The General Strike was a defeat and a serious one at that. The responsibility for this lay not with the miners and the working class as a whole. The ruling class took their revenge; the mine owners, without any pity, were determined to inflict brutal sacrifices on the miners and sought in the process to crush union organisation in the pits. Birkenhead boasted in private: “The discredit of the Miners’ Federation is now complete.”1 However, the strike had been at some cost to the capitalists. Lost coal production alone amounted to the value of £97 million and a further £42 million had to be spent on imports of coal. The Economist put the total trade loss at between £300 million and £400 million. One hundred and sixty million working days were lost in strikes in 1926 as a whole, the highest ever in a single year, and only rivalled later by the upsurge of workers’ militancy in the 1970s and 1980s. Trade union membership fell below five million for the first time since 1916, down from a figure of five and a half million before the General Strike. The number of TUC-affiliated unions fell even more steeply.
For the miners, the government repealed the Seven Hours Act of 1919 and forced them to accept lower wages. They also introduced the anti-union 1927 Trade Disputes and Trade Union Act, which even the Liberal Lord Reading said offered “no single ray of light for British working men”. It was, he said, to be “more vague, more indefinite, more lacking in precision in respect of the crimes which it indicates and the penalties which follow upon them, than any Bill I have ever seen or any Act of Parliament I have had to construe either as a law officer or as a judge”. Symons comments: “More than any other single measure, the Trades Disputes Act caused hatred of Baldwin and his government among organised trade unionists. Its repeal in 1946, after the refusals to amend it of Chamberlain in 1939 and Churchill in 1945, had great emotional as well as practical significance for the labour movement.”2
This Act has many of the features of Thatcher’s later raft of anti-union laws. It illegalised “‘anyone who declares, instigates, incites others to take part in or otherwise acts in furtherance of a strike declared to be illegal” and such a person “could be jailed for up to two years. The ‘illegal strikes’ phrase placed an enormous amount of discriminatory power in the hands of a reactionary government,” and meant that anything like a repetition of the General Strike would have been classified as “illegal”.3 But the ban went further than this, covering all strikes which extended beyond a single trade or industry and was “designed or calculated to coerce the government either directly or by inflicting hardship upon the communi-ty”.4 As with the Thatcher acts, the threat of litigation was an integral part of this bill if trade unions decided to stage an “illegal strike”. The Act also imposed restrictions on picketing, it prohibited civil servants from joining trade unions associated with the TUC and or Labour Party, and it forbade local authorities from making trade union membership a condition of employment. The Act was, as G.D.H. Cole pointed out, a “return to the old law of master and servant which had been swept away by the Employers’ and Workmen Act of 1875”.5
The Act also contained a clause providing that trade unionists who wanted to pay the political levy of their union would have to “contract in” rather than “contract out”. This was meant, of course, to deprive the Labour Party of funds. The capitalists no longer need to legislate against workers collecting funds for the Labour Party because now, as the latest scandal over “loans” to Labour has shown, it is partly financed by big business. After 1926, the affiliated membership of the Labour Party fell from nearly 3.4 million in 1926 to just over 2 million two years later. Between 1927 and 1929, the Labour Party lost over a quarter of its total income from affiliation fees because of depleted trade union funds. The Tory hardliners led by Birkenhead, Churchill and Co had other trophies to their names from the defeat of the working class. Diplomatic relations were broken off with Russia on trumped-up charges of “misconduct” against the Soviet trade delegation in London. By this time, the Anglo-Russian Trade Union Committee had disappeared from the scene and the erstwhile “partners” of the Russian trade unions, the General Council, never raised a peep of protest.
