06.06.1996

Understand history: don’t repeat it

“Invalidating” the membership of those deemed to be “breaching the democracy” of the SLP seems to be an NEC code word for an anti-communist witch hunt. There are important lessons from the 1920s

In his brave and outspoken response to Blair’s victory at the October 1995 Labour Party conference comrade Arthur Scargill pinpointed the role and logic of anti-communism. With great effect he located the origins of Blairism in the 1920s and Ramsay MacDonald, Philip Snowden, Arthur Henderson et al and the politics of anti-communism. Such ‘modernisers’ were “responsible for expelling the Communist Party from affiliation and introducing the bans and proscriptions which were prevalent in the 30s and later during the Cold War period of the 50s” (A Scargill Future strategy for the left, November 1995, p2).

The decision by the May 18 meeting of the Socialist Labour Party’s National Executive Committee to invalidate the membership of suspected communists is therefore more than ironic. In different conditions history is in danger of repeating itself. My article this week is a small, but heartfelt contribution to the fight to ensure that it does not. The SLP must not go down the path of anti-communism. In due course that way ends in class collaboration and eventually counterrevolution.

Those who have studied Labour-communist relations in detail will know that comrade Scargill’s histiography is somewhat off the mark. His message was right. But the facts need correcting. In so doing the lessons for today will become all too apparent for those who are willing to think things through.

The precursor of the Communist Party of Great Britain, the Social Democratic Federation, was among the original constituents of the Labour Representation Committee in 1900 (renamed the Labour Party in 1906). The SDF had a reserved seat on its nine-strong executive. Not least because of the sectarian leadership of Henry Hyndman, the SDF walked away from the LRC. It refused to commit itself to the SDF’s abstract version of socialism.

The SDF became the Social Democratic Party in 1908 and three years later, broadened through fusion, the British Socialist Party. After heated debate the BSP decided in 1914 to affiliate to the Labour Party. In 1916 it was finally accepted. The BSP was the principle initiator and component of the CPGB which was finally formed over the weekend of July 31-August 1 1920.

The CPGB’s 1st Congress narrowly voted to affiliate to the Labour Party. Many comrades, including those serving as Labour councillors, were disgusted by its record during World War I and wanted nothing more to do with it. Nevertheless the Labour Party contained within it an important layer of class conscious militants and a large section of the working class had socialist illusions in its leadership. MacDonald, its most able and prominent leader, said he would do the same as the Bolsheviks. Only he would use peaceful, parliamentary methods, not violence, to achieve his ends.

At the time there was no constitutional reason preventing the affiliation of the CPGB. But for MacDonald, Henderson, Snowden, etc, there was an overriding political reason. Inside the Labour Party the communists would be a major obstacle to their so-called parliamentary road to socialism. The establishment would not look kindly upon the Labour Party if it contained communists within its ranks. From the moment it was formed the CPGB was hated, slandered and reviled by the capitalist class and its media. Labour had to prove it could be trusted. Success in rooting out the communists would be the litmus test - I am reminded of the barbed advice Matthew Engel offered the SLP leadership following our May 4 conference. If you ever want to be taken seriously, get rid of your “loonies”, he half-mockingly suggested (The Guardian May 6 1996).

CPGB affiliation and the right of communists to maintain their individual membership of the Labour Party therefore concerned the very nature of the working class. Was the working class going to liberate itself and humanity through socialism and its own revolutionary self-movement? Or was socialism to be merely another name for reform within the system of wage slavery and commodity production?

The CPGB applied for affiliation immediately after it was formed. The Labour Party NEC flatly turned it down. The aims and objects of the CPGB were not in accord with the constitution and principles of the Labour Party, wrote back Henderson. The CPGB’s Provisional Executive Committee replied that “it understood the Labour Party ... could admit into its ranks all sections of the working class movement that accept the broad principle of independent working class political action”, and at the “same time granting them freedom to propagate their own particular views” (Report of 21st annual conference of the Labour Party, Brighton 1921, p20).

Labour’s annual conference in 1921 saw the first big set-piece debate on communist affiliation. Amongst those supporting affiliation were AJ Cook and Herbert Smith of the Miners’ Federation and Robert Williams of the Transport Workers’ Federation. Against them Emmanuel Shinwell and Henderson. On behalf of the miners AJ Cook argued that that the communists had a rightful place within the party. “If there was no left wing in the movement - god help the movement!” Henderson in turn accused the CPGB of harbouring “disruptive aims”. Due to the trade union blocs ranged against them, the right avoided a direct vote. Suffice to say, CPGB affiliation was overwhelmingly rejected using a technical device.

Another CPGB application swiftly followed in June 1921. Again the communists were spurned. However a proposal for talks was agreed. These eventually took place at the end of December 1921. William Gallagher, Tom Bell, Arthur MacManus and FH Peet represented the CPGB. Henderson, FW Jowett, RJ Davis, George Lansbury and Sydney Webb the Labour Party.

Henderson cleverly tried to divert the discussion from communist affiliation to parliamentary democracy versus “soviet dictatorship”. Like some of our SLP leaders he wanted to avoid the central issue of why, given the federal character of the Labour Party, the CPGB should not be allowed to affiliate. Given that sections, trade unions and socialist groupings and societies with different and often competing platforms were accepted, why should the CPGB be kept out? Affiliation would strengthen the unity of the working class. The capitalist class would be the only gainer from anti-communism, said the CPGB.

