The belief in the General Strike as the vehicle and precursor to revolution was common among many working class political strains in the 19th century.
Are there still individual anarchists, syndicalists or current organizations that still believe in the General Strike?
Thats partially the reason I ask. One of the reasons I left the IWW was a lack of coherence around their theory of social and economic revolution- at the time I was a member, it seemed very confused. Some founding documents and books had vague theories about the general strike, and what the actual policy is, and why.
The communist theories of the 'Mass Strikes' made much more sense to me as a theory, with the added benefit of practical experience.
I get the overall impression that the 'General Strike' is a bygone theory in practice (i.e. isn't actively propagated or pursued), yet it comes up every once in awhile.
In England the theory of the General Strike evolved out of the idea of a Grand National Holiday, see SelfED section on Britain. I don't know of anyone subscribing to a single all embracing strike that would lead to a revolutionary situation, it does sound like a parody, but rather in contrast it is about creating a vehicle that is capable of combating capitalism in the here and now and developing a militant consciousness amongst those who struggle. That said I think the IWW is less of a desired vehicle and rather something which as happened to fill the void at the present time (in the American context). And I would argue a core of people involved in the British IWW have moved strongly away from their preamble.
In fact I don't know why would a General Strike on a large scale be so unbelievable. In fact, the events which have brought Milosevic down from the power in Serbia, in the end of 2000, were General Strike by-the-book. The General Strike was proclaimed by opposition on 2nd of October and got huge response - almost nothing was working in the country, hundreds of thousands of people have been demonstrating in their cities, and than on 5th of October 2000, under the call of opposition, million(s) of people went to Belgrade, lead by miners, burned parliament building and national TV, robbed police stations and took control of the society. Of course, this was done by masses who were under hegemony of right and left liberal ideology, and political parties and movements which were most prominent were sponsored by the "west", but on a practical level we can see how General Strike scenario can work in real life.
to be honest i think (revolutionary) general strikes and mass strikes are the same thing. i mean general strikes happen not infrequently. they're often token one-day affairs and there's nothing particularly revolutionary about them. but the idea of a revolutionary general strike is that a call is made, perhaps on the back of strikes already in progress, and attempts are made to spread it. if it spreads, it becomes general. it's neither spontaneous nor premeditated, but spreads through various means (revolutionary unions/networks if they exist, but also solidarity actions by other workers, flying pickets, power of example, whatever means work).
i don't think that's very different to the 'mass strike'. one thing that jumps out in Luxemburg's pamphlet is a visceral but baseless hostility to anarchists. as far as i can work out, she was covering herself from accusations of 'anarchism' from Marxists to her right. anarchists (certainly those of a syndicalist or anarcho-syndicalist bent, who were together the majority) had largely seen industrial action as the most powerful tool of the working class and revolution as an act of social expropriation. Marxists typically saw revolution as a political one, whereby a party takes state power on behalf of the class. hence to advocate the former position, Luxemburg had to caricature the general strike and rebrand it as the mass strike.
I agree with rata here. I don't see what's so ridiculous about the prospect of the general strike; nor is it obvious what its critics are proposing in its stead. Spontaneous social revolution? Political takeover?
If the general strike belongs to the 19th century, so does communism in general.
As for "believing" in it, that sounds like something out of the rants of Georges Sorel. Workers don't need to believe in any pie in the sky workers' paradise; that is what we are against to begin with.
to be honest i think (revolutionary) general strikes and mass strikes are the same thing.
Tbh, I don't understand why anyone would make a distinction. I really wasn't aware that Luxembourg or whoever felt the need to play "revolutionary" word games in this manner. As far as I can see, they are precisely the same thing.
Traditionally 'revolutionary' general strikes were posed by many anarcho-syndicalists as being 'called' by organisations able to actually organise them ie anarcho-syndicalist unions of sufficient size and influence to do the job. That view may not be so prevalent amongst anarcho-syndicalists today who have an approach more similar, as JK suggests, to the concept of the mass strike as outlined by Rosa and subsequently by the council communists, but some in SolFed still seem to hold to a concept not far removed from the traditional view as we found out at last nights Manchester Class Struggle Forum.
In the end it is about different understandings of how modern capitalism actually works and the potential, or lack of potential, for large 'permanent' pro-revolutionary economic organisations of workers to exist.
General Strike is a term common in anarchist & trade unionist philosophy in the late 19th century. The idea was that after a large majority of workers if not all workers were organized into revolutionary unions, the union(s) would organize an international strike encompassing all industries, which would result in the wholesale paralysis of the entire capitalist system (commerce, military, state functioning, communication)- after which the workers would deconstruct the state and create international socialism. It's more than just the idea of an entire region or country going on strike in all industries, it's also the idea that this syndicalist direct action can effectively paralyze the state, allowing the workers to take power peacefully (and then proceed to run the world without any more nation-states, with the unions as the primary organization of trade, manufacturing, and social policy).
