Brian’s opposition to the call from SWP members for 'a 24-hour general strike' argues that it is premature and that members are not ready for it. He wants “less political drama, demos & street theatre & more concentration on grassroots development on the shop floor & in the workplace.”
Most of us would see this as a strange ‘either-or’. Generally, grassroots activity in the workplace and public protest go together. The thousands who turned out in the rain in Birmingham, carrying over a hundred union banners and including over two hundred from Manchester, talked afterwards about going home to build the grassroots and mobilise them in support of both local campaigns like that launched by the South Manchester Law Centre and the street activity on 20 and 23 October, following the Comprehensive Spending Review. When has any serious movement from below not brought people together on the streets?
Equally strange is Brian’s quoting the New York Times on the general strike in Spain on 29 September, as an elaborate ritual manipulating workers. http://northernvoicesmag.blogspot.com/2010/10/myth-of-general-strike.html Of course, Spain’s union leaderships have been pushing conciliation and ‘social partnership’ with their equivalent of a Labour government and they have much delayed calling this strike. The significance of the strike is precisely that it has been pressure from the rank and file that has forced the union leaders to call it and it has been the activity of the rank and file that has made it a success, with 16,000 shop stewards meeting in Madrid to prepare it, local assemblies in the bigger cities, postering and leafleting everywhere. On the day, millions struck, electricity use fell to Sunday levels, many thousands picketed, police attacked pickets, in one instance with warning shots using live ammunition. Well over a million demonstrated on the afternoon of the strike, with slogans such as “Let the capitalists pay for the crisis.” Such mass action is a step forward. It strengthens workers’ confidence and weakens the government and the bosses. If we are to defeat Cameron & Co, we need action like this. A 24-hour general strike would be a huge step forward for us too. We need to start now to argue for it. If not now, then when? If not us, then who?
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
-
Malcolm Pittock interview Thursday 3 September 2015, Bolton ----- Born 1930. His family moved from a hamlet near Selby to Todmor...
-
Bob Pounder interview 14 April 2015 Marne St, Ashton-under-Lyne Summary · Royal Navy firefighter to 1978 · P...
-
Peter Milliard with Anne van Laer Peter Milliard was born in British Guiana. He studied medicine in the US and worked in Panama where...
1 comment:
What does Geoff Brown mean by his proposal for a '24-hour general strike' in the British context? They mean, I presume: a token strike lasting 24 hours called by the TUC. What's wrong with that? Well, from Madrid my reports suggest a big demo during the day-long 'general strike' but no sign of concrete gains by the unions.
Geoff says: 'Such mass action is a step forward' and that 'A 24-hour general strike would be a huge step forward for us too'. But the reality is that here it would be a step backwards to something like the TUC 'Day of Action' that was characteristic of the late 1970s and 80s. Geoff claims: 'It (the 24-hour general strike) strengthens workers’ confidence and weakens the government and the bosses.' I think it would probably lead to disillusionment if it turned out to be half baked, and if so, it would bring the general strike into disrepute.
My original post brought forth several criticisms, one from my old mate the former miner and revolutionary syndicalist, Dave Douglass, he wrote: 'I wouldn't censure you or anyone, but I agree with them (my SWP critics) on this occasion, you are very negative and a total wet blanket at times, if you've got nowt constructive, helpful or supportive to say, keep ya gob shut man.' Why would I keep mi gob shut about a daft idea like a British 'one-day general strike'? Despite what Geoff Brown says about 'the thousands who turned out (to demonstrate) in the rain in Birmingham, carrying over a hundred union banners who 'talked afterwards about going home to build the grassroots and mobilise them in ... both local campaigns ... and street activity on ... 23, October, following the Comprehensive Spending Review', the protests are only in the low thousands: 2,000 turned out yesterday in London to support a TUC demo. The activists at Birmingham may talk about going home to 'mobilise them (the grassroots)' as if they are sergeant majors commanding the Red Army, but the reality is a bit different on the shopfloor or among the binmen I represent and I don't see them looking forward to a one-day general strike even if it would have any effect. Dave Douglass knows the problem better than anyone: in his autobiography he tells us of a strike and occupation by workers at Lawrence Scott (Mining Supplies) in April 1981, in Manchester – supplying the Doncaster coalfield with cutting machinery - in which the strikers asked Dave's Hatfield Main branch and other NUM branches nationally for support. Dave Douglass writes: 'Arthur Scargill spoke against support' and 'countrywide blacking of all M[ining] S[upplies] products', arguing that 'the miners would not be used as the muscle to win everyone else's battle.' Here Dave is talking about the most militant leader (Scargill) of the most militant trade union (NUM) at a time (April 1981) when the British trade union movement was confident and even then, solidarity and responsibility to other workers was not spontaneous or instinctive.
Readers will have to decide how typical Arthur Scargill's attitude here is of the British working class as whole, but this incident suggests we're in for hard time, and it will take more than some spirited calls from the SWP or the National Shop Stewards Network to mobilised the British working class in a general strike.
Wednesday, October 20, 2010 4:19:00 PM GMT+01:
Post a Comment