03.11.2014 Views

o_195qg5dto17o4rbc85q1ge61i84a.pdf

You also want an ePaper? Increase the reach of your titles

YUMPU automatically turns print PDFs into web optimized ePapers that Google loves.

strategies for change 137<br />

issue directives from above. Committed anarcho-syndicalists<br />

reject these claims and argue that the syndicalists’ chief weapon, the<br />

strike, provides a perfect medium through which to realize their<br />

goals.<br />

The idea of early-twentieth-century anarcho-syndicalists was<br />

that local wildcat strikes would culminate in a general strike of all<br />

workers and that this would demonstrate both their immense power<br />

whilst simultaneously provoking a reaction from government and<br />

the employers that would provide the spark to civil war and popular<br />

rebellion. The self-consciously utopian picture described by Emile<br />

Pataud and Emile Pouget suggested that:<br />

The most obvious result of the repressive efforts of the capitalists<br />

was to make the breach between them and the working class deeper<br />

and wider. Things had come to such a pass, that periods of calm<br />

were now rare.<br />

When the crisis lessened in one Union, it became envenomed in<br />

another. Strikes followed strikes; lock-outs were replied to by<br />

boycotts; sabotage was employed with ruinous intensity.<br />

This happened to such an extent, that there were manufacturers<br />

and commercial people who came to regard their privileged<br />

position as a not very enviable one, and even doubted its being<br />

tenable. 28<br />

In reality, the general strike has not proved to be such a decisive<br />

weapon. Strikes have succeeded in frightening the authorities, in<br />

demonstrating the significant power and resolve of the workers and<br />

in achieving particular aims. But the general strike has failed to<br />

sustain momentum for revolution. The limited success of anarchosyndicalist<br />

action suggests that if the general strike is to be employed<br />

as an instrument of revolution, it must be both strong enough to<br />

withstand violent repression and sufficiently well-organized to begin<br />

self-management. The danger of the general strike is that it collapses<br />

either into reformism or into armed struggle. This is what one recent<br />

scenario suggests:<br />

… we are ready to use every form of dissuasion in the course of the<br />

struggle – particularly the destruction of machines, stocks and<br />

hostages to get the state forces in retreat and disarmed. At a less<br />

acute stage in the struggle, there would be point in cutting off water,<br />

gas, electricity and fuel for active bourgeois districts, to dump refuse<br />

on them, to sabotage lifts in blocks of flats etc.

Hooray! Your file is uploaded and ready to be published.

Saved successfully!

Ooh no, something went wrong!