General Strike Party

[Comrade-Z]

I was wondering if this type of approach would hold promise in the advanced capitalist countries. In short, the idea is to form a national (or heck, even international) organization that would explicitly and primarity advocate a national (or international) general strike with the aim of overthrowing capitalism forever.

Admittance into this organization would require that members be:
1. Working class (same requirements as the IWW, roughly)
2. Anti-reformist (the explicit goal is nothing less than stateless communism)
3. Anti-electoral (this party will not run in elections under any circumstances, and in fact it will actively attack bourgeois elections as fraudulent)
4. Anti-capitalist (duh!)

The organization could be called the, "General Strike Party" (GSP). In reality, though, it's structure would be that of a federation. Local chapters could be semi-autonomous, although a set of shared guidelines could be agreed upon (perhaps it could adopt the Platform of the libertarian communists?) The organization would also have to have provisions to keep it ultra-democratic (local chapters could use "demarchy", perhaps?) Recallable delegates might convene at yearly congresses or something, or just communicate through the internet.

The organization would be called a "Party" in order to draw attention to the hollow Spectacle that bourgeois elections are. People would hear about this new "political party" and then find out that it actually intends to do things (general strike) instead of just run for elections. Furthermore, the words "General Strike" would be present in the title of the organization so that any time anyone heard about the party, they wouldn't have to ask, "what is that party about? Where do they stand?" They'd immediately know, "Oh, they're for a General Strike." And every time the organization is mentioned, people are reminded of the idea of the General Strike.

The intention would be to eventually have enough members that all of the members, by a direct vote, could at some point decide to launch a general strike and end capitalism forever. In the meantime, local chapters could function as proto-workers'-councils or proto-unions, and these individual chapters could go on "mini-strikes" all the time.

Of course this party would probably be instantly banned in all the advanced capitalist countries. There would be a struggle betweent the State and the organization. The State-repression would be terrible for all to see. It might be reminiscient of Stalin-like stuff that the bourgeois media condemns all the time. If someone was discovered to be a member of the party, they'd be refused employment anywhere. All of this would go to show just how hollow our "freedoms" and "rights" our in modern capitalist society. The myth of freedom under capitalism would be shattered. It might especially attract a lot of sympathy because the idea of the "General Strike" sounds, at least outwardly, non-violent and legal (just workers refusing to work), but of course anyone with any serious knowledge who was interested in the organization would know that violent counter-attack from the ruling class would be the only logical response to a General Strike, thus showing the obvious likelihood for violent revolution coming out of this. The unemployment resulting from political discrimination would radicalize a lot of people, especially the victims of the unemployment.

Any thoughts?

[redstar2000]

I'm not sure that the "general strike" is a sufficiently strong weapon to actually overthrow capitalism...even though it "sounds" like it "ought to be".

The idea was fashionable in some circles of the 2nd International in the decades prior to World War I. In fact, I think there actually was a very effective "general strike" in Belgium around 1912 or so. It lasted around six weeks...but nothing changed.

And we also have the example of France in May of 1968...which was enormously impressive but again nothing changed.

The weakness of the "general strike" is that it doesn't actively attack and overthrow the bourgeois state apparatus.

The history of all sorts of popular insurrections suggest that you've got to do that...or else you get nowhere in the end.

http://www.websmileys.com/sm/cool/123.gif

[JKP]

Which is why we have anarcho-syndicalism.

[Entrails Konfetti]

I thought the general strike was just the beginning of the revolution; then work-house seizures follow; and then insurrection.

[Comrade-Z]

The weakness of the "general strike" is that it doesn't actively attack and overthrow the bourgeois state apparatus.

I think the weakness of General Strikes so far has been that they have been purely reformist in nature. Sure, they have had some more militant, radical elements, but overall the workers have been willing to go back to work after their reforms have been met. I think a General Strike that was initiated with an explicitly revolutionary purpose would fare differently.

Such a General Strike (that had explicitly revolutionary intentions) would also likely lead to more confrontational action, such as workplace occupations, taking up arms--the workers would be compelled to do whatever it would take to make the revolution successful.

So yes, just staying home from work for a week probably wouldn't cut it. But I think an explicitly revolutionary General Strike would quickly incorporate other tactics as well.

