💾 Archived View for library.inu.red › file › errico-malatesta-about-a-strike.gmi captured on 2023-01-29 at 09:39:33. Gemini links have been rewritten to link to archived content
➡️ Next capture (2024-06-20)
-=-=-=-=-=-=-
Title: About a Strike Author: Errico Malatesta Date: 1889 Language: en Topics: strike Source: The Method of Freedom: An Errico Malatesta Reader, edited by Davide Turcato, translated by Paul Sharkey. Notes: Translated from “A proposito di uno sciopero,” L’Associazione (Nice) 1, no. 1 (6 September [recte October] 1889). Only seven issues of this periodical were published, the first three out of Nice, the remaining out of London.
One issue that rightly preoccupies revolutionaries is how the revolution
will come about.
The established society cannot last, they say, but still it does reflect
huge interests, is backed by a heap of time-honored prejudices, and,
above all, is defended by a mighty military organization that will fall
apart just as soon as the spell of discipline is broken, but in the
meantime is a redoubtable guard dog and means of repression. Where are
we going to find the strength and the unity of action required to win?
Plots and conspiracies are fine when it comes to mounting a specific
action needing only a handful of people, but they are generally unable
to determine a popular upheaval sufficiently widespread to stand a
chance of winning. Spontaneous movements are nearly always too small and
too localized, they erupt too recklessly and are all too easily
smothered to give any hope of turning them easily into a general
uprising.
Reasoning along these lines, the conclusion almost always reached is
that the best occasions for attempting a social revolution is provided
by some political movement mounted by the bourgeoisie, or a war.
Though we are always ready to take the opportunity that wars and
political upheavals may offer us for expropriation and social
revolution, we do not believe that those are the most likely, nor the
most desirable of circumstances.
A war can trigger a revolution, at least in the defeated country. But
war arouses the evil seed of patriotic feelings, inspiring hatred of the
country that won, and the revolution to which this might give rise—being
largely prompted by the wish for revenge and confronted with the
necessity of resisting invasion—has a tendency to go no further than a
political to-do. There is even a danger that the people, irked by the
depredations and bullying of foreign soldiery, might forget about the
fight against the bourgeois and fraternize with the latter in a war
against the invader.
A political upheaval carries the same sort of dangers, albeit on a
smaller scale; the people blithely accept as friends all who are
fighting against the government, and the socialists, who naturally would
be trying to turn the turmoil into social revolution, would stand
accused of placing victory in jeopardy and serving the government’s
interests.
Such events are becoming increasingly unlikely. The bourgeoisie has
grown somewhat inured to uprisings ever since the emergence of the
socialist party that threatens to dash victory from its hand, and the
people, enlightened by experience and propaganda, are no longer so eager
to let themselves be slaughtered for the glory and profit of their
bosses. Then again, the bourgeoisie has no real incentive to make
revolution—in the western European countries and in the Americas at any
rate. In those countries, it is the bourgeoisie that actually governs.
The fact that part of it finds itself in dire straits and facing
bankruptcy and poverty does not depend on the political institutions and
cannot be altered by a mere change of government. It is, rather, the
outcome of the very capitalist system to which the bourgeoisie owes its
existence. And, no matter how inevitable and imminent war may appear for
a thousand economic and political reasons, it is always put off and
becomes more and more unlikely to happen as the advances of
international socialism make rulers frightened to plunge into the
darkness that follows a great European war.
Anyway, wars and political upheavals are not dependant on us, and our
propaganda, by its very nature, tends to make them increasingly harder
and unlikely. It would therefore be very bad tactics on our part if we
were to base our plans and hopes on events that we cannot and wish not
to trigger.
In fact, we believe that the prejudice of waiting for opportunities that
we cannot bring about ourselves is largely to blame for the sort of
inertia and fatalism to which some among us sometimes succumb. Of
course, he who cannot do anything or thinks he cannot do anything, is
inclined to let things take their course and to leave it to the course
of nature to sort matters out. And that very same prejudice may well be
to blame for the fact that lots of sound socialists, whose warm love for
the people and ardent revolutionary spirits we could not deny, believe
they are obliged to lay down their weapons and wait for something to
fall from the sky. Unable to bear such idleness, they throw themselves,
just for something to do, into the electoral contest and then, bit by
bit, abandon the revolutionary route altogether and discover that they
have, against their wills, turned into vulgar politicos. How often what
looks like—and may well have turned out to be—treachery has started out
as zeal and impatience that have lost their way!
