Index
Contents: This Issue
Search CHNN
CHNN Home
Class Against Class:
The Communist Party of Great Britain in the Third Period, 1927-1932
This PhD thesis was successfully completed at the University of Nottingham in September 1998.
The 'Third Period' of British Communist Party history (1928-1935) has generally been dismissed as a calamitous one. Noreen Branson labelled it 'a disaster' [1]. Willie Thompson described it as a time of 'total and bitter isolation' [2], and Kevin Morgan ventured that 'class against class' 'brought the CP to such a pass that, but for Soviet subventions, it would have virtually collapsed.' [3] Such damning accounts however, while not devoid of truth, are compromised by the fact that no study of the CPGB has focused exclusively, or in detail, upon the period in question. General histories and biographies obviously refer to it, but no concentrated attempt has been made to actually explain the period beyond the narrow parameters of the 'Party line'. It was my intention therefore, to widen the basis for a study into the CPGB between 1927 and 1932, to consider the socio-economic and political context in which the Party functioned, and to acknowledge the breadth of the communist experience beyond King Street and Moscow. In so doing, I did not intend to turn history on its head and suggest that the period was a 'positive' one. Rather, I hoped to get away from notions of 'good' and 'bad', and to objectively analyse the multiple experiences of the CPGB within the 'class against class' years. Consequently, I found the period to be neither as disastrous as Branson et al described, nor as progressive as Mike Squires has recently suggested. [4]
In chapter one, I outline the composition of the CPGB in 1926-29, detailing the geographical and industrial make-up of the Party. Between 1927 and 1930, the Party lost members across the country, while the number of communists inside the trade unions and the workplace similarly diminished. This has traditionally been attributed to the policy of 'class against class', through which the Party endeavoured to construct an independent communist leadership of the working class, while launching a fierce offensive against the trade union and Labour Party bureaucracy. However, it is clear that the Party's membership and influence within the wider labour movement was declining well before the Party adopted its 'New Line' in February 1928. Moreover, diminishing membership and influence were not the preserve of the CPGB. Union membership, in both size and density, was also falling, and the post-General Strike period was characterised by a significant decline in industrial action. This latter development was, in part, a consequence Britain's changing economic structure during the inter-war years, as technological modernisation, industrial rationalisation, and the extension of 'new industries' dramatically affected Britain's old 'staple industries' - ie the areas in which the CPGB had built up a basis of support. An obvious example is South Wales, where between 1921 and 1936, 241 mines closed down and a workforce of 271,161 fell to 126,233. Consequently, unemployment, migration and victimisation all impinged upon areas of 'traditional' communist support.
Similarly, the evolution of the CPGB must also be considered within the context of Labour Party and trade union homogenisation. The former was moving ever further away from its federal roots, and the hostilities of the 'class against class' years were in many ways an extension of the differences that had hampered Communist-Labour Party relations since the CPGB's inception. With regard to the trade unions, the central bureaucracy of the TUC had also been strengthened in the years following the First World War, and 'disruptive elements' within the movement became a principal target of the central bureaucracy. Prior to the General Strike, the Labour Party, TUC and trade union executives had all taken measures to limit communist influence within their respective organisations, and such action intensified between late 1926 and 1930. As such, it is possible to argue that the attitudes that shaped 'class against class' were in response to communist exclusion from the wider labour movement, rather than the immediate cause.
