In
1935 the centrist Independent Labour Party, which as Trotsky said was
marking time between pacifism and the proletarian revolution, advanced
the propaganda slogan of ‘a general strike to stop war’.
Trotsky described the slogan as ‘irresponsible radical
phraseology’. ‘The struggle against war’ he declared,
‘is the continuation of the entire preceding policy of the revolutionary
class and its party. Hence it follows that a general strike can be put
on the order of the day as a method of struggle against mobilisation
and war only in the event that the entire preceding developments in
the country have placed revolution and armed insurrection on the order
of the day. Taken, however, as a special method of struggle against
mobilisation, a general strike would be a sheer adventure.’(1)
However, he used the opportunity to discuss more widely
the question of the general strike which ‘has a long and rich
history in theory as well as practice’. His starting point was
Engels who wrote in 1893: ‘. . . but the political strike must
either prove victorious immediately by the threat alone (as in Belgium,
where the army was very shaky), or it must end in a colossal fiasco,
or finally lead to the barricades’. Trotsky added: ‘Engels
did not point out another “category” of general strike,
examples of which have been provided in Britain, France and some other
countries: we refer here to cases in which the leadership of the strike
previously, i.e. without a struggle, arrives at an agreement with the
class enemy as to the course and outcome of the strike.’
Further elaborating on Engels’ reference to a general
strike used as a threat. Trotsky had this to say: ‘If the army
is sufficiently reliable, and the government feels sure of itself; if
a political strike is promulgated from above, and, if at the same time,
it is calculated not for decisive battles, but to “frighten”
the enemy, then it can easily turnout to be a mere adventure, and reveal
its utter impotence.’
The Chartists in Britain had first raised the question
of a general strike. A pamphlet published by William Benbow —
A Grand National Holiday and Congress of the Productive Class
— was published in 1832 and widely circulated. Benbow was a printer
and publisher who served at least two terms of imprisonment as a result
of his fight for the productive class’. His pamphlet called for
the fixing of a ‘holy’ or ‘sacred’ month, in
which all work would cease.
In our National Holiday, which is to be held during one calendar
month, throughout the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland, we
must all unite in discovering the source of our misery, and the best
way of destroying it. Afterwards, we must choose, appoint, and send
to the place of Congress, a certain number of wise and cunning men,
whom we shall have made full acquainted with our circumstances; and
they, before the Holiday be expired shall discuss and concert a plan,
whereby, if it is possible, the privation, wretchedness and slavery,
of the great mass of us may be diminished, if not completely annihilated…(2)
The conception that, if the Charter was refused then working
men and women should stop work, set up their own Convention or Parliament
and somehow proceed to change society, was widely diffused throughout
the Chartist Movement. It was held by both ‘physical’ and
moral forcists’. Moral forcists’ advocated the ‘holy
month’ as an alternative to ‘physical force’ believing
it would lead to a collapse of opposition. George Julian Harney, one
of the leaders of the ‘physical force’ majority, attacked
the cloudy conception of the ‘holy month’. He poured scorn
on those who thought the general strike would be a peaceable economic
weapon and declared that, on the contrary, it would mean insurrection.
He was not opposed to insurrection but he objected that those who supported
the ‘holy month’ so strongly, at the same time denounced
the arming of the people.
When a general strike developed in Lancashire, Yorkshire
and Staffordshire in 1842, Harney opposed it, declaring there was not
the unified mass support and thorough preparation for it to succeed.
The strike was provoked by the anti-Corn Law manufacturers, who wanted
cheap corn imported so that they could lower the costs of labour. Engels
wrote of the strike in his Conditions of the working class in 1844;
This time, however, it was not the working man who wished to close
their mills ad send the operatives into the country parishes upon the
property of the aristocracy, thus forcing theTory Parliament and the
Tory Ministry to repeal the Corn Laws They were drawn into this revolt
without wishing it - - - If it had been from the beginning an international,
deter_mined working mans insurrection, it surely would have carried
its point, but these crowds, who had been driven into the sweets against
their own will, and with no definite purpose could do nothing.
MARXISM VS ANARCHISM
In the First International Marx and Engels fought and
defeated the anarchist policy on the general strike. Bakunin was for
the end of capitalism by one big action. A general strike was to be
the quickest way to leap into a new society. In Bakunists at work, Engels
exposes the anarchist’s activities in the 1873 uprising in Spain.
They led the First International in Barcelona and they lost all influence
among the workers who laughed at their demand for a general strike.
Engels quotes from the posters they issued: Workers: we are conducting
a general strike to show the abhorrence we feel when we see how the
government is using the army to fight against our fellow workers.
