General Strike.
Both of these points are valid. But there are more lessons trom 1926 which are useful today. Unfortunately few currents in the present-day labour movement are willing to learn from this past experience. The Communist Party in some embarrassment regard it as simply a bygone historic event. The Socialist Workers Party see it as a radically different period, from which in any event they draw wrongheaded conclusions. Many on the left, indeed, hold a position on 1926 which fits in perfectly — if unwittingly - with the position of the right wing. For the right wing, the General Strike is seen (correctly) as a challenge to the power of the capitalist state in Britain. Their response, with a shudder, is "never again"! But many on the left, recognising the General Strike as a challenge to the state, argue that it should not take place without a revolutionary leadership in the trade unions: and since we are still a long way from any such situation, these same left wingers joined the right wing in opposing calls for general strike action to support the miners in 1984-85. It does not seem to have occured to these left wingers that a defeat for the miners was inevitable without generalised supporting action — or that political development can flow from such a high level of mass action in a way impossible in more "normal" times.
So there is generally a lot of opposition in the workers movement to any serious study of the developments in and around the 1926 General Strike and the miners' strike which continued after the General Strike had been called off. This is a
Today. tragedy, because though we are now in a different period, there are many lessons to be learned both on the tactics and methods of the employers and the state, and on the mistakes of the "left" leaderships within the labour movement.
Differences
Obviously the size of the trade unions today is dramatically different from 1926. There were 4 million trade unionists then around 10-11 million in the TUC today. And industry looks very different. In 1926 there were a million miners - there are less than a quarter of that number today. Today's unions are stronger and more firmly established though often at the price of being more bureaucratised and right wing dominated. These differences are important if we are to understand the scale of the defeat of the miners in 1926 compared to 1985.
Even though this year's defeat of the NUM was a historic defeat, the employers and the Tory government have not established a strong enough Socialist Viewpoint, No. 5, April 1985. Page 27
Miners locked out at the start of the General Strike and (insert) their militant leader A.J. Cook, who failed to press home the fight against the TUC traitors.
position to enforce a setback on the
whole working class on anything like
the scale of 1926.
Certainly Thatcher's gang have us-
ed the miners' defeat to strengthen
and enforce their anti-union legisla-
tion - as the Tories did with the
Trades Disputes Act of 1927. But in
1926 every single section of the work-
ing class was defeated. A year after
the strike, 50,000 railwaymen still
had not got their jobs back, for exam-
ple. On the railways, and throughout
most of industry, the unions signed
agreements as the basis for a return to
work which allowed the employers to
victimise and blacklist militants. The
whole class was physically defeated;
all kinds of militants were imprison-
ed, and many sacked. Wage cuts
took place in all industries. In the
aftermath of the 1926 defeat, events
such as today's escalating teachers'
struggle, and the threat of action by
civil servants and others would have
been unthinkable. The scale of the
defeat is quite different.
Much of this is clearly because of
the changed strength of the unions
CP into the Anglo Russian and the relative strength of today's working class: but it also flows from the determination and vigorous campaigning across the country which characterised the 1984-5 miners' strike.
The 1926 strike was shorter - from May to November -economic effect. Though mining industry and its workforce are smaller than 60 years ago, the 1984-5 strike had a huge impact economy. Although the Tories won the strike they did so at the expense of a much bigger economic crisis.
Similarities
The most obvious similarity with 1926 was that the miners then and now have been seen as an example for the whole working class. But in both cases the employers recognised and prepared for this.
The year before Strike, on "Red Friday" 1925, government had been forced to back down to the miners by the threat of a strike by the "Triple Alliance" government had tried to cut miners' pay: after retreating, they were oblig. ed to subsidise the coalowners for a 9-month period — during which they engaged in full-scale preparations to confront the miners. They established the nationwide scabbing operation known as the "Organisation Maintenance of Supplies"; and they fuelled a press witch-hunt and imprisoned leading Communist Party members for "subversion".
