THE ORIGIN AND
DEVELOPMENT OF By Wilf Dixon. PART 2. [For the FIRST part of this article, go to: PART 1] THE LABOUR PARTY - PARTY OF
IMPERIALISM OR THE "LEFT". The question of relations with the
Labour Party was a constantly recurring theme in the first two decades of the
CPGB's history. Affiliation by the CPGB
to the Labour Party was rejected from the start. Not just by the Labour leaders but at Labour Party conferences
too. After the first rejection by the
Labour Party Executive, the position of the CPGB was to agitate against it
inside the trade union and LP branches.
A struggle flared up inside the CPGB between supporters of this position
and `ultra-lefts' who used the rejection to justify a position of having
nothing to do with the Labour Party. It
is clear that the matter needed to be pursued and not just left following
rejection. However, arguments in favour
of continuing the struggle for affiliation inside the LP branches included a
fear that without affiliation, the CP would be a sect in the wilderness. Here are the germs of the position which in
practice was to place the CPGB in a strategic relationship with the Labour
Party. Sometimes stated, other times implied. Study of a resolution on
`Relations with the Labour Party' introduced at the 6th Conference of the CPGB
in 1924 by Tom Bell is very revealing. Tom Bell's introduction is vigorous in
its denunciation of the Labour Party. He calls for pressure on the Labour
Government to fulfil its promises to the workers. It is worth making the point
at this juncture that such demands on the Labour Party today are worthless.
Firstly, the Labour Party does not make promises to the working class in the
way that it did in the early twenties. Secondly, decades of experience of
Labour in office have taught class conscious members of the proletariat to look
elsewhere for a lead in the everyday struggle against the bourgeoisie. But this
was not the case in 1924. However, it becomes apparent when reading Bell's
introduction as well as the resolution before the 6th conference, that the only
difference that is thought to exist between Labour and the CPGB is the role of
Parliament and the need for violent revolution. The outbreak of the first world
war exposed the extent to which socialism had been corrupted by the
bourgeoisie. All the declarations of war-on-war trumpetted by the 2nd
International were abandoned in favour of cabinet posts and support for the
imperialist war under the slogans of `defence of the fatherland' or `democracy
against barbarism'. Social-democracy
had developed into social-chauvinism. The Labour Party was no exception and was
at one with British imperialism in prosecuting and winning support among
workers for a predatory imperialist war. But in 1924, the CPGB, which was fully
conversant with the meaning (in words at least) of the social-chauvinist
betrayal of the Labour Party, was able to refer only to unmet promises as a
platform of exposure. This reveals that the CPGB attached very little
importance to the collapse of the 2nd International and the reasons for the
split in socialism. Tom Bell, on this very question raised at the 7th Congress
of the CPGB in 1925, replied to M. Ferguson who had called for linking the fight against imperialism
with the MacDonald Government. Bell
disagreed and said some of the leaders of the 2nd International were now doing
good work for the cause of international trade union unity and that the CPGB
must be careful not to alienate itself. Tom Bell had spoken very eloquently
about communists not hiding their light under a bushel; and he had described
such avoidance of contentious issues as opportunism. He does not seem to have
shone very well on this question raised by Ferguson. Tom Bell's reply clearly
places trade union unity above anti-imperialist education and political
exposure of the Labour Party. At this time the emphasis seems to
be on practical exposure of the Labour Party in Government. The Labour
Government was brought down following its performance in what came to be known
as the Campbell case in 1924. J.R. Campbell, editor of the CPGB paper
"Workers' Weekly", was arrested for publishing an article addressed
to the armed forces. The article appealed to soldiers, sailors and airmen not
to fight in imperialism's unjust wars. There was a massive outcry against the
arrests by workers which forced the Govt. to withdraw its case on the day of
the trial. The Tories, incensed by this climb down forced the resignation of
the Labour Government. The feelings which had built up amongst the workers
about the case were utilized by the CPGB for a general campaign against
imperialist war. This campaign met with some success. The working class clearly
still held bitter memories of the 1914-18 war. The Labour Government was not
returned. The `Zinoviev Forgery' (19) made sure
of that. What followed was the formation of the Baldwin Government and the
capitalists' preperations for a confrontation with the miners leading to the
General Strike of 1926. As already pointed out, one of the CPGB's slogans
during these months was `resignation of the forgers' Government'. This is
despite the fact that Ramsay MacDonald had also falsly confirmed that the
`Zinoviev Letter' was genuine during the last days of being Prime Minister. After the betrayal of the General
Strike, the CPGB came in for considerable criticism from the Comintern for
continuing to call for the formation of a Labour Govt. We have already shown
that the 9th Congress in 1927 was maarked by a blanket of demoralization. The
Comintern criticized the line of the 9th Congress and said that the workers'
experience of Labour treachery required new tactics against Labour. Instead of
a Labour Government, the CPGB in its election campaigns should be calling for a
revolutionary workers' government. But even this was seen to be not the most
intelligent application of revolutionary tactics in this new situation. The
Comintern was soon criticizing the British party for seeing only an electoral
policy (20)
in the criticisms carefully spelled out by the Comintern. It was only at the
11th Congress that the CPGB adopted a line in ernest of opposition to the
Labour Party, characterizing it as a
social fascist party. TWO LINES AT THE 12TH CONGRESS,
THREE YEARS AFTER THE 11TH. ON THE QUESTION OF THE LABOUR PARTY. Harry Pollitt and Palme Dutt had
led the struggle against the rightist line of the CPGB following 1926. For
weapons in this struggle they relied very largely on the content of the
criticisms of the Comintern, which were sound criticisms. However, accepting
the criticisms made by the Comintern could not be the end of the matter. The
line struggle inside the CPGB was bound to continue, even if only in the form
of those criticisms emphasised and those played down. One recurring criticism
of the leadership at this time was that of voting for Comintern resolutions but
not implementing them. The new leadership elected in 1929 may have implemented
the line of the Comintern. However, whether he said it or not, Harry Pollitt
did not support the line of opposing the Labour Party as a social fascist
party. The three year interval between the 11th and 12th congresses clearly
shows that he had set himself the task of reversing or taking the edge off the militant anti-labourism which was now
strong in the CPGB. Maybe through failure to apply the line intelligently or
lack of conviction, militant anti-labourism found itself out on a limb and its
agitation made to look aimless and sterile. It must be said that agitation
against the Labour Party which is not based on a Marxist-Leninist analysis of
social-democracy and well thought out strategic opposition to Labour in the
