Sibility of a general confrontation and the "country becoming ungovernable, it is necessary for the left to look carefully at its policies. Differences which now appear small may become of crucial importance in any mass upsurge. This article therefore looks at some of the most important debates at present going on in the left.
Except for a few nutty ultra-lefts, every organisation on the left is for getting rid of the Tory government. However the reasons given in favour of this are in general totally confused, The Labour Party suggests that getting rid of the government would almost by itself solve all the problems of the working class. This is nonsense. The economic attacks on the working class would continue, A simple change in government cannot control a capitalist economy. The Communist Party and the Labour left think that all would be well if the right sort of gover ment, one with 'left' or 'socialist' policies got into office, It could then nationalise decisive sectors of the economy and tackle the economic problems. This also is totally utopian.
The British ruling class is never going to allow its economy and wealth to be taken off its hands peacefully. Only if the working class had first smashed the capitalist class's army and police could a government proceed to take over the economy. It is these facts which have to be the starting point of any analysis of fighting the Tory government. Firstly to show that no government, including the best intentloned Labour one, could solve the problems of the working class without taking the economy out of the hands of the capitalist class without smashing the power of the bourgeois state. The Social Democrats and most of the left hide these simple facts from the working class. They say that the real struggle is over the government. They do not base themselves on the fact that any govemment of a party of the working class cannot deal with the real problems unless the capitalist state is first dealt with. When revolutionaries say things such as "All struggles must be placed in the context of the struggle against the Tory government ' they in lost mislead and miseducate the masses. the and file under control, and things haven't got so desperate yet that the ruling class is prepared to embark on such dangerous courses as murdering working class leaders. What is needed at the present time is a policy of economic and political confrontation with the the unions. For this the Labour party, which relies for money and votes on trade union support, is far less useful as a government to the ruling class than the Tory party. The bringing down of the Tory government would therefore most likely leave the ruling class with a weak flabby government which would find it far more difficult to carry out properly the tasks that were needed for British capitalism.
EVERY MEANS NECESSARY Once it is decided that a central task at the present time is to get rid of the Tory gover ment then of course the means to be used are clear. As only the revolutionaries are practical men they alone conclude that every means necessary must be used. There is no point in willing an end and then refusing the means necessary to get it. That is just utopianism. All that has to be decided on are what are the most decisive means to use in the SECON What are definitely not decisive means are the present way in which the working class is going into struggle. The present tactics of the working class are not confronting the general centralised attack by the ruling class with a general centralised attack by the working class. Of course, it may be that the gas men, the Ford workers and so on will win even in individual struggles. It is the task of every socialist and trade unionist to ensure that this does happen. But the present struggle is being carried out in a way that is extremely ineffective from the point of view of the real political strength of the working class and in a way that gives big and unnec revolutionaries suggesting that the actions of the bureaucracy are all important, they must all the time stress that it is possible for the masses to struggle without and against the bureaucracy. The job of the revolutionary party is to concentrate the attention of the working class on the steps the masses can take - not to concentrate attention on what the bureaucracy is doing.
Another big confusion on the question of the General Strike is on what its aims should be posed as. One variant here is to suggest that its aim must be the return of a Labour government (pledged to socialist policies') or to force a General Election. This is completely wrong. It is one thing to raise the demand for the strike to kick out the Tories. This is a necessary step in the class struggle whether they are replaced by another government within the bourgeois state or whether that bourgeois state is replaced by a proletarian state. It does not in any way place a limit on the aims of the struggle. What will follow the Tories will depend on the relation of forces at the time such a thing was achieved.