One positive result of the talks was the agreement by the Labour Party representatives to submit a questionnaire to the communists. Submitted at the beginning of 1922 the CPGB gave its considered answers in mid-May. There were four questions:

1. Was the policy of the Communist Party not incompatible with the objects of the Labour Party - namely, the “political, social and economic emancipation of the people by means of parliamentary democracy”? To this the communists stated that they were in perfect agreement with the aims of the Labour Party enshrined in clause four of its constitution. Of course, the communists had their own views about what methods were needed if it was to be achieved. The CPGB supported the idea of workers’ councils, and while it stood for participation in parliamentary elections, such activity alone could not lead to the realisation of socialism.

2. Was the CPGB’s policy consistent with the Labour Party’s “fundamental principle” of using “lawful means”? To this the communists replied that there was nothing in the Labour Party’s constitution saying it would never under any circumstances take extra-legal action. “The circumstances” must and will “determine” the forms of agitation. The CPGB cited the Independent Labour Party - the largest political affiliate. In March 1917 its executive went along with the call for workers’ and soldiers’ soviets (ie, councils). In 1920 the ILP advised workers to stage a general strike against any British intervention against Soviet Russia. Should the ILP be expelled? Or was the argument of the Labour Party only to be used against the communists?

3. Was the CPGB’s strict control over its members of parliament not incompatible with the attitude of the Labour Party? Once again, replied the Communist Party, the Labour Party is trying to single out communists for special treatment. The constitution of the ILP stated that its candidates must run their election campaign in accordance with the principles of the ILP. Why should the CPGB not enjoy the same rights over its members as the ILP?

4. Would the CPGB be loyal to the Labour Party? The CPGB relied that it only wanted the same rights that were given to and exercised by other affiliates, including the right to criticise policies and seek to change them. Given such rights, the communists would abide by the constitution of the Labour Party.

The Labour Party NEC considered the CPGB’s reply in May 1922. It decided to recommend no change in the previous policy. The Labour Party conference of that year in Edinburgh again defeated the move to accept communist affiliation. The union block vote killed the motion stone dead, 3,086,000 votes to 261,000. The conference also adopted a new rule moved by Henderson - here was the political source of the ‘you cannot play for two teams’ formulation.

Delegates to the Labour Party at every level must accept its constitution and principles. No one would be eligible who belonged to another organisation “having as one of its objectives the return to parliament or to any local government authority of a candidate or candidates other than such as have been approved as running in association with the Labour Party”. The right wing wanted to bar those individual communists who were members of the Labour Party and those communists who had been elected by their trade unions to represent them as delegates to Labour Party conferences, local and national.

The capitalist offensive that followed and the outstanding part played by the CPGB in resisting the attack on workers’ wages and conditions caused many Labour Party members to rally round the idea of workers’ unity. More and more Labour Party constituency organisations began to pass resolutions demanding the repeal of the Edinburgh amendment. Showing their defiance and militant spirit, they broke the Labour Party’s formal rules and elected well known communists to leading positions and to conferences. Thirty-eight communists were elected to the 1923 Labour Party conference despite all attempts at prohibition (Workers’ Weekly June 30 1923).

The right staged a conspicuous, but well ordered retreat. In the face of the militant surge amongst the rank and file Henderson himself moved the deletion of the Edinburgh eligibility clause. It created anomalies and was difficult to administer, he maintained. Union secretaries were more blunt. Their members, whether communists or not, had the right to be elected delegates to a federal party of the working class.

The CPGB failed in its struggle to gain affiliation. It had though for the moment fought off the rightwing attempt to exclude its members from the Labour Party as individuals. This victory was gained, as with all battles against reformism, not by words alone. Experience taught the rank and file that the communists were to be trusted, that they were the most consistent fighters against capitalism.

The right was quick to hit back. With the capitalist press urging them on, they were determined to “oust the communists”. That was the height of their ambition. The 1924 conference agreed to ban communists as Labour candidates and by a slim majority, communists were declared again to be ineligible for membership. The conference in 1925 met in a frenzy of anti-communism. Though the Tory government was preparing to face off the TUC general strike in order to smash the militant working class and the miners, the Liverpool conference confirmed the stipulations against the communists.

With a few honourable exceptions the left outside the Communist Party remained silent. Fear ruled. As ever there were conciliators who put keeping their party cards above principle. The witch hunt was perversely blamed on the victims, the communists themselves. The CPGB had after all been merciless on the short-lived MacDonald government of 1924. In what some on the conciliationist left regarded as political blasphemy, the communists had openly told the truth and branded it a “servant of the bourgeoisie” (Workers’ Weekly April 25 1924). For conciliationists all such criticism should be kept within the movement, kept private ... where it could be tolerated because it would do the leadership no harm.

From the moment of its foundation the CPGB was singled out for attack. Not only by the capitalist class but those in the workers’ movement who look to use the capitalist state. It was no accident that the most fervent anti-communists ended up betraying the working class. MacDonald himself famously became prime minister in the Tory-dominated national government. As the CPGB leader, Harry Pollitt, wrote in his autobiography, “The Liverpool conference contained the germ of the abject sell-out of 1931” (H Pollitt Serving my time, London 1940, p210).

The working class needs unity. It needs the unrestricted right to criticise what is wrong. Reformists need disunity. Let us learn the lesson now.

SL Kenning