Another consequence of the defeat of the General Strike was the divisions created in the Miners’ Federation. A breakaway right-wing union was formed in the Midlands by George Spencer, leader of the Nottinghamshire Miners’ Association; this “non-political” union was supported by the coal owners. This was to be mirrored later by the so-called Union of Democratic Mineworkers (UDM) created during the 1984-85 miners’ strike. But it would be wrong to say that the working class – particularly its guiding layers – were cowered by these spiteful class acts of the ruling class. The 1927 anti-union act described as the “most reactionary sample of British labour legislation placed on the statute book since the evil Combination Laws of 1799-1800”6 certainly had an effect in intimidating the trade union leaders and the TUC. Just over a month after its enactment, the Edinburgh TUC Congress revealed the unmistakeable shift to the right of the TUC and its leading figures. The president, George Hicks, a leading ‘Left’ in the firmament of the Communist Party and the Anglo-Russian Trade Union Committee, in his presidential address proposed co-operation with the employers “in a common endeavour to improve the efficiency of industry and to raise the workers’ standard of life”. In January 1928 the first joint meeting between a group of employers and the General Council took place. Its lone opponent on the General Council was Arthur Cook!7
At the September 1928 TUC conference, the rejection of militant class struggle policies received further endorsement, which were characterised as “futile, certain to fail and sure to lead to bloodshed and misery”.8 ‘Mondism’, derived from the name of the Chairman of chemical firm ICI, Sir Alfred Mond, was embraced by the General Council. With Mond, they proposed to establish a “national industrial council” representing workers and bosses and a system of “compulsory conciliation”. Emmanuel Shinwell MP, described it as the “blunt bargain” whereby “the trade unions keep the men in order; the employer, in return, agrees to employ union men only”.9 This policy did not go through without opposition but nevertheless it became, for a period, the official policy of the TUC.
In the aftermath of their victory in the General Strike, the capitalists appeared to be completely triumphant. In relation to Labour and trade union opposition to the 1927 Act, Birkenhead taunted: “Call all your meetings, blow all your trumpets, make all your speeches, unfurl all your red flags – and when you have done it all, the Bill is going through Parliament.”10 This Tory Lord was brutally frank in teaching the working class a harsh lesson. Parliamentary action alone, demonstrations, even passive general strikes, the ruling class in the final analysis can ride out. They will have to be removed from the scene of history by a mass movement of the working class and the weapon of the general strike is an important, indeed a vital weapon in the armoury of the working class, in carrying this task through to a conclusion. But this will only be possible by learning the lessons of 1926.
Lessons of 1926
The first and most basic lesson to be drawn from the General Strike is that the aim of capitalism as a system is to produce for profit and not for social need. Despite the noisy claims of the representatives of this system – as evidenced by Baldwin in 1925 and 1926 – about social peace and ‘partnership’, a constant struggle takes place over the share-out of the wealth produced by the labour of the working class. The battle to control this surplus, which Marx described as the unpaid labour of the working class, is usually called profit, and is the basis of the struggle between the contending classes. Capitalism seeks to maximise profits – by squeezing the working class even in the period of relative upswing, as we have seen in the 1990s and the first part of this decade – while the working class will fight to maintain and even improve its share. In periods of economic upswing, the capitalists may even allow some crumbs off its very rich table to fall into the lap of the working class. In the period of 1950-75, in Britain and throughout most of the developed capitalist world, a real advance in living standards took place. At the time, this was considered by capitalist commentators to be the norm, an indication that their system had overcome its contradictions. In fact, it was an exception to the usual state of affairs under capitalism.
This period was in marked contradistinction to the time of the General Strike. Then, as we have seen, a ferocious struggle took place between the capitalists and the working class. On the other hand, there are periods of relative social peace – usually when capitalism is going ahead – when the classes can ‘rub along’ and, generally, it does not result in explosive ruptures in society. There are, however, other periods when the class struggle takes a sharp form, as in 1926. The reason for this is not because of the personalities involved – who generally reflect class interests – but arises from the inherent contradictions of capitalism. The basic contradiction of this system is ultimately the inability of working-class people to buy back the goods they produce. Of the increased wealth they create, the working class receives only a portion in the form of wages. The capitalists overcome this problem by ploughing back the surplus into industry and production. This, in turn, generates even greater production, which creates the same problem again; what Marx called “overproduction”, a glut of goods and services which cannot be bought. When this happens, the capitalist system is afflicted by a recession or slump. This can coalesce with a protracted and generalised stagnation of the productive forces. Such a period occurred in the inter-war period in Britain and the capitalist world. It is in these kinds of periods when a sharpening of the class struggle can develop culminating sometimes in the kind of movement that took place in 1926.