The demand for a General Strike to lead to a Labour government, let alone for a General Election, is something quite different. This is to accept in advance that the relation of forces during the struggle will not develop to a point where the bourgeois state can be broken. It is to project one of the highest forms of struggle of the working class while accepting that it will only achieve a result within the capitalist state. This is not at all the role of revolutionaries. Their task is not at all to draw a line and say the masses will not advance beyond this point. The task of a revolutionary organisation is to against the state as opposed to simply fighting against the government, at present means two things. Firstly it means beginning to educate the working class that the state despite its Parliamentary democratic forms, is a bourgeois state, a class state, and that the law is a class law. This means completely rejecting all arguments such as that the government 'does not have a mandate. To advance such an argument is actually to accept the present basis of the state and simply argue that the government is not functioning correctly as part of that state. It is to completely mislead and miseducate the working class as to the nature of bourgeois democracy. Secondly it means to begin to project in the working class struggle as it is unfolding today those steps and measures which will become decisive in any general head-on confrontation between the working class and the bourgeoisie. The key measures here are two. Firstly, it is hopeless for the working class to attempt to fight the centralised power of the state without drawing all the forces of the working class and its potential allies into the struggle. This means pointing out the need for a generalised confrontation against the bourgeoisie. The second task is explaining and showing in practice the necessary steps for success in any such confrontation. These political and practical steps are the decisive ones in preparing for a general strike.
HOW TO PREPARE While for the working class the demand for a General Strike means a call for a decisive clash with the ruling class, nevertheless it has to be realised that enormous problems exist with the slogan of the General Strike. In particular as a real weapon of war a general strike in itself, the mere stoppage of work, is a relatively weak weapon. It may do for
only correct formulation is that Every struggle, Including that against the Tory government, must be placed in the context of the struggle against the bourgeois state." As we shall see, this difference is decisive when it comes to the question of general confrontation between the working class and the ruling class.
When placed in the correct context it can be seen that the correct attitude in principle towards the Tory government is like that towards any other part of the state apparatus (for a government is nothing other than a part of the state apparatus). It is necessary to smash that government. In that sense a slogan of "Down with the Tory government' is just an expression of the general attitude towards all parts of the bourgeois state apparatus.
CENTRALISING THE STRUGGLE Just to decide what a position is in principle is n not sufficient to deal with all the problems of a practical situation, If the attitude towards the Tory government is like that towards every part of the state apparatus, then this does not give practical guidance as to whether struggle should be the consciousness of the working class movecentralised against the government or against the army or against the monarchy, or what. It is still necessary to find the "weak link" in the situation.
In some situations it is definitely incorrect, a complete diversion, to centralise the main struggle against a government. In a country like Argentina or Greece, for example, the government is a mere puppet made and unmade at will by the army. To concentrate in such a situation on the government, and not on the army, would be completely to mislead the masses. In Britain at present, however, the Tory government is a weak link. This is for two basic reasons. Firstly the Tory government is an open declared enemy of the working class. The removal and smashing of this government would therefore be seen by the working class as a big step forward. It would strengthen the confidence and militancy of the class. Secondly, a Labour government would find it hard to carry out the particular policies needed by the ruling class in the present situation, Social Democratic governments are very useful to the bourgeoisie when it is a question of doing a quiet deal with the trade union bureaucracy. They are also useful to the ruling class in a revolutionary situation. Then the Social Democrats form alliances with the fascists, murder workers' leaders, etc. At the present time however the ruling class needs neither of these things. A quiet deal essary advantages to the ruling class. Whereas the capitalist class is centralising all its efforts through the state, the working class is going into struggle in individual detachments. By allowing the struggle to go forward as first gasmen, then teachers, then civil service workers, then Fords men and so on, the working class is not using its full strength. A centralised general form of struggle has far better chances of success.
A GENERAL STRIKE If we consider the working class of Western Europe, it is clear, and proved by experience, that in general the mass general strike is the instinctive weapon of struggle.
The reasons for this are obvious. The withdrawal of work paralyses the country and frees the working class for the tasks of organisation. It is threfore natural that now, when the working class is faced with huge attacks, the general strike should be the form of struggle that the most advanced militants think of for decisive struggles.
What does the slogan of a general strike mean in ment? For the bureaucratic leaders it means just a form, a rather frightening form, of protest. For the masses however it means something entirely different. A general strike for them means an all out war against the enemy. The masses may be unsure as to the exact aims or exact forms of the struggle, but the slogan of a general strike means a desire to bring about a decisive clash with the class enemy. The revolutionaries of course advance and support this demand. They too are for a decisive struggle against the foe.
