The 1926 General Strike Britains revolution betrayed SPECTRE OF COMMUNISM

Spectre Of Communism · 2026-05-26

Core Argument

The central thesis is that the 1926 General Strike was not a doomed or misguided episode, as bourgeois and reformist historians now claim, but a powerful revolutionary moment that was deliberately betrayed by the trade union leadership. The argument is that the strike demonstrated the immense latent power of the British working class — its capacity for self-organisation, its willingness to take on state functions through councils of action, and its growing consciousness that the conflict could not be resolved within the existing framework of capitalism. The defeat was not inevitable; it was engineered by right-wing trade union leaders who feared victory more than defeat, and who were enabled by a Communist Party that, under pressure from the Stalinised Comintern, subordinated revolutionary principle to diplomatic expediency. The claim is that the real lesson of 1926 is not that general strikes are futile, but that without a revolutionary party capable of providing leadership independent of the reformist bureaucracy, even the most powerful working-class upsurge will be sold out.

Theoretical Grounding

The analysis draws on several key Marxist concepts and traditions:

Historical materialism — The episode grounds the strike in the objective crisis of British capitalism: declining competitiveness against Germany and the US, stagnating industry, and the ruling class's response of driving down wages and lengthening the working day. The strike is presented not as an ideological accident but as the product of irreconcilable class antagonisms generated by capitalism's structural crisis.

The theory of dual power — The councils of action are explicitly analysed through this lens. The argument is that these bodies, which began issuing permits, organising food distribution, and even forming workers' defence corps, represented an embryonic workers' power emerging alongside and challenging the constitutional authority of the state. The strike is presented as a case study in how dual power can arise spontaneously from below when the working class is forced to take on the functions of a paralysed state.

The critique of reformism and trade union consciousness — The analysis draws heavily on the Leninist distinction between trade union consciousness (fighting for better terms within capitalism) and revolutionary consciousness (challenging capitalism itself). The right-wing trade union leaders — Jimmy Thomas, Walter Citrine, Ernest Bevin — are presented as the archetypal reformists who sought to contain the strike within the bounds of negotiation and constitutional propriety, precisely because they understood that a successful general strike would necessarily become a challenge to the state.

The theory of revolutionary leadership — The argument is situated within the Bolshevik tradition's emphasis on the necessity of a vanguard party. The episode argues that the working class demonstrated it had the power, courage, and creativity to overthrow capitalism, but lacked the leadership to channel that power towards victory. The Communist Party of Great Britain is praised for its militants but criticised for tailing the left-wing trade union leaders rather than building an independent pole of leadership.

The critique of Stalinism and bureaucratic degeneration — The analysis of the Comintern's role, particularly Zinoviev's policy of using the Anglo-Russian Trade Union Committee as a diplomatic shortcut, draws on the Trotskyist critique of Stalinism. The argument is that the Comintern's bureaucratic methods and its prioritisation of Soviet state interests over revolutionary internationalism prevented the CPGB from offering a clear alternative to the reformist betrayal.

Conjunctural Relevance

The episode makes explicit connections to the current moment:

The crisis of British capitalism — The argument draws a direct parallel between the structural decline of British capitalism in the 1920s and its condition today. The ruling class's response to declining profits — attacking wages and conditions — is presented as a recurring pattern. The episode notes that the crisis is worse today and the politicians are more shortsighted, but the fundamental dynamic is the same.

The role of the trade union bureaucracy — The episode explicitly links the betrayals of 1926 to the current leadership of the trade union movement. Paul Novak, general secretary of the TUC, is criticised for publishing an article that absolves the 1926 leadership of responsibility and draws the same reformist lessons. The Communist Party of Britain is criticised for supporting the right-wing candidate in the recent UNISON general secretary election, demonstrating that the lessons of 1926 have not been internalised.