everyday class struggle, would seem to be just this - sterile and aimless. For the first time at the 12th
Congress an analysis of the Labour Party and the ILP (which `broke away' from
Labour in 1932) was made. Earlier, in January 1932, a resolution had been
passed by the CPGB leadership strongly in support of a line of no compromise
with the ILP. A line which Harry Pollitt totally endorsed. A report to the 12th Congress entitled
the `Crisis Policy of the Labour Party, the TUC General Council and the ILP',
is an excellent critique of social-democracy. It characterizes the Labour Party
as the party of finance capital. Nationalization is exposed as being in the
interests of monopoly capital. The state is clearly revealed as being the
super-structure of capitalism and not some neutral force standing apart from
capitalism. Keynsian public works `socialism', which the Labour Party absorbed
into its program very quickly, is carefully refuted. The insipid fascist nature
of Labour corporativism and appeals to the `national interest' are all clearly
exposed. ILP pretences of Marxism are given no credence in this document. In
fact great pains are taken to show that there is no difference between the aims
and policies of the ILP and the Labour Party. The report on Labour's crisis
policy concludes with a quote from the January resolution passed by the CPGB
leadership:- "In all its mass work, in the enterprises and trade
unions and at the Labour Exchanges, in meetings and demonstrations, in the
press, in its literature and in all agitation and propaganda, the Party must
carry on a irreconcilable struggle against the Labour Party and the TUC leaders
and particularly against the ILP. On the basis of the experience of the masses
in all questions affecting the workers, the Party, in all its work, must bring
out the difference in principle between the Communist Party, as the only
representative of the interests of the working class and the Labour Party and
the ILP as the agents of the enemy in the camp of the working class. Without
this unmasking, there can be no revolutionary mass work and no success". (Report on the Crisis Policy of
the Labour Party, the TUC General Council and the ILP page 18) The merits in this clear statement
are that it represents a definite stand against social-democracy. Its
short-coming, however, is in the recurrence of this desperate belief that the
future of the CPGB depended on the total exposure of social-democracy. Indeed
such total exposure is desireable. But the class struggle is complicated and
imperialism will foster ever new forms of reformist and opportunist leadership
threatening to hi-jack and divert the struggle of the working class into
harmless channels, or paths at least less destructive to the interests of
monopoly capitalism. Indeed, there must be
revolutionary mass work and leadership if there is to be revolutionary
education of the working class. But what kind of revolutionary mass work? This
is the question which dogged the CPGB.
An orientation against imperialism and chauvinism and a Marxist-Leninist
program of revolution for Britain would have gone a long way to answer this
sticky question. Exposure of social-democracy would be more consistent and able
to resist falling into the trap of seeing politics in vulgar terms of `left'
and `right' with such a program to guide the party. None-the-less, this report
in opposition to social-democracy was a development inside the CPGB which could
have been the beginning of the deeper analysis which was needed of British
Imperialism. In the report on behalf of the
Central Committee delivered to the 12th Congress, Harry Pollitt does not refer
directly to the documents against social-democracy, but he does mention the
January resolution of the Central Committee. The part Harry Pollitt's report stresses most about the January
resolution is the need for members of the CPGB to become active in the trade
unions. Harry Pollitt summed up what he regarded as new in the January
resolution as follows:-
(1) That it showed how to build our party from top to bottom;
(2) That it stressed the decisive importance of work in the reformist
unions;
(3) It gave a correct appreciation of the General Election results, and particularly corrected the analysis that had been registered in the resolution of the Political Bureau, i.e., that the Labour Party was smashed and finished with.
(4) It corrected the mistakes which appeared in articles to the effect that there was no way out of the capitalist crisis. For we have to remember, as Lenin said, that the capitalists have always got a way out, until the proletarian revolution has destroyed its power.
(5) It gave us new revolutionary methods of mass work and indicated how to fight the daily struggle against reformism as the indispensable pre-requisite to winning the majority of the working class, and
(6) It indicated a whole series of new methods of work which our Party should apply." (The Road to Victory by Harry
Pollitt, page 36,) The report to the 12th Congress
reproduced as a pamphlet called `The Road to Victory' seems to be engaged in a
polemic with the report on the ILP, Labour Party and TUC. `The Raod to Victory'
is pre-occupied with a different characterization of the ILP to that contained
in the refutation of social-democratic slogans and policy. `The Road to
Victory' prefaces its argumentation for orientating the CPGB towards winning
the rank and file of the ILP with a section attacking `The Active Role of the
Reformist Leaders in Defence of Capitalism'. The position being emphasised
would have been greatly mistrusted and needed to be given some packaging.
Furthermore, the analysis of the Labour Party and ILP in the document before
the congress would have taken a lot of beating. What is wrong with winning the
rank and file of the ILP, you may ask. But did Lenin ever address the RSDLP on
the importance of winning over the membership of the Socialist Revolutionaries,
or the Mensheviks or any other of the many opportunist or petti-bourgeois
socialist trends. Not at all.The point is that this perspective denied the need
to put the ideological struggle first in dealing with the opportunist parties.
Harry Pollitt's report sees only attitudes by CP members towards ILP members
dividing the two. The following quote reveals what Harry Pollitt believed to be
the underlying difference between the ILP and the CPGB:- "And the basis of their opposition (as far as we can
discover) to the Communist Party, can be summed up as this They say they agree
with communism, they believe the Comintern is alright, but it is the rigid
tactics of the CPGB which are wrong. Now we have to understand that for us this
question of the ILP and what shall be done is of supreme importance. And we
therefore, put the question to our congress, while recognizing that there is no
difference between the policy of the Labour Party, Trade Union and ILP leaders, we put to the Congress this
question. Can we believe that our own Party can be enormously strengthened if we could win away from the ILP leadership decisive sections of their
Party. (The Road to Victory page 23) Not liking an organization because
of its tactics or shall we more precisely read it as disliking an organization
because of its failure to accommodate itself to the opportunist line of the
likes of the ILP, is the last refuge of any opportunist defeated by the
strength of Marxist Leninist analysis. To give credence to this feeble point of
view is an insult to the Party and the calibre of its members. The report speaks of the ILP
toying with militant speeches and `left' phrases to mislead the working class.
