The period after the first world war was a volatile time in Britain’s labour market. Journalist Kingsley Martin wrote in 1966: “The only time in my life when revolution in Britain seemed likely was in 1919.” At that time, Britain’s working class was in the ascendancy: it was indignant, organised and willing to take action. Union membership, which numbered 2.6 million in 1910, had more than tripled to nearly 8 million by 1919.

Groups taking industrial action between 1917 and 1919 included miners, railway and transport workers, engineers, bakers, cotton spinners and munitions workers. In a move that alarmed the government, the police also decided to go on strike in the summer of 1918, leading the prime minister, David Lloyd George, to sanction any action necessary, “however grave”, to quell the mutiny of the “Guardians of Order”. By 1920, unions had secured a series of victories for workers, including 40-hour weeks, wage increases, the prevention of pay cuts and better working conditions.

In her farewell speech to the NUT conference this week, the general secretary, Christine Blower, raised the possibility of coordinated action between teachers and junior doctors. Of course, such a move couldn’t be realistically compared with 1919 – for one thing, modern trade union laws prevent different unions taking solidarity action together. What Blower is actually proposing is that both unions arrange to hold two separate strikes “coincidentally” on the same day.

More important though, the contemporary British working class has been significantly enfeebled by global neoliberalism, which has meant atomised workplaces, suffocating trade union legislation, a supine political class, and the notion that capitalism has won the ideological battle (remember that the working class of 1919 had the October revolution to inspire it). A coordinated strike between teachers and doctors in 2016 is a drop in the ocean compared with the unrest that has come before.

When the employer retracts their half of the bargain, the worker must do the same. It is the only tool they have

But 1919 is still instructive because it reminds us that under capitalism, collective action by workers has the ability to fundamentally change society. And it does this by redressing the power balance between workers and their employers. There is a contract all workers and employers enter into: the worker gives his or her skills and labour, and in return the employer gives a salary and decent working conditions. When the employer retracts his or her half of the bargain, the worker must do the same. This retraction is the only tool workers have in order to force employers to honour their commitments.

But it’s not just about individual examples of industrial action. The employer-employee relationship is essential to the functioning of a capitalist society as a whole – and workers have the collective ability to reshape the economy way beyond their particular working conditions. Or as Trotsky breathlessly put it: “If carried through to the end, the general strike brings the revolutionary class up against the task of organising a new state power.”

Teachers and doctors are now considering tapping into this collective power, not because they want to bring about a Bolshevik revolution but because they have been driven to an extreme act by a government that is utterly intransigent.

Jeremy Hunt has already promised to “impose” a new contract on junior doctors, despite the profession being almost totally opposed to it. Similarly, the government has announced it will make every school in the UK an academy, despite the consistent opposition of the teaching profession. Once an employer (the government in this case) has made its final stance on a dispute clear, workers can choose to accept that or stand up to it. And if they stand up to it, going on strike is the only option they have. Collective strike action between teachers and doctors is not a radical act, but a rational one – given that it is clear that the government has the power to override their objections without it.

This is why public opinion cannot be the only factor unions take into consideration when deciding to go on strike. If this action goes ahead, it will cause significant disruption – a fact that will be used to sour the public mood against the strikers. In a parliamentary democracy, public opinion is a form of power – and it is useful for unions to have it on their side. But the dominant issue in a strike is industrial power, and many strikes have been won without the backing of the public (consider London’s tube drivers, for example). On the other hand, the government may find itself on the wrong side of public opinion this time: it’s difficult to be a functioning member of society without giving teachers and doctors some degree of trust.

Industrial unrest is usually a symptom of a dysfunctional workplace. The wider issue here is the relationship breakdown between public sector workers and the government. It’s simply unrealistic to blame that on the workers themselves – they don’t have the resources or inclination to spontaneously attack an employer. Would you wake up one morning and pick a fight with your boss for no reason? What we’re left with is the conclusion that this government undervalues and mistreats people working in the sectors that keep us educated, cared for and alive.

If teachers and doctors strike together, it will not just be a significant moment in British industrial relations, but a necessary one. And the outcome will affect us all.