Socialist Party's promotion of its case for socialism. The idea of socialism is simple. Socialists believe that society is divided into two great classes that one of these classes, the wage-earning, the proletariat, is property-less the other, the capitalist, possesses the wealth of society and the proletariat in order to be able to live at all and exercise its faculties to any degree, must hire out their ability to work to the capitalis…