Date: Thu, 14 Nov 96 08:47:56 GMT
From: Adam Rose <adam-AT-pmel.com>
Subject: Re: M-I: The Search for a Western Proletariat (and the CPGB and CCP)



> 
> Adam begins by suggesting that the British Communist Party could have led a
> successful revolution in 1926,  presumably during the General Strike.
>

Liar.
I have never argued any such thing.

What I argued was :
> Such an orientation may or may not have avoided the defeat of the General
> Strike. It may or may not have been able to wrest control of the strike
> from the Union Bureuacrats. It would definitely have enabled the CP to 
> lessen the demoralising effect of the defeat on the best militants. It 
> would definitely have allowed the CP to come out of the strike with its
> position in relation to the Labour Party strengthened. As it was, they 
> followed Stalin's advice. their idiotic slogan was "All power to the
> TUC General Council" ie "all power to the sell out merchants", and the defeat
> of the General Strike strengthened the Labour Party and weakened the CP.
>

Louis G then says:
> 
> In the eyes of Stalin,  the General Council betrayed the workers.    But the
> workers were not altogether unwilling to be betrayed.   
>

Liar.
The day after the strike had been officially called off, there were more
workers on strike than at any point during the strike. Many workers
simply didn't believe the strike had been called off, they thought it
was just government propaganda.

Louis G then says:
>  They too had had a
> whiff of revolution,  and it made them uncomfortable.

Liar.
There are all sorts of stories about how workers loved it, when 
bosses had to come and beg to the Trades Councils to be allowed to
move their lorries etc. The whiff of workers power, inevitable in
any general strike however passive, gave workers a pleasant taste
of what could be.

Louis G:
> Seventy years later,  one can still argue whether,  in the perspective
> of half a century or more,  the general strike should be seen as a first
> halting step on the road to a British workers' revolution,  or a final
> demonstration that such a revolution is impossible.

A false dichotomy, if ever there was one.

First, the given the revolutionary history of British workers, seeing
the 1926 General Strike as "the first step"  on the road to a British
workers' revolution is bizarre to say the least. What about 1919 ? 
1910 - 1914 ? 1889 - 90 ? What about 1838, 1842 and 1848 ?

Second, given the actual events of the British workers movement since
1926, including the phenomenal growth in the CP in the 30's as it related
to the class struggles in the new industries like making cars or planes,
and the fear of the rise of fascism, and including of course the events of
"The British upturn" in 1969 - 1974, any "final demonstration that such a
revolution is impossible"  in 1926 seems just a little bit premature.


The real lesson of the 1926 General Strike is one about the role of the
Trade Union Bureaucracy, left or right. This is a lesson Louis G seems
incapable of learning. Since he does not understand how and why this
layer inside the workers movement weakens the workers movement, he 
blames workers themselves for the defeats of their own class.

Adam.



Adam Rose
SWP
Manchester
UK


---------------------------------------------------------------






     --- from list marxism-international-AT-lists.village.virginia.edu ---