Notes on Party History: The Islington Dispute (1954)

From the August 1954 issue of the Socialist Standard

The Islington dispute occurred in 1906. It revolved around our attitude to Trade Unions, also to the question of whether a Branch of the Party was in order in suspending propaganda activity with the object of forcing the Party to reverse a decision that the Branch considered a fundamental and dangerous mistake.

At the end of December 1905, a certain R. A. V. Morris attended an Executive Committee meeting and asked what was the difference between the S.P.G.B. and the Socialist Labour Party. After his question had been answered he expressed himself as satisfied. A week later a request to form a branch of the Party in the Bexley Heath District was received, and one of the signatories was R. A. V. Morris. On the 9th January, 1906, the Executive agreed to the formation of the Bexley Heath Branch.

From what immediately followed one is forced to the conclusion that the formation of the branch was a shady manoeuvre planned by people interested in the Socialist Labour Party.

In February 1906, the Executive Committee were receiving items for the Party Conference Agenda. On the 20th February the following item was received from the Bexley Heath Branch:

"That the E. C. be instructed to approach the S.L.P. with a view to the union of the two parties."

The E. C. declined to put this item on the Conference Agenda and gave the reason in the resolution that was passed on the subject, which was as follows:

Neumann and Jackson moved:

"That the Bexley Heath and District Branch be informed that the E. C. does not see its way to put their resolution on the Conference Agenda, as it conflicts with the Declaration of Principles of the Party; further that it be pointed out that when R. A. V. Morris attended the E. C. before the Bexley Heath Branch was formed he raised the question of the existence of the two bodies and expressed himself satisfied with the explanation given."

At the 1906 Conference the Bexley Heath delegates brought the matter forward and asked the Conference of the E. C. was in order in declining to put their item on the agenda. The Conference overruled the action of the E. C., restored the item and discussed it. Arising out of the discussion two resolutions were moved and lost.

Before giving the text of these resolutions it should be mentioned that one of the founders of the Party, and a very active speaker and writer, E. J. B. Allen, had been vigorously supporting the ideas of the Industrial Workers of the World, but not supporting the S.L.P. There had already been trouble with Allen and an article of his committing the Party to support of the I.W.W.  had been rejected.

The first resolution referred to above was as follows:

Humphrey and Hopley moved:
"Whereas pure and simple Trade Unions foster trade struggles and keep the workers divided, and
"Whereas the unity of the workers on the economic field, and whereas, only by the unity of the workers in a Socialist Industrial Union, as well as in a Socialist Party is sound progress possible,
Resolved that the Socialist Party of Great Britain condemns pure and simple unionism, and calls upon its members inside and outside of existing trade unions to carry on an organised propaganda in favour of revolutionary industrial unionism as the first step towards the establishment of a Socialist Industrial Union to work in co-operation with the Party for the overthrow of capitalism."

E. J. B. Allen, I. W. Allen, Leigh and Phillips supported the resolution.

Neumann, Fitzgerald, Jackson and Pearson opposed it.

The resolution was defeated on a card vote: 81 for; 111 against.

It was then agreed that a Special Meeting be called to discuss Trade Unions and a poll of the Party be taken on all resolutions arising therefrom.

Later in the Conference Morris and Carter moved:

"That the E. C. be instructed to approach the S. L. P. with a view to the union of the two parties." 

Fairbrother, Humphrey and Phillips supported the resolution and Jackson, Mrs Anderson, A. W. Pearson, Neumann,  Fitzgerald and Gray opposed it. The resolution was lost by 4 votes to 9.

After the Conference the Islington Branch sent a resolution to the new E. C. [the Executive Committee at that time, and for long afterwards, was appointed by a vote of the membership which was counted at the Conference] repudiating the action of the delegates in discussing a motion which was in direct conflict with the D. of P., endorsed the action of the previous E. C., and called upon the new E. C. to ignore the instructions of Conference to take a Poll of the Party on the Conference findings, and to obtain from Bexley Heath Branch a formal withdrawal of its resolution.

The Executive Committee accepted the proposal and submitted the following question to the membership for a referendum vote:

"Did the conference, in accepting as in order the Bexley Heath resolution, exceed its power?"

The result of the Referendum was a majority favoured the view that the Conference had exceeded its power. But the majority was a narrow one, 35 to 34, with a large number of abstentions.

The Executive Committee circulated the result to branches and there let the matter rest. The Islington Branch, however, came back again, urging the E. C. to request the Bexley Heath Branch to forthwith rescind the resolution standing on its books. The E. C. replied that this could not be done without falsifying the records, and that they did not think it necessary to go any further in this matter.

The Islington Branch carried on their agitation. They claimed that the Bexley Heath Branch was still unsound and that the E. C.  had failed in its duty by not pursuing the matter. As a protest they decided to suspend all propaganda activity until the Party had taken such action as would absolve itself from any charge of being unsound. They circulated the E. C. and all Branches to this effect. The E. C. pointed out to them that this action was neither in accord with Party discipline nor helpful to the cause of Socialism. Islington them circulated the branches charging the E. C. with criminal neglect and calling for their immediate removal. The E. C. then informed Islington that they would place Islington's unconstitutional action before the next Delegate Meeting for their decision and Party vote.

The E. C. submitted a statement to the Branches on the subject. Islington claimed that they only received this statement four days before the Delegate Meeting and therefore had no time to place their own case in reply before the members.

The Delegate Meeting, which was held in July, 1906, considered the case and decided that the line taken by the E. C. was correct, and carried a resolution expelling the Islington Branch. This Delegate Meeting also expelled Bexley Heath Branch for supporting the S.L.P.

In August 1906, the Islington Branch submitted to the membership a twenty page printed pamphlet called "Rocks Ahead." This was their reply to the E. C.'s statement. They denied that their action was unconstitutional and claimed that they were not interfering with the E. C.'s power to do as much propaganda in Islington as they liked. This statement was addressed to "Comrades" and put their side without engaging in personalities but bad feeling was developing. In December, 1906, while still claiming to be Branch of the Party, they issued another pamphlet with the title "Another Political Wreck." This pamphlet was addressed "to the Working Class" and was badly marred by personal attacks.

Looking back on this dispute now it appears to the writer that the Islington Branch were on the right track when they urged that action should be taken against Bexley Heath Branch but they were wrong in trying to force the E. C. and the Party to take action by suspending propaganda. However, the dispute was one of the penalties that had to be paid in the work of hammering out a sound policy. The pity of it was that, owing to the feeling developed in the dispute, we lost some valuable members.

Gilmac.

(To be continued).