The difference between this and the philosophy of the mass strike is that the mass strike would not involve a syndicalist type organization, but would be a 'wildcat' direct action with a tendancy to spread to other workers in other industries, resulting in large scale strikes across industries in a given area. Instead of unions, workers general assemblies, electable and revocable delegates, factory/workshop committees, and regional worker's councils would lead and direct the struggle (with guidance from a class party).
The former is theory based on popular models of organization at the time, the latter was based on the experience of the 1905 Russian revolution.
The former sees the syndicalist unions as 'unitary, permanent' organizations that we build up under capitalism, and once they are of sufficient strength they 'declare' or 'start' the revolution with a called strike. The latter believes that the strike(s) happen first, followed by the above mentioned organizations forming by the workers and spread to other industries, with guidance from revolutionary organizations, resulting in a revolution.
I think this is more than wordplay, its a significant difference of opinion on the organization and perceived path of socialist revolution.
Traditionally 'revolutionary' general strikes were posed by many anarcho-syndicalists as being 'called' by organisations able to actually organise them ie anarcho-syndicalist unions of sufficient size and influence to do the job.
This was what I was getting at. In early syndicalism the Grand Holiday, ie a general strike completely divorced from agitation or economic conditions played an important part in its ideology.
Yeah I agree these are two very different concepts and I don't think Luxemburg had any need to caricature the general strike because there were plenty of people around at that time who were all about building organisations to a certain size then calling one. That's the basic idea behind One Big Union isn't it? Get the IWW so it organises the majority of workers in all countries, then call a general strike.
From http://www.iww.org/culture/official/strike, was written in 1933, excuse the long quotes:
There has been a great deal of confusion as to just what was meant by the term, General Strike. In the past any strike of considerable proportions has usually been referred to as a "General Strike." But many times this definition was not really applicable. Much of the misconception results from an erroneous or limited conception as to what a General Strike is and what it is supposed to do. The General Strike, as its name implies, must be a revolutionary or class strike instead of a strike for amelioration of conditions. It must be designed to abolish private ownership of the means of life and to supplant it with social ownership. It must be a strike, not of a few local, industrial or national groupings of workers but of the industrial workers of the world as an entity. If we keep in mind that there are four phases of the General Strike it will help to understand clearly what we mean by using the term:A General Strike in a community.
A General Strike in an Industry.
A national General Strike.
A revolutionary or class strike-- THE General Strike.
It will be seen from the above that, while the first three are General Strikes in the limited and commonly accpeted meaning of the term, only the last, or revolutionary class strike, is a General Strike in the full meaning of the term. The first three have been attempted at times with varying degrees of success, but the last has yet to[... be organized and made effective.Thus, for instance, the display of industrial power by the workers of Finland and Russia in 1905 or that in connection with the upheaval in Moscow which resulted in the overthrow of the Kerensky government in 1917, or the strike of the French Railroad workers in 1909, the great strike in Sweden in 1909, or the strike in Germany when the administration of Von Kapp was embarrassed in the same manner. There were also important General Strikes in Belgium in 1913, in Buenos Aries in 1920 and again in Great Britain in 1926. All these have been referred to as "General Strikes." And they are General Strikes in the limited sense defined above.
[...]
The conditions necessary for the successful operation of any of the four kinds of General Strike enumerated above have never existed. [..]The General Strike, once clearly defined and understood, offers Labor a weapon in the use of which Labor has shown great aptitude and willingness-- a weapon with which all other weapons in the class war are puny in comparison. Just as gunpowder replaced the bow and arrow, so economic action will displace Labor's cruder and less potent weapons in the final struggle for emancipation from wage slavery. Only the most shallow-minded critics of working class tactics will seek to discourage the use of Labor's greatest power for the attainment of Labor's highest goal. And only the most superficial observers can fail to see that the organizational plan of the I.W.W. is ideally constructed to enable Labor to use that power.
[...]
What American conditions demand is a large scale operation in the nature of a well-co-ordinated lockout of the Captains of Finance by both workers and technicians which would put an end to the profit system but leave the production and transportation of goods unimpaired. This, coupled with the program of picketing the industries by the unemployed, is what the I.W.W. has in mind in advocating the General Strike. Anything less than this or more, is simply adding confusion unto confusion. The logic runs like this: A perfect modern timepiece can be kicked apart as easily as a tin toy; but it is much harder to put together again.
[...]
For this reason workers in all countries who wish to use their combined industrial power to put an end to exploitation and wage slavery should seek to build up an irresistable One Big Union movement along lines advocated by the Industrial Workers of the World.[...]