Engels comments:
Thus the workers of Barcelona the greatest factory town of Spain,
the history of which records more barricade fighting than any other
city in the world, were called upon to oppose the armed power of the
government, not with arms in their own hands but — by a general
stoppage of work, a measure which directly affects only the individual
bourgeoisie, but not their collective representative, the state power.(3)
When, instead of calling to arms, they declared a general
strike, ‘they became nothing short of contemptible in the eyes
of workers.’ Marx and Engels fought the theory of Bakunin and
his followers which took no account of objective circumstances and was
rooted in the petty bourgeois consciousness of the dying handicraft
and artisan class. They posed a turn towards the development of the
proletariat and to day-to-day political work. Their arguments against
the anarchists were carried in a one-sided way into the conflicts in
the German Social Democratic Party at the turn of the century. They
were distorted and used by the reformists. They were carried beyond
their historical limits in order to justify repudiation of revolutionary
methods and concentration on Parliamentary tactics.
Rosa Luxemburg, discussing the lessons of the 1905 revolution
in
Russia, attacked the degeneration of the German Social Democratic Party
and attacked the ‘whole abstract unhistorical view of the mass
strike and all the conditions of the proletarian struggle generally’
Both the German trade union leaders who passed a resolution at their
Congress solemnly prohibiting the general strike, and the opportunists
who advocated a strike on an ‘appointed day’ against reactionary
legislation, in reality stood on an anarchist programme, she declared.
She wrote in The Mass Strike, the Political Party and the Trade
Unions that ‘both tendencies proceed on the common, purely
anarchist assumption that the mass strike is a purely technical means
of struggle which can be “decided” at pleasure and strictly
according to conscience, or “forbidden” —a kind of
pocket knife which can be kept in the pocket clasped “ready for
any emergency” and, according to decision can be unclasped and
used.’
Luxemburg asserted: ‘In reality the mass strike
does not produce the revolution, but the revolution produces the mass
strike.’ In attacking those who saw the peaceful parliamentary
road as the essence of development, she began with world relations.
She assailed the opportunists and reformists who treated the mass struggles
in Russia as purely Russian phenomena. She was at one with Trotsky’s
later writings on the significance of the Russian Revolution in world
capitalist development.
The present revolution realises in the particular affairs of absolute
Russia the general result of international capitalist development and
appears not so much as the latest successor of the old bourgeois revolution
as the forerunner of the new series of proletarian revolutions of the
West The most backward country of all, just because it has been so unpardonably
late with its bourgeois revolution, shows ways and methods of further
class struggle to the proletariat of Germany and the most advanced capitalist
countries.(4)
The German workers should look upon the Russian revolution
as their own affair: ‘first and foremost as a chapter in their
own social and political history . . the Russian Revolution is a reflex
of the power and maturity of the international and, in the first place,
of the German, labour movement’.
It would, therefore, be a too pitiable and grotesquely insignificant
result of the Russian Revolution if the German proletariat should merely
draw from it the lesson — as is desired by Comrades Frohme, Elm
and others — of using the extreme form of the struggle, the mass
strike, and so weaken themselves as to be merely a reserve force in
the event of the withdrawal of the parliamentary vote, and, therefore,
a passive means of parliamentary defensive.
In other words, the general strike cannot be used merely
as a defensive weapon; the working class cannot conceive of itself as
a reserve, ready to make a big protest in defence of a reform. Thus
wrote Rosa Luxemburg many years before Heffer and the Stalinists. She
goes on:
…the mere defensive can never exhaust the policy of the proletariat
in a period of revolution…it is absolutely certain that when we
in Germany enter upon the period of stormy mass action it will be impossible
for the Social Democrats to base their tactics upon a mere Parliamentary
defensive. To fix beforehand the cause and the moment from and in which
the mass strikes in Germany break out is not in the power of Social
Democracy because it is not in its power to bring about historical situations
by resolutions at party congresses. But what it can and must do is to
make clear the political tendencies when they once appear and to formulate
them as resolute and consistent tactics.
In Britain, before the first world war, the question of
the general strike came up again. Among the working class disillusionment
with the collusion of the leaders of the new Labour Party with the Liberals,
and disillusionment with trade union leaders who opposed workers’
struggles, led to a rapid growth of syndicalism. In the writings of
James Connolly and Tom Mann it was the industrial union, the One Big
Union of the working class, that would express the power of the workers
at the point of production and by simultaneous action take over society.
It would also provide the framework for the future workers’ republic.
Thus up to the time of the First World War the general
strike had come up as a once-for-all final solution in face of which
opposition forces, including the state, somehow collapsed; it had also
come up as a reserve weapon to defend reforms. We should add, that in
respect of the Chartist ‘Holy Month’, it must not be forgotten
that this was the idea of a newly-born working class making its experience
of capitalist society, and of its own class nature. It was before scientific
socialist consciousness could be brought to it; it could not but have
unclear conceptions of its own struggles. The later ideas of the Bakunists,
which sprang from the consciousness of petty proprietors, were completely
reactionary. The best of the syndicalists in Britain took up the experience
of the Russian Revolution and fought through to help form the Communist
Party.