The state of the labour movement — The episode notes that trade union membership has fallen from a peak of 13 million in 1979 to 5.5 million today, and argues that this decline is the direct result of the reformist lessons drawn from 1926 — that militant action should be avoided. The defeat of the miners in the 1980s is presented as a continuation of the same dynamic.

The ideological offensive of the ruling class — The episode analyses the current bourgeois historiography of the strike, exemplified by David Torrance's book and the BBC article calling the strike "a boil that needed lancing." The argument is that the ruling class today, as in 1926, seeks to demoralise the working class and present resistance as futile. The episode treats this as a conscious ideological campaign.

Where the Argument Continues

The episode deliberately leaves several threads open for further development:

The full balance sheet of the CPGB's role — The analysis of the Communist Party's limitations is acknowledged as partial. The episode gestures towards the broader process of Stalinisation and the Comintern's bureaucratic degeneration, but does not develop this fully. This thread is continued in other Spectre of Communism episodes dealing with the history of the Comintern and in Alan Woods's work on the history of Bolshevism.

The question of what a revolutionary leadership would have done differently — The episode criticises the slogan "all power to the general council" and suggests "all power to the councils of action" would have been closer to the mark, but does not fully develop an alternative strategy for how a revolutionary party should have acted in the concrete circumstances. This is a thread that runs through the broader RCI corpus, particularly in discussions of the role of the party in revolutionary situations.

The comparison with the 1984-85 miners' strike — The episode references the later miners' strike as a continuation of the same dynamic of betrayal, but does not develop the comparison in detail. This is a subject for a separate episode or text.

The contemporary relevance for strike strategy — The episode draws lessons for today but does not prescribe a detailed strategy for how the working class should prepare for a future general strike. This is a thread that continues in Against the Stream episodes dealing with current industrial struggles and in the RCI's broader strategic writings.

Connections

Texts and thinkers referenced directly: - Alan Woods, The History of Bolshevism — cited for the argument about revolutionary leadership - Lenin and Trotsky on the role of the party — implicit throughout - David Torrance, The Edge of Revolution: The General Strike that Shook Britain — the bourgeois account being criticised - Jonathan Schneer, Nine Days in May — the account cited approvingly by Novak - Cal Winslow — the left reformist account that refuses to draw conclusions about betrayal - Dylan Murphy's article in the Morning Star — the CPB account that acknowledges limitations but is not reflected in practice

Broader Marxist texts for further reading: - Trotsky, Where is Britain Going? — Trotsky's analysis of British capitalism and the labour movement in this period - Lenin, 'Left-Wing' Communism: An Infantile Disorder — on the relationship between revolutionaries and the trade unions - Trotsky, The Transitional Programme — on the strategy for revolutionary leadership in periods of crisis - Alan Woods, The History of Bolshevism — on the role of the party in revolutionary situations

Other Against the Stream / Spectre of Communism episodes: - Episodes on the Russian Revolution and the role of the Bolsheviks - Episodes on the current conjuncture and the crisis of British capitalism - Episodes on the trade union bureaucracy and the need for a revolutionary party

Key Quotes

1. "The strike tells us a lot about the strength of the working class. It was an incredibly powerful movement. And it's the strength obviously numerically but also qualitatively in the sense that it didn't need direction from the top in any serious way. They were able to take initiatives for themselves and start to run society for themselves even within the space of nine days."

2. "You can have a very powerful movement, but if you haven't got good leadership that is able to draw the necessary conclusions, base itself on the most far-sighted elements, then you're not going to get very far. And in fact, the movement will end up being betrayed."

3. "The right-wing TUC leaders were panicking and basically accepted everything that the government wanted and called the whole thing off. It was a terrible betrayal."

4. "The communist line was to parrot and to big up and to generally give a bit of a revolutionary cover, a left cover to the left-wing leaders who themselves betrayed. And that obviously created enormous confusion among the working class."

5. "The government did not think that the working class had a hopeless case. They regarded them as a dangerous and powerful enemy. They needed to be smashed."