Luckily there are other avenues by which revolution can come about, and
among these it seems to us that labor agitation in strike form is the
most important one.
The great strikes that have occurred over recent years in a number of
European countries were already pointing revolutionaries towards that
somewhat neglected method; but, of them all, the colossal strike by dock
workers in London a short while ago has proved especially
instructive.[1]
---
Here are the facts:
Following a short but busy propaganda campaign, the casual laborers of
London docks, numbering in the region of 50,000, organized themselves
into a union and quickly came out on strike. Casuals are jobbing workers
who report to the gates of the yards each morning and, if there is work
for them, are employed for the day or indeed for just several hours at a
stretch. These are poor laborers living in cramped and fetid slums,
feeding themselves or rather keeping their hunger at bay with waste food
and tainted spirits, and dressing in rags. Living day to day, their work
always uncertain, exposed to competition from all the starvelings
pouring in from every part of England and the rest of the world, well
used to vying with one another for a bit of work, scorned by workers
from the better-off trades, they certainly satisfied every condition
necessary to be regarded as unsuited to organization and a conscious
revolt against the exploiters. Yet it took only two years of propaganda
carried out by a handful of willing men capable of addressing them in
intelligible terms for these men to prove that they are well able to
join forces, stand straight, and command the attention of the entire
civilized world. Which just goes to show that the people are actually
more advanced than some would believe, and that a slow but dogged
elaboration is under way among the masses of the people, all unbeknownst
to the philosophers, preparing them for the great day that will alter
the face of the world.
The strikers were demanding six pence an hour (rather than five) for a
day’s work; and eight pence an hour for labor before 8 o’clock in the
morning and after 6 o’clock in the evening; the abolition of the
arrangement whereby work was sub-contracted to second-level exploiters
who, in turn, often sub-contracted further; a minimum of four-hours work
for those hired on, and a few other regulatory changes.
The strike of the casual workers had scarcely been declared when all the
other unions connected with the loading and unloading of cargo
ships—stevedores, coal porters, lightermen, carters, etc.—also stopped
work, some of them not even seeking any improvements but just out of
solidarity with the casuals. They rejected all compromise and any
concessions until the casuals got what they wanted.
Carried away by example, other unions unrelated to the docks
simultaneously tabled their own demands and went on strike.
And London, that great capital of monopolies, witnessed as many as 180
thousand people on strike, and impressive demonstrations by men with
gaunt faces, dressed in rags, whose severe glowering struck terror into
the souls of the bourgeoisie.
But there was more:
Workers employed in the gas plants offered to come out on strike. London
would have been left in darkness come nightfall and the homes of the
bourgeois would have been exposed to grave danger. The same offer was
made by the tram-drivers, the steelworkers, and the woodworkers.
In short, there was quite an upsurge in enthusiasm, a rapture of
solidarity, a reawakening of dignity that looked like bringing about a
general strike; with production, transport and public services brought
to a halt in a city of some 5 million inhabitants!
Other cities in England felt the impact of the example set, and more or
less large strikes were erupting here and there. At home and abroad, the
proletariat realized that the London workers were fighting in the common
cause, and extraordinary assistance flooded in from everywhere.
The strikers were to be admired for the steadfastness with which they
endured the harshest privations, and for the fortitude with which they
rejected any suggestion of compromise, for the intelligence they
displayed in anticipating what would be needed for the struggle, and for
the spirit of solidarity and sacrifice that prevailed in their ranks.
They strove to feed a population, women and children included, of
upwards of half a million people; to raise subscriptions and collections
across the city; to keep up with vast correspondence by letter and
telegram; to organize meetings, demonstrations, and talks; to keep an
eye out, put pen to paper, and stay alert lest the bosses successfully
trick English or foreign poor into blacklegging; to monitor all the
docks’ entrances to see if there were people going to work and how many.
All of this, stunningly well done by unsolicited volunteers.