The answer is that, as the I.W.W. conceives of the General Strike, it would be so perfectly organized by workers and technicians and effectually used that the feeding, supplying and transportation of armed mercenaries would be practically impossible. The strikes at Seattle and Winnipeg gave some indication of the ability of strikers to organize, picket and police their strike and, at the same time arrange for the adequate distribution of food stuffs to the population. As for machine guns, tanks, airplanes and bombs of asphyxiating or incendiary character, it is well to remember that such things are only available when they are manufactured and transported by labor and would be more difficult to use against workers stationed in and about the nation's widely spread industries than against mobs massed together in the labor ghettoes of the great cities.According to the modern idea of the General Strike it would not be at all necessary, during a well organized class movement of this sort for the employed workers to leave their assigned places in industry at all. On the contrary, the effort would be made to get workers into the industries instead of out of them in order to keep the wheels of production going. The General Strike, in other words would be a means of feeding rather than of starving the people.
This is in keeping with the I.W.W. program of STRIKING ON THE JOB. The only difference would be that the factory doors, under the direction of the technical managerial staff of the productive forces, would be thrown wide open to absorb the millions of unemployed. The wheels of industry would operate in their customary manner only for the purpose of supplying human needs instead of the enrichment of a profit-greedy Kept Class.
The General Strike therefore would simply mean that the army of production under competent technical and managerial direction, would continue to man and remain in the industries, producing and transporting goods for consumption but refusing any longer to yeild up surplus value to the parasite class. The General Strike would be a General Lockout against these idle drones who now hold as their `private property' the machinery upon which the human race depends for life.
Now in that article he counterpoises the general strike to political activity and armed insurrection only, in all cases though it's a view which depends on revolutionaries building up x type of organisation to a certain size then when it's big enough doing x which leads to the overthrow of capitalism. The fact that some people have used the concept of mass strike vs. general strike to push either party building or armed insurrection as more or less linear strategies doesn't mean that the general strike itself wasn't put forward as a linear revolutionary strategy in itself.
The fact that some people (both for and against) used/use the term in this way doesn't mean others didn't just see it as 'everyone going on strike' - in which case mass strike and general strike can indeed be used interchangeably, but there is a distinction and it's not one which was invented by Luxemburg to be more revolutionary than thou.
Good posts by Mike, Spike, and Devoration, showing that there really is a theoretical difference here. I should also add that Luxemburg considered that the emergence of the mass strike signified the dawn of a new epoch in the class struggle and in the life of capitalism generally.
I need to go back and read precisely what she wrote about the anarchists - in my memory, she argued that they had been largely absent from the events of 1905, which she took to be a sign of the historical bankruptcy of their conceptions.
Whether or not Luxemburg was accurate about the precise role played by the anarchist organisations in 1905, from the retrospective left communist point of view the sudden appearance of the soviets did indeed invaldiate the anarcho-syndicalist/indutsrial unionist schema of building up the organs of revolution bit by bit inside the shell of the old society. It also buried the mirror image social democratic idea of the party gradually conquering positions in capitalist society until power fell into its hands like a ripe fruit.
The difference between this and the philosophy of the mass strike is that the mass strike would not involve a syndicalist type organization, but would be a 'wildcat' direct action with a tendancy to spread to other workers in other industries, resulting in large scale strikes across industries in a given area. Instead of unions, workers general assemblies, electable and revocable delegates, factory/workshop committees, and regional worker's councils would lead and direct the struggle (with guidance from a class party).
I take your point, but to really have a determinant effect, these mass strikes would have to amount to a concentrated and coordinate effort, in other words become generalized, even if it's not strictly along syndicalist lines (and I don't think that is in itself an insurmountable difference; anarcho-syndicalists would surely not oppose mass strikes in a struggle situation on the grounds that they "didn't go through the union"). Maybe there is a real difference in theoretical-historical terms, but in practical terms I fail to see who they are substantially not the same kind of strategy.
(and I don't think that is in itself an insurmountable difference; anarcho-syndicalists would surely not oppose mass strikes in a struggle situation on the grounds that they "didn't go through the union")
precisely, i mean i doubt even the crudest union-building syndicalist would see a general strike as members-only.
Mike Harman, you bring up the IWW, but it's not a great example because (a) they're not anarchists so couldn't have been the target of Luxemburg's invective and (b) they anyhow cite Seattle, where by no means all the the workers were in one big union, or even unionised (apparently 100,000 took part, and only 60,000 were unionised as of 1918). I think Luxemburg must have had the CGT in mind. Now the CGT definitely did aspire to recruit each and every worker. To a certain extent they retained the GNCTU idea of a 'grand national holiday', but developed the idea of a revolutionary general strike, i.e. one which took over the means of production rather than walking away from them.
