Letter: More about industrial action: The Legend of the "Jolly George” (1951)

Letter to the Editors from the November 1951 issue of the Socialist Standard

We have had correspondence with a reader (P.C.O., London) who in the letter below raises the question of minority action and the effectiveness of strikes to stop war.

Editorial Committee,

The Socialist Standard.

Dear Sirs,

Thank you for your letter of the 20th July. I have taken in carefully all you have had to say. There is one point, however, you seem to have overlooked.

The general tone of your letter suggests that you think the individual can do nothing to alter affairs, and I would like to remind you of the Russian Revolution, started by a mere “handful,” also of the “Capitalist Trade Union ” (to use your own term) action which started with the refusal by the dockers to load the “Jolly George" and ended with the Capitalist Government being compelled to withdraw their armed forces from Russia, to which they had been sent to destroy the new “Workers’ State,” although the said “Workers’ State” may not be a very pleasant one to live under nowadays.

The “Jolly George” incident also compelled a Capitalist Government to cease conscripting working- class boys and young men into a Capitalist Army.

Why has there been nothing to rival it to-day? After the 1st G. War there were demobilisation riots, demonstrating in Whitehall, etc., etc. After the 2nd G. War there were no such disorders—the workers meekly waited for. their “Demob.”, their age group, etc., etc. Meanwhile they went to places like Greece and slaughtered foreign workers for the glory of the British and American Capitalist States. The only thing that nearly resembled anything like riots was the outbreak of mutiny at the Aldershot “Glasshouse” in 1946. If there were anything approaching the solidarity I would like to see, there would have been a General Strike in sympathy with the men imprisoned in the “Glasshouse” and protection from Capitalist Militarism given to all members of the working class by organised Labour. In Spain, an attempt might have been made to free the conscripts in a military prison, judging by the workers’ conduct in the Civil War. Personally I would like to see a General Strike take place whenever a deserter from the Capitalist Armed Forces is arrested.

Yours, etc.,

P.C.O.

Reply:

(1) Recipe for Revolution

The S.P.G.B. case is that the achievement of Socialism requires in the first place a majority of socialists, and the resulting democratic political action to gain control of the machinery of government. Our impatient correspondent replies by pointing to Russia and offers us his own recipe for starting a revolution: “Just take a mere handful of people.”

But why does he tarry to tell us this? Why hasn’t he already collected his simple ingredients and cooked his revolution? Why he has not done so is indicated elsewhere in his letter; where be tells us, for example, that the insurgent attitude of some workers after World War I has to be contrasted with the meekly accepting attitude of workers after World War II. He has left something out of his recipe; the handful of would-be leaders of riots and mutinies can put themselves at the head of bodies of rioters and mutineers only if there are such bodies to put themselves at the head of.

In Russia in 1917, because that semi-feudal economy could not stand up to war with industrialised Germany, army discipline, civil administration, and the transport system had all broken down, and there were millions of land-hungry peasants, mutinous soldiers and starving workers ready to support a movement to overthrow the Czarist regime. Having no electoral system through which to vote the Government out, the discontented Russians rioted and mutinied. If our correspondent in 1945 had called on the British workers to stage a “revolution” in order to get rid of the Churchill government they might reasonably reply by asking why go to all that trouble to get something they could and did get by using their votes at the election.

More important from the socialist standpoint is not whether a minority can do “something” but whether it can achieve Socialism. Doubtless the Russian Monarchist Liberals who started the movement to overthrow the Czar were a small handful, as also were the Communists who later started the movement which ended with the present State capitalist dictatorship. They did not and could not introduce Socialism and it is that which concerns us. What the Russian Communists did achieve, to quote our correspondent, is a condition of affairs “not very pleasant to live under nowadays.” But surely we don’t have to do anything to achieve that state of affairs; we have it already.

(2) The Legend of the “Jolly George”

But our correspondent has a subsidiary weapon in his armoury of argument. Without waiting for Socialism, a handful of dockers, he tells us. could start a movement which would force a government to withdraw its armed forces from war against Russia and compel them to abandon conscription. He is sure of this because it happened.

Never were so many errors compressed into so small a space.

It is of course easy to make the claim that the Government was forced to do certain things because of a strike by some London dockers, but there is not the slightest evidence to back up the claim.

It is a simple matter to show that the decision after the first World War to abandon conscription had nothing to do with the refusal to load the “Jolly George,” and we can only suppose that our correspondent’s memory is at fault. Immediately the war ended with the armistice on 11th November, 1918, new Conscription call-up notices were cancelled. (Hansard, 15th November, 1918, Col. 3110.) Existing conscripts were retained in the Forces after that date, but the Prime Minister, Mr. Lloyd George, announced on 30th October, 1919, that conscription was being lapsed. "We have arranged that by the end of this financial year there will not be a conscript in this country.” (Hansard, 30th October, 1919, Col. 981.) The plan was adhered to and the period of compulsory service was officially terminated on 30th April, 1920.

