The General Strike

If the idea that the working class can win through military means is outdated, so is the idea that a general strike is sufficient to constitute a social revolution. Firstly, in order for the General Strike to approach the level of effectiveness that Berkman talks about you'd need to have a very large number of workers striking, at least enough to outnumber the combined strength of the military, the unemployed etc., otherwise you'd just get people scabbing.

Secondly, such a strike would almost invariably be illegal under national law. This would of course result in the arrest, fining etc. of workers and leaders. Thirdly, it seems to me that his analysis of the 1926 General Strike is a little bit off, there was violence involved in it.

Right so, bearing this in mind we have two situations. Either the strikers lack mass support, in which case they can be scabbed against, or the population will slowly turn livid over the fact that they lack certain services. If this is the case it is entirely possible that orgnaised violence will be deployed against them, and I suspect they wouldn't last long under this, unless they fought back. So in this scenario the 'strike' would collapse into military revolution.

If we assume it goes off well and there is a lot of support then there will be appropriation of the means of production. But every historical experience tells us that when bourgoeis property is threatened violence is deployed against those who have expropriated it, in this case the General Strike collapses into military violence.

Berkman's position is therefore a bit ridiculous. The idea that Marxists do not value the General Strike is a false one. Marxists have historically been involved in these strikes, and have gained a lot of members in their aftermath. But Marxists simply recognise that they are liable to lead to violence.

Take the Russian revolution. As is constantly pointed out this was largely a bloodless affair at first. What happened was that violence had to be deployed against the 'counter-revolution'. I don't think Berkman has adequately exaplained how a realistic mass strike would not be met by aggression.

(And this is without even considering the 'vanguard' role that unions end up playing in such a strike).[/i]

Vanguard Parties

The important part in regard to the Vanguard party, is that the revolutionary proletarians of a society, must not allow this group to claim complete control. However, no matter how you role the dice, the destruction of a specific social order does not fall without the use of absolute defence violence. We saw with the decline of Feudal structured society, that even in the use of "limited-democracy" in England, violence was everywhere to attempt to eliminate a specific social order. Oddly enough, the freedom & democracy they promoted were only for certain members of society, while others had to accept the terror campaign and the loss of their original lifestyle. The Vanguard party will be useful in organising the revolutionary proletarat of society, to provide a solid backing against reactionaries, but outside of that, the proletariat must defend their rights in the restructuring of society, and not allow one specific member to decide for them.