The Russian Revolution and the British working class

On at least two occasions in the period 1917 to 1920 the Russian Revolution inspired British workers to form workers' committees as organs to defend their conditions and overthrow the capitalist order. This series by Alan Clinton änd George Myers (reprinted from 'Fourth International, November 1967) examines the building of these committees, the 1917 'Councils of Workmen's and Soldiers' Delegates' and the 'Councils of 'At the present moment in had been overthrown, rushing Action' in 1920. don Regional Conference were 18 from Trade Union Executives, 41 from Trades Councils, 162 from Trade Union branches and three from Local Workers' and Soldiers' CounCils. The Conference was broken up by a collection of army officers from Canada and Australia, who said they were acting under orders from their superiors, with the aid of all those 'patriots' who could be enlisted from the local public houses. This caused 'the worst wrote, 'great hopes were held of the work to be accomplished by the committees set up all over the country. Unfortunately this very promising organization has apparently expended all its vitality in the issuing of a few political manifestoes.* Despite this failure to understand what had happened, the events of the Leeds Convention helped the development of the BSP away from a position where it had sought amalgamation with the ILP to-

history ... it is the Russian to meet one another in the model that reveals to all streets with tears streaming countries something — and down their cheeks, shaking something highly significant— hands and saying: "At last it of their near and inevitable has happened" ... the revolufuture.' Lenin in 1920' tion of 1917 came to the I remember so well what happened when the Russian Revolution occurred. I remember the miners when they heard that the Tsarist tyranny The overthrow of reactionary Tsardom in Russia, the seizure of power by the proletariat and the setting up of the first Soviet Socialist Republic showed the work. ing class of the world, and especially its revolutionary vanguard, that workers' power could be taken, and kept.

It thus altered the nature and perspective of workers' struggle everywhere. The effect of the Revolution in 1917 was literally worldshattering, and in Britain, as in other countries, the working class and the revolutionary movement underwent complex changes in organization, theories and methods of struggle. The theoretical development of the revolutionary groups, the response of the bureaucracy and other aspects of the many-sided impact of the Revolution require separate treatment in subsequent articles. Here two particularly important episodes in the history of the British working class in the post-revolutionary years have been selected for attention.

Lenin described the soviets as amongst the greatest contributions made by the Russian Revolution to the international working class. From the Paris Commune of 1871 to the Hungarian rising of 1956, all-inclusive local workers' committees have been a vital weapon in the proletarian struggle to defend its conditions, and to overthrow the capitalist order., In Britain such workers' committees have never reached the advanced stage of development attained elsewhere. However, on two occasions at least in the period 1917-1920 workers' committees did spring up in Britain. The Councils of working class of Great Britain not as a disaster, but as one of the most emancipating events in the history of mankind.' Aneurin Bevan in 1951?

Workmen's and Soldiers' Delegates in 1917 and the Councils of Action in 1920 were inseparably linked with the defence of the Russian Revolution by thousands and millions of British workers. It was a real proletarian internationalism which brought into existence institutions which could have heralded the beginning of a British revoluThe complex reasons for the failure of revolutionary possibilities in Britain in this period to mature can be seen in these events. The craven betrayals of the right wing in supporting their 'own' bourgeoisie in 1914, in joining the government and in surrendering trade-union rights are well known. The first Imperialist War could only have been carried on with the compliance of the Hendersons and the Thomases. Less often realized is the role of the centrists, such as MacDonald and Smillie, who talked of opposition to the war, but cooperated in the government's schemes for enlistment, and for the direction and control of labour. These men were in at the beginning of every revolutionary. development to smother it and hand it over to the bourgeoisie. The role of revolutionaries, and especially of the British Socialist Party (RSP) was of central imnortance but of limited impact. Their theoretical backwardness, their idealist attitude to tor tier over leade unrhero ctrangloc their failure to fight for their own leadership, these meant they could not bring forward to a higher plane the revolutionary possibilities that existed in the period.

were demonstrations and meetings of support in Britain. The first demonstration took place on March 24, within days of the news arriving. 7,000 people attended a meeting at the Memorial Hall, Mile End Road, sponsored by Russian refugee groups with the support of the BSP, and the Women's Socialist Federation (WSF). 'During the whole meeting again and again outbursts of boundless enthusiasm filled the immense hall with 1,000 demonstrators in Glasiw called for 'the overthrow capitalism and the estabihment of a co-operative immonwealth as the only lution to poverty and unnployment'. Thousands in anchester cheered and plauded Robert Williams, ader of the Transport 'orkers' Federation, when he id that revolutions like larity begin at home'. In verpool 150 Russian sailors aded the demonstration and ceived a tumultuous recepon at the meeting afterwards.

London nearly 50,000 arched in solidarity with the volution, against conscripon, for votes for all and for ¡ immediate peace."