But in the argumentation for what is regarded as an easy task of winning the
ILP rank-and-file, the document gleefully proclaims that the ILPers talk
communism. The obvious contradiction here seems to lose Harry Pollitt and other
authors of the report, no sleep at all. An impression is given of taking all
the arguments against the ILP into account. But it seems clear that the author
or authors of the CC report either do not understand the documents analysing
the Labour Party and Co. or are in total disagreeement with it. In which case
the reasons should be clearly stated as opposing views without wriggling and
squirming. However, in spite of all the time
spent on the ILP in the Central Committee's report, the question was not taken
up during the discussion by the delegates at the Congress. This can mean either
that there was a great deal of confusion among the delegates as to what was
being called for, or an unquestioning acceptance. It is worth remembering that,
at this point, the Central Committee was not calling for a united front with the
ILP or the Labour Party. Indeed, opinion in the CPGB against the Labour Party
was still very strong and consciousness of their treacherous activities against
communists high. So the report could not hope to get away with opposing head-on
hard hitting ideological struggle. But the leadership did want the membership
to go soft on the ILP. Such a line sought to tie the members hands in dealing
with the ILP and confuse people into mistrusting their own judgement. This
would mean not struggling vigorously against social-democracy and the ILP for
fear of alienating possible recruits. The only lasting effect of such a muddled
policy would be to undermine and even liquidate the CPGB's militant stand
against social-democracy, which had been policy since 1929 and prevent the
Party really becoming a vanguard party. According to a speech delivered by
Harry Pollitt to the 7th World Congress of the Comintern, the CPGB had made
agreements on united front activity with the ILP since 1933. At the same time
he noted that enthusiasm for this policy was lacking. He refers to complaints
from Party members that unity was for abstract reasons and not based on
principle. Clearly the Party members did not understand Pollitt's insistance
that there would be no revolution without the united front. And with good
reason. Harry Pollitt was forced to recognize that the united front policy
proposed by Dimitrov was a tactic.However, in practice, the Party policy has
always made the development of the CPGB conditional on the CPGB's relationship
with social-democracy. In his speech to the 7th Congress
of the Comintern, Harry Pollitt totally misunderstood Dimitrov's report when he
said in the first paragraph:- "It is a report that will take the international labour
movement a big step forward to overcoming the split created in 1914 by the war
policy of the social-democrats." (Unity against the National
Government. Page 1) Nothing can heal the breach
between Marxism-Leninism and social-democracy which is a clear division on
principles. Here, yet again, Harry Pollitt reveals is weak grasp of
Marxist-Leninist revolutionary theory. After the 12th Congress of the CPGB in
1932, militant struggle to expose the Labour Party was not revived until the
out-break of the 2nd World War and Harry Pollitt's removal from the position of
General Secretary. So incensed by the CPGB's campaign of exposure of Labour
leaders was Walter Citrine, leader of the TUC, he brought a libel case against
the `Daily Worker' in 1940. The January resolution referred to
at the 12th Congress in 1932, insisted on the CPGB having a clear line of
opposition to the Labour Party, ILP and TUC. This contrasts with a short
pamphlet published around 1935 called `The CP., LP and the United Front'. In
this pamphlet it is even stated that the working class nature of the Labour
Party and the ILP have been usurped by the middle class leaders. For the first
time, the pamphlet declares the CPGB's intention to change the leadership of
the Labour Party. THE SECOND WORLD WAR - HARRY POLLITT'S REMOVAL FROM THE
POSITION OF GENERAL SECRETARY - REVIVAL OF REVOLUTIONARY EXPOSURE
OF THE LABOUR PARTY. The question of the outbreak of a
new imperialist war was an issue as early as 1929 at the time of the Wall
Street crash. Tom Bell wrote a pamphlet called `Heading For War' which raised
the question of Anglo-American imperialist rivalry as `at present the
fundamental imperialist antagonism'. While opposing pacifist illusions promoted
by social-democracy, the pamphlet pin-points the growth of fascist repression
as a feature of bourgeois preperations for a new round of imperialist wars. The pamphlet concludes with the
clear statement:-
"War is inevitable under imperialism. The contradictions of the
capitalist system cannot be composed or reconciled permanently. At what point
when and where it will break out we cannot tell. Of this we are sure - the next
war will be a world war." (Heading for War by Tom Bell, page 47) In 1932 the attitude of the
proletariat to war was again prominent in discussion. A collection of documents
published by the Comintern were brought out under this title. The first
document published in this pamphlet is `The resolution of the Berne Conference
of the Russian Social-Democratic Labour Party' and some notes on imperialist
war produced by Lenin in December, 1922. The Berne conference resolutions state
clearly the position of the Bolsheviks on transforming the imperialist war into
civil war against the bourgeoisie in each country. They particularly emphasise
the importance of communists guarding against and combatting pacifism in the
struggle against imperialist war. Lenin in his notes on imperialist war
bitterly scorns carelessness and frivolity in the formulation of slogans
against imperialist war. He particularly singles out the methods of
social-democracy in postponing organizing the opposition of the masses against
the danger of war with declarations like `war on war' or call a general strike
if war is declared. 1932 was the year when the
Japanese imperialists invaded Manchuria. This was regarded by communists as the
beginning of a new imperialist re-division of the world. However, it seems that
the CPGB did make pacifist errors regarding the gathering storm of war. With
regard to the coming to power of Nazism in Germany, the CPGB lost sight of the
imperialist character of the British bourgeoisie vis-a-vis German fascist
imperialism. In fact the CPGB got into a tangle over the question of the
growing danger of imperialist war and united front tactics against fascism. The
threat of intervention and war against the Soviet Union was a new feature when
considering the international situation characterized by growing imperialist
rivalry and expansionism. Palme Dutt in a report on the `The Fight For Peace'
missed the point, however, when he failed to draw the correct conclusion from
the fact that this expansionism was at the immediate expence of British
imperialism. Invasion of the Soviet Union as a probability was not yet an
actuality. Therefore, opposition to the military build-up of British
imperialism was not just a question of opposition to Britain seeking to turn
Germany East against the Soviet Union. This was certainly a matter of deep
concern to the Soviet Union and the Comintern. Consequently, the USSR's peace
and treaty proposals to Britain and France aimed at forming an alliance against
Nazi Germany were absolutely just and needed to be firmly supported by the
CPGB. But to interpret from this that British imperialism, with its massive
colonial possessions was less of a cause of the growing war danger was wrong. Wars of intervention against the
Soviet Union since 1917, had created the belief among communists that the
contradiction between capitalism and socialism was the main cause of war. The
fact is that the imperialist powers were unable to unite to crush the Bolshevik
revolution in 1917 because they were locked in battle. A significant cause of
the failure of the 14 power invasion was the contradictions between the
seperate imperialist powers. And, it turned out that the 2nd World War started
as a war between the imperialist powers. It followed from the position that the
main contradiction in the world was between capitalism and socialism that