Through all this we see a continuity of struggle. The
raising of the question of the state forces by Harney (who himself had
limitations born out of the period and was able to maintain only a brief
collaboration with Engels); the insistence on the day-to-day consistent
work of building a proletarian party and on the nature of the state
by Marx and Engels against Bakunin; the insistence on beginning with
world relationships and the general strike as a revolutionary action
by Rosa Luxemburg. After the Russian Revolution and in the accelerated
decay of capitalism, with an enormous development of militarism and
the state repressive organs, it was no longer possible to take the least
bit seriously the conception of mass ‘folded arms’ leading
to the collapse of capitalism. (Not that half-baked ideas of left reformists
and revisionists do not still arise out of this foggy conception.)
In 1920 the threat of a general strike stopped the British
government from intervening in the Russo-Polish war. This neither contradicts
Trotsky in his remarks on the general strike as a threat not his remarks
on the ILP slogan of a general strike against war.
A British expeditionary force was still in north Russia
when, afraid at the advance of the Red Army in Poland, the British government
issued further threats against the workers’ state. A powerful
‘Hands off Russia’ movement had grown among the working
class, spurred forward when London dockers in May, refused to load the
Jolly George’ with munitions for Poland. The TUC in July voted
for a general strike to end the war in the Soviet Union. But what gave
content to its words was the reaction in the country when the government
issued bellicose statements, prepared to move the Baltic fleet at the
end of July and sent troops in to break a strike against the war by
German workers in East Prussia.
Several hundred local Councils of Action were formed.
A meeting of the Parliamentary Committee of the TUC, the NEC of the
Labour Party and the parliamentary Labour Party, warned the government
that the whole industrial power of the organised workers would be used
to defeat this war. 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. Lloyd George, the Prime Minister,
declared war had never been intended. Soon after British troops were
withdrawn from Russia.
Whatever might have been the ideas of individual leaders,
as far as the masses supporting it were concerned, the general strike
was not just a threat to be brought out like a ‘pocket knife’.
It was action flowing from the entire preceding developments and revolutionary
situation as Trotsky and Luxemburg discussed. The army was unreliable.
It was not yet two years since the slaughter of World War I ended. Demobilisation,
the slowness of which was source of great discontent, had not been completed.
There was worldwide sympathy with the Russian Revolution; it had greatly
inspired sections of the British working class. There was also opposition
to the war in Ireland. In this context the Government retreated before
the movement to general strike.
LEADERSHIP IN THE GENERAL STRIKE
By 1926 the ruling class was prepared to face a wholesale
confrontation with the working class. Indeed, they provoked it. In 1925
they postponed a struggle by granting a subsidy to maintain miners’
wag~ and then they planned for the confrontation during the following
year. The TUC led by left-wingers’ made no preparations. The General
Council was pushed reluctantly into support of the miners when they
were locked out for refusing lower pay and longer hours. Mortally frightened
by the movement that was unleashed, they bet, rayed it at the first
opportunity. With their members in shattering defeat, once it was over,
they rushed into abject class collaboration.
The big question of the 1926 General Strike, is the question
of leadership. The Communist International had begun to degenerate at
that time. The Communist Party was led in an unprincipled way in an
alliance with left’ trade union leaders. The independence of the
Communist Party Was subordinated to this alliance. The party put forward
the slogan of ‘All power to the General Council’ a slogan
which had arisen out of the collapse of the Triple Alliance. It expressed
a call for individual unions. With the obvious coming betrayal of the
leaders the slogan only served to sow illusions. The Communist Party
called for ‘power to the Councils of Action’ but failed
to make an independent fight for leadership.
The dangers in the Communist Party policy became ever
clearer after the betrayal of the General Strike when the miners were
left for seven months to struggle on their own. Trotsky called for a
campaign to reopen the general strike, which meant an all out struggle
against the leadership. He said it would be a great illusion to believe
that an isolated strike of miners could achieve what the General Strike
failed to achieve. To convert the economic strike into a political strike,
meant war against the General Council.
The Communist Party followed the ‘left’ leadership
of the miners’ union in fighting the miners’ strike as an
isolated battle. Proposals for a levy in support of the miners and an
embargo on coal were sabotaged by labour and trade union leaders. With
the agreement of the miners’ leaders, including the ‘left’
A.J. Cook as member of the Anglo- Russian Committee, a conference of
trade union executives in June, where the General Council could have
been brought to a reckoning, was postponed. The ‘June Pact’
was arrived at, by which there was to be no criticism from either side
— the General Council or the miners — until the miners’
lockout was ended. The General Council promptly broke its pledge, to
the delight of the mineowners. Cook refrained from attacking the General
Council. The TUC in that year did not discuss the General Strike.
Cook supported this.