The Tory party was also defeated by the miners in 1972 and 1974. Tory stategists and the state machinery spent the next 10 years preparing tor the return match. From came the scheme of the Ridley Report, which looked at a sequence of confrontation with various sections
Stalin, Rykov and Kamenev: the new Moscow bureaucracy which misled the British Committee. to crack trade culminating with the miners, cluding revised dustrial Relations Labour and had little bringing today's the in scheme, the Special Patrol brutal picket-busting tactics during the Grunwick Labour policies and their attempts increase militancy. had began the General the strategy mapped out in the Ridley the Leyland British through anti-union laws and raising . The unemployment to post-war levels. preparations whatever to these attacks. They sat back hoping the battle could be avoided. Only the NUM leadership warned clearly and consistently of the preparations being foI made by employers and government. So when it came to a showdown, both 1926 and 1984-5 confrontations. Lessons of Leadership Prepared or not, out of a arose employers and the Tories take on the case the whole state machinery was used smash to resistance. Socialist Viewpoint, No. 5, April 1985. Page 28
is the upon union strength, In- union-busting legislation to replace the failed In- Act, and the development of scab lorry firms. The government in office from 1974-79 made its own contribution, divisive bonus supervised the early stages dorsing of development and first use of the Groups with their dispute of 1977-78 also boosted praising unemployment through rationalistion "manage" to capitalism — and unemployment has helped to undermine solidarity and the pressure on union The Tories, returned to office after 5 years of Labour betrayal in 1979, systematically implementing Report, taking on the steelworkers, forcing workers, unprecedented But as in 1926, the TUC made no combat were one-sided 1926. Trotsky both situations decision by the the government to working class. In each workers' down action.
To such a challenge, the only adequate response is the fullest power of the working class — whether or not it
equipped with a revolutionary leadership. Only a General Strike aimed at taking on the government, challenging the state machine and thus capitalism itself — can beat back
attack. But in 1926 the TUC leaders — frightened by the scale of the confrontation they had embarked
- retreated from the General Strike after 10 days, handing victory on a plate to the employers while workers were still joining the fight. But in 1984-5 the present-day TUC continued that same retreat by not even calling any form of national action. In each case the TUC must carry responsibility for a major betrayal of the working class.
But just as there were "lefts" on the General Council which threw in the towel in 1926, so there are the General Council which chickened out of a fight in 1984-5. They were supported by the Communist Party, and by others to the left of the CP who opposed any call for a General Strike on the grounds that the working class was "not ready".
Unfortunately it was on this same "political" problem that the NUM's own leadership was at its weakest.
The Communist Party
In his articles on the General Strike, Trotsky analysed the betrayal by the Communist Party. He traces it back to Stalin's ledeship in Mscow pressurising the British CP into en-
Othe policy of the Anglo-Russian Trade Union Committee involving the "left" wing of the TUC in an alliance with the Russian trade unions. Having spent so much time
Tand defending the TUC "lefts", the CP was drawn into a sup. port for them during the General Strike, even though they did make some criticism of the TUC. Indeed the CP slogan during the Strike was "All power to the General Council".
Yet the General Council had no right to such power. The General Strike had been called by a conference of trade union Executives. Despite this it was the General Council which called the Strike off without returning to that conference - or consulting the miners who opposed the sell-out. Not only was the CP compromised by the treachery of the Genral Council "lefts" it had applauded in the Anglo Russian Committee, but its political line acquired mass influence through the rank and file "Minority Movement", which also contained the main miners' leaders. The CP helped the TUC betray in
argued that after the General Strike had been called off by the General Council, the only way forward for the miners was to struggle for it to be re-opened. But the Communist Party fought for only for cash support to the miners and "blacking"
Trotsky showed how this played into the hands of the General
Troops escort a food convoy through London during the General Strike. Council, and further betrayed the miners.
Just as the only way forward in 1926 was to re-open the General Strike, so the only way for the miners to win in 1984-5 was to force the TUC to call a General Strike. It was obvious from early summer 1984 if not before that cash support and "blacking" action was not enough to win a confrontation with a prepared Thatcher government and the state machine.
Scargill and Cook
A.J. Cook was leader of the miners in 1926 — and a very similar leader to Scargill: He was a left winger with mass support and very militant. Both were determined leaders and should be recognised as fighters for their class. The problem with both men is political. Cook was, and Scargill is, a left wing reformist. Neither man fully understood the political requirements of the situation. While both men criticised the TUC leaders, neither would go the whole way to a break and fight against that leadership to force them into action or expose them before the most conscious sections of workers.
