ISJ Index | Main Newspaper Index
Encyclopedia of Trotskyism | Marxists’ Internet Archive
From International Socialism (1st series), No.37, June/July 1969, pp.2-3.
Transcribed & marked up by Einde O’Callaghan for ETOL.
May Day saw the mobilisation of a different sort of opposition to the government than that directed from Congress House. Up to 200,000 workers were involved in a strike against the threat of legislation. Even the official media – who completely ignored the previous strike of February 27th – had to recognize this as the first major political strike since 1926. (They had no choice, given the complete stoppage of Fleet Street!) The mass demonstrations in some cities showed that there exist forces capable not merely of defeating the penal clauses, but also of turning the whole governmental strategy.
But we must also learn from May Day. Firstly about the tactic of one day strikes. They are an excellent way of demonstrating strength. But they are not in themselves an exercise of that strength (as French and Italian workers have had good reason to learn). And for that reason they are not a tactic that can be employed indefinitely. Already on May 1st many industries that had stopped on February 27th continued to work.
Secondly, although there was solid and enthusiastic participation in the strikes and demonstrations from some industries this only affected a small percentage of organised workers. In London where docks, building sites, markets and engineering factories were on strike, the vast majority of those who demonstrated were from one union – SOGAT.
It is also worth noting that although rank-and-file militants played key roles in initiating the strikes and demonstrations, these were most successful in areas where they were backed by official or semi-official organisations. If elements were proven to exist that can form the bases for the development of rank-and-file movements, these were also shown to be not completely detached from the official structures.
The final and most important lesson, however, must be that although the fighting potential of large numbers of workers was revealed, so too was the resilience and persistence of reformist ideas on the one hand, the lack of strength and isolation of revolutionaries on the other. In London, for instance, the Communist Party-controlled Liaison Committee was able to control the organisation of the demonstration. The result was that the political implications of what was happening were avoided. A Labour MP who had refused to support the call for a one day strike spoke on the platform, while the one MP who had been involved in any serious arena of struggle and had supported the call was refused a hearing. Here was a political strike and demonstration organised on apolitical lines. It is not enough, however, to point with bitterness at the intrigues of the CP. What has to be understood is that these are possible because a credible revolutionary alternative does not yet exist for most militants. Much more patient effort is required to build this. Until then, whatever the objective content of a particular struggle, reformist currents will persist and even grow and will continue to articulate with the reformist beliefs most workers continue to hold.
ISJ Index | Main Newspaper Index
Encyclopedia of Trotskyism | Marxists’ Internet Archive
Last updated on 15.1.2008