The overriding question posed by the 1926 General Strike
is not only the recognition that the general strike must be a struggle
for power. Today, many will pay verbal adherence to that. Important
as that is, more important is the question of independent revolutionary
leadership — the role of the revolutionary party. History showed
that only through a revolutionary Marxist party could the working class
take power. However, in Britain in 1926 it was Zinoviev’s conception
that the British revolution could pass through the ‘broad gate’
of trade unions, without the Communist Party, and the opportunist preservation
of the Anglo-Russian trade union committee as a bulwark for Soviet defence,
which led to the false position of the Communist Party. It was this
which led the CP to dissolve its independence into a left opposition
in the trade unions.
Trotsky emphasised the importance of the British trade
unions. But their possibilities were determined by the Communist Party.
He had written in Lessons of October:
It is true that the British trade unions may become a mighty lever
of the proletarian revolution; they may, for instance, even replace
workers’ soviets under certain conditions and for a certain time.
They can, however, fill such a role not apart from a Communist Party
and certainly not against the party, but only on the condition that
communist influence becomes the decisive influence in the trade unions.
When the General Strike was betrayed, Trotsky and the
Left Opposition demanded that the Russian unions break with the General
Council, with whom they sat on the Anglo-Russian Trade Union Committee.
To maintain the Anglo-Russian Committee, they said, would only shield
those who had betrayed, with the prestige of the Russian Revolution.
The demand was rejected by Stalin. In July, at a meeting of the Anglo-Russian
Committee the General Council forced the Russian unions to withdraw
a statement criticising the sell out of the General Strike and refused
to allow them to discuss how to aid the miners still locked out.
The whole point of departure for the erroneous line, wrote
Trotsky, was ‘the straining to supplant the growth of influence
of the CP by skilled diplomacy in relation to leaders of the trade unions’4
This meant that: ‘The struggle to win the masses organised in
trade unions through the CP was replaced by the hope for the swiftest
possible utilisation of the ready made apparatus of the trade unions
for the purpose of the revolution.’(5)
THE BELGIAN EXPERIENCE
The 1960-1961 general strike in Belgium brought forward
again the lessons of the British General Strike. It further proved to
be a salutory exposure of Pabloite revisionism, which had led to the
split in the Fourth International in 1953. In the activities of Mandel
and his group was shown the Pabloite liquidation of revolutionary leadership.
The practice in Belgium flowed from Pabloite theory that bureaucracies
could be moved in a revolutionary direction by pressure of the masses.
Mandel — the self confessed author of the main revisionist
document in 1953 — was editor of La Gauche weekly, recognised
as the voice of the left wing of the Socialist Party. The paper was
founded by Mandel and André Renard, a metal workers leader with
a big personal following. Until his death in 1926, he dominated the
socialist trade unions in Wallonia, the French speaking part of Belgium.
On the editorial board of La Gauche were the MP for Charleroi
and the secretary of the Liege trade unions.
The strike began in December 1960 in protest at the ‘Single
Law’ promulgated by the Christian Social-Liberal Coalition. It
placed the burden of re-equipment and modernisation of capitalist Belgium
upon the shoulders of the working class. It proposed an increase in
purchase tax and reduction of public expenditure on national insurance,
unemployment allowances and sickness benefit.
A graphic picture of the strike is to be found in Tom
Kemp’s reports from Belgium, published in the Newsletter (later
to become Workers Press and then News Line) in January and February
1961.
The reports were later published as a pamphlet by the Socialist Labour
League under the title ‘Class Struggles in Belgium’.
The strike began from below, On December 5 public transport
workers called for a general strike from December 20. They were supported
by gas, electricity and railway workers. The right wing on the national
committee of the Socialist trade unions had proposed a ‘Day of
Action’. Renard’s response was a ‘campaign of information’.
When the mass strike broke out, he opposed them for three days. Kemp
gives the picture after two weeks of general strike:
While the masses move, the leaders drag their heels — that
seems to be the record of the movement That is not to say that leaders
do not march at the head of demonstrations, appear on the picket line
or make speeches before their followers They drag their heels in the
sense that they do not raise positive slogans to direct the mass energies
which have been evoked into a struggle for the overturn of the government.
Kemp concludes: ‘So there is a prolonged strike
and frequent demonstrations without perspective.’
The Communist Party called for ‘pressure on the
Christian social and Liberal deputies.’ The Stalinists were to
the right of the Socialist leadership.
And Mandel? As did the Communist Party in Britain in 1926,
he operated a pressure group on left leaders. His call was for ‘structural
reforms’; a free national health service, nationalisation of power
industries, full employment and economic planning, control of the trusts,
a halving of the military budget and a Public Investment Board. Given
the back of an envelope and a pencil any left reformist would write
out such a programme in two minutes. It was in line with the policy
of the Socialist party.