combatting the most bellicose anti-communists was the most important feature of
the struggle against war. Imperialism leads to war. This is
a basic principle of Leninism which must be bluntly stated by communists in the
course of struggle to educate the working class that imperialist wars are
unjust wars. However, at the 14th Congress of the CPGB the cause of war is
clearly thought to be fascism rather than imperialism. Mixed up with this
disregard for the essence of British imperialism, were mistakes about how to
combat imperialist war. Mistakes based on assumptions similar to the position taken
by social-democracy toward the 1st World War. Platitudes bewailing the fact
that there were divisions in the Labour Movement towards war replaced
determined leadership by the CPGB patiently explaining that the imperialist war
must be transformed into civil war and the Soviet Union defended. However, even
though I feel that this general point can be made and must be made, it is
difficult for Marxist-Leninists to speak concretely today about which slogans
should have been coined in order to realize the education of the class
conscious vanguard on this point. It must be said that a general campaign for
peace did not warn the masses against the imperialist character of the rivalry
as well as the collaboration between Britain, Germany and Italy against the Soviet
Union. In fact the slogan for peace could easily be manipulated by British
imperialism headed by Chamberlain to confuse the public and hide the robber
agreements being concluded with the Nazis - Munich. A number of errors committed by
the CPGB on the question of the impending war are evident. First, the Party
denied or, at least, disregarded the imperialist character of the rivalry
between the fascist axis imperialist powers on the one hand, and Britain,
France and America on the other. The Comintern's correct tactics of uniting all
who could be united behind the CP in an anti-fascist front against the
bourgeoisie in each country was transfered to the international arena. Here I
am not speaking of the direct aid given to the Spanish anti-fascist fighters -
assistance which was given in the full spirit of internationalism. Rather, I am
speaking of the exhortations by the CPGB for Britain to intervine in the
Spanish civil war or Abyssinia which was grabbed by Italy. This could only
spread confusion among the working class about the role of British imperialism
in the redivision of the world taking place. The cornerstone of the CPGB's
agitation against imperialist war was that the National Government was
sacrificing the independence of nations by doing deals with Hitler. It is
easily presumed by any thoughtful worker that if the Nazis cannot be contained
by Peace pacts between Britain, France and the USSR, or if Britain is unwilling
to take part in such pacts, when British imperialism switches from appeasement
to war, then the war is still against German fascism. All that is wrong is that
Britain made a mistake in trying to buy off the Nazis. This also presumes that
British imperialism is itself capable of being the guardian of the independence
of nations. Soviet proposals for a peace pact against the aggressive fascist
powers were not expected by the USSR to permanently prevent imperialist war.
They were made in order to exploit contradictions between the imperialists and
prevent a united imperialist invasion of the Soviet Union. The USSR's proposals
were designed to give the Soviet Union additional time to defend itself. As it
was, Britain was seeking to turn Germany East and the USSR was forced to sign
an agreement with Ribbentrop effectively re-asserting a non-aggression pact
that had existed between the USSR and Germany during the Weimar Republic. Secondly, the CPGB in its
application of the united front policy against fascism went further in its
denial that the Labour Party is a party of imperialism. In his opening address
to the 15th Congress, Willie Gallacher made the United Front against fascism
conditional upon the affiliation of the CPGB to the Labour Party. Gallacher
even went so far as to say:- "We appeal to all members of
the Labour Party, the cooperatives and the Trade Unions. We are bone of your
bone, flesh of your flesh. We, like you, are members of the Labour Party,
though we are denied our democratic rights within the Labour Party. We like you
are co-operators and trade unionists. Let us get together before it is too late
and save this country and Europe from the disasters that threaten". (For Peace and Plenty, Report of
the 15th Congress page 15). Now, this is not a agitational
speech to a workers meeting, and it is difficult to justify such argumentation
even then. It is part of an analysis of the situation to a communist party
congress (21) . The CPGB's appeals for unity
are not based on struggle but are dreamlike and utopian. They do not educate
the working class politically and leave the mass movement in a passive state
and wide open to manipulation by social-democracy. Workers are not educated to
support the Communist Party by its appearing
reasonablevis-a-visthe`unreasonable'demandsof social-democracy. Harry Pollitt in his report to the
15th Congress opened with an attack on the Chamberlain Government, saying that
it was `betraying the national interest of the British people'. He made a
desperate call for `reason to prevail' and for the release of Britain from the
`Chains of Chamberlain'. On the question of defence he stated:-
"We are perfectly willing to support any measure necessary to
defend Britain from fascism, either from British or foreign sources"
(Ibid., page 33) what is clearly meant here is that
the CPGB will support British imperialism against German fascist imperialism. A
truly vanguard communist party would not stand by while troops of another
imperialist power invade and add to the oppression suffered by the working
class. It would take the lead in struggle against such an invasion. But one
aspect of communist organization against such an invasion are appeals to
proletarian internationalism and anti-imperialist and anti-capitalist work
among the invading troops. Fraternization against imperialist war. Not lining
up behind national frontiers and the national bourgeoisie. The character of the
2nd World War was not an exact repeat of the 1st World War. War is a
continuation of politics by other i.e. violent means and the international
situation differed in some important respects; not least the existance of the
first socialist state the USSR. However, the Versaille Treaty , which the
victor imperialist powers imposed on Germany , was bound to lead to a revival
of German militarism and a new contest for imperial supremacy. Appeasement and
war were both expressions of Britain pursueing its imperialist interests. The only conclusion that can be
drawn from Pollitt's statement is that the policy of the CPGB toward British
imperialist re-armament (the subject under discussion) depended on Britain
adopting a war policy rather than an appeasement policy towards the fascist
axis. A very messy argument indeed. On proposals by the Soviet Union, for
collective security and a peace front against fascism, Harry Pollitt in his
reply to the conference discussion flew into a flight of fancy and declared:-
"If we could achieve this it would completely transform the entire
situation. Britain and Europe would be places in which war tensions would
disappear and the air be easier to breathe." (Ibid., page 121). A Comintern document on Soviet
disarmament propopsals carefully explains the tactical nature of exposing the
mask of bourgeois, imperialist pacifism and states that `not a single communist
thought for a moment that the imperialists would accept the Soviet disarmament
proposals'. The same goes for Soviet peace proposals. It is clear that the
leadership of the CPGB behaved like non-communists and had forgotten the object
of these Soviet tactical proposals. It is a very serious matter for
communists to confuse strategy and tactics. Tactical demands and slogans aimed
at exposing the enemy are absolutely necessary. But if they are not coupled
with strategic opposition to the bourgeoisie and imperialist war, the tactics are
made to become the aim in themselves and can only mislead the working class.