The general strike did not drop from the sky but was the product of the period of 1918 to 1926 when, as we have seen, the capitalists, afflicted by a serious crisis, attempted to place the burden of this on the British working class. The working class resisted as best it could, saddled as it was with faulty leadership. They forced these leaders to declare a general strike which resulted in the grandiose conflict of the nine days. However, despite all their heroic efforts it was not victory but a defeat. On the anniversary of this great struggle, the best way to commemorate the tremendous efforts of the working class of 1926 is to ponder whether with a different leadership the working class could have come out of it victoriously.
And this is not just a historical question. In the light of the tumultuous events in France in early 2006, the working class is being pushed to the brink of a ‘general strike’. In the first instance, this has taken the form of partial one-day strikes. The mood undoubtedly exists amongst the French working class for a complete one-day stoppage of both public and private sector workers in order to defeat the neo-liberal scheme of the Chirac government. But substantial sections see the need for a general strike. The French government is attacking the conditions of young people as a backdoor means of driving down the living standards of the working class as a whole. With sure instinct, the French working class has come out in a great solidarity movement in defence of young people. The French trade union leaders for their part, however, fear even a one-day general strike in France. Millions have poured onto the streets involving three million workers on at least two occasions. The trade union leaders remember, however, as do significant sections of the working class, what happened in 1968. Then, as now, it was the young people who were the first into battle. Students at the Sorbonne and elsewhere were in the vanguard as they are now. Only after the police had brutally attacked student demonstrations did the French working class come out on a one-day total stoppage. The strike was continued and what followed was the General Strike of May-June 1968 and the occupation of the factories, the greatest in history. At the time of writing, Chirac has been forced to withdraw the hated CPE young workers’ contracts, with the proviso that the government will bring in unspecified new measures in the future.
Yet the features which have led to the recent social explosion in France are common to the rest of the countries of Europe. Even before the onset of a serious economic recession or slump, capitalism in Europe and worldwide is determined to ruthlessly pursue its neo-liberal agenda. It is being assisted in this aim by the shift to the right of the majority of the leaders of the trade unions and the abandonment of socialism by the leaders of the former workers’ parties. Despite this, the working class is determined to ferociously defend the gains of the past. The accumulated experiences of the last two decades of neo-liberal policies, pursued with particular venom in Britain and the US, as well as the other ‘Anglo-Saxon’ countries, have reinforced this mood. Lodged in this situation, therefore, is the possibility of one-day general strikes and even of generalised struggles along the lines of 1926 in any number of countries in Europe, including Britain.
There are, however, some differences between the situations in 1926 and even France 1968, and the situation today in Europe. This is particularly evident on the issue of the political outlook, or consciousness, of the working class, then and now. In both 1926 and 1968, there was a widespread awareness and attraction to the ideas of socialism as the alternative to capitalism. Because of the collapse of Stalinism, and with it the planned economies of Eastern Europe, the capitalists were able to pursue a huge campaign against ‘socialism’. This coincided with an economic boom and the lurch to the Right of the trade union and Labour leaders. This has thrown back consciousness. Also, the economic situation is not yet as severe as 1926 – 1968 took place, paradoxically, when the economic boom had not exhausted itself. On the other hand, the capitalists will pursue their neo-liberal agenda relentlessly unless they are checked by a resurgent labour movement. Inherent in this situation is therefore the possibility of a general strike. Because of all these factors taken together, this will probably mean that power may not be posed immediately in the minds of the working class. A ‘general strike’ today therefore could initially take the form of warning strikes to exert mass pressure to extract concessions. But these would be staging posts along the way towards strikes like 1926. This is why this event retains its importance today.