Mandel declared(6) that these ‘structural reforms’
were not minimum demands but transitional demands — that is demands
which could only be realised through the conquest of power.
In fact, however, he peddled the idea that these reforms
could come through the effect of the strike on Parliament. Like the
German revisionists before him, and the Stalinists, left labourites
and revisionists of today, he relegated the working class to the role
of a pressure force on Parliament. He wrote in La Gauche on
December
24:
Under the pressure of the strike, Parliament can be led to refuse
the ‘Single Law’ and to take other laws into consideration.
It is sufficient if the Social Christian MPs listen to the voice of
their own electors, that they take up a position under pressure of the
strike on their own mandates, for a new parliamentary majority to emerge
at least on these two questions; withdrawal of the ‘Single Law’,
vote of an outline law on tax reform and structural reforms.
There we have a minimum programme dependant on Parliamentary
action. The most significant indictment of Mandel’s policy comes
from his own pen, in the letter which he wrote to Tom Kemp defending
his policies. He lists seven important points in his line of thought’
on the strike.(7) They set the bounds within capitalism of Mandel’s
perspective on the general strike. That leaves it exactly in line with
the lefts.
Point 2 reads: ‘That we should prevent above all
this explosion only leading to some minor adjustments within the framework
of capitalism and becoming a new “missed opportunity” for
decisive blows against capitalism.’ Note: Not the overthrow, but
decisive blows.
Mandel does talk of the possibility of a ‘workers’
government’ based on the trade unions, but then goes on: ‘…even
if it was not yet possible to set up a workers’ government, the
strike should go on till the existing government of parliament had capitulated
before the demands of the strikers.’
That this was the axis of his policy, we can see from
the way his last point deals with the 1892 Belgian general strike which
won an extension of the suffrage. For him, the capitulation of ‘a
completely bourgeois Parliament’ then, was the pattern for 1961.
This theoretician blithely wiped out 69 years of history.
In 1960 the question posed was not one of reform in a
capitalism at its peak but a question of power in a capitalism in decay.
The Belgian capitalist class was seeking to cripple the workers organisations;
the workers were moving to sweep capitalism away. As Kemp wrote back
to Mandel:
‘…who can tell what is meant by the formula, ‘a
workers government based on the trade unions’? Trotskyists have
always maintained that the struggle for the dictatorship of the proletariat
entails the defeat of the existing bureaucratic leadership of the labour
movement. So long as the present leadership stands at the head of the
movement in Belgium your ‘workers government’ would be a
bourgeois government. What is more, this would still be true if the
present leaders were succeeded by the ‘trade union and socialist
party left tendency’ to which your letter refers. These people
will play the role of classical left centrists as soon as the question
of power is on the agenda. Your letter nowhere raises the question of
the
nature of workers’ power or of the fundamental need for a Marxist
leadership to make that power a possibility.
When Mandel raised ‘structural reforms’ he
embraced the programme of reformism, not of Trotskyism. But, important
as it is, even this is wholly secondary to the question of leadership
raised by Kemp. In 1953, the British Trotskyists accused Pablo and Mandel
of cutting the heart out of the transitional programme, and reducing
it to an empty cover for opportunism, by removing from it the struggle
for revolutionary leadership against bureaucracy. In Belgium in the
General Strike Mandel carried forward the desertion of that struggle
for independent revolutionary Marxist leadership.
There was a pay-off in the years following. As the trade
union leaders deserted the Anglo-Russian Committee, so the Belgian lefts
deserted Mandel. His opportunism took him into a campaign rotted in
Walloon nationalism encouraged by the frustration of the defeat of the
general strike. He was eventually expelled from the Socialist party
after having been outmanoeuvred by the right wing and shorn of his left-wing
friends.
1968 saw the great French General Strike—to date,
the biggest strike in the history of capitalism. French capitalism,
like that of Belgium in 1960 was faced sharply with the need to rationalise
the economy and slash living standards. The crisis of world capitalism
was sharpening monetary and trade rivalries. The Gaullist Government
had made a series of attacks upon working class conditions. There was
a high level of unemployment, particularly among young workers. Wages
were pegged while prices and fares increased. Social security and education
were attacked. De Gaulle ruled with slight concern for Parliament and
with repressive police forces whose brutality was laid bare in the student
demonstrations of early May and shocked the middle class.
On May 3, the government met student agitation by sending
troops into Sorbonne University. The troops broke up student meetings
and arrested young men and women. By the end of the day 650 people were
in custody. There was an enormous spontaneous reaction by students throughout
the country. They occupied universities and demonstrated. On May 6,
a large demonstration of students in Paris was broken up violently by
the police. The brutal deeds of the police were spread out in the press.
The CF leaders denounced the students as fascist adventurers. However,
in the ranks, workers were enraged by the actions of the police and
discontented at the government’s attacks on conditions, they began
to demand action. To keep control of the movement the CP and the CGT
— its trade union organisation
— were forced to move. They called for a one-day stoppage on May
13. Over 1 million workers and students marched in Paris. Sit-in strikes
spread rapidly through the country.