In 1926 the miners - backed by others campaigned for a reconvening of the Conference of Executives atter the General Strike was called off. It took them 3 months to get this agreed. Then the TUC collared the miners' leadership, and said that if the Conference took place the TUC would attack the miners' leaders. Cook and the others agreed to the conference being called off. In this way they gave up the only chance of the General Strike being reimposed. Three months after, the miners' strike collapsed.
In 1984-5, rather than confront the TUC General Council in front of the full September Congress, agreed to a meaningless "joint" resolution, so bland it was supported even by pople like Gavin Laird of the AUEW. Even after it became clear to everyone that the resolution was meaningless, Scargill did not campaign for a recall TUC to activate the only policy that could have broken the Tory stranglehold on the strike — a General Strike.
In this regard it should be added that the Communist Party of 1926 was quite different from that of 1984-5. Socialist Viewpoint, No. 5, April 1985. Page 29
Despite echoing Stalin's Moscow's line and misleading many of the best militants, the CP was campaigning on class struggle lines, advocating such militant demands as councils of action and workers' defence squads -and even demanding the continuation of the strike.
In stark contrast the CP of 1984-5 - after nearly 50 years more Stalinist political development — lacked even this class instinct, and became a major factor in holding back militancy in the NUM,, letting the TUC and union "lefts' off the hook, and fighting for every compromise, including finally the return to work. In their retrospective analysis of the strike today's CP leadership accuse Scargill of pursuing too hard a line — singling out for special criticism his principled refusal to condemn 'violence" by NUM pickets, and his support for mass picketing!
Othe lessons of 1926 and the lessons of 1984-5 are to be learned in schooling a new leadership for the workers' movement, a firm and principled break with the politics of Stalinism must be a basic starting point.
Palestinian fightback begins against Amman Press conference interview with PFLP leader
Middle East agreement IN SV2 last November, we provided an extensive analysis of the events in the Middle East since the invasion of Lenanon by Israel. We argued that the covulsions within the ranks of the PLO have triggered off major shifts in the balance of forces which will favour an imperialist-dicatated settlement. As we largely predicted, Arafat proceeded with a PNC, boycotted by most PLO organisations, signalling a new course towards compromise and capitulation.
In SV4, last month, we reviewed the renewed "peace overtures" culminating in the Amman agreement of rebruary 11, signed between Arafat and King Hussein, and the Mubarak plan for peace. The Amman agreement, later endorsed by the PLO Central Committee, calls for an international conference comprising the main protagonists and members of the UN Security Council George Habash
What did the PFLP and the Democratic Alliance do to stop the agreement between Arafat and King Hussein?
George Habash: Stopping this agreement was practically impossible in the present circumstances, because Arafat, and Fatah's Central Committee generally, had already decided to become involved in the US settlement plans. Actually, since the departure of the Palestinian fighters from
*An alliance formed by the PFLP. DFLP, PLF and PCP in response to the outbreak of fighting in Tripoli in September 1983, for the purpose of struggling to reunite the PLO around its traditional platform.
including the Soviet Union at which the PLO would participate in a joint Palestinian-Jordaniar delegation, in order to reach "a comprehensive peace as established in the UN Security Council resolutions."
We argued that "only a powerful mobilisation of the Palestinian masses can now stop Arafat in his tracks and gut all moves towards compromise with Israel"; and "it is the Left in the PLO regrouped in a commanding. powerful organisation which must be the spearhead of such a mobilisation."
Here we publish proceedings of a press conference held on February 14 by George Habash (leading member of the Democratic Alliance* and General Secretary of the PFLP) which launched the PFLP campaign to defeat the Amman agreement.
Beirut, Arafat and this upper stratum of the Palestinian bourgeoisie have continuously signalled their readiness to be involved in the US plans. The PFLP, together with all the democratic forces,
did all possible to prevent this involvement. Yet although we have worked patiently and persistently, they had made their decision.