Note particularly these dates, all of them before 1st May, 1920, for it was not until ten days later, on 10th May, 1920, that some London dockers refused to load arms for Poland on the “Jolly George,” so that incident cannot possibly have been the cause of events that took place long before it happened.

Nor was it the determining factor on Government policy about Russian intervention. One intervention, that of the British troops at Archangel was ended by their withdrawal on 27th September, 1919, a decision obviously governed by military and other considerations.

But then came the Polish war against Russia in April, 1920, and it is this our correspondent has in mind. The facts show how completely wrong are his conclusions:

As already stated the dockers refused to load arms for Poland (a free gift, incidentally, from the British Government) on 10th May, 1920.

Did this stop the war? No. For the Russo-Polish armistice was not signed until five months later, on 12th October.

Did it stop the British Government using naval forces to help Russia’s enemies? No. For British warships were still in the Black Sea when the war ended.

Did it cause the British Government to desist from its policy of hostility to the Russian Government? No. For early in August when the Polish armies were temporarily in retreat, the Government warned Russia off:

"The British Government now took up a threatening position, demanding the cessation of the Russian advance, failing which they would give all aid to Poland.” (Labour Research Department Monthly Circular," 1st September, 1920.)

And coming down to the specific issue of the flow of British armaments to Poland, did the dockers stop it? Here we can quote a witness who for this purpose can hardly be doubted:—

“Frankly, the National Council of Action has failed. . . . It was formed to prevent the supplies and munitions being sent in support of the attack on Soviet Russia, which it is quite obviously not doing. Somehow, and from somewhere in this country, these supplies are being sent. A Moscow report alleges that England has sent seven steamers of munitions, three tanks, and twelve small steamers with provisions in aid of Poland, and that these have been unloaded at Danzig."

That candid admission was published by the Communist Party of Great Britain in their organ, “The Communist” on 7th October, 1920, five months after the “Jolly George” affair. And if the Council of Action movement failed in Britain parallel actions on the Continent were equally futile. We read in Labour Research Department Circular of 1st September. 1920:

“The French Government now turned every effort to pouring munitions and officers into Poland. Supplies also came from Great Britain."

"So great was the flood that the same journal reported that ‘the Poles were firing ten shots to the Russian one.’"

The attempt by industrial action to save Russia from defeat by the Polish forces was a complete fiasco: —

". . . the unlimited foreign supplies . . . and the expert military advice were producing their effect, and the Russian advance was turned. By August 20 the Poles were in Brest Litvosk.” (L.R.D. Circular, September 1920).

So much for the legend of the “ Jolly George.”

(3) Why not a General Strike against the Labour Government?

Then our correspondent, filled with false recollections of what happened after World War I, tells us how he would like to see "organised labour” staging a general strike to help army deserters, etc., and he wonders why the workers now do not act as he says they acted after the first world war.

We have already pointed out that our correspondent on his own showing does not have to wait for “organised labour.” All he has to do is to collect his "mere handful ” and start something.

And could anything be more unrealistic than the talk of action by “organised labour”? The Council of Action of 1920 was a joint body formed by the Labour Party, the Parliamentary Labour Party and the Trades Union Congress and was directed (unsuccessfully as we have shown) against the Lloyd George-Churchill government.

So let us now repeat our correspondent’s advice in its proper form. “Why do not the Labour Party and the Labour M.P.s and the Trade Unions now organise a general strike to stop themselves from supporting the policies of their Labour Government which they uphold and agree with and vote for?”

We cannot conclude without drawing attention to a curious time-lag in our correspondent’s programme of action. If, as be believes, a "mere handful” could start a movement to stop war, why waste this potent weapon by bringing it into action only after the war is over and then only to help deserters and military prisoners. Why not do it before World War II began and stop the war itself?

Can it be that our correspondent knows as well as we do that “organised labour” in all countries in 1939 was not opposed to the war-making of the respective governments but was supporting it?

One last point. We do not know what our correspondent means in his letter when he says that the “Jolly George" action was described by us as "capitalist Trade Union action.”

Ed. Comm.

Editorial: The Communists and Ireland. (1922)

Editorial from the August 1922 issue of the Socialist Standard 

On the front page of “The Communist ” (8-7-22) there appears an article entitled “Our Duty to Ireland ” that calls for some comment on our part on account of the nonsense contained in it.

