From The Communist, publication of the Communist Left of Australia August 1987 MARXISM AND THE GENERAL STRIKE A reply to Workers Revolution. Workers Revolution is a new bulletin printed in Melbourne. It is in solidarity with The League for a Revolutionary Party (US). To our knowledge there is only one supporter, Paul White, who understandably broke away from the Labor Party- loyal fake Trotskyist Socialist Fight. The LRP is of course much larger. However size is not important. What is important is whether Workers Revolution is what it claims to be - the continuity of the tradition of Trotskyism - we think noti Firstly, Workers Revolution differs with Trotsky on the class character of the Soviet State which it considers to be state capitalist. From this characterisation WR refuses to defend the Soviet Union from imperialism. We however want to take issue with its position on the general strike. For the fake far left, including the Socialist Labor League and in the past the Spartacist League, the demand for a general strike is a knee jerk panacea for every attack by the bosses and the government. Calling for a general strike sounds revolutionary but in reality is a substitute for fighting for a revolution. Workers Revolution calls for a general strike to beat off attacks. “Labor governments, both state and federal, have been central to attacks on workers’ wages, conditions and basic rights in recent years.”“The capitalists answer to the crisis is to make us pay for it.”“The ALP governments have used their ‘traditional relationship with trade unions to help the bosses achieve successes.”‘It’s time to give the bosses a taste of our power.’“The moment is opportune.’“The miners and other workers going into struggle must not remain isolated.”“Another SEQUEB style defeat would be disastrous.”“There is only one tactic capable of unifying the plethora of disparate and usually ineffective struggles into a powerful force.”“It is a General Strike - an all out battle to win.” However for Workers Revolution , it is not merely a question of a general strike because the current circumstances warrant it. Workers Revolution then goes on to take a quote from Trotsky and lecture to us on the difference between propaganda and agitation. The writer concedes that in terms of agitation, other demands might be appropriate e.g. ‘occupy the factories!’. But in terms of propaganda for Workers Revolution, the general strike is to be raised at all times. 10 It is indeed very important to study Trotsky’s writings closely and especially to place them in context. Trotsky in no way argued that a general strike be called for at all times in either agitation or propaganda. On the contrary, he argued against the Stalinists precisely on this point. In a polemic against the Stalinists, Trotsky concludes: At any rate, we learn that all countries from Britain to China - with France, Germany and Poland at the lead, are now ready for the slogan of a general strike. We are finally convinced that not a trace is left of the unhappy law of uneven development. Workers Revolution is obviously on this question at one with the Stalinists. Trotsky then goes on: “We might manage to be reconciled to this if they would only tell us what political aims the slogan of the general strike is in every country.” For Workers Revolution, the answer is to beat off bosses attacks. This is simply not good enough. Firstly, as Trotsky pointed out, workers do not go on strike (and certainly not general strikes) for nothing. However more important, it ignores the question of state power. As Trotsky points out, a general strike poses the question of power but does not resolve it. Paralyzing the normal functions of the capitalist state, the general strike poses the question who is master of the house?. The question is decided only by force. Workers Revolution does not prepare the working class for force what so ever. As Trotsky points out: “A revolutionary strike that does not lead to an armed uprising leads finally to defeat of the proletariat. If workers are to listen to Workers Revolution it would be this type of defeat they would suffer. Trotsky considered the greatest error of dissident Trotskyist Vereken when criticizing the De Man Plan to be his confusion between a general strike and revolution. Workers Revolution does not mention the word revolution but it does use phrases such as “a taste of our own power. It is not clear whether WR means a revolution or an attempt at reforming capitalism on a grand scale or some other interpretation. Whatever the interpretation this frivolous approach to the class struggle amounts to betrayal on a large scale. The early Comintern made it clear that the working class cannot win victory over the bourgeoisie by the general strike alone — the tactic of folded arms. In other words by withdrawing labour power and , smashing the capitalist state. The problem with Workers Revolution is that it does not understand what a political programme is, “Stagism is the mentality of petit bourgeoisie” it states. This is true in terms of a political programme. Revolutionaries always raise the question of the dictatorship of the proletariat in programmatic demands such as a workers and small farmers government. However in order to enact our programme we heed tactics. The demand for11 a general strike is an important demand which must be raised when it is appropriate. When there is a strike movement accelerating which must be generalised then it is appropriate to raise the question of the general strike. But not in isolation from the rest of a political programme. Marxism stands not just for strike action, but for the working class confronting the capitalist state as the vanguard of history, winning over allies from the petit bourgeoisie to accept the leadership of the working class and the dictatorship of the proletariat. As Trotsky made clear: A political strike as a single combat of the city proletariat with the police and the army, with the remaining population being hostile or even indifferent is doomed to failure”. ‘The aim of revolutionary policy should not be an isolated general strike as a special means to stop war but a revolutionary policy into which a general strike will enter as an inevitable ... part.’ There is no evidence of a revolutionary policy in Workers Revolution at all. A more apt title would be ‘Workers General Strike. The position of calling for a general strike is also shared by the so called Communist Left (Leninist). In a recent Melbourne produced leaflet, the CLL calls for a general strike for a workers government based on rank and file organisation. Several years ago, before his expulsion from the Communist Left, the writer called for a workers and small farmer’s government. Why the change? Anyhow, for revolutionaries, a workers government is a revolutionary government achieved by armed insurrection. Is the writer calling for a different type of workers government or is he confusing a general strike with a programme for insurrection? The CLL at least in calling for a general strike gives a political direction and calls for a break from the bureaucrats. Trotsky considered errors on the question of the general strike to be impermissible. Therefore we suggest Workers Revolution study his writings and the traditions of Bolshevism properly and not join the revisionist chorus throwing dust in the eyes of the working class. We have thoroughly exposed Workers Revolution on what it considers and we agree is a key demand in the arsenal of Bolshevism. Bolsheviks do indeed have a responsibility to raise the demand for a general strike when it is appropriate for class struggle and in the context of raising a revolutionary program. Taken in isolation it can be a diversion from this task. It is certainly not applicable at all times either as propaganda or agitation. We challenge Workers Revolution to reply to our clear exposure of its abandonment of a revolutionary programme. THE COMMUNIST
Posted on: Sat, 26 Oct 2013 03:19:51 +0000