FALSE POSITIONS One very important point which has to be dealt with in connection with the general strike is the way some revolutionaries put forward the demand. They say The TUC must call a General Strike" and couple this with a central demand of "Recall the TUC" This is a completely wrong way of putting forward the slogan. It suggests that the bureaucracy is all powerful and that only they can really organise the struggle. This is completely false. On the contrary. by far the most important general strikes are those which burst out from the base and which the bureaucracy is forced into supporting after they have started. It is completely false to say only the bureaucracy can organise a decisive clash. If that were true all would be lost, for the bureaucracy is never going to intervene to attempt to develop the relation of forces to the furthest possible extent in their favour - not to accept in advance that the struggle will not go beyond the bounds of the bourgeois state.
A confusion of a similar type was made by some revolutionary tendencies at the time of the Freeing of the Five when they called for a General Strike to smash the Industrial Relations Act. This is just another confused variant of those who claim that the aim of a General Strike must be to gain a Labour Government. To pose the aim of a General Strike as being against the Industrial Relations Act is also to accept in advance that the struggle will not advance beyond a certain point, that the relationship of forces cannot develop within the struggle in favour of revolution. If the Act is repealed then the aim posed for the strike would be achieved. It would be like the grand old duke of York who marched ten thousand men to the top of the hill only to march them down again. The aim of such a decisive clash as a General Strike cannot be posed as some reform. Even if the strike should start round more limited aims it is the task of revolutionaries lo attempt to turn this into a decisive struggle for power - not to pose its aim as some gain within the bourgeois state.
GENERAL STRIKE AND THE STATE The difference between "placing all struggles in the context of a fight against the Tory government" and "placing all struggles, including that against the Tory government, in the context of fighting against the bourgeois state" can be seen most clearly and practically in the case of preparation for a general confrontation such as a General Strike. If the struggle is simply against the Tory government then the existing organisations of the working class may well do for the struggle - the Tories will be forced out of office, there will be an election etc. If on the other hand the struggle is against the state then very different steps have to be taken.
To British ears, conditioned by decades of reformism, struggle against the state sounds very odd. It sounds as if small groups of people should attack police stations or something like that. This economic struggle but it is hopeless for decisive political tasks. Nothing could be more absurd than to propose to starve the capitalists into surrender, tor while the workers may be immobilised by the strike the repressive forces of the state, the army and the police, are very much active and mobile. A general strike which only leads to a simple. stoppage of work therefore runs a big risk of being a defeat for the working class. Every general strike of this type in history confirms this lesson.
Does this mean therefore that revolutionaries are opposed to general strikes? On the contrary. While a stoppage of work in itself is not a strong weapon nevertheless that stoppage makes possible hundreds of things which are real and formidable weapons of struggle, The most important of all these things is organisation. Once the working class begins to elect strike committees, form Councils of Action in the areas, move towards national conferences of factory delegates and so on then the power of the ruling class is at once really threatened. Immediately the question of 'who rules" is on the order of the day. This can be seen even in such a simple question as the control of the movement of supplies and transport; Are scabs and supplies to be moved "according to the law of the land' or are they going to be controlled by the workers? It is this type of development, in which the working class begins to assert its own power against the bourgeois state, that is the real threat to the capitalist class - not the simple stoppage of work.
It is quite clear from this that the main task of revolutionaries in preparing for any sort of decisive clash, such as a general strike, is to bring to the forefront the question of the organisation of the struggle. It is this which is decisively important because it is the success or failure of this which will determine the outcome of the struggle, If the working class is not organised before or during the struggle in strike committees, councils of action and similar organisations then not only will the working class not be able to tackle really decisive problems. the overthrow of the government, the seizure of state power, but the reformist leaders of the working class will be able easily to get the movement under their control and sell it out.
This theme of organisation, which constitutes the main work of revolutionaries in preparing for a decisive clash, is summed up An ODCANICE COD A CENED AI
STRIKE. This is-far more decisive than arguments about the exact day when the