The main struggle in Ireland is not, and never has been, a struggle of wage workers against masters. Here and there in the history of Ireland there have been minor struggles on the part of the workers, but the greater part of the stage has always been occupied by the national struggle for freedom of enterprise on the part of the various groups that might benefit by greater freedom to exploit Irish Industry. As Ireland exists principally by agriculture the small farmers or peasants have figured largely in the strife. The fact that the poverty-stricken peasants have borne the bulk of the burden of struggle is no evidence that they will obtain any benefit, whatever be the outcome.

This struggle in Ireland has been going on for centuries, and bitterly indeed have the peasantry suffered by the coercive actions of the foreign land-owning class, who were backed up by the different English Governments.

Irish industry is backward partly on account of the lack of certain economic resources such as coal and iron, partly because it suited Irish landlords and English capitalists to keep Ireland in the main an agricultural country.

Though the capitalistic development of Ireland has been slow, yet considerable progress has been made in that direction. The wage labouring class has relatively increased and the farmers have come more and more under the control of large industry. The farmers are, in the main, in the hands of the agents of the large exporters—egg buyers, cattle buyers, corn buyers, creameries and so on. The European war made the farmers temporarily well-to-do, and they poured money into the Sein Fein movement in the belief that the latter movement would conserve their prosperity. Peace, however, is bringing them back to the position of paid growers and distributors of agricultural produce.

An Irish Sein Fein Republic will not solve the difficulties of the wage labourers and farmers—it will, in fact, intensify their misery. They will then be under the control of the same people who control affairs now—Irish buyers—Irish Capitalists—without being able to salve their wounds by blaming all their troubles upon the English oppressor.

The way out of the difficulties facing the Irish town and country worker is the same as the way their fellow workers have to follow, no matter what country they chance to exist in. That way is to join with their fellow workers the world over in the struggle to put an end to Capitalism by introducing Socialism. Anything short of this will only bring in its train bitter disillusion. They who tell the Irish workers to organise for anything less than this are their enemies.

Such in brief is the general position. The article mentioned in our opening remarks advises the present minority in Ireland to fight on, and the reason they advance for backing the minority is contained in the following extract:

  “De Valera never was, never can be, a leader of the workers. Nevertheless, most of the revolutionary workers are with O’Connor and him.

  “They are with them for the same reason that we, if we had to make the choice, would be behind De Valera and O’Connor—because they are fighting the British Empire. (Italics theirs.)

   “That reason—no other.”

The Communists, therefore, support the minority in Ireland “because they are fighting the British Empire—that reason— no other.” What a brilliant attitude for a self-styled working class party to take up. If they follow this policy out logically (not that we wish to be accused of suggesting that the Communist can follow anything out logically) then on the same ground they would have been bound to support the Central Powers in the European War, incidentally supporting the oppressors of foreign working men, and the useless slaughter of working men generally. In other words they tie themselves to a policy of supporting the murderous conduct of different groups of foreign capitalists “because they are fighting the British Empire!” A delightful position indeed—but a fitting position for sensational gasbags.

The above is not all—the article concludes as follows :

  “Workers of Britain, show these politicians they are wrong.

  “You have no cause for quarrel with your oppressed comrades in Ireland. You never had. Whether the present armed conditions in Ireland are prolonged or no.”

  ”Stop making munitions for Ireland ! Stop sending munitions to Ireland ! Demand the withdrawal of British troops ! Do for the Irish what you did for the Russians !” (Italics theirs.)

This is really the most absurd part of all—if one can define one piece of nonsense as more absurd than another. Not many months ago they themselves made the following enlightening observation on “what you did for the Russians.”

  “Frankly, the National Council of Action has failed, and its failure is all the more disappointing when one remembers the unanimity and enthusiasm of the great Central Hall Conference held at the beginning of August last. It was formed to prevent the supplies and munitions being sent in support of the attack on Soviet Russia, which it is quite obviously not doing. Somehow, and from somewhere in this country, those supplies are being sent.

  “A Moscow report alleges that England has sent seven steamers of munitions, three tanks, and twelve small steamers with provisions in aid of Poland, and that these have been unloaded at Danzig. German reports refer to foreign vessels passing through the Kiel Canal, presumably to the same direction.’ ” (The Communist, 7/10/20.)

This is “what you did for the Russians.” What blind rhetorical balderdash !

“What you did for the Russians” then was to fail completely to prevent munitions being sent to assist those fighting against Russia. The Communists wish the same policy to be carried out again. Funny, isn’t it?

Taking the superficial facts of the situation in Ireland as it is at present concerning the attitude of the minority, the position is. as follows :

The Irish people have voted in favour of the Free State idea by an overwhelming majority. This is the fact that cannot be swept aside by sensational remarks. Consequently, whatever the minority may think of the Free State position, the only sensible course for them to follow is to accept the position the vote of the people has forced upon them for the present, but work to alter the mental outlook of the majority so that future elections will see the Free State position supplanted by the one the present minority favour. To endeavour to alter the views of the mass of the population by battering their heads is a nonsensical attitude to take up. Besides, has not the common cry of Ireland for years been that the majority of the Irish people were being coerced to suit the ideas of a minority ?