There was one noteworthy incident: a shipload of ice arrived and a rumor
was rife that this ice was meant for the hospitals. The strikers raced
in such numbers to help unload it without a care for whether they would
be paid for the job or not. The sick—and especially the patients in the
hospitals—were not to suffer on account of the strike.
No doubt about it; such folk deserve to and are capable of looking after
their affairs for themselves and, if free, would be guided in their
labors by this care for the general good—something entirely absent from
the bourgeois system of production!
Those workers possessed a wide-ranging, often instinctive, cognisance of
their rights and their usefulness to society, and had the combative
mentality required to make a revolution; they felt a vague yearning for
more radical measures that might end their suffering once and for all,
and erase from production all the bosses and go-betweens who, though
they produce not a thing, claim the greater part of what is produced,
and turn work, which should be an obligation—something to glory in and
derive satisfaction from—into a hell of pain and a badge of inferiority.
The city was in uproar, provisions had largely been exhausted, many
factories had been closed down due to coal shortages or lack of raw
materials, and with the growth in discomfort, irritation was on the
rise. On the street corners, talk was beginning to turn to raiding the
wealthier districts.
A blast of social revolution was blowing down the streets of the great
city.
Unfortunately the masses are still imbued with the authority principle
and believe that they cannot and should not to do anything without
orders from above. And so it was that the strikers were swayed by a
committee of men who certainly deserve praise for the part that they had
played in the laying of the groundwork for the strike or for previous
services, but who were plainly not suited to the position into which
they had been hoisted by circumstances. Faced with a brand new situation
that had moved beyond anything they had aspired to and for which they
had no heart, they could not grapple with the responsibilities incumbent
upon them and drive things forward, and they did not have the modesty
and intelligence to stand aside and let the masses act. They began by
hobbling the strike with an anti-general strike demonstration, and
carried on doing all in their power to keep the peace and keep the
strike within the parameters of the law. Later, after the moment of
opportunity had passed, and weariness had begun to undermine the
enthusiasm, they pressed for what they had previously rejected and
issued a call for a general strike, only to retract it due to fresh
fears and pressures.
The city’s mayor and high clergy, who had been standing idly by, caring
nothing for the workers’ suffering, poured back into the city once they
saw that things were dragging out too long and that business was in
difficulty and facing ruination. Overcome as they were by tender
feelings for the dearly beloved good folk, they offered to mediate… And
after five weeks of heroic effort, the whole thing ended in a
compromise, in the wake of which the workers returned to work with the
promise that their demands would be met beginning on 4 November.
---
Behold how easily a revolution may come about and, alas! How easily the
opportunity can be allowed to slip away.
If only in London the general strike had been encouraged and allowed to
proceed, the situation would have become very problematic for the
bourgeoisie, and revolution would have quickly occurred to the people as
the simplest solution. Factories closed; railways, trams, buses,
carriages and cabs brought to a standstill; public services cut off;
food supplies suspended; nights spent without gaslight; hundreds of
thousands of workers on the streets—what a situation for a group of men,
had they but had a little grey matter and a modicum of gumption!
If only a little plain and clear-cut propaganda on behalf of violent
expropriation but been mounted beforehand; if some gangs of valiants had
set about seizing and handing out foodstuffs, clothing, and the other
useful items with which the warehouses were so packed and of which
proletarians were in such dire need; if only other groups or isolated
individuals had forced or tricked their way into the banks and other
government offices in order to set them alight, and others had entered
the homes of the gentry and billeted the people’s wives and children
there; and if others had only given their just deserts to the most
grasping bourgeois and others put out of action government leaders and
any who, in time of crisis, might take their places, the police
commanders, the generals and all the upper echelons of the army, taken
by surprise in their beds or as they set foot outside their homes: in
short, if only there had been a few thousand determined revolutionaries
in London, which is so huge, then today the vast metropolis—and with it,
England, Scotland, and Ireland—would be facing into revolution.
And such things, so very problematic and almost impossible to pull off—
should they be put in readiness and prepared by some central
committee—turn instead into the easiest thing in the world if
revolutionaries, agreed on their aims and methods, act together with
their comrades to push things in the direction they think best when the
opportunity comes along, rather than waiting for anybody’s opinions or
orders.