[drain.you]

Sounds like a good idea. Try it, I'm with you, if it doesn't work then nevermind but if you don't try then you'll never know.
Write up a easy to read document about the organisation/party and perhaps a FAQ. Get a website up and running. I'll help with whatever.

For all the people who moan about this idea and say its a waste of time and such, I would like to say that I don't care what they think and I will support anyone who is proactively trying to do something rather than just sitting at a computer desk.

[STI]

For all the people who moan about this idea and say its a waste of time and such, I would like to say that I don't care what they think and I will support anyone who is proactively trying to do something rather than just sitting at a computer desk.

Well, it's definately good to be doing something, but come on. Your attitude will just end up with you wasting a bunch of time at some point or another.

If you're not going to critically examine your actions and their consequences, you run the very serious risk of doing something counter-productive.

[Comrade-Z]

Well, I can see that the idea did not meet with a lot of enthusiasm, which is fine. I wasn't planning on jumping off the computer chair and setting up a "General Strike Party" right away (although, if anyone finds this to be a reasonable idea, then I encourage them to do it). It was simply throwing out an idea, do with it what you will. I know that MY efforts would probably be better used on other efforts at the moment, but perhaps someone who is reading this will find the idea useful and run with it. Who knows?

[wet blanket]

I'm not sure that the "general strike" is a sufficiently strong weapon to actually overthrow capitalism...even though it "sounds" like it "ought to be".
I don't think anyone seriously thinks that a general strike alone can overthrow capitalism. Its purpose is to bring capitalist society to a halt, something it does very well, making it most vulnerable for revolution.


The idea was fashionable in some circles of the 2nd International in the decades prior to World War I. In fact, I think there actually was a very effective "general strike" in Belgium around 1912 or so. It lasted around six weeks...but nothing changed.

And we also have the example of France in May of 1968...which was enormously impressive but again nothing changed.

The weakness of the "general strike" is that it doesn't actively attack and overthrow the bourgeois state apparatus.
I think that instead of entirely writing off the general strike as ineffective, it would be better to investigate the circumstances of said events and look into what else could have been done in addition to a general strike. It's kind of hard to actively attack and overthrow the bourgeois state apparatus when you and your comrades have to clock-in at 8:30 tomorrow morning. :lol:

As for the original post, I'm afraid to say that this idea is completely unnecessary and seems like it has more potential for harm than good. There are several organizations which all do pretty much everything in your list. Perhaps instead of building a 'party', you could get involved with already existing organizations and try to network/contact/work with other related organization.
I can tell you right now that your GSP won't be instantly banned from anywhere, it's not a threat.
Take a thousand or so people across the country arguing for a general strike then calling them a party is not going to accomplish anything. Because the act of a general strike is a matter of industry, it's logical that radical union(a la IWW) organization would be best suited for such a task. Black Blocs are cells of insurrectionary direct action, Unions are effective for organizing industry, and councils are best suited for community matters. Time and effort would be better spent in developing these existing forms of resistance rather than trying to centralize the anti-capitalist movement with a political party.

[Lamanov]

Working class has shown us their own methods of organization, and as we've seen, proletarian mass always organizes around its workplace through organization of industrial workers' shop/factory committees, which then extends over the community in the course of the revolutionary situation -- and never in any way into an organizational form which separates it from their immediate economic and political needs -- from their own workplace.

We've seen how these - at first for strike, then political action - committees extend and connect with each other and then form a council, the representative body of the entire working population.

Suggestion that "we" (the Left, working class militants) should form an exclusive-worker organization which is orientated around one center as a "party" which is not really a party is kind of self-contradictory, since it overlooks some important facts.

Greatest contradiction is in the form of organization itself, which has a tendency to draw attention away from the directly democratic mass into the channels of the militant minority, even though original intention was to work it other way around.

But we know, contradictory to this, a form of organization of the working class which bursts out of spontaneous action into direct and self-organized mass action is the most effective one, much more effective than any form of previously formed out-of-workplace "party" or no "party".

We must not work in a way which can activate militants outside of the channels of the whole working mass, but to work towards activation of the whole working mass itslef.


I remember an article in which Otto Rühle suggested that German communist militants should form a "party" which only task would be a direct industrial agitation for workers' committees and councils. That is, unfortunately, all we can do to help without creating a chance to damage the mechanism of proletarian self-organization, so crucial to the struggle.