Even then, i think you'd struggle to find an anarchist in the CGT who thought only union members should strike, or that strikes should not be spread by all possible means by the workers themselves. For all the problems with apolitical syndicalism, it certainly emphasised rank-and-file initiative. Certainly when you hit anarcho-syndicalism by the early 20th century i think the idea's developed further. typically there were high levels of unionisation, but the idea was the call was made for a general strike, and its success depended on how much that resonated with members of other unions or non-union workers. it certainly wasn't a case of 'tuesday night is curry night, wednesday we overthrow capitalism', which was the more GNCTU's notion.
The former sees the syndicalist unions as 'unitary, permanent' organizations that we build up under capitalism, and once they are of sufficient strength they 'declare' or 'start' the revolution with a called strike. The latter believes that the strike(s) happen first, followed by the above mentioned organizations forming by the workers and spread to other industries, with guidance from revolutionary organizations, resulting in a revolution.
right, but early apolitical syndicalism and Rosa Luxemburg aren't the entirity of possibilities. Rocker and Maximov are full of praise for factory committees, workers' councils etc, Maximov even describing them as "anarcho-syndicalist in their essential character" (whatever you think of that claim, it's hardly rejecting them in favour of recruiting everyone into a single union - in fact he explicitly attacks centralised unions in the same passage). the difference, insofar as i can see one is the idea that 'strike happen first' without any organisation or agitation. this is an illusion of distance. strikes may not be organised by unions, but they are organised, and this rarely happens spontaneously, still less on a generalised scale.
so yeah, maybe Luxemburg was trying to make space for the Party - you don't need to organise strikes, they arise spontaneously from the inexorable contradictions of capital. but therefore the workers won't be conscious of their communist potential, so it needs a party to guide it. the problem is that only works in opposition to apolitical syndicalism. in 1905, with the FORA only a year old and the french anarchists still involved in apolitical syndicalism, perhaps that's forgiveable. but it's really not a tenable distinction today, except for those desparate to salvage some guiding role for the Party vis-a-vis 'the masses',
That view may not be so prevalent amongst anarcho-syndicalists today who have an approach more similar, as JK suggests, to the concept of the mass strike as outlined by Rosa and subsequently by the council communists, but some in SolFed still seem to hold to a concept not far removed from the traditional view as we found out at last nights Manchester Class Struggle Forum.
i'd be very surprised if this is the case, since one of the things SolFed people (rightly) objected to in 'Strategy & Struggle' was the idea 'classical anarcho-syndicalism' ever had such a notion of a general strike (rather, it belonged to the GNCTU, and to an extent apolitical syndicalism). the comrade who i think spoke at the MSF wrote 2,000 words internal discussion disputing that this is 'the traditional view', and stayed on my sofa a month or so back and reiterated the same views.
really this just highlights that it's a problematic debating tactic to seek to represent the views of others who aren't here to speak for themselves, and this whole 'i agree with JK but SolFed don't schtick' is getting really old anyway.
fwiw i have no problem with 'calling' a general strike, still less so if you had a million libertarian communists doing so and trying to get others out, expropriate the means of production etc.
I think some here are overlooking that Luxemburg was advocating the mass strike as a way of obtaining political democracy in Russia and in Germany (and not necessarily as a means of overthrowing capitalism). Which could explan her hostility to anarchists, who (as others today) didn't agree with her that political democracy is worth having.
As to Luxemburg believing that anarchists were absent from he 1905 Revolution that was a false assumption as there was a high level of involvement and in the following few years with many anarchists being shot down, executed or facing long years of hard labour.
In response to JK's post 14 , I am prepared to be corrected on the SolFed collective view - it may be that the comrades presentation at the MCSF resulted in my confusing his historical references with the SolFed's current approach - if I have done him a diservice then I apologise.
But from that meeting I still perceive a difference of approach to:
1. the question of building large scale 'permanent' mass pro-revolutionary unions between anarcho-syndicalism and say council and left communism, ( which is not necessarily related to the perceived role of a 'party' but to different understandings of how capitalist society has evolved and the potential for mass revolutionary consciousness to develop under todays conditions). and
2. a further difference on the understanding of the potential of such organisations, were they to exist, to act as the primary organisations of the transition to a new communist society, (given the changes in the organisation of work and class composition in modern capitalism).
I do appreciate that there is some common ground, in the present situation, on the promotion of mass assemblies, delegate strike committees, workers councils and direct action generally between the different anarchist and 'marxist' currents represented presently in the MCSF, a point I made strongly at that meeting.
TOo many things to read ...
So just a reply to one of the first message hope i will not repeat what others have said :
Are there still individual anarchists, syndicalists or current organizations that still believe in the General Strike?
General strike is the basic element of anarcosyndicalist strategy ... So "'the the official stance of the IWA sections is to build toward the general strike. "
Some IWA sections participated to the building of some "mass strikes", prefiguration of what would be general strike. Some recent and few exemples just coming out of my mind : in France movement against the suppression of the Whitsun holiday in 2005 (general strike in the city or Nimes/Arles, that led the governement to supress its measure because of a fear of extension), General strike against war in Yougoslavia in Italy in 1999 or 2000, etc ...