In chapter two, I consider how these developments shaped the communist perspective, and suggest that the CPGB was moving towards the more independent position of 'class against class' prior to 1928. [5] The experience of the General Strike and the increase in Party membership that immediately followed it; the emergence of the Left Wing Movement within the Labour Party; and the offensive conducted against communists inside the trade unions, Labour Party and workplace (by the TUC, Labour bureaucracy and employers alike), convinced many Party members of the need to respond more 'openly' to the 'treacherous nature' of 'reformism'. Furthermore, such a hardened perspective was also emerging within the Communist International, as Bukharin's speeches to the Fifteenth Conference of the Soviet Communist Party in October 1926, and throughout 1927, demonstrate. By the end of 1927 therefore, concepts central to the 'Third Period', such as 'sharpening class struggle', the 'rapprochement' of social democracy and the capitalist class, and the 'fascist methods' of capitalist rule, were all established components of the official communist perspective. [6]
Chapter three offers an examination of the 'New Line's' introduction. The impetus to realign Party policy undoubtedly came from the Comintern, but as I argue in chapter two, it would be wrong to assume that the more independent position of 1928 did not correspond to developments in Britain as perceived by the Communist Party. What emerges from the British Party leadership's protracted adoption of the New Line therefore, is not the Party's resistance to a change of line, but the Party membership's embrace of a tougher line and a section of the leadership's attempt to restrict the extent of the shift to the left. It is also important to note that the initial 'New Line' was limited in scope, referring principally to standing communist candidates against those of the Labour Party in forthcoming electoral contests, and recognising changes in the dialectical relationship between capitalism and the working class. As such, the dramatic transformation of policy that occurred between February 1928 and the Tenth ECCI Plenum of 1929 was directed by four inter-linking factors. First, the attempt to apply the logic of a mutating ECCI theory to the practical work of the CPGB. Second, the referral of the Comintern line to all areas of CPGB theory and activity. Third, the varied interpretations of the 'new period' and the necessity to develop a 'correct' policy. Fourth, the absorption of the 'New Line' debate into the emergent struggle between Stalin and Bukharin inside the Soviet Party. Subsequently, the theoretical backdrop to 'class against class', and the means of turning theory into practice, continually evolved throughout the 'Third Period'. The ramifications of such ambiguities and flux for a Party attempting to develop a fixed policy became obvious in late 1928, and throughout 1929, as the CPGB plunged into a period of in-fighting and transformation. Throughout chapter four, I endeavour to chart the development of the Comintern line, demonstrating that official International policy was never as extreme or sectarian as contemporaries and subsequent historians have assumed. This was clearly apparent in the Comintern's approach towards the establishment of communist-led ('independent') trade unions. While the notion of 'Red' trade unions was adopted by the Comintern in accordance with the perceived 'social fascist' character of the 'reformist' (or social democratic) trade unions in a (supposedly) revolutionary period, the Comintern never abandoned the policy of work within the already existing 'reformist' unions, and consistently maintained a malleable policy in relation to forming new unions. [7] Thus, when Harry Pollitt argued that conditions were unfavourable to the formation of a second 'Red' Miners' union in Britain in 1930, the Comintern backed Pollitt over the heads of more hard-line comrades in the CPGB, and against the recommendation of the RILU representative in Britain at the time. [8]
From such an observation, we must recognise that i) the theoretical (as opposed to practical) conceptions of the 'New Line' were the principal cause of friction between the CPGB leadership and the Comintern in 1928-29 and, ii) there was a disparity between the official 'New Line' and the line pursued or endorsed by sections of the communist movement. With regard to the CPGB, the consequence of this was that the Comintern intervened in CPGB activity to the extent of adding or re-drafting the Party's theoretical declarations and instigating divisions within the Party to transform the Party hierarchy. Crucially however, the Comintern never endorsed a full overhaul of the CPGB leadership, continually warned against the danger of 'left sectarianism', and remained committed to more moderate, or pragmatic, British leaders such as Pollitt. As such, the CPGB's apparent shift to the left often went beyond the requirements or expectations of the Comintern, and the peculiar evolution of the CPGB in 1928-30 was driven by militant sections of the Party membership, most obviously in London and Tyneside.
This is very clear when one examines the Party 'at work' during the early years of 'class against class'. Also in chapter four therefore, the various strikes in which the Party involved itself are analysed, the re-emergence of the NUWM is considered, and the Party's General Election performance is put into perspective. From this, divergent interpretations of the 'New Line' are evident across the country, and the shifting focus of communist activity from the workplace to the dole queue (caused by the socio-economic structural changes outlined in chapter one), is demonstrated. Thus, the character of Party policy was shaped by a combination of internal and external factors, and could develop differently in accordance with the 'objective situation' in each part of the country. In certain areas, the 'left sectarianism' that has traditionally been associated with the 'Third Period' was clearly evident and served to isolate the Party. Elsewhere, as in the Midlands and Yorkshire, local communists resisted the more 'hard line' interpretation of 'class against class'. Even so, 1929 was perceptively described by the Party's London District Secretary (R.W. Robson) as a 'year of great internal discussion' which alienated much of the Party rank and file as well as potential Party members. [9].