The CPGB's presentation of the National Government as the enemy and not British
imperialism, distorted the clear aim of fighting British imperialism into one
of removing Chamberlain.The role of Parliament and the state is completely
distorted in the name of the struggle against fascism. At the time of the 15th Congress,
the bourgeoisie were frightening and intimidating the population with the
prospect of war. It was especially necessary for the CPGB to make a sober
Marxist-Leninist analysis of the situation. The speeches of Harry Pollitt, Dutt
and Gallacher pointed out that the National Government were creating a `war
scare'. Desperate language was used to describe the consequence of British
imperialism not adopting a peace policy in the course of refuting the `war
scare' propaganda. But Chamberlain claimed to have a peace policy, it was one
of colluding with the Nazi invasion of Chzechoslovakia. British imperialism ,
which was making secret deals and war preperations, could not agree to a policy
of peace of the kind which the Soviet Union strived to achieve in its relations
with capitalist countries. The Soviet Union's tactics exposed the war aims of
British imperialism as well as the Nazis. British imperialism sought to dress
up its war aims behind all kinds of false slogans. As well as appealing to the
masses desire for peace they exploited anti-fascist sentiments to justify
support for their own predatory interests. Although the term fascism had not
emerged in the first world war, German militarism and the reactionary rule of
the German Junkers were the object of social-democratic and bourgeois appeals
to the working class to support the war. Defence of the Soviet Union was a new
feature of the build-up to the 2nd World War, but this could only be dealt with
concretely and not as a justification for opposing German fascist imperialism
whilst going soft on and disregarding the powerful role of British imperialism. There can be no mistake that when
Harry Pollitt referred to traitors to the national interest of the British
people he was defending the interests of British imperialism. In his pamphlet
published in mid-1939 called `Defence of the People' he declared:-
"Whole areas of the country cry aloud for new constructive
developments that would bring work, wages, health and happiness to millions of
our people. The skilled workers of Lancashire are driven into unemployment or
under-employment because the National Govt.'s policy of encouraging Japanese
aggression has particularly destroyed the China market for British goods. "Chamberlain's policy hands
over the markets of Spain and South East Europe to Nazi Germany depriving
thousands of our workers of employment"(Page 7) In this pamphlet, Harry Pollitt
strives with fantastic imagery to paint a glorious picture of what
non-political national unity against fascism can achieve. He refers to rent
struggles in the East-End in which whether the tenants are tories, liberals or
communists does not matter. The Labour Party seems to have disappeared
altogether here. However, it is irrefutable that class interest cannot be
judged on the voting habits of workers or tenants.As long as the tenants are
prepared to unite and fight against their landlord political differences are
secondary. Harry Pollitt then transfers this situation to the kind of national
unity required against Chamberlain. The next step from here, since the only
imperialist alternative to Chamberlain was an immediate declaration of war, was
national unity against German fascism. But he employs the hypocritical language
of the bourgeoisie and describes a Government that will take a determined stand
against the fascist aggressors to be a Government of peace. The world would
heave a sigh of relief and the `insatiable maw of brutes and maniacs' would be
checked and `we would be proudly leading the world in a indestructable peace
alliance of all nations which have no interest in war'. These are strong words
aimed at appealing to the best feelings of workers who hate fascism. But they
are words which carelessly mislead the working class into supporting the
non-the-less brutish imperialist interests of the British bourgeoisie. When war was declared, Harry
Pollitt issued a pamphlet printed in the `Daily Worker' entitled `How to Win
the War'. Britain is an imperialist power but....is the theme of this pamphlet.
Right up until the eve of the declaration of war, the `Daily Worker' published
articles declaring it was still possible to prevent the war. The 16th Congress
which was due to take place on October 7th, 8th and 9th of 1939 was postponed.
A month later after the publication of `How to Win the War', a statement was
carried in the `Daily Worker' reporting a resolution moved by Palme Dutt
describing the war between Britain and Germany as unjust because Britain was
not interested in defeating fascism but pursuing its own imperialist interests.
Two members of the Central Committee voted against the resolution - Harry
Pollitt and Campbell. Harry Pollitt was compelled to resign and make a
self-criticism which was published. Palme Dutt took over the position of
General Secretary. The `Daily Worker' carried many
articles agitating on the question of air-raid protection for the working
class. Other articles appeared attacking anti-strike decrees and the removal of
civil liberties as the rule of fascists during a war allegedly against fascism.