More Light on the Russian Confessions (1937)

From the September 1937 issue of the Socialist Standard

The widespread disbelief in the genuineness of the "confessions" made by prisoners of the Russian dictatorship has had the good effect of bringing more information to light. The International Review, which has published much valuable material during its short existence (published in New York. P.O. Box 44, Sta. O, New York City. 15 cents a month, 1 dollar 75 cents a year) reproduces in its August issue extracts from a statement made before an unofficial committee of inquiry in Prague by a German Communist named Wolf, who lived for considerable periods in Russia. Through casual contact with another Communist who fell foul of the Russian police, Wolf suddenly found himself arrested and urged to plead guilty to Trotskyite and Nazi activities. Here is a typical passage describing how "confessions" were extracted from him: -

At 11 o'clock in the night, he was suddenly undressed, examined, transferred to a cell. Sleep? The light remains there day and night. Every several minutes a soldier, in the service of the G.P.U., looked through the hole in the door. Wolf had hardly fallen asleep when the door suddenly opened, and he was subjected to an interrogation that lasted from 11.30 p.m. to 5 a.m., and started again at 6.30. He was permitted to sit down on a small, narrow, backless iron seat, before a small table. This continued for weeks. He raved, crying for sleep. Every interrogation terminated with his signing a stenographic report in Russian, which he could hardly make out.

He describes convincingly how his questioners twisted and distorted every harmless detail of his past activities. He had lodged in the house of a Trotskyite: therefore he must be a Trotskyite. He had once suggested that the Russian lumbermen's paper should get its own radio station: he therefore must have wanted to establish communication with the Nazis with it. His father was in a Nazi concentration camp: Ah, that was just a trick of the Nazis to fool the Russian police.

On the advice of the Russian Communist Party he had written reports to a German Liberal newspaper favourably commenting on industrial development in Russia: that "proved" his contact with the Nazis, although the paper was anti-Nazi and the reports were written before Hitler came to power.

So it goes on, until the police have their "confession." Luckily for Wolf his German citizenship deterred the Russian police eventually.

All that can be said about the police procedure used in Russia is that there are lots of other countries which use the same procedure.

A correspondent of the Manchester Guardian, who has just left Russia after many years' residence there, claims to have interviewed 98 people arrested between 1928 and 1932, about half of whom alleged that they "were subjected to actual torture" in Russian jails. The article dealing with this was published by the Manchester Guardian on August 19th, 1937. The correspondent (whose name is not given) points out that only a fraction of the Russian trials are held in public and the witnesses or defendants who "confess" are only a selected few of the much larger number arrested and held by the police.

In conclusion, for the benefit of those who still believe that "confession" means guilt, consider the report from Rebel Spain about the bombing of the British ship, "British Corporal," outside Algiers. The Rebel authorities at Majorca admitted it was their doing, an unfortunate mistake! General Franco, nominally in supreme command over the Majorca authorities, denied this. He had "proof" that the bombing was done by Russian airmen in the pay of the Spanish Republican Government. What was the proof? What else than a "confession" by a Russian airman captured in Rebel territory. And here is the comment of Mr. Philip Jordan, of the News Chronicle (August 12th, 1937): -

If indeed such an airman exists, it is possible that he has said such a thing. When in Spain I was able to authenticate the case of a Russian pilot brought down in rebel territory with three bullet wounds, one of them in his head. For three days and three nights he was not allowed to sleep or to receive medical attention. At the end of that time he was ready to make any statement demanded from him.

What price confessions?

Another Debate. (1910)

From the June 1910 issue of the Socialist Standard

Although Mr. Wimborne was the challenger, he declined to open the debate when he met our representative at Manor Park on April 4th, so Comrade Dawkins took the platform and outlined the propaganda carried on by the S.P.G.B., stating that the audience well knew what Socialism was as expounded by his comrades and himself. And he defied Mr. Wimborne to deal with Socialism and not to saddle the S.P.G.B. with the vagaries of Messers. Quelch, Blatchford, Ramsay Macdonald, or the kidnapped Victor Grayson. Nor was he to set up any Aunt Sally and then proceed to knock the poor old lady down and scalp her, for the satisfaction of exhibiting a reeking trophy to the public gaze.

Mr. Wimborne opened by admitting that the capitalist system was not perfect. He claimed however, that the horrible tyranny which would be set up if the Socialists had their way would be far worse. He quoted from a book he called "Allinson's History of Europe" showing the massacres which were perpetrated in France during the Revolution, and he described the S.P.G.B. as the Jacobins of the Socialist movement, who would ruthlessly slaughter all who disagreed with them. Brotherhood was a dream which could never be realised. Christianity had tried for 2,000 years to bring it about and failed. All the great teachers had failed, then how could a few men calling themselves the Socialist Party of Great Britain hope to do what every great genius had failed to do? Now under present conditions the best man came to the top. There was plenty of scope for talent to display itself. But under Socialism the commune would decree what work every man and woman should do. What would happen if the commune decreed that Comrade Dawkins should sweep the roads? Dawkins would decline and then the awful machinery would be set to work. The President would put down his foot and say: the roads want sweeping—Dawkins is a handy man with a broom and Dawkins shall sweep the roads. Mr. Wimbourne then came to his remedy for the existing evils. First we must trust to scientific development. And we must all admit that things are getting better, said he, whereat the audience set up a roar of derisive laughter. You may laugh and jeer, retorted the speaker, but you forget Old Age Pensions and the Workmen's Compensation Act, which bring solace to the old and to the widows of the killed. This statement moved the crowd to redoubled laughter, and even to actual rudeness, whereupon the disheartened protagonist of Liberalism vacated the platform.

Comrade Dawkins dealt with his opponent's points seriatim and in Dawkinesque style. He pointed out that Mr. Wimborne need not have gone to the early struggles of capitalists for supremacy to show how they will murder without scruple all who jeopardise their material interests, and instanced Cecil Rhodes and Co., who butchered thousands of the Matabele in the quest for gold and diamonds.

Our comrade then showed the fraud of Old Age Pensions and the Workmen's Compensation Act, and demonstrated that scientific development, instead of helping the working class, was kicking them in the bread basket every time. Each new application of science to industry was militating against the working class and must continue to do so under private or class ownership in any form.

With regard to the harrowing spectacle of Dawkins sweeping the roads, Dawkins pointed out that degrading as Mr. Wimborne and his superior friends thought such a job was, hundreds of thousands of men were eager for that work now, at a few shillings per week recompense, that many men now do far dirtier and more unpleasant jobs and don't care who sees them where no social inferiority is implied. Under Socialism no useful, necessary work would be held degrading. Our whole outlook would be altered and such things as the rewarding of men like Kitchener and Cromer with hundreds and thousands and people like Madame Curie with a mere pittance would be regarded as sheer lunacy.