The Communist Party sought desperately to channelise the
enormous movement away from any question of working class power. Ten
million workers came out on strike. Large sections of the professional
people and middle class were in sympathy. Farmers were in support. The
government apparatus was paralysed. The government was on the brink
of collapse. It was clear that de Gaulle could not have continued for
24 hours witbout the Communist Party to contain that vast movement.
The Prime Minister negotiated with the trade union leaders
while de Gaulle disappeared. There was class collaboration to turn the
movement into economic channels. The government stopped the police brutalities
while de Gaulle prepared a counter offensive. He consulted with his
army chiefs and granted an amnesty to their right wing, near fascist,
friends who had been in the Algerian conspiracy of 1951. He consulted
with the Russian Ambassador. The latter discussions took place to gain
a reassurance from the Soviet Government that they would be fundamentally
opposed to revolution, even if de Gaulle had to use the troops.
In the meantime the government offered concessions to
the trade union leaders. Seguy, Stalinist leader of the CGT, presented
the concessions to 25,000 workers in one of the occupied Renault factories.
He was howled down.
Trade union leaders went back to negotiate with the government.
But the refusal of the Communist Party to make a decisive challenge
for workers’ power meant the wave began to recede. Sure of Moscow
and the CP de Gaulle threatened civil war. He called an election. The
counter-revolution took the initiative. Right wing elements raised their
heads again. The regime organised mass demonstrations. De Gaulle launched
a virulent anti-communist campaign in which he accused the Communist
Party of wanting the revolution which he knew very well they had protected
him against. Eleven, socialist organisations were banned.
The Communist Party welcomed the election. They called
for negotiations on trade union demands to be split up industry by industry
and called for workers to go back to work and avoid ‘embarrassing
preparations for the election’. The de Gaulle regime which had
reached the brink had its continuance ensured. The CP knew very well
that if by chance at all they had won a majority de Gaulle would dissolve
Parliament. The election was a Bonapartist referendum. It could have
no other result but victory for the Gaullists.
REVISIONIST LIQUIDATIONISM
The history of Stalinism in the French General Strike
was once again a history of counter-revolution. As for the revisionist
Mandel, he, performing on the barricades in Paris, equalled his ‘triumph’
seven years before in Belgium. For a man who reads and writes so much
he learns very little.
The ‘United Secretariat’ of the Pabloite International
had been informing the world working class that the ‘epicentre’
of the world revolution was in the colonial world. With the outbreak
of student struggle it swung to the mirage of ‘student power’,
and to the illusion - that the student revolution could now take the
place of the struggle for leadership in the working class.(8)
In fact, the student revolt could only mean anything insofar
as it was harnessed to that struggle. It was an inchoate, spontaneous
protest with a semi-anarchist leadership that made a virtue of action
as such. The Pabloites sank into that leadership without a Marxist principle
to be seen.
Anything went…from mobbing a professor to taking
over a building or burning down the Bourse to end capitalism. Pierre
Frank told us that it was a Soviet that existed at the Sorbonne. He
wrote: ’…independently of certain extravagances of certain
whimsical groups [my emphasis], there exists at the Sorbonne
at present, a revolutionary centre on a model of “comitès”
(soviets) where workers’ democracy exists.’
Anyone who confuses a student forum with a workers’
soviet is beyond redemption!
There was certainly no lack of heroism in the student
movement. The issues, however, is not heroic deeds but organising a
turn of students to workers and defeating the sterile haranguing against
I authority as such. The Pabloites and other leaders led the students
(or more correctly, went along with the spontaneous movement) to set
up barricades in the student quarter, which immobilized the students,
surrounded by the police. The FER — the OCI(9) student organisation
- correctly stressed the need to take the student struggle into the
working class. On the night of the barricades they raised the principal
task of going out to bring 500,000 workers from the suburbs into the
student quarter for protection.
However, the policy of the OCI remained on the plane of
pure and simple trade unionism and syndicalism. When the whole question
was one of sharpening political struggle against the bureaucracy they
avoided it, with the concentration on a demand for a central strike
committee.(10) Their emphasis was on organisation to win the strike
separated from the question of leadership — the demand for a CP-SP-CGT
government. Trotsky wrote in the transitional programme:
The chief accusation which the Fourth International advances against
the traditional organisations of the proletariat is the fact that they
do not wish to tear themselves away form the political semi-corpse of
the bourgeoisie Under these conditions the demand systematically addressed
to the old leadership: ‘Break with the bourgeoisie, take the power!’
is an extremely important weapon for exposing the treacherous character
of the parties and organisations of the Second, Third, and Amsterdam
Internationals.
Thus the struggle to link students with workers was not
to further the fight for revolutionary leadership in the working class.