Also if you look at the propaganda of the IWA "latinas" section (spain, italy, france) they all advocate for general strike.
As I understood it the original question was do anarchists, or rather anarcho-syndicalists, still believe in the general strike to overthrow capitalism as they did before WWI. This is a different question from whether or not they believe in a general strike to obtain something (or more likely) to stop something being taken away within capitalism. Lots of people, and not just syndicalists, can believe in the second without believing in a "social general strike" to "take and hold" the means of production from the capitalist class, as advocated for instance by Arnold Roller in this pamphlet (published by a SolFed section, maybe that answers the question?)
mateofthebloke wrote:
(and I don't think that is in itself an insurmountable difference; anarcho-syndicalists would surely not oppose mass strikes in a struggle situation on the grounds that they "didn't go through the union")precisely, i mean i doubt even the crudest union-building syndicalist would see a general strike as members-only.
Yes I doubt they would, but I don't think anyone's calling the strike itself closed shop are they? It's much more a question of how such a situation is seen to come about, whether revolutionary unity organisations can be built during times of class peace etc. This was definitely a tendency within the old IWW, it's pretty much what the L&S strategy is now too.
Mike Harman, you bring up the IWW, but it's not a great example because (a) they're not anarchists so couldn't have been the target of Luxemburg's invective
Er, the original question on this thread was:
The belief in the General Strike as the vehicle and precursor to revolution was common among many working class political strains in the 19th century.Are there still individual anarchists, syndicalists or current organizations that still believe in the General Strike?
You then said:
to be honest i think (revolutionary) general strikes and mass strikes are the same thing.
So I don't see then why the IWW and apolitical-syndalism is suddenly off-topic? The IWW only existed for 6 months before Luxemburg wrote 'The Mass Strike' so I certainly didn't think she was responding to them, let alone an article written 25 years later, my point was not at all that she was referring to them, but instead to point out that not exactly obscure literature has this approach to building for a general strike called by one big unions - which is a distinct theoretical approach to the more 'mass strike' approach - not that I particularly identify with that concept either tbh but I don't think it's a useless or dishonest distinction which is what you've been arguing here.
and (b) they anyhow cite Seattle, where by no means all the the workers were in one big union, or even unionised (apparently 100,000 took part, and only 60,000 were unionised as of 1918).
Yes, as a very incomplete example of what they'd like to see. The overall view of that article is that regional or national general strikes are all well and good but the only way an international one will happen will be to have the IWW as an international organisation with a majority of the working class so that it can co-ordinate the general strike (and then there's the bit about keeping all the enterprises running flawlessly with technical and managerial oversight but just not handing over the profits - which is a different discussion but consistent with a view of the union as the organisational nucleus of the new society).
Even then, i think you'd struggle to find an anarchist in the CGT who thought only union members should strike, or that strikes should not be spread by all possible means by the workers themselves
Again, not sure who's arguing this. That the way to organise strikes is to get all workers to join the union then call a strike is different from excluding non-union members from an actual strike if they join in good faith. Maybe I need to read the Mass Strike again if it's Luxemburg making this argument, but this is not an argument against the conceptual usefulness between distinguishing between the two terms.
the difference, insofar as i can see one is the idea that 'strike happen first' without any organisation or agitation. this is an illusion of distance. strikes may not be organised by unions, but they are organised, and this rarely happens spontaneously, still less on a generalised scale.
Now this is just strawmen in the other direction - who's arguing that there's no agitation or organisations involved in strikes? The difference is in whether mass revolutionary organisations can be built up first, not any organisation at all. Clearly strikes do happen without the active intervention of revolutionaries though - they are organised by someone, but it does not require a revolutionary outlook by the person organising the strike - even very large ones which spread in some cases.
the problem is that only works in opposition to apolitical syndicalism. in 1905, with the FORA only a year old and the french anarchists still involved in apolitical syndicalism, perhaps that's forgiveable. but it's really not a tenable distinction today, except for those desparate to salvage some guiding role for the Party vis-a-vis 'the masses', is
Are you arguing there's no apolitical syndicalism around now? That no-one holds similar views? Is anti-Leninism out of date too just because there's council communists and the ultra-left knocking about?
Quote:
the problem is that only works in opposition to apolitical syndicalism. in 1905, with the FORA only a year old and the french anarchists still involved in apolitical syndicalism, perhaps that's forgiveable. but it's really not a tenable distinction today, except for those desparate to salvage some guiding role for the Party vis-a-vis 'the masses', isAre you arguing there's no apolitical syndicalism around now? That no-one holds similar views? Is anti-Leninism out of date too just because there's council communists and the ultra-left knocking about?