Briefly it was thus.

W. Watts.

Retrospect (1964)

Editorial from the September 1964 issue of the Socialist Standard

In this special issue we commemorate the sixtieth anniversary of the publication of the first Socialist Standard.

In all that time it has never missed an issue. Through the vicissitudes of two world wars, when we often wondered whether we would be able to carry on at all, to economic slump when we were able to continue publication only through the goodwill of our printers, who carried us in debt for years, the Socialist Standard has carried on.

Now, we look back on those years which have seen so many changes and many terrible events.

Opposite this page we publish the front cover of the first Socialist Standard. It takes us back into another world, September 1904—when the motor-car was still a dangerous novelty; when Orville Wright had only a few months before flown the first aeroplane, for just 12 seconds. Fleming had recently invented the thermionic valve, but radio was still in the distant future; and Rutherford had just begun his researches into the structure of the atom which were to result, forty years later, in the annihilation of Hiroshima and Nagasaki.

War in those days was something associated with petty campaigns to subdue the native populations of Africa and Asia, although the Boer War had given a foretaste of more serious things to come. The Entente Cordiale between Britain and France had been signed a year earlier as a defence against German capitalism, a grimmer warning of the holocaust in the future. And the outbreak of the Russo-Japanese War a few months earlier presaged both the rise of Japanese capitalism and the Russian Revolution of 1917.

In the world of politics there was a lot of talk about Socialism, but it was really reformism that was making the running. The formation of the Labour Party had still to wait two years, but parties like the Social Democratic Federation, the Fabians, and the I.L.P., were already busily paving the way for it. The German Social Democratic Party enjoyed the support of millions and there were similar and strong parties in France, Austria, Italy, and other countries, all claiming to be Socialist.

To the uncritical it looked as though Socialism was round the corner. The message by the Dutch Social Democratic Party on our first front page opposite reflects this general feeling of optimism.

But the uncritical were mistaking the high-flown verbiage for the hard content. All of those parties were to become tied to programmes of reform that ultimately extinguished what little spark of revolutionary aims they had. All of them were dominated by the fatal principle of leadership, of state-control and nationalisation; and all their pretence of internationalism was shattered into so many fragments by their support for the First World War.

The Socialist Party of Great Britain refused to follow them along this road. Our first editorial set out the principle we have adhered to ever since. In our fifth paragraph we said: "In dealing with all questions affecting the welfare of the working-class our standpoint will be frankly revolutionary. We shall show that the misery, the poverty and the degradation caused by capitalism, grow far more rapidly than does the enacting of palliative legislation for its removal. The adequate alleviation of these ills can be brought about only by a political party having Socialism for its object." 

This statement, made sixty years ago this month, we can still reproduce today; over 700 issues of the Socialist Standard testify to the consistency with which we have held to it.

Editorial. (1904)

Editorial from the September 1904 issue of the Socialist Standard

TO OUR READERS.

Having inaugurated The Socialist Party of Great Britain, we find it indispensable that we should have a journal in which our views may be expressed.

We venture, therefore, to place before you The Socialist Standard, and trust that it will meet with your approval.

In The Socialist Party of Great Britain we are all members of the working class, and cannot hope that our articles will always be finely phrased, but we shall at least endeavour to lay before you on every occasion a sane and sound pronouncement on all matters affecting the welfare of the working class. What we lack in refinement of style we shall make good by the depth of our sincerity and by the truth of our principles.

We shall, for the present, content ourselves with a monthly issue, but we are confident that the various demands upon us, by the quantity of matter at our disposal, and by the growth of our party, will necessitate in the near future, a weekly issue of our paper.

In dealing with all questions affecting the welfare of the working-class our standpoint will be frankly revolutionary. We shall show that that the misery, the poverty, and the degradation caused by capitalism grows far more rapidly than does the enacting of palliative legislation for its removal. The adequate alleviation of these ills can be brought about only by a political party having Socialism for its object. So long as the powers of administration are controlled by the capitalist class so long can that class render nugatory any legisaltion they consider to unduly favour the workers.

We shall be pleased to consider any articles on Socialism and the working-class movement which may be submitted to us, and we also invite criticism on any question that may be dealt with in these columns. We shall give a fair hearing to all sides on any question, and trust that our correspondence columns will be freely used.

In future numbers of The Socialist Standard fresh features will be introduced in order to make our paper the worthy organ of The Socialist Party of Great Britain, and so that members of either the Socialist or of the non-Socialist section of the community, seeking for reliable information on Socialism in all its ramifications, will never fail to find their requirements satisfied in our columns. Any suggestions for the improvement of the paper which may be submitted will receive our serious consideration.

We invite your most merciless criticism of our work, but at the same time we sincerely trust that if The Socialist Standard meets with your approval you will do your utmost by recommending it to your friends to make it worthy of its name and of the Socialist movement.

THE EDITORIAL COMMITTEE.

Editorial: Left, right, left . . . (2001)

Editorial from the November 2001 issue of the Socialist Standard

The traditional response of Labour governments to the problems thrown up by the market economy is to move further to the right, so seasoned opinion would have it. And there would appear to be some justification for this view: from Ramsay MacDonald's formation of a National Government to supersede the Labour administration in 1931, to the eventual centrist drift of the reforming Attlee government after the war, through to the Wilson and Callaghan administrations which were characterised by radical rhetoric but anti-working class intent.

The Blair government first elected in 1997 always promised to be different. The key difference being, of course, that Blair performed the unique feat in Labour Party history of getting in his 'betrayal' of the so-called socialists in the Party before he was even elected. By the time of the 1997 election, Labour's programme was so right wing it was barely distinguishable from that of the Tories – especially so on economic affairs, social issues and foreign policy. Only in the rather more peripheral field of political reform was there any significant (if that is the right word) difference between the two.

That the Blair government in action proved to be as right wing as its declared intentions before election in 1997 was, in a sense, politically honest, but it was an honesty that infuriated the Party's left wing. The left hoped that all the talk before the election of free markets, the "rigour of competition" and of a "strong national defence" were just vote-garnering platitudes. But no – it turned out that Blair, Straw, Brown and co. really did believe all the hype and weren't socialist 'sleepers' after all, to be elected on a centrist platform while moving to the left when in office. As a result, the 1997-2001 Blair administration had the dubious distinction of being the most right wing Labour government ever.