Strong articles against the Labour Party and its support of imperialist war
also appeared. The TUC General Secretary and other members of the TUC General
Council brought a libel case against the `Daily Worker'. The case was held on
April 29th to May 6th in 1940, and concerned articles in Mid-December 1939
exposing the anti-working class objects of conferences between the British TUC
and the French CGTI. French anti-working class war legislation was notorious
for being in line with those of Nazi Germany. The implication is clear. During
the trial the TUC big-wigs placed their hands on their hearts and declared that
no such decrees would be made in Britain and certainly not with the connivance
of the TUC. But Walter Citrine also said that laws against communists in
war-time are a different matter. The trial lasted 6 days and heavy fines on the
`Daily Worker' were awarded to the TUC. However, the Comintern in its
documents against the 2nd World War was very clear on the imperialist character
of the war and the line communists must take.In the `Communist International'
No. 5 1940, journal of the Comintern, two very important articles were
published. One called `Lenin verses Social-democratism' and the other headed
`No national unity with the imperialists'. The first article, while stressing
the decline of the labour aristocracy in the economic crisis since the 1st World
War, makes the following point:- "Lenin said that as the class
struggle between the working people and their exploiters becomes more acute,
which will be reflected in the intensification and increased acuteness of the
struggle between the two tendencies revealed in the international labour
movement, the upper stratum of international Social-democracy would degenerate
still further." (Page 7) This quote again shows that in no
way can the united front tactics carefully explained by Dimitrov at the 7th World
Congress of the Comintern be regarded as a strategy. The united front was and
is, where it applies,tactical unity betweencommunists, social-democrats and
other non-communists, against fascism. But this could not mean it was correct
for the communists to abandon struggle against social-democracy for fear of
upsetting the Labour big-wigs. This interpretation of the united front would
only serve to dull the wits of the working class and make it easier for
social-democracy to carry out its treachery in the united front. The whole
point about the importance of understanding that the upper stratum of the
Labour movement, the labour aristocracy, are bribed and corrupted by
imperialism, is that this represents the economic basis which gives the labour
aristocracy a stake in the continuation of imperialism and hence an hatred of
communism and proletarian revolution. In the second article called `No
national unity with the imperialists', which also makes an analysis of the
practice of social-democracy, it is exposed that the leaders of the German
Social-democratic party who fled into exile. never gave up in their attempts to
ingratiate themselves with the German bourgeoisie. Taking no part in any
proletarian struggle against fascism, the German social-democrats lectured to
the German capitalists that fascism was not serving their best interests.
Always they encouraged the Nazis to attack the Soviet Union. When the Nazis
were at war with Britain and the allies, the German social-democrats asserted
their support for the allies and declared that the Nazis had made a mistake by
invading Europe and being at war with Britain. The German armies should attack
in the east they demanded. When dealing with the need to
oppose national unity with the imperialists, the pamphlet emphasises the need
for communists to adhere firmly to proletarian internationalism. The
imperialist bourgeoisie seeks to disguise its moves to annex territory or
maintain its domination of smaller nations by posing the bellicose imperialist
character of enemy nations as the threat. In this respect, British imperialism
toys with exposure of the `undemocratic' bestial features of fascism but avoids
any mention of its class nature. This way the bourgeoisie educates the working
class in the belief that the German nation as a whole is synonimous with
fascism. As already mentioned,opposition to the Versailles treaty was arroused
among the German masses to justify German expansionism and opposition to
Britain and France as a whole. Exposure of hardship imposed by the Versailles
treaty was always very weak in CPGB propaganda. In the same way that
anti-imperialist, anti-chauvinist agitation by the CPGB was weak. While the
imperialist character of Britain was forgotten and fascism, rather than
imperialism came to be regarded as the cause of war, internationalism towards
the German workers subsided even further during the build up of the anti-war
movement. AFTER THE NAZI INVASION OF THE
SOVIET UNION.
The 16th Congress of the CPGB,
which was due to take place in Oct.,1939, did not take place until 1943.
However, a national conference did take place in May, 1942 at which Harry
Pollitt outlined a policy of national unity, strengthening the national
Government and increasing production in the war against Hitler Germany(22). In dealing with the importance of opening the
second front as the necessary condition for victory in 1942, reference is made
to the abortive attempt of a small force of commandos landing at St. Nazaire to
defeat the Nazis. The population of St. Nazaire fought heroically alongside the
handful of soldiers believing that the second front had at last started. Great
losses were suffered by the soldiers and the people. Such a farcical and
disasterous exercise by British imperialism was a clear indication that
whatever illusions Harry Pollitt may have had about the objectives of British
imperialism in the international united front against fascism, Britain's ruling
servants of the monopoly bourgoisie had none. Class struggle had not ceased in
the anti-fascist war. This blatent sacrifice of soldiers was an attempt to
publically `justify' delaying the second front until the imperialists deemed it
necessary The character of the 2nd World War
changed with the invasion of the Soviet Union by the German fascists in June
1941. New tactics needed to be adopted by the communist parties which defended
socialism and continued the struggle against the rule of the imperialist
bourgeoisie of the communist's own country. In the international united front
against the fascist axis, there was bound to be a certain relaxation by
communists in Britain of the class struggle. But not abandonment of the class
struggle and a complete failure to expose the class nature of German fascism
and British imperialism's delay in opening the 2nd Front. The class reasons for
Britain's participation in the war against fascism became particularly
important for communists to exposes when dealing with such questions as failure
to arm the Indian workers and peasants against invasion by Japanese
imperialism. With the victory of the Red Army in pushing back the Nazis and
liberating the peoples of Eastern Europe, British and American imperialism were
frantic to protect their imperialist interests against revolution and socialism.