There are more than enough people of courage, men of determination, in
every city and town. If nothing else, the high crime rate would suggest
as much; it is very often nothing but the unruly eruption of penned-up
energies that can find no useful outlet in the present state of affairs.
What is missing is the propaganda: when someone has a clear picture in
his mind of the goal to be achieved and the means leading to it, he will
act unsolicited and in the confidence that he is doing good and will
feel no fear and no craven hesitancy.
---
Let us own up to having made mistakes:
Back in the days when anarchist ideas were starting to gain ground
within the International, two schools of thought regarding the strike
were extant among the proletariat. Some, who did not subscribe to any
broad ideals of wholesale emancipation and social change, reckoned that
the strike was the best means available to the working man in bettering
his circumstances and they reckoned that this, plus the cooperative,
ought to be the last word as far as the workers’ movement goes.
The others, the authoritarian socialists, grasped and spelled out
plainly that the strike was an economic nonsense and that it was
powerless to bring any lasting improvement, let alone emancipate the
proletariat; but they conceded that it is a fine weapon of propaganda
and agitation, made frequent use of it and advocated the general strike
as a means of starving the bourgeoisie out and forcing them to
surrender. The only thing was that, by virtue of their being
authoritarians, they imagined that a general strike could be organized
in advance to break out on a specified date scheduled on the agenda of
some central committee, once the majority of workers had joined the
ranks of the International, and bourgeois exploitation brought to a
pretty much peaceful end.
We anarchists, sandwiched between the bourgeois prejudices of one
faction and the authoritarian utopianism of the other, were ourselves
perhaps somewhat imbued with the old Jacobin mentality that paid small
heed to the actions of the masses and thought the latter might be
emancipated using the very same methods employed to enslave them, and we
were quick to criticize the strike as an economic weapon and failed to
give it its due as an index of moral rebellion. Gradually we surrendered
the entire labor movement into the hands of reactionaries and moderates.
We, who mean to engage with any insurrection, no matter how small, we
who will feel ashamed if, once the barricades begin to go up somewhere,
we do not do all in our power to echo the upheaval or rush to fill the
breech, have witnessed tens of thousands of men turning their shields
against capital, seen the struggle grow more embittered and taking
revolutionary turns… and we have stood idly by, leaving the field open
to that class of self-styled revolutionaries who show up primarily to
preach restraint and tranquillity and turn everything into an
opportunity for them to put forward a candidate.
It is high time we re-examined ourselves. We are certainly not swearing
off other means of action at our disposal or that might suit us—but
above all else, let us get back among the people.
The masses are led to big demands by way of small requests and small
revolts: let us blend with them and spur them forwards. Right across
Europe, minds are at present inclined to big strikes by agricultural or
industrial workers, strikes that involve vast areas and unions galore.
Well, then, let us spark and let us organize as many strikes as we can;
let us see to it that the strike becomes a contagion and that, once one
erupts, it spreads to ten or a hundred different trades in ten or a
hundred towns.
But let every strike carry its revolutionary message: let every strike
summon up men of vigor to chastize the bosses and, above all, to commit
trespasses against property and thus show the strikers how much easier
it is to take than to ask.
A revolution that grows out of a huge proliferation of strikes would
have the merit of finding the question already posed in economic terms
and would more securely lead to the comprehensive emancipation of
humanity.
The tactics we propose will bring us into direct and unbroken contact
with the masses, will provide us with a bridgehead for importing and
spreading our propaganda everywhere, and will allow us to set those
examples and carry out that propaganda by deeds, which we are forever
preaching but so rarely practise, not because of any lack of
determination or courage, but for want of opportunity.
So let us be off in search of such opportunities.
[1] Malatesta is referring to what has come to be known as the Great
Dock Strike, which took place in London from 14 August to 16 September
1889. This is generally acknowledged as the start of British “new
unionism,” which differed from the older craft unionism for its effort
to achieve a broad base of unskilled and semi-skilled workers and its
focus on industrial action. There is evidence that Malatesta, recently
returned from South America, was in London at the time, before moving to
Nice to edit L’Associazione. Therefore he was a direct witness of the
strike.