Since the election earlier this year, however, something has happened to get the Daily Mail excited at last. And that something is that Labour, we are told, appears to have had a minor but noticeable shift to the left. The background to this was the nature of Labour's election win: a massive, but ultimately hollow victory characterised by the largest mass abstention in modern British political history and the public humiliation of the Prime Minister on the election trail by irate electors who told him he was no different to the shysters who had been running things over the previous 18 years.

Two concrete issues have since arisen that have defined this apparent shift in attitudes: higher education and the railways. In the former case, the government has promised to change the system of HE finance so that the element of tuition fees paid by students in England and Wales (though no longer in Scotland) is removed. Tuition fees were becoming a demonstrable impediment to the process of widening access to HE and the 'upskilling' that is necessary across key sectors of the UK workforce at present.

As for the railways, Transport Secretary Stephen Byers (one of the many reconstructed Trotskyists in the Cabinet) has at long last sent the administrators into Railtrack – which had accumulated debts of £3.48 billion – indicating that the services formerly provided by the company will be taken out of the control of the shareholders and existing management.

Perhaps not surprisingly, this is being interpreted by many as some kind of 'left turn'. The reality, of course, is slightly different. This is no more an example of New Labour's radical intent than John Major and Michael Heseltine's desire to dump the Poll Tax a decade ago was an example of Conservative radicalism. In each case what is apparent is that the government has presided over financial and economic arrangements that simply haven't been working and which were grossly inefficient and counter-productive to effective business management – their response each time has simply been to try to find "a better way" regardless of supposedly radical considerations. Indeed, they have merely done what was, in a capitalist business sense, the obvious thing to do.

Most importantly, the fact remains that students will continue to leave higher education with average debts in excess of £10,000 for the foreseeable future and the likelihood is that the levels of these debts are going to rise further still when the new system is in place. And as for Railtrack, even the Sunday Times has claimed that the convoluted new scheme hatched by Byers means that "the taxpayer is essentially being asked to subsidise the banks and bondholders that lent money to the old Railtrack" (21 October). In other words, one section of the propertied class bailing out another section in time honoured fashion.

This leaves the mass of the population – the wage and salary-earning working class – exactly where we were: at the behest of the owning class and their priorities at every turn and left with second best in everything from education to transport and beyond. It was the same under old Labour too, but perhaps they just seemed better at pretending to do something about it.

Whatever, no one should be fooled by any spin imparted to enhance New Labour's current 'radical' intentions. From their systematic defence of propertied interests at home to their ruthless pursuit of war abroad, Labour has already proved one thing beyond dispute – an unwavering support for the profit-takers in society rather than the wealth creators that is rabid and undiminished.

August 4th, 1914 (1964)

From the September 1964 issue of the Socialist Standard

At midnight on August 4th, 1914, the British ultimatum to Germany expired and the First Great War began.

In our Party there were no illusions about the nature of the war, in spite of the turmoil of the times and the perfidious attitude of other alleged working class parties.

At our first Executive Committee meeting, following the outbreak of the war, arrangements were made to prepare a Manifesto setting forth our opposition and stating the Socialist attitude. At the next Executive Committee meeting a draft was presented and, after approval, sent to the printer to appear in the next, the September issue of the Socialist Standard. This was our War Manifesto. It was later reprinted and distributed in leaflet form.

This manifesto briefly set forth the capitalist basis of society, pointing out that the war was a capitalist war which was no concern of the workers, and did not justify the shedding of working class blood in a conflict which only involved the interests of their masters. It concluded with the following paragraph: -

Having no quarrel with the working class of any country, we extend to our fellow workers of all lands the expression of our goodwill and Socialist fraternity, the pledge ourselves to work for the overthrow of capitalism and the triumph of Socialism.

The Party kept its pledge. Its attitude was maintained, from the beginning to the end of the war, without equivocation, in spite of antagonism, persecution and numerous other obstacles.

Gilmac. 

Twenty Years After (1958)

Theatre Review from the September 1958 issue of the Socialist Standard

In his play, "Chicken Soup with Barley" (Royal Court Theatre), the young Jewish writer, Arnold Wesker, born of Hungarian-Russian parents in the East End of London, gives us glimpses into the world in which he grew up, through the history of a Jewish family from 1936 to 1956, to show the gradual disintegration of a political ideal—the Communist Party.

The play opens at the time of the Blackshirts' marches on the Jewish East End. We are immediately caught up in the excitement of young Communists fighting the Fascists on their doorstep and at the same time looking eagerly towards the crusade in Spain, to the front line. It seemed to them as though any fight with the Red Flag flying was the good fight, a blow for the future, whether in the workshops, the streets or on Jarama Ridge. To Sarah Kahn, her family and friends, out of the ceaseless struggle would come—something. And in the East: Moscow. The Red star still glowed as to them the god had not yet failed.

The war plans are bypassed, and with the end of the war the pattern has changed; there is a strange emptiness now. The Communist Party is somewhere in the background, but the group has naturally been broken up by the war. Gradually they go their various ways; a greengrocer's shop in Manchester, a handicraft furniture in the Cotswolds. The unity and urgency has gone; to each his own salvation. But Sarah Kahn is still the same, carrying on her fight against the butcher, the baker and the candlestick maker, and against her husband Harry, a drifter of a man who could never hold a job down and to whom even in the old days the party was just something that happened to be around, like his wife and the boys. For Sarah Kahn nothing has changed, life is still fighting and caring.

Her son Ronnie Kahn, now grown up, carries with him the thread of the past, an enthusiasm for the "Left," together with an ambition to write, to write about the working class life he knows, to express its culture and hopes for the future. One day in 1956 he returns home after working in Paris, a shattered man, one of the many whose belief in the great Russian myth had been destroyed by the Hungarian revolt, and with it, his desire to write. Against Harry, now a paralysed wreck of a man after suffering a strike, Sarah's struggle is almost over, but her son now stands in his place. At all costs to be saved from becoming as his father had been. But "If you don't care, you will die," she says. 

This is where the play leaves us, and gives, as its political injunction, that we must simply "care!" The retreat from an illusion has left nothing but a little infused hope that may ease the agony and make life bearable. And perhaps—sometime—who knows?

For thousands a political idea is dead. But those people who take their political philosophy on trust must not be surprised if that trust is forsaken and their ideals turned to ashes. So much for so little. But the tragedy is great.

I.D.J.