Earlv in Mav a Convention international peace based upon working class solidarity.® When the convention assembled on June 3 there were 1,150 delegates and 2,000 visitors. Motions were passed saluting the Russian Revolution, calling for 'a peace without annexations or indemnities' , and demanding a complete restoration of civil liberties 'in accord with the democracy of Russia'. The mood of the Conference can be judged from this quotation from the report, issued later by the Council of Workmen's and Soldiers' Delegates, of Robert Williams' speech: 'We want to break the influence of the industrial and political labour "machine"-(cheers)— and this Convention is our Workmen's and Soldiers' Delegates for initiating and coordinating of working class activity in support of the policies set out in the foregoing resolution (i.e. on civil liberties) and to work strenuously for a peace made by the peoples of the countries and for the complete political and economic emancipation of international labour'. These Councils were to defend trade unionism, fight war profiteering, and cater for the interests of soldiers and their dependents. Finally, it was agreed that 'the Convenors of this Conference be appointed a provisional committee, whose duties shall be to assist the formation of local Workmen's ands Soldiers' Councils and

AS soon as the February revolution broke out there lending applause and shouts.' le meeting also indicated its ews on the further developent of the revolution when it ‹pressed its conviction that ose who have at heart the use of the workers and of the labouring masses in LAs assia must rally around the ›uncil of Workers' and ›ldiers' Delegates for the cracefil arhievement of the LLESSLUI ALHICYCHICHL VA LIC ork of the revolution in the epublic of Russia'.

There were many more eetings in the weeks that llowed. For instance, over e weekend of March 31 to pril 1 over 20,000 people pressed their solidarity with e revolution in meetings at e Albert Hall. On May Day was summoned at Leeds to commemorate the revolution. This was called by the United Socialist Council, a body formed in 1913 by the BSP and the Independent Labour Party (ILP) after they had failed to amalgamate on the instruction of the International Socialist Bureau. On May 11 it issued a leaflet entitled Riccia' which L'UHUW Mussia. . scribed the purpose of the Conference as 'to ascertain and pronounce upon the opinions of the working class of this country regarding the developments which have taken place, and are taking place in Russia, so that events would receive 'sympathetic response' making possible 'a real audi riot London has seen for years' according to one eye-witness, a riot which was carried on with no interference from the 200 policemen present. The South Wales Conference in Swansea on the same day with 125 Trade Union Branch Delegates and 26 from Trade Councils met with a similar fate, as did the Newcastle meeting." The Glasgow Conference, planned for August I1, at which E. C. Fairchild, of the BSP, and Ramsay MacDonald of the ILP were to speak, was banned by the Secretary of State for Scotland on August 10 because 'grave disorder' was expected. Within 24 hours the Glasgow Trades Council organized a protest demonstration of more than Plane re abo and By the Conferences Home Secretary. Conferences were, however, held in other cities. In Portsmouth a meeting was addressed by Mrs Despard, and at Bristol 100 organizations were represented including seven Trades Councils and 37 Trade Union branches. Further meetings were held in Leicester, in Norwich, where 10,000 workers were represented, and in Manchester, where the 226 delegates scotched the efforts of another group of army officers to break up the meeting." wards one of opposition centrism and opportunism. The Leeds Convention also gave enormous impetus to the shop stewards movement. Many of the leading shop stewards were at Leeds, including Gallagher and MacManus from the Clyde, Murphy from Shefheld and Peet from Manchester. They reacted to the establishment of Soviets with enthusiasm. They identified them, however, with their own syndicalist perspectives, reflecting the view of the Socialist Labour Party (SLP) that the Soviets were in the nature of the Clyde Workers' Committee'" Unlike such sectional workers' committees, however, the Soviets were all-inclusive class organizations. Despite this lack of understanding it was clear that the shop stewards movement gained much encouragement from the Russian example and through it decided to set up a national movement. As J. T. Murphy later expressed it, the shop stewards felt their kinship with soviets'."

Two months after the Leeds Convention the shop stewards made their first attempt establish a national organization at their conference Manchester. The constitution they established, however, reflected the anti-leadership theories prevalent in the move-