This had to be exposed among the workers in Britain in order to educate and
arrouse the working class for winning the fruits of the war against fascism and
to prepare for socialist revolution. The CPGB did not do this. Instead,
the Party sacrificed its independence and placed itself almost totally at the
service of the National Government. In this respect, at the May 1942 conference
Harry Pollitt offered the following promise to the National Government if the
ban on the `Daily Worker' were to be lifted:-
"If the `Daily Workers' were allowed to appear, we could count on
certain very important results taking place. First, there would be a greater
unity of the people behind the Government. Second, there would be a greater
drive for increased production. Third, the Government candidates would not be
defeated in by-elections. Fourth, the demand for the second front would be
infinitely stronger. Fifth, the working and fighting morale of the people would
be increased. And sixth, the hands of solidarity between the the British people
and the peoples fighting fascism all over the world would be stronger"
(Way to Win page 26) The `Daily Worker' was banned
under the Defence Regulations on January 21st, 1941. It was lifted on August
26th., 1942. In the pamphlet by William Rust about the `Daily Worker', he
refers to a decision not to bring the paper out secretly as this would, he
claimed, detract from the beat the ban campaign. Some abortive attempts to
produce the paper underground were made. However, when the Nazis invaded the
Soviet Union, it was declared by telegram from the CPGB to the Home Secretary
that he was bound to lift the ban as the Government and CPGB were now on the
same side. The beat the ban campaign won widespread support. Even the Labour
Party congress in 1942 narrowly passed a resolution against the ban. But it
must be said that the CPGB in not producing the paper secretly and thereby
showing its self-reliance and ability to maintain its organization in the face
of the capitalists' attacks, had revealed its achilles heal. By the time the 16th Congress(23) of the CPGB was held in 1943, Harry Pollitt was
firmly back in the driving seat. His report on behalf of the Central Committee
at the conference held in 1942 boldly declared that the CPGB was not
sacrificing its independence in the united front. The CP would support all
Government candidates at the bi-elections. The traditional Labour/Tory
arguments were dropped. Instead, Pollitt posed the defeat of the Government
candidates as bringing encouragement to the fascists at home and abroad. The
masses are clearly regarded as passive and unreliable. Just were was the
independence of the CP if it had not been sacrificed. It is of course true that
the election of fascist sympathisers may increase speculation as to the
formation of the second front. But what right does the CP have to regard the
only alternative to a Government of vacillating bourgeois politicians to be one
of fascist sympathisers. The CP cannot make itself the slave of the
inconsistency of the bourgeoisie who in its class interests were delaying the
2nd Front. Only when it was absoutely clear 1that the Soviet Union were heading
for resounding victory, did the allies make a dash for Berlin. At the 16th Congress, however,
Harry Pollitt back-peddled on this position and begun to stress the discontent
of the working class who regard themselves as the victors in the war against
fascism. The masses want a government of their choise. They are not fighting
the war in order to lose the peace. Pollitt's answer to this situation was not
one of encouraging these working class political interests and democratic
aspirations in a war against fascism. Instead, he prattled on about conferences
between the Labour, Tory, Liberal and Communist Parties in order to choose the
best anti-fascist candidates. Fear of the masses is clearly revealed here.
Despite Harry Pollitt's recognition of the feelings of the workers in a war
against fascism, he shows more faith in a conference of tories, liberals and
labour aristocrats. The slight change of emphasis and
move toward a stand more in opposition to the National Government was not
reflected in statements issued by the CPGB after the 16th Congress.Especially
since the invasion of the Soviet Union, the CPGB Central Committee had
concentrated its political activity on moralizing statements addressed to the
bourgeoisie. In its political statements to the workers, especially the miners,
the class interests of British imperialism in the war and the class character
of fascism is underplayed and even ignored. The main emphasis of the statements
to the workers is increased production in order to make the second front
possible sooner. It is evident from this that the bourgeoisie was justifying
delaying opening the second front on the grounds that there was not enough war
materials and this was so because of low levels of coal output. To this the
CPGB responded by addressing appeals to the miners to mine more coal posing the
prospect of a Nazi victory as more terrible than the miners existing working
conditions. It is in statements like this that the failure of the CPGB to take
an independent class stand becomes most marked. In mid 1942 (August 9th) British
imperialism arrested and imprisoned the leaders of the Indian National
Congress. A declaration in favour of armed resistance to Axis aggression had
been made and a demand for self-government. Failure by British imperialism to
grant self-government would be met by a campaign of civil disobedience. In a
letter to Churchill, Harry Pollitt's responce to this is to deplore the threats
of the Indian National Congress which, he argued, gives a chance to fascism to
sow disunity. At the same time he pleaded with Churchill to meet the justified
demands of the INC.What an appalling great power chauvinist position. At a
stroke of a pen, Harry Pollitt, on behalf of the CPGB Central Committee denies
the right of the Indian National Congress and the Indian people the right to
struggle against British imperialism as well as the aggression of the Axis
powers. In the same manner, as a `solution' to speeding up the second front or
granting independence to India, the Central Committee demanded, no less, the
`reorganization of the Government'. Also, developing at this time of
1942/43, is the question of post-war Britain. The CP's immediate response to
this was that this question detracted from speeding up victory in the war.
Undoubtedly, the view of the bourgeoisie also. The Central Committee, however,
was apparently afraid of raising this matter for discussion as it sharply
exposed the Party's lack of a revolutionaryprogram and how much it hadbetrayed
Marxism-Leninism for the war effort. However, as the feelings among the
soldiers, sailors, airmen and working class of Britain became stronger, the CP
was forced to give the matter serious attention. The working class and
servicemen wanted to know who was going to benefit from the fruits of victory.
A resolution passed at the 16th Congress opened under the heading, `The first
Step Military Victory Over Fascism'. Following this introductory section,
various reforms are outlined. On social-insurance, the resolution called for
immediate implementation of the Beveridge report. Among the other demands, a
National Health Service is called for and a `pay-as-you-earn' taxation system
mentioned. On the question of state control and industry, the use of state
emergency powers against `vested interests' in order to intensify war
production is demanded. This is a peculiar demand which seems to regard state
monopoly capitalism as more efficient than private enterprise. Here we have a
failure to understand that capitalism in its monopoly stage is capitalism in
decay. This goes for state and private monopolies. The main contradiction in
capitalist society (monopoly capitalism is moribund capitalism) is the
contradiction between the private ownership (state capitalist ownership does
not essentially alter the private appropriation of the nationalized industries)
and the social character of production. Furthermore, it is a matter of folklore
that state-monopoly in monopoly caplitalist Britain is not more efficient but
more bureacratic and decadent. Labour Party and Keynsian policies for public
works programs in order to alleviate unemployment were never adequately refuted
theoretically by the CPGB. The 12th Congress came closest. Here, however, it is
accepted without question and a call made for state-control of industry not to
be done in the capitalist's interests. As an allegedly more just system of ownership,
`national ownership' rather than state ownership is presented as the ideal. The
theoretical failings revealed show a fundamental failure to grasp the nature of
the state and bourgeois rule, and Harry Pollitt cannot be forgiven even though
the point is made that people must not be deceived that such policies:-
"...for strengthened monopoly capitalism in association with the
state capitalist monopoly are equivalent to a basic social re-organization
supposedly eliminating the evils of private competitive capitalism..."