Proper Gander: To EDL and Back (2014)

The Proper Gander Column from the April 2014 issue of the Socialist Standard

Broadcasting budget cuts have led to plans to take BBC3 off the air in 2015, demoted to being an online-only channel. So it looks like there’ll be fewer of its trademark brash documentaries, like EDL Girls – Don’t Call Me Racist. This show follows three women attached to the thuggishly nationalistic English Defence League. Gail is a long-standing leader of the Yorkshire ‘Angels’. She has a steely, scary determination, undaunted when she’s ‘disrespected’ by founding leader Tommy Robinson’s departure from the organisation. Amanda is a younger wannabe member, who thinks ‘it’s quite romantic going on an EDL demo’ as a date with her new boyfriend. Katie is the only one in her family of committed EDLers to doubt their beliefs. She tells her mum that she doesn’t want to be thought of as racist as they sit colouring in A4 placards with felt-tip pens.

Those taking part in the programme hope that it will dispel the stereotype of EDL members as shaven-headed racist young males. If nothing else, it succeeds by reminding us that obnoxious, mistaken beliefs can be held by both men and women. One member objects to bread being marked as halal, claiming that a few pennies from its sale will go to the Taliban. Another says that she doesn’t want her children to be ‘made to wear a burqa’. There are enough reasons to criticise Islam without having to rely on these kinds of laughable misconceptions.

The EDL makes ill-founded generalisations about others, but can’t see the irony when they complain that other people make ill-founded generalisations about them. The difference is that generalisations about EDL members are usually correct, as they all share views which easily fall apart with only the slightest scrutiny. They have a misplaced sense of ownership and loyalty to the country they just happened to have been born in, along with misplaced beliefs about society’s problems, and misplaced blame towards Muslims. They’ve even misappropriated the slogan ‘Whose Streets? Our Streets’ from the left.

Mike Foster

Talks In The Train. (1905)

From the March 1905 issue of the Socialist Standard

"Good morning, John."

"Good morning, William, what do you think of the King's Speech?"

"I am pleased to see that the Government intends to deal with the question of the unemployed!"

"To 'deal' with it!"

"Yes, 'legislation will be submitted to you for the establishment of authorities to deal with the unemployed'!"

"And you really think the Conservatives will 'deal' with it?"

"Is there any reason to doubt it?"

"Yes, the capitalist system, which the House of Commons is elected to support, produces an unemployed problem. If that problem were effectively 'dealt' with it would mean the abolition of the capitalist system, and that, as you know, is not 'practical politics.'"

"But surely you will give the Government credit for good intentions?"

"It is said that the road to Hell is already well-paved with such. Apart from that, both Conservative and Liberal leaders have declared their inability to do anything."

"When did they make those declarations?"

"Speaking at Watford, in October, 1895, the late Lord Salisbury said 'we have got as far as we can to make this country more pleasant to live in for the vast majority of those who inhabit it' and 'we have no panacea for the evils with which we are afflicted.' In the following November, at Brighton, he said 'I am conscious that when the Government has done its best, this would advance but a very small distance in diminishing the suffering which the hand of Providence has inflicted.'"

"But what about Balfour? He is leader now."

"Yes, and at Manchester, in January, 1895, he said 'If you ask me whether anything in the power of the Unionist Party or any other party or within the compass of the wit of man to devise can meet the curse of lack of employment, I fear we can look forward to no prospect of that kind.' He now doubt holds the same opinion now."

"Then we must turn to the Liberals!"

"Who will give you no more better encouragement. In the House of Commons, in February, 1895, Sir William Harcourt said that with regard to the question of the unemployed, he agreed with the position taken up by Mr. Balfour a few days previously at Manchester. Of Asquith, who responsible for the murder of the Featherstone miners, a cynical indifference could only be expected. At Newcastle, in January, 1895, he referred to the unemployed as the nation's 'rubbish!' And when Campbell Bannerman was asked by the unemployed deputation at Poplar in January last what he would propose as a means of dealing with the problem he merely said he 'was not in the Government.'"

"But, then, admitting the futility of expecting either Conservative or Liberals will solve the problem, I think that the promised legislation on the alien question will help."

"In what way?"

"Well, if aliens come over here and drive our own men away and deprive them of work, don't you think the Government  should prohibit alien immigration?"

"You and I are clerks. A few years ago all clerks were males. But women have entered the field against us. In many departments they have not only lowered men's wages, but have driven out male labour altogether. Would you ask the Government to prohibit women and girls entering into competition with clerks and other workmen?"

"Ah! but then they are our own flesh and blood; the others are foreigners."

"But the effect is the same!"

"Still, we must look after our own flesh and blood."

"Is it the rule of the employers to consider 'flesh and blood,' or are they not usually willing to employ any person, irrespective of nationality or creed, who will answer their purpose?"

"But if the aliens were kept out things would be better."

"I cannot see it. The unemployed problem confronts us because of the increasing power of producing wealth which man, aided by machinery, is securing, a power which is increased every day by the improvement of old methods and machines, and the introduction of new. This would continue, even if we had no aliens. All that is urged against these victims of "man's inhumanity to man" could be met by strict enforcement of the Sanitary and Housing Acts, and by the enactment of laws fixing a maximum working week and a minimum wage, equal for both sexes when equal work is done."

"Isn't that a big order?"

"Not if the alien problem is as important as you urge."

"You say that even if all aliens were excluded we should still have an unemployed problem. In that case we have our colonies."

"Where you already have an unemployed problem."

"But not so intense as here."

"But you propose to make it so by sending more men to them."

"Ah! but that's where Chamberlain's scheme comes in. Give our colonies more of our trade."

"That might help for a time; but do not forget there is no cessation of the development of the machine industry, in your colonies as elsewhere. In the near future your colonies will be manufacturing all that they require, and will not them need manufactured goods from Britain. They will be independent of us, as the Continental nations have become. Moreover, by giving your trade to your colonies you take it away from other countries and intensify the unemployed problem in those."

"Oh, that's their business."

"You admit them, that these proposals cannot solve the problem, that at best they would merely improve matters in some parts of the world, and make things worse in others."

"I quite see now that the problem is an international one."

"And can only be solved by international action on the part of the wealth-producers. The present demands of the unemployed are unsound."

"In what way?"

"They are asking for 'work' when already far too much 'work' is done. What is required is something which involves a change in the basis and organisation of society—the redistribution of work."

"The redistribution of work!"

"Yes. Let everybody work. Let each do his share of the work before enjoying any of the results of labour."

"Why, that means—"

"ALL CHANGE!"

CORNER SEAT.

Obituary: George Bellingham (1938)

Obituary from the June 1938 issue of the Socialist Standard

During the past few months the Party has suffered severely at the hand of death, and we regret the loss of another propagandist, George Bellingham, who died in April, at the age of about 55.