Britain has gone to the brink of such struggles on a number of occasions since 1926. In 1970, for instance, the newly elected Tory Prime Minister, Edward Heath, threatened the trade unions and the working class in a nationally televised broadcast with a ‘general strike’ unless they were prepared to come to heel and accept cuts in their rights and conditions. British capitalism was in the grip of a long-term crisis. The working class had shown under the previous Labour government of Harold Wilson that it was not going to swallow the ‘sacrifices’ demanded of them. In 1968, for instance, when Wilson and Barbara Castle introduced their infamous anti-trade union bill, ‘In Place of Strife’, it was resisted by mass demonstrations. The majority of the trade union and labour movement opposed it. This pressure compelled the Labour government to step back and these attacks were shelved.
Alarmed by the power of the working class, the ruling class had concluded that a ‘strong’ government was needed which could weaken and push back the power of the working class. However, they miscalculated and this resulted in a period of big strikes and social upheaval. It led to the mass occupation of the Upper Clyde Shipyards on Clydeside, which compelled the Heath government and British capitalism to stage a ‘U-turn’. However, this did not prevent the Heath government from taking on the miners, in both 1972 and, particularly, in the 1974 strike. This latter strike resulted in the three-day week and led to a general election and the eviction of the Tories from office. This whole episode indicated just how the strategists of capital had pondered the events of the past, had seen what had happened in 1926 and were prepared, if necessary, to deploy the same means of defeating the working class. In the 1980s, under Thatcher, the issue of a general strike to topple her government was again raised. In a similar situation, which could occur in Britain and in Europe in the next stage, the capitalists will be drawing on the lessons from the past. The working class, for its part, must also explore the events like 1926 to see how best to prepare for a similar situation in the future. We hope that this book will be a step towards realising that goal.
The Future
The General Strike of 1926 was a magnificent display of working-class power. The attempt to trivialise and belittle its significance by references to strikers playing football with policemen and other secondary features of the strike is meant to diminish it in the eyes of the present generation. This is done quite consciously by capitalist historians together with the right-wing trade union leaders. They like to think that “never again” will a general strike occur in Britain. On the contrary, the situation that is developing in Britain will lead to a mighty collision, in fact a series of class conflicts between the classes which will put the issue of the general strike back onto the agenda.
One of the reasons why Britain has not yet repeated the experience of 1926 is the existence of a conservative officialdom that really does have the philosophy of Cramp, the NUR crony of Thomas in 1926 of “Never again”.11 If anything, their successors in the leadership of the trade unions today are more removed from the ideas of a general strike than in 1926. But ultimately their position depends on the ordinary members of the trade unions and the working class.
Baldwin was a consummate representative of big business. Despite all his phrases about class peace, he was quite clear that he was engaged in a war between the classes. He admitted later: “I provoked a general election in 1923 as a means of demoralising the labour movement and securing the commitment of the Labour Party to our imperialist policy in deed and word. I provoked a general strike in 1926 as a means of demoralising the trade union leaders and breaking up the unity of the unions which had become so manifest in 1925. There is now no important organised political opposition either inside or outside Parliament. Whatever strength may be gained by the revolutionary forces, which as yet are very small, it will take some considerable time before they can seriously hamper any policy we wish to pursue.”12
The strength of the capitalists in 1926 lay not in themselves but in the weakness of those at the top of the opposing army of the working class. The sell-out of the general strike was not accepted with equanimity by the working class, or by most of its organisations at the bottom and by the militants, the backbone of the British working class. At the Bournemouth conference of the TUC in September 1926, where the mantra of the Right was “never again”, a significant contribution was made by a young miners’ delegate, Peter Chambers. His final sentence was: “We will have another general strike without you, and we will win next time.”13 The “next time” has not come for 80 years but history has a way of confirming prophecies much later than when they were originally formulated. This young delegate was undoubtedly right, if not for his generation then for those workers who will move into action in this century. But to be “successful”, in the sense of leading to a complete rupture with capitalism and a new democratic socialist society, it is necessary to absorb all the lessons of this strike.