I thought L&S's strategy was to push the IWW in an apolitical syndicalist direction?
General Strike is a term common in anarchist & trade unionist philosophy in the late 19th century. The idea was that after a large majority of workers if not all workers were organized into revolutionary unions, the union(s) would organize an international strike...
Well, no. That was what Engels claimed anarchists (or "Bakuninists") argued but it was not what they argued themselves. Bakunin and others in the libertarian wing of the First International had a dynamic vision of the general strike, as discussed here. Significantly, neither Engels (nor Luxemburg who repeated his assertions), quoted a single anarchist holding the position attributed to them.
The difference between this and the philosophy of the mass strike is that the mass strike would not involve a syndicalist type organization, but would be a 'wildcat' direct action with a tendancy to spread to other workers in other industries, resulting in large scale strikes across industries in a given area.
In that case Bakunin supported the Mass strike. As "strikes spread from one place to another, they come close to turning into a general strike. And with the ideas of emancipation that now hold sway over the proletariat, a general strike can result only in a great cataclysm which forces society to shed its old skin." He raised the possibility that this could "arrive before the proletariat is sufficiently organised" and dismissed it because the strikes expressed the self-organisation of the workers for the "necessities of the struggle impel the workers to support one another" and the "more active the struggle becomes . . . the stronger and more extensive this federation of proletarians must become." Thus strikes "indicate a certain collective strength already" and "each strike becomes the point of departure for the formation of new groups." He rejected the idea that a revolution could be "arbitrarily" made by "the most powerful associations." Rather they were produced by "the force of circumstances." As with the syndicalists, Bakunin argued that not all workers needed to be in unions before a general strike or revolution could take place. A minority (perhaps "one worker in ten") needed to be organised and they would influence the rest so ensuring "at critical moments" the majority would "follow the International's lead." [The Basic Bakunin, pp. 149-50, p. 109 and p. 139]
Instead of unions, workers general assemblies, electable and revocable delegates, factory/workshop committees, and regional worker's councils would lead and direct the struggle (with guidance from a class party).
Except for the "class party" bit, that sounds just like what Bakunin argued for:
"the Alliance of all labour associations . . . will constitute the Commune . . . there will be a standing federation of the barricades and a Revolutionary Communal Council . . . [made up of] delegates . . . invested with binding mandates and accountable and revocable at all times . . . all provinces, communes and associations . . . [will] delegate deputies to an agreed place of assembly (all . . . invested with binding mandated and accountable and subject to recall), in order to found the federation of insurgent associations, communes and provinces . . . and to organise a revolutionary force with the capacity of defeating the reaction . . . it is through the very act of extrapolation and organisation of the Revolution with an eye to the mutual defences of insurgent areas that the universality of the Revolution . . . will emerge triumphant." [No Gods, No Masters, vol. 1, pp. 155-6]
Seems like the anarchists advocated the mass strike some decades before Marxists finally caught up.
The former is theory based on popular models of organization at the time, the latter was based on the experience of the 1905 Russian revolution.
Yes, 1905 was a striking confirmation of long standing anarchist theory. It made many Marxists come closer to anarchism, although they had the problem that Engels had dismissed the general strike as a tactic -- as discussed here
I think this is more than wordplay, its a significant difference of opinion on the organization and perceived path of socialist revolution.
Well, if you read more anarchist theory then you would find that the mass strike and the general strike are pretty much the same thing. Unless, of course, you take Engels' assertions at face value and ignore what the anarchists he was attacking actually advocated.
Well Anarcho, you've got me on one point- I should have addressed this topic to syndicalists (anarcho-syndicalists, De Leonists, Wobblies, etc). I cast a wider net, which in hindsight was a mistake (I am never quite sure how far various labels will go among political tendancies I'm unfamilar with).
As far as 'Bakuninist' concepts of the mass strike- I'd hardly consider the role of the class party and historical materialism as secondary points.
However, in general what people call 'class struggle anarchism' or 'internationalist anarchism' or 'anarcho-communism' etc is very close to Marxist positions on just about every other point (internationalism, the proletariat is the only revolutionary class, the revolution can only be made by the working class itself and not a group taking power in its name, etc).
The General Strike as has been defined above as the revolutionary concept mainly among syndicalists around the late 19th and early 20th centuries is still advocated by the IWW and sections of the IWA.
The General Strike as has been defined above as the revolutionary concept mainly among syndicalists around the late 19th and early 20th centuries is still advocated by the IWW and sections of the IWA.