Whether or not the English Government has bought over the Collins group does not hide the fact that the majority of the Irish population agree to the position Collins has taken up. This should sign “finis” to the matter for the present without further useless throwing away of lives.

It may appear very heroic to fight a losing battle to the end; martrydom is always a very questionable attitude, though it may be spectacular. In the present circumstances, where it involves the lives of numbers of Irish working people who do not yet understand their social position, it is criminal folly.

Finally, as mentioned above, whatever the immediate outcome of the struggle may be, one thing is certain; it will still leave the Irish workers wage labourers—and that is the essence of the matter for us.

"The Japs in Siberia." (1922)

From the April 1922 issue of the Socialist Standard

The above is the title of a leaflet published by the "National 'Hands off Russia' Committee."

It contains an introductory foreword over the signatures of Robert Williams, Ben Tillett, M.P., John Bromley, Neil Maclean, M.P., J. E. Mills, M.P., and Robert Smillie. The leaflet points out how the Ruling Class of Japan are endeavouring to obtain a foothold in Siberia by means of their armies and navies for the purpose of furthering their imperialistic ambitions. The leaflet describes that in the process, however, atrocities are being perpetrated by Japanese, which bring to mind the mediaeval torture chambers.

We think there is nothing particularly unusual about these methods; they are merely typical of the long line of atrocities which have been inflicted by one capitalist power after another in their respective endeavours to monopolise markets and extend their fields of exploitation and plunder over the backward countries. Needless to say, in these adventures it has been the working class who have done the fighting ; it is working-class lives which have been thus offered up as sacrifices in the interests of International Capitalism. Organisations like the "Hands off Russia" Committee may continue to publish leaflets like the above to the extent of millions of tons, but it does not touch the root of the matter ; it is merely trifling with the effects of a particular system of society known as Capitalism. The mission of the Socialist Party, however, is to lay bare the general trend of Capitalist development; to point out unceasingly that, so long as the system lasts, atrocities will be repeated; that they are effects which spring from the very roots of the Capitalist system, because they are grounded in the soil of competitive rivalry for world's markets, trade routes, etc. The only remedy is to remove the cause, capitalism, and replace it by the International Co-operative Commonwealth.

Therefore, when the above-mentioned well-known Labour leaders write as follows in their introductory note to the leaflet—

  "As Internationalist, we would urge the workers of Europe, America, the British Colonies, and the world generally, to do all that is possible to apply a boycott of all things Japanese until the Japanese troops are completely withdrawn from Siberia."

they are only confusing the issue by suggesting impossible things as remedies for a rotten system. Fancy the workers, of the countries referred to boycotting Japanese articles ! The workers will always endeavour to obtain the best value for their money. It is one of the guiding principles of the Capitalist system to strive for the best value obtainable in the ordinary course of exchange—i.e., buying and selling. If applies equally to the workers as it does to the capitalist. The worker receives wages and expends them to the very best advantage—i.e., in the purchase of the best value in the shape of the necessaries of life. It matters not to him whether the goods he buys are Japanese, German, or Chinese— he seeks the best value for his money. He is bound to do this, or his power to work will deteriorate, and with it his chance of a job.

The capitalist seeks the highest degree of labour power which the labour market can produce; he wants the best value also.

Pious suggestions like the above melt in the air when they come into contact with the force of the facts mentioned.

But here is the cream of absurdity in the introductory note above referred to :—

"The workers of the West should spend tens of thousands of pounds in an active and well-directed propaganda amongst their fellow workers in the East, in order that the necessary and salutory pressure should be brought against the Eastern over lords of land and industrial capital."

We wonder what the millions of unemployed wage slaves of the Western world will have to say to this. Faced as they are with conditions which mean a scanty, meagre, semi-starved existence, to collect "tens of thousands of pounds" from the workers is a suggestion grotesque and impossible under the circumstances. These Labour leaders are either fools or liars.

Once again, therefore, we tell the workers that they must overthrow the system which makes possible such misery and suffering to their class, which causes wars and the horrors arising therefrom, famines, atrocities, starvation in the midst of plenty, and all the countless evils which beset the worker to-day.

Further, we claim to have found the remedy. We say it consists in ceaselessly striving to acquire an understanding of the forces at work, and the economic laws which govern the capitalist system.

Fellow-workers, as a counter-blast to the above-quoted confusion, get down to the solid work of understanding your class position, which Socialist knowledge alone makes clear.

W. I.