BRITISH EMPIRE DEFENCE.

Manawatu Herald, Volume XLVIII, Issue 3524, 14 August 1926, Page 4

BRITISH EMPIRE DEFENCE.

THE NEED FOR VIGILANCE

Our subject is neither military nor naval defence. There is need for vigilance in other directions. But recently the Motherland passed through a nine days general strike. Though not intended as such, save by the Communist Revolutionists, it was a challenge to the constitution of Great Britain.

Much has been written of the wonderful 'calmness of the British people under the big strain. The period has been described as “the nine days wonder.” Poeple of the Continent were mystified by the remarkable coolness and sangfroid displayed by John Bull. Americans were interested in discovering that their British cousins exhibited a sense of humour under circumstances that come perilously near bieng tragic. The grim humour of Mark Tapley, who, when things were at their worst and he was speechless, wrote the word “jolly,” is, no doubt, a striking feature of the British character.

The strike had its humour such as the sign which was displayed on an Omnibus with all its glass gone. “I have no pane now dear mother.” Yet, how deadly serious were the issues at stake in this struggle. We can imagine the saner men and women who were involved in this strike saying when it was over —“Thank God we did not win.” What it would have meant not only to Britain, but to the Empire, indeed to the whole world, if the general strike had been successful, and Constitutional Government brought to its knees, is startling to think of. The most serious aspect of this conflict remains when we consider the possibility of a repititon of the madness. THE NEXT TIME. If anyone should hold the opinion that th_e danger of another general strike is very remote he will find that it is not shared by those who were largely responsible for the last one. “When the general strike was called off,” Mr. Maxton told us, “it was not the end, it was only the close of the first round.” The same idae is to be found in the current issue of the “Labour Monthly.” “This conflict,” it says, “has proved the first great mass struggle between the united working-class and the ruling class since the days of Chartism, and the opening of a new revolutionary era in Britain. The Bourgeoisie believe that by their victory revolution is henceforth killed Jn this country. They fail to see that the exact opposite is the case, and that the events of the past month are the greatest mass-revolutionary lesson in British history.”

Mr. A. A. Purcell, M.P., a member of the Central Council of the T.U.C. which called the strike, expresses the same idea still more vigorously: “An inexorable urge is going to create the conditions for other and more formidable General Strikes. The workers of Britain have learnt to light as a class, and that in itself is the greatest advance they have made in this country.”

Mr. Hicks, a colleague on the General Council, and a fellowmember (honorary) of the Moscow Soviet, writes in the same same strain:

“Parliamentary action alone is futile. . . . The general strike has not failed as the most potent weapon in the worker’s armoury.” These arc warnings which must not be ignored. It is certain that far from dropping the idea of the general strike the militant forces of the Labour movement are laying their plans for the next effort.” BY RED ORDERS. Since the general strike the executive of the Communist International has been busy drawing its conclusions and planning a new and more resolute campaign for the future, revolutionising of the proletarian masses of Great Britain. Britain.

Such is the importance attached to the Executive’s ‘Thesis on the Lessons of the English General Strike” that ten columns of “Isvestia,” the official Soviet organ, are devoted to a summary of the position which is hailed as “the chronic 'crisis of British capitalism.”

Tracing this crisis, the “Thesis” savs:

“The general move to the left of Labour as a whole .... the appearance of factory 'committees and committees of action, the formation of the Communist Party, the campaign of a reapproachment with the U.S.S.R. the formation, under pressure of the masses, of the AngloRussian 'committee, the general strike and the present coal strikeall these are but links in the chain. A BISHOP’S WARNING.

“The Bishop of Durham utters a warning in the “Times” to those who believe that we need not fear in the future any renewal of the challenge to the state delivered by the Trades Union Congress in the recent general strike. Anyone who believes that, says the. Bishop, is living in a fool’s paradise. Those who are in touch with the new spirit of the Labour movement know only too well that, as Mr. Maxton said, the General strike in May was only the first round in a fight that would not end until the present system had been destroyed and a Socialist regime established in its place. The result of the “first round” was due to a number of circumstances upon which we cannot depend when the next round comes to be fought. There was a Government in power, backed by a great majority in Parliament, which was

determined to resist the challenge flung at it. There was ample time for making preparation to meet all contingencies. The time of the year was propitious and the Trade Unions were not unanimous or wholehearted in entering on their fateful campaign.

“But suppose that a Labour Government had been in power, that the Trade Unions had been led wholly, instead of in part, by men whose objects were revolutionary, that the strike had been called suddenly and without warning, and that the Government were not prepared to do its duty by the nation, but favoured the pretensions of a class, what would the consequence have been?

“When the next round -comes the circumstances may all be favourable to the success of the General Strike. That is the possibility which we must realise and take measure accordingly. Strikes for political objects called at short or no notice must be made impossible. (-Contributed by the New Zealand Welfare League).