I think you are wrong about that. I don't think the IWW and IWA has a concept of the General Strike that is much different than the Bakunin quotes above, or Luxembourg's mass strikes. This idea that the General Strike will simply be called by the revolutionary union once it reaches a certain membership, was pretty much a caricature of syndicalism already in Luxembourg's days. Here is what Emma Goldman writes about the General Strike in 1913:
By the General Strike, Syndicalism means a stoppage of work, the cessation of labor. Nor need such a strike be postponed until all the workers of a particular place or country are ready for it. As has been pointed out by Pelloutier, Pouget, as well as others, and particularly by recent events in England, the General Strike may be started by one industry and exert a tremendous force. It is as if one man suddenly raised the cry "Stop the thief!" Immediately others will take up the cry, till the air rings with it. The General Strike, initiated by one determined organization, by one industry or by a small, conscious minority among the workers, is the industrial cry of "Stop the thief," which is soon taken up by many other industries, spreading like wildfire in a very, short time.Emma Goldman, Syndicalism: The Modern Menace to Capitalism, 1913
I think that it's important, when talking about the mass strike, not to get fixated on precise dates and precise positions. I understand the "general strike", to be taking place en masse, under orders from something, on a certain date and stopping work to support a widespread political position, even or often, a defensive position. I think that German Social Democracy and other mass parties of the working class supported the General Strike - so this was a widespread confusion within all the organisations of the working class. In a sense, the general strike is just mobilising an unconscious mass. The difference in the mass strike from the General Strike, apart from the nature of the revolutionary period that it contributed to, was, as Luxemburg described it, its political, revolutionary nature. The Mass Strike is the Independent expressions of the same struggle, appearing independently but with the same concerns from the same conditions. It's no more a linear process than the pre-ordained "one fine day". Here and there, from the economic to the political and back again and the object that the Mass Strike aspires to is unification. All expressions of class struggle contribute in its tendency to self-organisation.
Rosa herself showed some confusions on the question in relation to the trade unions (still strong enough expressions of the working class, though rapidly degenerating as a progressive force). But like her confusions on the questions of economics and national liberation, these are totally secondary to the thrust of the overall political position in defence of the working class and its revolutionary perspective. There was talk in social democracy of calling a "General Strike" to stop the impending war. But this collapsed amidst the cause of "national defence", supported not least by the majority of unions. The General Strike in Britain in 1926 is an example of what a general strike means in practice. 1917 is an example of the Mass Strike, as is Poland 1980.
The main difference between the General Strike as written about in syndicalist literature and the Mass Strike by Marxists is one of organization & philosophical tactics.
All organizations of syndicalism, on the right represented by the 19th century CGT (all workers must organize into the union before the revolutionary General Strike), on the left represented by the KAPD (turning factory committee's developed during struggle into permanent organs to be unified and built up in class struggle 'peace' after the initial struggle to act in the place of the traditional unions) and all in-between (IWW, CNT, etc):
-Believe in a or many mass economic organization(s) being built and strengthened before revolutionary struggles break out that can or may challange capitalism. These organizations are to organize workers by their trade, industry or location/region of employment (depending on the group)- they may call themselves unions or not, but this is the place and function of revolutionaries: to build and propogate these organizations before the main thrust against capitalism.
The Marxists who supported the Mass Strike see the place of revolutionaries in building revolutionary organizations composed of communist militants before the main thrust against capitalism, so that when union and/or non-union workers begin to strike and spread the struggle to other trades, industries and locations, the revolutionary organization is there to influence the direction of the struggles- in the direction of the abolition of capitalism and the establishment of worker's councils and other organic forms of workers struggle.
A 'General Strike' and a 'Mass Strike' are large strikes of workers in all crafts, trades, industries and locations- the difference between them is based on the traditions from which they came about. They are totally different ways of perceiving revolution and the form and nature and purpose of revolutionaries and their organizations/efforts.
As far as 'Bakuninist' concepts of the mass strike- I'd hardly consider the role of the class party and historical materialism as secondary points.
What has "historical materialism" to do with the general strike? As for the "class party", Marx and Engels advocated "political action" (voting) and explicitly opposed Bakunin's ideas on economic struggle and workers organisation. And I should note that Bakunin advocated the need for a specific anarchist organisation to influence the class struggle.
However, in general what people call 'class struggle anarchism' or 'internationalist anarchism' or 'anarcho-communism' etc is very close to Marxist positions on just about every other point (internationalism, the proletariat is the only revolutionary class, the revolution can only be made by the working class itself and not a group taking power in its name, etc).
Actually, it is the other way round. Most left-wing Marxists are closer to class struggle anarchism than Marx and Engels. They reject "political action", support workers councils, the general strike, focus on the economic struggles and organisation of the working class, and so forth. Marx and Engels dismissed most of these when libertarians raised them in the IWMA (as I discuss in article "Syndicalism, Anarchism and Marxism")
For example, Marxists finally supported workers' councils a mere five decades after anarchists first raised the notion in the 1860s. The general strike, also advocated by libertarians in the 1860s, was renamed "mass strike" by Marxists in the 1900s to avoid the negative comments Engels had made in his distortions against "the Bakuninists". And so on...