His attention was directed to the Socialist movement during the early days of the War. The conduct of the Labour Party in its whole-hearted support of that slaughter, and the betrayal of the workers by the Trade Union leaders, prompted him to take a more active part in working-class affairs.

In 1916 he was elected to the Executive Committee of his Trade Union, the London and Provincial Union of Licensed Vehicle Workers. The following year, in company with a member of the Socialist Party, he attended a conference of the Transport Workers' Federation, held at Bristol. While there they noticed that the whole of the passenger-carrying industry was in the hands of the Bristol Tramway & Carriage Co. The employees were unorganised, and dare not mention a word about Trade Unionism.

Realising that the time was favourable to rectify this, they reported the matter to their Executive Committee, and, as a consequence, Bellingham was sent to Bristol to undertake the task of organising this body of workers, and so bring them into the Trade Union movement. This work he carried out in a thorough and efficient manner, and as a result he was approached to stand as a Parliamentary candidate for the Labour Party. This offer being in conflict with his Socialist principles, he declined.

He continued the work of Organiser until the various Trade Unions catering for the Transport Workers were amalgamated into the "Transport Workers' Union." When this took place our late comrade gave up his position and ultimately returned to his work as a journeyman cab-driver.

For many years he gave unsparing service to the cause of Socialism, carrying on consistent propaganda, both among his fellow drivers and from the platform. Not until his recent illness compelled it, did he relax those efforts to help forward working-class enlightenment and ultimate emancipation.

E. L.

Not consistent (2011)

Book Review from the February 2011 issue of the Socialist Standard

A User’s Guide to the Crisis of Civilization … and how to save it . By Nafeez Mosaddeq Ahmed: Pluto Press, 2010, £19.99

The author is an Executive Director of an ‘independent’ think-tank, working within the sphere of International Relations theory. He has written a very interesting and useful book, but it’s not always an easy read. The subject matter is dense, and there is an immense amount of material packed into its 300 pages.

Ahmed argues that a conjunction of crises is facing humanity, comprising a massive threat to modern industrial civilisation. The crises are global warming, energy scarcity, food insecurity, economic instability, international terrorism, and the tendency towards an erosion of democratic rights. What he stresses and successfully demonstrates is how the various crises are interconnected, and make worldwide systemic change to humanity’s political economy not just desirable, but inevitable. He also rightly insists that these global crises are not aberrations but are actually “integral to the ideology, structure and logic of the global political economy”. As such, they can not be solved by either minor or major policy reforms “but only by drastic reconfiguration of the system itself”.

There is certainly plenty for socialists to agree upon in this urgent and appropriately alarming book. Ahmed advocates a radical extension of democracy, with a need to localise and decentralise political power, the need for sustainability and balance in our relationship to the environment, and a consequent rejection of the values of rampant consumerism. Many of the suggestions outlined for future social organisation are also useful and necessary, but the question arises as to what type of system they should take place in.

In stating that he is using a “Political Marxist Framework”, the author contends that “global crises are generated directly by the operation and structure of the global system” with its untrammelled pursuit of profit. However, a problem arises with his emphasis on ‘neoliberal capitalism’. This description is fair enough when referring to a specific phase of development within global capitalism, but it seems it’s not capitalism in its entirety that he rejects, despite his desire to see it radically restructured.

Ahmed does say we need to “fundamentally reconfigure the relationship between labour and capital,” but not to the extent of eradicating private ownership of the means of production. Instead, he argues that it should be massively extended “to facilitate universal access … by all individuals and communities” (original emphasis). If there is to be ‘universal access’, why retain private ownership? Work – labour – is a social activity; and if all own, then none do. It’s better, therefore, to end the system of ‘production for profit’ and all the paraphernalia of the class-divided system.

To be fair, he does describe his solutions as a “tentative template”, and insists that we all need to be involved in developing responses to our problems. The issue remains of what direction a “post-carbon revolution” will take. The danger is of a continuing and refined super-exploitative society dominated by the interests of a small minority, but a more hopeful scenario is also put forward of large grassroots movements emerging worldwide to push humanity in a more equitable direction. This book provides plenty of reasons why the task of building a political movement for socialism is more urgent than ever.

RW

Editorial: "The Menace of Socialism." (1907)

Editorial from the August 1907 issue of the Socialist Standard

The Daily Express endeavours to make capital—or rather profit—out of the prominence which the word "Socialism" has attained during the past few years. The character of its attack upon what for its purpose it chooses to consider as Socialism is quite worthy of the traditions of "yellow" or capitalist journalism.

In heavy type on its leader page the Express published the following:-

Why not look the facts in the face? The issue is no longer Liberalism against Conservatism. It is, instead, Constitutionalism—which signifies unity of Empire and the rights of property, law and order—against Socialism, which stands for disruption, for loot, for the elimination of individual enterprise, and the incentive to do great things for laziness, for ATHEISM and FREE LOVE.

Here wage-slavery, the exploitation of the mass of the people to supply the luxuries and ease of wealthy drones appears disguised as Constitutionalism, Empire, Property, Law and Order! Whilst Socialism is disguised also but in a different way as Disruption, Loot, Laziness, Atheism and Free Love!

But who, pray, is it intended should be frightened by these scarecrows? Is it the worker? Or is the leech to be applied to some sacred capitalists for the benefit of the free and glorious Press?

The answer to the wild ravings of the Express is soberly unfolded month by month in the columns of this journal; and any reader who follows the installments of Kautsky's work will be enabled to understand and appreciate the depravity of such apologies for capitalism.

Bogey!

The tirade of the Daily Express against Socialism is palpably overdone. In the eyes of the average worker the Express simply makes itself ridiculous by its antics. If the result at Jarrow showed that the working class can no longer be relied upon to vote Liberal or Conservative, the result at Colne Valley showed that at least the word "Socialism" is no longer a bogey from which the workers will fly in terror.

But is the Express concerned with this? Is not its aim rather to scare the less astute section of the capitalists into helping forward an Anti-Socialist League scheme and into providing, incidentally, of course, some very profitable jobs?

If we have to realise that the capitalist Press is a powerful aid to the supremacy of the ruling class, we are also sure that the parasitic nature of that Press makes it at times a sad thorn in the side of our enemy, and a heavy drain on its ill-gotten "swag."