That was liquidated into spontaneity. Their position was identical with
the simplistic syndicalism of the SWP here. The task becomes just to
extend the struggle of the working class, give them a correct organisational
pattern and somehow the question of leadership will be resolved. This
is nothing but a capitulation to the bureaucracy; a refusal to struggle
against it. The way the Central Strike Committee was posed was an evasion
of the real central political duty. It gave illusions that the working
class could proceed to power irrespective of leadership, provided they
had the correct set-up.
Thus the OCI was in the same stream as Mandel in the Belgian
General Strike.
THE FIGHT AGAINST THE TORIES
Britain is now once again in a period of great class struggle.
In the light of the world economic collapse and the extreme decay of
British imperialism, it is inevitable that a struggle of greater depth
should now be posed in Britain. What are the preparations of the leaders
of the working class for such a struggle? That question can be answered
briefly and with certainty. Nil! This applies to leaders of the trade
unions and Labour Party of right or left variety. More than that, insofar
as they are compelled against their will to take a glimpse at the future,
they are mortally afraid of its consequences.
The treacherous way in which the General Council refused
to assist the steelworkers and, indeed, kept a discussion of their struggle
off the agenda of its meetings, clearly shows its fear of widening struggle.
How correctly Trotsky characterised the trade union bureaucracy
in 1927: ‘It is not just a question of trade unions in opposition
to the state, for the state rests on the trade union bureaucracy.’
In other words, the trade union bureaucracy, particularly in a period
of crisis, acts for the ruling class, its state and its government.
Compelled to take the leadership in protest, it will do so only to betray.
So the leadership of the General Council prepares for the general strike
by preparing for another betrayal. Never Again’ said trade union
leaders after 1926. And since that day, ‘Never Again’ has
remained burned into the consciousness of the trade union bureaucracy.
The Tory government is preparing an all-out confrontation
with the workers. There is not the slightest chance of altering the
government’s policies by protest. The whole existence of British
capitalism is at stake in the battle to destroy the rights, conditions
and organisations of British workers. There is no possibility that the
coming general strike in Britain will be of the type described by Trotsky
where ‘the Government takes fright at the general strike and at
the very outset, without carrying matters to an open clash takes to
concessions. It is all too evident, however, that without resorting
to decisive battles, the ruling class will make only such concessions
as will not touch the basis of its rule’(11)
Concessions ‘as will not touch the basis of its rule’! But
at this time of extreme danger for British capitalism it is its very
rule which is in question in any mass struggle. Therefore, the coming
general strike, as Engels put it, ‘leads directly to the barricades’.
As Trotsky wrote:
A strike of this sort can result in complete victory or defeat.
But to shy away from battle when battle is posed by the objective situation
is to lead inevitably to the most fatal and demoralising of all possible
defeats. The outcome of a revolutionary, insurrectionary general strike
depends, of course, upon the relationship of forces covering a great
number of factors; the class differentiation of society, the specific
weight of the proletariat, the mood of the lower layers of the petty
bourgeoisie, the social composition and the political mood of the army
etc. However, among the conditions for victory, far from the last place
is occupied by the correct revolutionary leadership, a clear understanding
of the conditions and methods of the general strike and its transition
to open revolutionary struggle (ibid Trotsky’s emphasis)
We have seen that the right wing bureaucracy prepares to betray as in
1926. What of the ‘lefts’? The left reformists and revisionists
would have workers believe that their most decisive experience will
be another Labour government. Insofar as the Bevanites see any general
strike at all it is as a protest movement perhaps pushing the Tory government
back or leading it to resign.
Heffer himself has already told us in his book Class
Struggle in parliament that he believes in socialism through the
Parliamentary Labour Party. If the decisive struggles are in parliament
then mass struggles outside can only be an adjunct. Therefore it is
impossible to see the decisive and central importance of preparations
for the general strike. The ‘Militant’ group clings to the
heels of Benn and Heffer. Their entryism long since ceased to be a tactic
even in verbal acceptance. They now move more openly to the right as
the crisis sharpens. They are for introducing socialism through the
Labour Party and the hopes and desire of workers are directed by them
to the next Labour government. Again, the general strike — and
they call for a one-day general strike! — is an adjunct to a parliamentary
shift. Together with the Stalinists and left reformists they are directed
towards a parliamentary road to socialism.
The most dangerous illusion today is that a mass protest
can frighten the enemy. There is no possibility of this government resigning
like the Heath government, If it did so, then, this time it would be
to make way for a military coup such as was advocated by army officers
in 1974. On the other hand, a Labour government could only come into
office during mass struggle as a Kerensky government facing Councils
of Action challenging for power.
There is a new stage in the development of the working
class. A preparation, not just for new bouts of militancy posing new
rank-and-fileism, problems of simple assistance to one another in struggle;
but a preparation for political struggles, a preparation of struggles
for power with great conflicts for revolutionary leadership in the unions.