Chapter five assess the consequences of the upheavals of 1928-29. Following two Party Congresses, during which the central leadership was overhauled and the Party line was radicalised, the CPGB had become isolated and divided. Subsequently, the chapter discusses how the Party and the Comintern responded to the excesses of the 'left turn', and analyses the measures taken to realign communist policy. The CPGB 'learnt from experience', as the Party's deconstruction of its campaign in the 1930 Yorkshire Woollen Strike demonstrated; and a re-emphasis was placed on work within the existing trade unions. Furthermore, sectarianism was denounced, Harry Pollitt received the full backing of the Comintern in an attempt to unify the CPGB, and the Party actively sought to mobilise support around the 'day to day demands' of the workers. While not immediately effective, the Party's recognition of its shortcomings was nevertheless important. Initiatives such as the Workers' Charter, and the protracted debate over the content of the Daily Worker, necessitated that the Party once again focus on the working class it claimed to represent.
The Party's separation from the wider labour movement and its attempt to forge an independent leadership of the working class also necessitated new CPGB initiatives. A significant consequence of this became apparent in the Party's cultural activity, and chapter six attempts to analyse this development. Tensions between Party and non-Party members were becoming increasingly strained in organisations such as the British Workers' Sports Federation and the Labour Colleges prior to the adoption of 'class against class' in 1928. By the late twenties therefore, the CPGB endeavoured either to establish parallel organisations (Party schools), or seize control of already existing ones (BWSF) in an attempt to ensure a particularly communist cultural direction. As a result, a distinct Party culture emerged as communist activists developed alternative means of expression to compliment the Party's more offensive stance. Thus, the Workers' Theatre Movement developed an agit-prop style of theatre that saw its members discard stage and props in favour of street theatre relevant to contemporary issues. Party rambling clubs and football leagues emerged under the auspices of the BWSF, and film societies, a Camera League and even an Esperanto Club were established by Party members. At a local level, such initiatives did much to extend the Party's presence, as Red Wheelers in Leeds mobilised to raise resistance to bailiffs seeking to evict victims of the means test, and workers in Tottenham rallied to support the BWSF's campaign against the district council's banning of Sunday sporting activity.
By late 1931, the Party was emerging from the doldrums of 1927-30. The Unemployed Movement was becoming increasingly effective in organising local and national protests, the political-economic crisis of 1931 created a political climate more conducive to communist recruitment, the Party's recognition of its sectarian tendencies prompted a more pragmatic response to Party policy/strategy, and the Party's cultural initiatives had forged a lively world of communist activity outside the traditional political arena. In chapter seven therefore, I consider the CPGB's response to the events of 1931 (the Labour Government crisis, rising unemployment etc.) and detail the organisational overhaul of the CPGB in January 1932. As a result, I demonstrate that the flexibility of the 'class against class' line enabled the Party to advance, as well as decline, during the 'Third Period'. Most importantly, the Party smothered the sectarian approach to trade union work and re-immersed itself inside the trade union movement through its support of workers' rank and file movements. Nina Fishman's The British Communist Party and the Trade Unions, 1933-1945 takes up that particular story.
Overall therefore, the 'Third Period' was one of mixed fortune for the CPGB. Between 1927 and 1932, Party strongholds disintegrated, bitter in-fighting occurred within the central and district leadership, two disastrous General Election campaigns were fought, and significant spheres of communist influence inside the wider labour movement were lost. However, the period also included the mobilisation of a sizeable percentage of the British unemployed under the CP-led NUWM, the advent of a distinctive Party culture around such organisations as the Workers' Theatre Movement and the BWSF, the effective restructuring of the Party apparatus in January 1932, a steady increase in membership from 1931, and the re-establishment of communist influence within the trade unions from 1932-33. Furthermore, my research suggests that the Party's (mis)fortunes moved in tandem with developments in the wider British labour movement, and related as much to the socio-economic forces of the time as to dictates of Moscow. The 'Third Period' was thus a difficult period, but a far more complex one than has hitherto been recognised.