The Great Sham Fight

The Daily Express knows, as do the smarter among the capitalists, that the Liberal Party so far from giving way to the so-called Socialists, stoops but to conquer. By patronage, by flattery, by subsidation, if need be, the Liberal Party collects under its wing the "labour" men who, not having been elected to wage the class struggle for Socialism, and not being answerable to a class-conscious electorate, but being merely the expressions of personal ambition, and of confusion and vague aspiration among the electors, become easily dupes or tools in the hands of the enemies of the working class. Thus the teeth of labour leaders are drawn, jobs are found for them and they become "respectable, adaptable and sensible" citizens; tranquilizers of the discontented among the workers and bulwarks against revolutionary working-class action.

The Liberals, like the mountain that was in labour, are big in promise—it is part of the game, although the fulfillment could only be as chaff to the workers; but even as it is the net result behind all their hypocrisy out-tories the Tories.

The retention of the party division, splitting as it does the capitalist party into two factions, is a splendid dodge for blinding the worker to the truth. But Liberal and Tory, like the genial sun and the boisterous wind in the old fable have identical objects—only their methods differ.

Action Replay: Putin's Games (2014)

The Action Replay Column from the April 2014 issue of the Socialist Standard

The 1980 Summer Olympics in Moscow were the subject of a large-scale boycott following the Russian invasion of Afghanistan. The recent Winter Olympics in Sochi managed to avoid anything similar relating to the situation in Ukraine, but were still not uncontroversial.

New events, such as half-pipe skiing, were staged for the first time, on the basis of their supposed appeal to spectators and TV viewers. And as usual at such enormous events, global companies have been keen to sponsor and gain attention, and also to get publicity without the expense of official involvement (as ambush marketers). Some of the ambushers did pretty well, with Red Bull winning overall (according to Global Language Monitor) and, somewhat incongruously, Subway beating Rolex.

Michael Hudson and Jeffrey Sommers saw the Games as ‘the great success Russia hoped for’ (www.counterpunch.org/2014/02/24/russia-after-sochi/). Money and development were brought to the Caucasus region, and the authors were almost rhapsodic in their praise: ‘Sochi shows that Russia can pull off world-class projects on the global stage. The games proved how Russia can transform its economy through infrastructure investment in a way that can build up a middle class while countering religious and racist fundamentalist discontent.’

But not everyone was so enthusiastic (see December’s Action Replay). Of the £30bn cost of the Games, perhaps one-third went in corruption and embezzlement. Two thousand families were evicted from their homes so Olympic infrastructure could be built. The ecosystem of the Sochi National Park was badly damaged, and the prospects for the city becoming a big winter resort are at best dubious. The clumsy harassment of a Pussy Riot protest did the Russian state’s image no favours, either.

A large Italianate residence near Sochi, known colloquially as Putin’s Palace and allegedly built for his personal use during his first spell as Russian president, was recently sold for £215m to a fellow oligarch. So Putin’s bank balance at least is now in a healthy condition.

Paul Bennett

The Miners’ Strike Remembered (2014)

From the March 2014 issue of the Socialist Standard

One socialist recalls what made him class conscious

The 1984-85 Miners' Strike was a pivotal moment in my political education, a formative event in the development of my socialist class consciousness. After the death of Thatcher in April 2013 I was at a celebratory gathering in Trafalgar Square which was also attended by a few Geordie Miners who carried their North East Area NUM banner. In the old mining village of Goldthorpe in South Yorkshire an effigy of Thatcher was publicly burned. Seumas Milne wrote in The Enemy Within that 'films such as Billy Elliot and Brassed Off rammed home the devastation of the mining communities wrought by the politically driven closures.' Recently there have been released cabinet papers that reveal the Tory government had a secret plan to close 75 pits at the cost of 65,000 jobs, and that the government used police tactics to escalate the dispute. The IPCC is currently undertaking a preliminary assessment to decide whether it should launch a full inquiry into the 'Battle of Orgreave.'

On two occasions having my birthday in February meant the candles on my birthday cake were the only light in our house. In February 1972 a miners' strike led to power cuts, and the defeat for the Tory governmentpay policy. Again in February 1974 a miners' strike caused power cuts but this time Heath called a snap election asking 'who governs? The Tories or the Miners?' The British electorate told Heath it was not him.

On 18 March 1979 an explosion at the Golborne Colliery near Wigan in the St Helens coalfield killed 10 miners with one survivor, a 20-year old apprentice electrician called Brian Rawsthorne. Following the explosion Golborne was visited by the Labour government Secretary of State for Energy Tony Benn who said: 'It is the most terrible tragedy. I have come to express sympathy with the families. The human cost of coal is still a very high cost and we must never take it for granted.' On Boxing Day that year in Garswood, near Ashton-in-Makerfield my family were visiting my uncle who was a mining surveyor for the National Coal Board. The young Brian Rawsthorne was also a guest that day. As recent as September 2011, a miner was killed at the Kellingley colliery in North Yorkshire, and 4 miners were killed at Gleison colliery in South Wales.

Workshop of the world

In the nineteenth century Britain's industrial position as the 'workshop of the world' (Disraeli 1838) – reflected in the bourgeois triumph of the Great Exhibition of 1851 –was based on coal. In 1865 in The Coal Question the leading economist of the day, William Stanley Jevons wrote 'Coal in truth stands not beside but entirely above all other commodities. It is the material energy of the country, the universal aid, the factor in everything we do, a material of such myriad qualities, of such miraculous powers.' Britain had huge coalfields in South Wales, Lancashire, South Yorkshire, the North East and Scotland, employment in coal mining hit a peak of 1.3 million workers in 1920 with a production peak of 287 million tons in 1913. In 1983 production was still over 100 million tons and close to 200,000 miners still worked in the industry.

In 1956 in Coal is our Life, Dennis et al wrote 'The prestige of the miner in the working class is higher than it has ever been' but in some quarters there was a growing realisation of the 'state capitalist' nature of the nationalised coal industry. VL Allen in The Militancy of British Miners (1981) wrote that 'there existed a group of politically articulate miners who argued for the emancipation of their fellow miners from the conditions which made them compliant, vulnerable and dispensable wage labour.' Milne observed a 'visceral capitalist class fear of miners emerging from the bowels of the earth to demand their rights which touched a raw nerve'.

On 2 March 1984 the Miners' Strike began at the Cortonwood Colliery near Wath-upon-Dearne in South Yorkshire. On 6 March the government scrapped the 1974 NCB Plan for Coal and announced a closure plan. On 12 March the strike went national with 196,000 miners on strike. Chas Critcher in Working Class Culture (1979) wrote 'The miner may not think of wage labour or class consciousness as abstract categories, but he knows who pays his wages and what they get out of it, and hence sees that they are not on his side.'