Of course, there are a number of left talkers to tell workers that their
fight must be a political one. Left parliamentarians can hardly say
anything else in today’s circumstances. But politics to them means
that the solution lies on the Labour parliamentary plane. In fact, this
means they take the real political questions out of the unions. They
have no intention, and never had any intention of organising a fight
for a principled trade union leadership. They are at one with the right
wing leadership of the unions in their abhorrence of wholesale mass
struggle.
They preserved a noticeable silence in relation to the
demand ‘Make the TUC fight’ right through the betrayals
of the General Council in the steel strike. Here is the arena of the
fight for leadership, here, the central experience of the working class.
We say ‘Make the TUC fight the Tories’
in order to expose them to the masses. This will open the way to changing
the leadership of the unions to more genuine representatives of their
embattled membership. What faces the working class is a political struggle
in which the central question is the struggle for power. But there is
not a trade union leader or parliamentary left leader in Britain who
wants to put this issue to his members and rally them.
Thus the Political Committee of the Workers Revolutionary
Party put the issue very clearly on February 10. The essence of revisionist
desertion of Marxism is the denial of the dialectical interrelation
of leadership and working class. That is what is involved in all brands
of revisionist antagonism to the WRP and revolutionary leadership —
its unseriousness on security problems; its violent opposition to the
Workers Revolutionary Party exposure of agents in the Trotskyist movement;
the Socialist Workers Party’s (SWP) cynicism on revolutionary
‘elitism’ and its use of rank-and-fileism as a diversion
from the question of trade union leadership; the cuddling up of the
SWP to the CP and the International Marxist Group (IMG) to the SWP;
the references of revisionists to themselves as streams in what is called
the ‘revolutionary left’.
So the revisionists will see only a quantitative development
in the working class; an increase in consciousness for them is directly
related to strike statistics. So they will draw pessimistic conclusions
as strike statistics show a drop between the first years of the l970s
and the latter half. ‘The class struggle is harder’ says
one contributor to the SWP’s International Socialism, or the ‘relationship
of forces has moved against the working class’ says Cliff the
SWP leader.
Certainly the class struggle is getting harder for syndicalism.
Workers have grown more wary of isolated action and more sure that less
and less is accomplished by protest. But only those impressionists who
start from their own reactions and fears can conclude that workers have
become less combative. Workers feel that every question now poses going
all the way and they look to their organisations but with an intense
distrust of the leadership which could mobilise them. They feel the
need for a complete change of leadership. That means a big leap for
themselves.
When workers see great political questions posed and are
girding their loins for a great leap, the revisionists see only a reversion
in the labour movement. Could a general strike be successful? Certainly!
But only if it leads to workers power, if Councils of Action or such
organisations embracing the working class become the basis of a workers’
government. Success means a revolutionary Marxist leadership. The task
posed, therefore, is the building of a mass WRP with deep roots in the
unions.
Communism today is represented only by the WRP. The growth of communist
leadership in the unions is as decisive as when Trotsky wrote in 1926.
The most powerful force of the British working class, undefeated for
decades, is being compelled into the most decisive battles. With a real
communist leadership it is invincible. Without it, there can only be
defeats. The rich history of the general strike in theory and practice
points incontestably to the need for such a leadership which means building
the Workers Revolutionary Party.
Notes
1. The ILP and the Fourth International Trotsky’s Writings on
Britain.
2. Vol 3. 2 From Cobbett to the Chartists Edited by Max Morris
3. See:‘Early Years of the British Communist Party’ by Brian
Pearce. Who quotes the illusions of party leaders in the ‘lefts’,
in Essays in the History of Communism in Britain, New Park Publications,
1975.
4. ‘What we gave and what we got’ Trotsky on Britain Vol
3
5. ‘The struggle in retrospect’, ibid
6. See his letter in Class Struggles in Belgium
7. Naturally, for Mandel, the very first point has to be: ‘That
we foresaw the present explosion many years ago. If what this socialist
seer says regularly about himself is true, then his ability to forecast
is in inverse proportion to his ability to intervene
8. Pierre Frank, French Pabloite leader, condemned those who believe
‘it is not a socialist revolution if the workers do not lead it.’
(From a duplicated leaflet published by the IMG Pierre Frank’s
answer to articles on France in the Newsletter.)
9. Organisation Communista Internationaliste. The OCI split with the
International Committee in 1971. It denounced the IC’s concentration
on the training of the youth in dialectical materialism. They later
developed the anti-Leninist conception that the revolutionary consciousnesses
of workers is a spontaneous product of their struggle. Their practice
in 1968 was in line with this.
10. See: A Reply to the British Agents of the OCI liquidationists, Michael
Banda and Peter Jeffries.
11. ILP and the Fourth International, ibid.
May 1980