The General Strike as has been defined above as the revolutionary concept mainly among syndicalists around the late 19th and early 20th centuries is still advocated by the IWW and sections of the IWA.
What sections of the IWA advocate that notion? As for the IWW, that has always been the most Marxist influenced revolutionary union so it comes as no surprise if it does not reflect mainstream anarchist and anarcho-syndicalist thought on this matter.
I think that it's important, when talking about the mass strike, not to get fixated on precise dates and precise positions.
Oh, right. That is handy, that way we don't need to mention any awkward facts on the anarchists advocating the mass/general strike decades before Marxists did. Or that Engels distorted anarchist ideas when he attacked them...
I understand the "general strike", to be taking place en masse, under orders from something, on a certain date and stopping work to support a widespread political position, even or often, a defensive position.
You can understand the term as you like, but please note that anarchists do not "understand" it in that way -- regards of what Engels (and Luxemburg) asserted.
The difference in the mass strike from the General Strike, apart from the nature of the revolutionary period that it contributed to, was, as Luxemburg described it, its political, revolutionary nature.
Yet Luxemburg, following Engels, described a distortion of the anarchist position. So there really is no difference between a general strike and mass strike in libertarian theory, so you are debating terms of your own making. Suffice to say, "Marxists" are now far closer to Bakunin on the general strike than they are to Engels and Marx.
I don't think that it is true that Marxists opposed general strikes as such. They just opposed the general strike as a means of trying to overthrow capitalism but were prepared to accept a general strike as one means amongst other of defending working class interests within capitalism, particularly to obtain or defend the right to vote.
A number of such strikes took place in Belgium and even the conservative leaders of the German Social Democratic Party were prepared to contemplate a general strike should the government there attempt to take away the vote (which is never did or was likely to). In contrast to them Luxemburg and the leftwing of the party wanted to go further and advocated a general strike to obtain a more democratic franchise but not to try to overthrow capitalism.
Luxemburg criticised the anarchist/syndicalist idea of the general strike as a panacea both to obtain reforms within capitalism and to overthrow it in an article she wrote in German in 1902. Unfortunately it seems to available on the internet only in French here.
In any event while Luxemburg envisaged the mass strike being a feature of the socialist revolution she also saw a possibility for contesting elections too and always held that the immediate aim of the revolution should be to win control of political power (anathema to anarchists of course). Which, as Anarcho points out, makes her nearer to Marx than are some of those here calling themselves "Marxists" whose position is, as he says, basically an anarchist one.
For me I find the following comments very inciteful and interesting:
Rocker and Maximov are full of praise for factory committees, workers' councils etc, Maximov even describing them as "anarcho-syndicalist in their essential character"
Most left-wing Marxists are closer to class struggle anarchism than Marx and Engels. They reject "political action", support workers councils, the general strike, focus on the economic struggles and organisation of the working class, and so forth.
. . .
For example, Marxists finally supported workers' councils a mere five decades after anarchists first raised the notion in the 1860s. The general strike, also advocated by libertarians in the 1860s, was renamed "mass strike" by Marxists in the 1900s to avoid the negative comments Engels had made in his distortions against "the Bakuninists". And so on...
There are more, but I'll stick to these two as they give the general idea.
It confirms that even though [left]* Marxists and [internationalist / class struggle /revolutionary syndicalists]* anarchists are coming from distinct historical origins and lineages, and as much distrust and misunderstanding has developed between the two camps at times, that in the end we basically want the same thing, agree on many political issues and quite often tactics and strategy as well. It seems like the baggage from past generations and people and groups has seeped so far into the language of revolutionary politics that even when describing the same thing the heritage of the terms creates the illusion of disagreement.
*Qualifiers as I can't speak to anarchist schools of thought I'm not very familiar with and non-left communist Marxists.
A reportback of a IWW picket in Minneapolis of Chicago-Lake Liquors, which fired 5 organizers in April 2013. More information can be found...
The late Wobbly veteran, in conversation with the late Studs Terkel, looks back on his experience in the class struggle.
A look at involvement of governments and corporations attempting to push their interests in the world of art and culture since the middle of the last century.
Please read the posting guidelines before posting. If you see anything which falls outside them please use the 'report' button on the offending post to flag it for the moderators' attention. Site admins are listed here, and feedback can be posted in the feedback forum.
Click here to register now. Logged in users:
Can comment on articles and discussions
Get 'recent posts' refreshed more regularly
Bookmark articles to your own reading list
Use the site private messaging system
Start forum discussions, submit articles, and more...
In theory, the official stance of the IWW is to build toward the general strike.
I don't know how literally the more active Wobblies (myself included) still take this proposition.... Still tho, it is a nice romantic notion.