Out of the Shadow of Bevin and Mann: A.A. Purcell and the General Strike that Did Not Happen

In the fifteen years before the British General Strike of 1926, the idea of a general strike had become familiar in labour movement circles. The connection between these earlier uses of the concept and the solidarity action of 1926 have not been closely scrutinized. One result of this is that the different possible options for a solidarity stoppage have not sufficiently registered; ‘the’ general strike as it actually happened immediately became its own definition. This article considers the theory and practice of the general strike in respect of its four most obvious variables, namely composition, object, duration, and leadership. It does so through three individuals centrally involved in these issues of theory and practice in Britain: Tom Mann (1856–1941), Ernest Bevin (1881–1951) and A.A. Purcell (1872–1935). It notes that both direct-actionists like Mann and the transport unions principally involved in solidarity actions had a preference for shorter but more immediately impactful actions than the one actually undertaken. It was Bevin who pushed this through; it is an open question whether this was the most effective available depending on what the strike was intended to achieve.