(Unity and Victory page 52) A number of other points regarding
Harry Pollitt's speech on behalf of the Central Committee to the 16th Congress
are also worth noting. In dealing again with the matter of affiliation to the
Labour Party, the question of the CPGB's support for force in the workers'
struggle for socialism is dealt with. This being one of the objections by the
Labour leaders to CPGB affiliation. The report criticizes the notion of Labour
leaders who advocate that `a new Britain' can be built in`peaceful co-operation
with the great monopoly capitalists'. This can only be regarded as a sop to
satisfy possible objections to the CPGB's post war reconstruction program.
Speaking more directly on the question of force, Pollitt uses the war against
fascism as an example of necessary force. But nowhere is the need for seizing
power by violent means dealt with directly. Now that the Comintern had been
dissolved (something which must have delighted the opportunists in the
leadership) it was argued that the labour leaders' charges that the CPGB was a
puppet of Moscow no longer had any meaning. In asserting that the CPGB was born
of the British Labour Movement, Harry Pollitt said:-
"Its principal leaders were all members of the Labour Party, ILP,
Social Democratic Federation or the British Socialist Party before they merged
to form the CP". Page 17 Unity and Victory) A conspicuous ommission from the
list is the Socialist Labour Party, the second largest founding constituent
organization of the CPGB. It is really to their honour that they are not
included among Pollitt's chosen organizations in this grovelling address to the
Labour Party. Finally, at the end of his report
to the 16th Congress a rallying call is made to them `most glorious principles
that humanity has ever known, socialism' which here is refered to as that
`state of classless society'. In the same way that the CPGB's proposals on
post-war recontruction deny the capitalist nature of the state in Britain,
Harry Pollitt exhibits confusion and wooly-mindedness on the nature of the
state under the dictatorship of the proletariat. This is a succinct testimony
to the theoretical bankruptsy of Harry Pollitt, the General Secretary and the
low theoretical level of the whole party. That the CPGB should have forgotten,
or indeed never grasped, the elementary principles spelt out in the Communist
Manifesto nearly one hundred years previous, shows that years of placing short
term gain before long term aims, the essence of opportunism, was at the root of
the degeneration of the CPGB. The Teherean conference between
comrade Stalin, Churchill and Roosevelt marked a new stage in the position of
the CPGB during the war. More emphasis is placed on international co-operation
of the democratic nations in the defeat of fascism and post-war peaceful
construction. In the manner of more moralizing statements addressed to the
bourgeoisie, attention is drawn to the apparent increase in international
co-operation against fascism while in Britain their is increasing discontent.
Mosley had been released from prison and public anger was aflame. Did the CPGB
use such questions to espose the class interests of British impereialism in the
war? Certainly not at the level of the Central Committee where the National
Government is merely blamed for damaging national unity by such actions. Following the Teheran conference,
a declaration was made that the second front under the command of Eisenhower
would be opened and victory in Europe achieved by the end of 1944. One of the
reasons for the delay in the opening of the second front was disagreeement
between Britain and America as to who should have overall command. A sign of
imperialist rivalry between the two powers. However, this was not dealt with by
the CPGB at the time. The CPGB's support for the
National Government was total. There were spontaneous strikes on economic
questions during the war. Long hours were the rule and the workers' discontent
was not misplaced as the CPGB's position implied. But economic struggle was not
the order of the day. Having said this, political education of the working
class would have found an eager responce at a time when only a great deal of
consciousness and hatred for fascism could have made the working class of
Britain make the sacrifices that they did. Besides this, the working class were
quite capable of being organized for revolutionary struggle against British
capitalism whilst understanding the need to defeat fascism and defend the
Soviet Union.A genuine vanguard party would have had the foresight and
understanding to continue to prepare the working class for the struggles ahead
even in the conditions of the international united front against fascism. The
first condition was for the CPGB to be completely independent of British
imperialism with its own revolutionary line and program. It was here that the
CPGB failed. REVISIONISM FULLY DEFINED! The adoption of the `British Road
to Socialism' marked the complete triumph of revisionism in the CPGB. The
ideological justifications and assumptions had been laid down most especially
during the years of World War 2, after June 1941. `National Unity' in the war
against fascism had enabled opportunists in the Central Committee and Party,
lead by Harry Pollitt, to miseducate the members and working class generally
into denying the need to defeat their own imperialist bourgeoisie. The state is
presented as a neutral force which can be utilized in the interests of the
people and not particularly the working class. Revolutionary struggle at this
time is not repudiated but regarded tacitly as un-necessary during or after
what is regarded as a just war against fascism in which the whole nation has
taken part. In polemic with Party members who
exposed the situation following World War 1, in 1918, Harry Pollitt argued in a
pamphlet called `How to Win the Peace', that in 1918, the Labour Movement was
divided. He praised the monopoly capitalists as being far-sighted and able to
see that the working class are not prepared to return to pre-war unemployment
and insecurity. The position is put this way - "If there can be full
employment during the war, then so can there be after the war" etc. It was
felt that the struggle against fascism had produced international co-operation
between capitalism and socialism which would bring everlasting peace and
abolish poverty, want and war. Although it may not be denied that imperialism
inevitably leads to war, by this logic imperialism had not been abolished but
had become irrelevent. In responce to those who were politically conscious
enough to see the real world and not indulge in the flights of fancy of the
petty bourgeoisie, Pollitt laughed and jeered. This is how Harry Pollitt's
misleadership of the Party and deceaving of the masses served the bourgeoisie:-
REVISIONISM IN THE C.P.G.B.