attempt so to do. ... We are competent to speak in the name of our own class, and damn the Constitution. (Loud cheers.) ... If you are really sincere in sending greetings to Russia I say to you: "Go thou and do likewise" (cheers).' ALALNTTAUN Philip Snowden was rather put off by this enthusiasm. 'I had repeatedly to appeal to the delegates against annlance as инбано абашоь appiause as tending to waste of time, he said afterwards.® The most significant event of the conference was the passing of a resolution which called upon the trades coun cils, trade unions and political bodies represented 'at once to support in every town, urban, and rural district, Councils of generally to give effect to the policy determined by this conference.' The failure of the Convention to produce many concrete results has often been asserted. We hope to show, however, that the conference was not devoid of results. The reasons for the failure to achieve more were present at the Convention itself. The proceedings were dominated by the ILP. The ILP represented the basic political section of the Labour Party in the period before its reorganization in 1918. Because of its verbal opposition to the policies of the right wing; the ILP attracted into its ranks many working class militants. The leadership of the Pention of leading any tonge against the right wing. Whilst willing to indulge in left speeches at Leeds men such as MacDonald, Henderson and Snowden were capable only of being servants to the right wing. Snowden, who spoke at Leeds for 'a peace without annexations or indemnities' and supported all the other resolutions, explained later his real hostility to what had happened. 'It may be, I do not rule it out of theoretical consideration, that Workers' and Soldiers' Councils or Soviets may come to Britain but I am for Socialism coming through parliament and no other way." It is not just a matter, as Pabloite Ken Coates argues. May Day 1917—above: celebra tions in Moscow. Similar demonstrations in solidarity with Russian workers took place all over Europe. 70,000 demonstrated in Glasgow, Russian sailors led marchers in Liverpool while in London 50,000 workers took to the streets 'that the Parliamentarians were caught off balance.' They fulfilled a definite role in riding the tiger only to kill it. As early as July 5 the ILP leaders warned against the danger that local councils might become rival organizations to the ILP branches rather than means of cooperating between existing political groups." This was despite such statements as that of Tom Qulech, a member of the Provisional Committee, who said that 'some of the older bodies ... would be nervous lest their functions are being infringed upon-and no effort must be spared to convince them that the Workmen's and Soldiers' Councils are bodies whose purpose it is to strengthen and coalesce all tions »Working-class organizaThe Provisional Committee arranged a series of regional conferences in late July and early August. Amongst the functions of these was the establishment of Local Workers' and Soldiers' Councils to campaign on the policies of the Convention.13 Included in the 441 delegates to the LonFrom the regional conferences a national committee was elected and a list of objects drawn up which emphasized, the policies already agreed. It set forward the aims of the Council as: 'The consolidation of the efforts of all working class organizations to obtain an ever-increasing share in the wealth produced by the labour of hand and brain together with control over industry. 8 After mid-August the Councils were ignored by the ILP, and the Labour Party leaders actively opposed them. On July 18 the Labour Party National Executive stated that 'it has nothing to do with the Leeds Convention, and that in our opinion no local organization affiliated to the Party ought to convene Conferences which are not in harmony with the general policy of the Party as laid down at its Annual Conferences.'9 Against this, the BSP campaigned vigorously for the decisions of Leeds. Before the Convention itself, the Party set out a correct perspective for its work: 'After the Leeds Conference ... comes the task of setting the whole working-class movement deliberately and determinedly on the path so splendidly laid down by our Russian comrades the workers •.. will gladly cooperate in forming the Workmen's and Soldiers' Councils but the initiatory work, the organizing and the leading must be done by the Social-Democrats. ... (The Councils) will soon become strong enough to dominate the towns and districts and determine their future' However, the BSP's failure to understand the role of the centrist leaders of the ILP meant that it never analysed or fought against them. At the end of the year Willie Gallagher, a member of the BSP, voiced the bemusement of the party at the limited results of the Convention. 'When the Leeds Conference was convened', he ment and gave no executive powers to any of its ruling committees" The impact of Leeds nevertheless produced an important change in the shop stewards movement. Its support for the soviets rapidly developed towards an identification with Bolshevism and the effect of the October revolution was to lay the basis for the movement to become the industrial wing of the CONTINUED TOMORROW 1 In Left Wing Communism, An Infantile Disorder (Collected Works, London, 1966, Vol. 31), p. 22. 2. Labour Party, Report of the Fiftieth Annual Conference (1951), p. 121. 3 Woman's Dreadnaught, March 31, 1917; the Herald, March 31, 1917. 4 Labour Leader, April 5, 1917; the Herald, April 7, 1917; R. Postgate, Life of George Lansbury (1951), pp. 165-169. 5 Labour Leader, May 10, 1917. 6 P. Snowden, An Autobiography (1934), Volume I, pp. 449-452. 7 Council of Workmen's and Soldiers' Delegates, What Happened at Leeds (1917); J. T. Murphy, Labour's Big Three (1948), p. 47. 8 P. Snowden, op. cit., p. 445. 9 J. I. Murphy, New Horizons (1941), p. 62. 10 See his introduction to What Happened at Leeds in Archives in Trade Union History and Theory, Series I. No. 4. p. ili. I1 Editorial in Labour Leader. 12 The Call, June 21, 1917. 13 Labour Leader, July 12, 1967. 14 Ibid., August 9, 1917; The Times ly 30, 1917; Pa Wastern ary Debates-House of Commons (5) XCVI, cols. 1784-1788, 17901792. 15 The Times, August 10 and 14, 1917; Labour Leader, August 16, 1917. 16 The Times, July 16 and 23, and August 22, 1917. 17 Labour Leader, August 9 and 16, 1917. 18 The Call, October 4 and 25, 1917. 19 Leeds Citizen, July 27, 1917. 20 The Call, May 31 and December 28, 1917. 21 The Socialist, April 1917. 22 J. T. Murphy, Preparing for Power (1934), p. 152. 23. Wal Hannington, Industrial History in Wartime (1940), pP. 105-106.