Now, in order to abort the agreement, the PFLP will take the initiative to confr-
ront this involvement through mass
mobilisation, political activities and a
broad information camapign against the agreement. In this, we will rely primarily
on our masses, but also on the Arab na-
tional liberation movement to which this involvement and its dangers are very
clear. We will also rely on our interna-
tional allies, the socialist countries and all Socialist Viewpoint, No. 5, April 1985. Page 30
Yasser Arafat democratic forces that understand the difference between our line and this rightist trend.
I would like to add that we are following developments minute by minute. We have heard the statement made by Farouk Quaddoumi (head of the PLO's political department, and member of Fatah's Central Committee). Its contents indicate rejection of many elements of such an agreement. There are also meetings to be convened, like of Fatah's revolutionary Council. If it were a matter of wishing, any serious Palestinian leader would wish the agreement to be cancelled, but scientifically speaking, we don't expect this. The only way we can be convinced that the Revolutionary Council opposes the agreement is if they issue a clear-cut statement cancelling the agreement outright. Then it
is up to such leading bodies to take
signing the agreement. We call on Fatah
bases and cadres to confront this agree.
ment as strongly as possible in order to save the PLO's national line.
You have called for a broad front to obstacles to its establishment?
George Habash: We were very serious about our call. Such a front is the main way to contront deviation from the nanecessary to mobilise and organise all nationalist political forces against deviation. We have now called for this front to be established as soon as possible. The signing of the agreement in Amman should to a great extent remove the obstacles and prevented its establishment. The establishment of such a national front is motivated by the need for a national leadership for all the Palestinian against involvement in the US settlement plans, in order to restore the PLO's national line and unity. This will never be achieved unless the deviating line and inrepresented in this agreement, pletely dropped and aborted. Those responsible for the deviation should be tried and removed from the PLO's leadership.
There may be some contradictions remaining before we an establish the national front, but we will place all our efforts to realise this.
What will you do if Arafat and King Hussein travel to Egypt and sign an agreement with Mubarak?
George Habash: This would mark a further involvement in the US liquidationist this agreement in Amman,
that the official PLO leadership will take further steps. Of course, would oppose this and regard it as further proof that this leadership doesn't represent the Palestinian people, their goals, sacrifices or their martyrs.
After Hussein's visit to Algeria. did you contact the Algerians so that they
George Habash: The Algerian leadership is quite aware of the dangers of the Amman agreement and of what is happening in the Palestinian arena, but it is also our duty to point out the implications of this agreement to all our friends. press conference, as mass activities to confront the agreement and the line of thinking that led to it, in order to save the PLO and return it to the national line charted through
The PFLP will begin broad, serious con-
Arab national liberation movement and the Arab national regimes and our international allies to explain the dangers of the agreement and elicit their support for its confrontation. This is a duty for us, based on our loyalty to our people and national cause. There have been other dangerous junctures threatening the liquidation of our revolution: Jordan 1970, the 1982 Israeli invasion of Lebanon and the siege of Beirut, but none of these paralleled the dangers of the present moment caused by the signing of this agreement. Our sense of duty towards our martyrs compells us to wage a campaign as broad as possible to bury this agreement. It is rare to find a Palestinian family that has not given a martyr in the course of the patriotism and political awareness and that
Habash: "Bury this deviation." they will mobilise to bury the deviation along wth the factors that led to it, and
Warmed struggle until the liberation of Palestine.
We are highly aware of the difference plementing them, but at the same time we
that when there is a decision to fight, the people will be victorious. Washes gandof to Coincid win Fahd's visit to Washington?
George Habash: Yes, but not only with this. It also coincides with preparations for
Tot Washington: Mubarak, Hussein and then King Hassan [of Morocco]. Also, early next month, there will be talks between the US and Soviet Union on the Middle East. We expect that the signing of this agreeement was hastened in order to precede scenario: Murphy will ask the Soviets what they want to discuss about the Middle East after King Fahd, other Arab leaders, and now even Airalat, have conveyed their wishes that the US put all efforts to solve
The US will emphasise that the Soviet Union has no role to play, that it is the US that will resolve the Middle East agenda a discussion of the "dangers" of providing Syria with advanced weaponry.