At the end of March 1984 I heard the Labour Party leader Neil Kinnock speak about the Miners' Strike at Preston Polytechnic. Within days I had joined the Labour Party Young Socialists, was reading the Militant newspaper and essentially I had joined the Militant Tendency, a Trotskyist organisation. There followed public meetings on the Miners' Strike at the Preston Trade Union Centre, a Militant Rally in Blackburn, attending branch meetings, and selling Militant in Preston town centre. I read the Manifesto of the Communist Party by Marx and Engels but the most important book to my then comrades in Militant was Lenin's What is to be Done? which describes a disciplined, centralised 'vanguard' party of dedicated revolutionaries (i.e. Militant) bringing socialist consciousness to the working class. I was always hearing the word 'cadre' and was told the situation in Liverpool where Militant controlled the City Council was akin to 'Petrograd in 1917.' I also helped out in the Labour Party rooms at the May local elections.

In June I knocked on doors in Preston collecting food for striking miners' families in the Lancashire coalfields. There were 6,500 Lancashire miners at 20 collieries in the Manchester coalfield, 26 collieries in Wigan, 22 in St Helens and 18 in Burnley. The working class are capable of organising their own affairs in common and this was clearly demonstrated by the mining communities pooling their energies and resources and taking what they needed from a common store. As Engels wrote 'the humanity of the workers is constantly manifesting itself pleasantly. They have experienced hard times themselves, and can therefore feel for those in trouble, whence they are more approachable, friendlier, and less greedy for money, though they need it far more than the property-holding class.'

18 June was a decisive day during the strike when 10,000 miners picketing at Orgreave coking plant in South Yorkshire were confronted by about 8,500 police from ten counties. The NUM planned to repeat the success of the picket at Saltley Coke Depot, Birmingham in 1972. At Orgreave coal was turned into coke for use in steel production and British Steel plants had been receiving 'dispensations': picket-permitted movements of coal to prevent damage to their furnaces. However it was discovered that British Steel was moving far more coal than the dispensations agreed. In the ensuing 'Battle of Orgreave' 93 miners were arrested, and 51 miners injured by the police. The BBC edited footage to alter the time-line of events to show police defending themselves from miners attacks when it was miners defending themselves against police attacks. Later 95 miners were charged with riot and unlawful assembly. In 1991 South Yorkshire police paid £425,000 to settle civil actions brought by 39 miners for what happened at and after Orgreave including for assault, wrongful arrest and malicious prosecution, but no police officer was ever disciplined for any misconduct.

In The Enemy Within Seamus Milne details the Tory government, police, MI5 and Special Branch tactics in the class war against the miners; tapping phones, checking bank deposits, forging documents, using agents provocateurs, providing disinformation to the media, surveillance of miners and the NUM, the DHSS withholding benefits to striking families, restrictive bail conditions and courts sequestering NUM funds. There was the creation of what ostensibly was a national police force, the police used as a paramilitary force, the police using road-block strategy stopping cars and buses and turning them back hundreds of miles from their destinations, and arresting miners if they strayed outside their home county. The criminal law was used against the miners even though picketing including secondary picketing was not an offence in criminal law.  

The Left

A few days after Orgreave I was in Leyland for a miners rally where I heard speeches by Dennis Skinner, ex-miner and Labour MP for Bolsover in the Derbyshire coalfield, and Peter Heathfield, NUM General Secretary. A 'Second Front' of strikes in the face of Tory anti-trade union legislation on secondary picketing was opened up in July with a 2 weeks national dock strike prompted by the use of contractors to unload iron ore at Immingham Docks. There were also prolonged 'wildcat' strikes at power stations in the Aire, Calder, Wharfe, and Ouse valleys in Yorkshire. Railway workers did not move coal trucks, and the railway workers at Shirebrook marshalling yards in Nottinghamshire right in the heart of scab country refused to move one ounce of coal throughout the year-long strike.

In September I came to London to read politics and philosophy at Thames Polytechnic in Woolwich, South East London. Leftwing politics were popular at the Poly; the SWP, the Labour Club which comprised the LPYS, i.e. Militant Tendency, the Socialist Labour Group, and the IMG. My first gig at the Poly in the Student Union Cellar Bar was a Miners' Benefit with The Three Johns and Hagar the Womb, a feminist anarcho-punk band. The Miners' Support Group was linked to the Kent NUM and the 3,000 miners at Betteshanger, Snowdown, and Tilmanstone collieries. In Plumstead I knocked on doors collecting food for striking miners families in the Kent coalfield.

NACODS, the Pit Deputies and safety officials union, wanted the NCB to withdraw the pit closure plan and a ballot on strike action was 82 percent in favour. Strike action was called off when the NCB and Government promised a modified colliery review procedure which was reneged on. If NACODS had gone on strike could the miners have won the strike?

In November I travelled on a hired bus with the Miners' Support Group and Labour Club to the NUM picket line at West Thurrock Power Station in Essex. Near to Christmas young miners from the Betteshanger Colliery in the Kent coalfield visited the Polytechnic and we spent hours drinking with them in the student union bars and later smoking hashish at our house in Charlton.

During the strike state capitalist Poland exported cheap, non-unionised coal to Britain demonstrating that the defeat of the Polish miners in their earlier efforts to form an independent trade union (Solidarnosc) contributed to the defeat of the British miners. The class war is not local but international and the interests of workers in one part of the world are the common interest of all workers. There were no power cuts in Britain in the winter of 1984-85. Later it was revealed that a $1 million donation by Soviet miners never reached Britain through the influence of Thatcher over Gorbachev when he visited Britain in December 1984.

Like many others in the world of art of performance, the 'alternative music scene' I followed was behind the Miners' Strike. Test Department, from New Cross in South East London collaborated with the South Wales Striking Miners Choir on the album Shoulder to Shoulder. The Redskins sang Keep on Keepin' On! about the Miners' Strike, and proceeds from Billy Bragg's Which Side are You On? and Paul Weller and the Council Collective's Soul Deep were donated to the striking miners fund.

Eventually, the Miners' Strike ended in defeat on 3 March 1985. Two miners had been killed during the strike, and three teenagers died picking coal from colliery waste heaps. During the strike police arrested 11,312 miners in England, Scotland and Wales. In December 2011 only 3,000 miners were left at 9 pits.

At the end of the strike I left 'leftist' politics and began over 25 years of counter-culturalism, beatnik-hipsterism, and armchair-anarchism. Then I discovered Marx's Economic and Philosophical Manuscripts, the Socialist Party of Great Britain and realised the miners needed to go beyond fighting over wages and conditions in the industrial struggle and instead 'ought to inscribe on their banner the revolutionary watchword, abolition of the wages system.'

Steve Clayton