This is why the agreement was hastened, and this is why all our masses and allies are expected to condemn this agreement. This is why we say that Arafat no longer represents the Palestinian people and
You call on Fatah's base to contront the agreement. Is this an invitation for Egyptian President Mubarak. Socialist Viewpoint, No. 5, April 1985. Page 31
them to split from Fatah or its leadership?
George Habash: This is up to them. Our experience of the past two years, and all
the difficulties caused by this leadership
show that the deviation cannot be ended
unless the leadership responsible for this line is removed. This is one of our aims, and we will struggle for it through democratic means.
The statement says this agreement
will only bring destruction to the two parties that signed it. What do you mean by this?
George Habash: Ihis is especially true regarding the Palestinian side, for Arafat will achieve nothing in this way. The thinking of the US and Peres government is as follows: they demand concessions from Arafat. At each compromising step taken on the Palestinian side, they will say this is
will demand further concessions; this will repeat itself over and over. Thus nothing will be gained except the deterioration of the Palestinian revolution. This is what we are trying to prevent,
How far can co-ordination between the National and Democratic Alliances go towards stopping Arafat?
George Habash: We have called for the establishment of a national front to include all national organisations, forces and prominent nationalist personalities, whether in the West Bank, Jordan, Lebanon, Syria or the Gulf, wherever there are Palestinian communities. These people have the respect of the masses because of their role in the struggle. Thus they can give this front broad influence among our people.
All the organisations confronting deviation are in the National or Democratic Alliance, and all efforts must be exerted to removing any obstacles to establishing this front. The central question for all is fin. ding the best way to confront the deviation. We believe that the broad national front is the best, and we must find the way to put this into practice, in order to restore the PLO's national line and independent decision-making. The PLO should not be involved in US solutions, or in the pocket of any regime, but clearly aligned with the Arab national liberation movement, nationalist regimes and socialist communiali the Soviet Union in particular, and forces of progress and democracy.
Has there been increased struggle in the West Bank?
George Habash: Thank you for this question as it gives me the opportunity to
that in spite of the complicated political situation, we do not forget our people in Palestine. We do not forget, nor do they, that the main enemy is Zionism and US imperialism. We are obliged to deal with the political problems in the PLO, but we will not be completely preoccupied with this. We are also thinking how we can increase the struggle, especially armed struggle, against the Zionist enemy in occupied Palestine, for this is our main
Israeli statistics have recently been released concerning resistance in the West Bank and Gaza Strip, that in the course of a month, there were 200 "terrorist acts" against the occupation. This is in addition to the mass and political struggle.
Since we refuse Arafat's policy, we must give the alternative which is continuing the struggle to change the balance of forces by increasing armed struggle, having a correct political line and strengthen relations with our real friends on the Arab and international levels.
Class War in Coventry by Matthew Jones COVENTRY'S Labour Council
ave proposed a huge packag
I cuts in education using th excuse of falling roles.
According to the Labour Group leader hip and the council officers the council has to close schools to maintain educational standards! In reality they are trying to save millions of pounds to avoid confrontation with the Tory Government. However, the Labour Group were badly burned by the reaction to the last school closure they carrried out at Bell Green Primary School.
At Bell Green they went for a quick quiet closure, giving parents only eight days notice of a closure minute being put before the education committee on July 1, 1983. The reaction from parents, the NUT and the Labour Party forced the council to grant at least a semblance of consultation, setting back the decision by five months to the December Council meeting.
The issue decisively split the Labour Party and the Labour Group between those fighting the cuts and those implemeting cuts or allowing them to be carried out. After the December council meeting four councillors were expelled from the Labour Group for abstaining (!) n protest at the decision
The campaign reached its peak with two occuptions of the school in June and July 1984 by the parents, the Labour left and local striking miners. Finally the council evicted the occupiers by force in a four hour operation involving thirty police and half a dozen bailiffs. The final rearguard action included camping in a tent in the school grounds, successfully demanding that the building be properly secured.
The fifteen month campaign left the council with its feeble excuses stripped away. The rubbish about falling rolls has been exposed as a cover for creating a precedent for future closures and - as a profitable sideline — selling the site.
This time round the council have been more cautious in their approach. In October 1984 they issued a "cosultative" document "Future Choices" listing three choices:
—Do nothing and allow