Period Pains

The working class had been forced back on to the defensive in the wake of the defeat of the General Strike and the subsequent employers’ offensive, especially against the miners. Strike days, which had totalled 162,233,000 in 1926, fell to 1,174,0003 the following year. After 1926, the British trade union leaders looked to open class collaboration with the bosses as a way forward. In October 1926, at the Labour Party Conference, Robert Williams, the ex-communist transport workers’ leader, who had now moved sharply to the right, expressed the new line clearly: “Let us seek industrial peace through methods of conciliation. We cannot subvert or overthrow capitalism. We must supersede capitalism.” Another ex-leftwinger, George Hicks, raised similar ideas at the Edinburgh TUC conference, and invited the co-operation of the employers “in a common endeavour to improve the efficiency of industry and to raise the workers’ standard of life.” This invitation was warmly taken up by a group of twenty industrialists, led by Sir Alfred Mond of the giant ICI conglomerate, to discuss “industrial reorganisation and industrial relations.” In January 1928, the first meeting between the industrialists and the General Council – the Mond-Turner talks – took place gave rise to the National Industrial Council, on which both employers and workers were represented. However, while class collaboration remained the dominant philosophy of the TUC, the Industrial Council was in practice subsequently abandoned in the course of events. Its services was not required. The capitalist class was no longer interested in collaboration as they now had the whip hand, and were prepared to use it. They were not interested in compromises but in the merciless subjection of the working class to the rule of capital. But the arrival of the Great Depression began to restore hope of a new revolutionary upswing and an opening for a fresh offensive.

The introduction of the new approach was decided by  Comintern and became policy for every Communist Party in the world. In Britain two tendencies emerged within the party. Palme Dutt, Harry Pollitt, J.T. Murphy, Robin Page Arnot and the MP Shapurji Saklatvala, claimed that the Labour Party was no longer a workers’ party of any sort, and that it had been transformed into the third bourgeois party. The other faction  included such leading figures as T.A. Jackson, J.R. Campbell, Willie Gallacher, Wal Hannington and Andrew Rothstein, and stood by the existing line which can be described as "united front". Those who adhered to the earlier pro-Labour Party line were to be labeled "right deviationists"  In November 1928, the Central Committee of the CPGB unanimously agreed to drop the demand for the CPGB to be allowed to affiliate to the Labour Party, and to call for trade unions to disaffiliate from it. In March, 1929, the Central Committee of the CPGB voted in favour of abstaining in the forthcoming general election in seats where there was no Communist candidate. Workers in such constituencies should spoil their ballot papers by writing "Communist" across them [as does the SPGB]. This was historically the Third Period, the First Period being the revolutionary phase of post war militancy and then the Second Period was the time of capitalist stability of the 20s. The Third Period relates to the policies of the parties of the Comintern during 1928 and 1935, founded on the belief  that the proletariat would be pushed toward revolutionary politics by worsening conditions under capitalism. The job of organisations such as the CPGB was to denounce the existing organisations of the labour movement and, in some cases, split from them and form new unions free of reformist taint. Of course, many Communist Party members didn't need Comintern to stir up their loathing of officialdom: already disposed to that view from Labour Party with its careerists politicians and the TUC betrayal of the General Strike.

The name by which the Third Period new line was known as "Class Against Class". The Labour Party had become "the third capitalist party". and its leaders began to be described as "social fascists". The theory being that the "objective" role of social democracy was to sustain reformist illusions in the neutrality of the state, masking the fact that capitalism was turning into fascism and thus delaying proletariat revolutionary consciousness, and undermining the revolutionary struggle of class against class,  therefore social democracy was the main threat to socialist revolution. In trade union terms this meant the end of working within the reformist unions. Alternative strike committees were to be formed to become the basis of factory committees that would eventually be amalgamated to form new trade unions. But even so, as late as the Tenth CPGB Congress in January 1929 the CPGB adopted a trade union resolution that rejected new unions —which would "only lead to the isolation of the revolutionary workers from the great mass of the organised workers and play into the hands of the bureaucracy" — in favour of continuing the struggle for independent leadership within the existing unions. For the CPGB, "the enemy" was not the Trades Union Congress. After all, less than three years earlier it had called for "all power" to the TUC General Council. Nevertheless, Communist Party members, particularly leading ones, were instructed to form red (ie revolutionary) trade unions, separate from and critical of the traditional trade unions.

The Red Unions

Between September 1928 and January 1929 the Communist Party of the USA created the National Miners Union, National Textile Workers Union, and the Needle Trades Workers Industrial Union. The Trade Union Unity League (TUUL) was an industrial union umbrella organization of the Communist Party of the United States (CPUSA) between 1929 and 1935. Rather than "Boring from Within" - the policy of the "Second Period" that encouraged Communists to join mainstream labour unions and progressive organisations in order to move them to the revolutionary left, capitalism was entering a final death agony, its "third period of existence" and in the field of trade unions, a move was made during the Third Period towards the establishment of radical dual unions under Communist control rather than continuation of the previous policy.

  The Communist Party of Canada already controlled the Lumber Workers Industrial Union and held a strong influence in other unions, notably the Mine Workers Union of Canada. A major strike at General Motors' main Canadian plant seemed to confirm the Third Period thesis that capitalism was standing on the brink of a rising wave of class battles, and the CPC duly formed the Auto Workers Industrial Union. A few months later  it formed the second, the Industrial Union of Needle Trades Workers. The Workers Unity League was  created as a labour central operated by the Communist Party of Canada on the instructions of the Communist International. The WUL's first ever campaign attempted to use the "strike and split" line to form a single red Mine Workers Industrial Union  that was to sweep away the "social fascist" United Mine Workers of America [AFL] in Nova Scotia and the Mine Workers Union of Canada [ACCL] in Alberta. The policy rocked the two districts to their foundations. Many rank-and-file Party members — never mind rank-and-file miners — considered it foolhardy and unnecessary. Such was the opposition in Alberta that the policy was eventually abandoned, though not before several of the most influential comrades had been expelled for right deviationism and the party had split into sometimes physically warring factions. In Nova Scotia, "strike and split" was pushed through over the increasingly open opposition of local Communists and with even more disastrous results: the red union collapsed in a matter of weeks and the district Party went into a slump from which it never recovered.

As Moscow had declared that the world was entering a time of wars and revolutions, and that in this time of crisis, capitalist society was polarising. Not only would the open parties of capitalism gravitate to fascist solutions, but even the reformist labour and social-democratic parties were becoming tools of fascism. Ranged against all these reactionary forces were the militant working class and their Communist leadership. United front activity with the "social-fascist" reformists was no longer possible. The big problem with the ‘third period’ was the sectarian manner in which this was applied. Red unions were not models of workers' democracy. Party cadres often refused to fight around demands that actually came out of the rank-and-file, such as work sharing (the "stagger system") and seniority, which they deemed insufficiently revolutionary. Instead, in organising campaigns and strike struggles they tried to impose their own political agenda, often involving the imminence of imperialist war and the need to defend the Soviet Union, and they produced union literature that proclaimed the unions' party affinities (even attaching application forms). WUL membership cards came embossed with the hammer and sickle and stated that membership was open only to "those subscribing to the class struggle". 

Britain
Two red unions were duly formed in Britain in 1929: the United Mineworkers of Scotland*, which grew out of an authentic rank-and-file uprising against bureaucratic manoeuvrings by  officials in the Scottish Executive of the Miners Federation of Great Britain — and the rather flimsier United Clothing Workers Union, formed during a strike in North London. We can only ponder why they had "united" in their names when both were breakaways and very much not united!

The National Union of Tailor and Garment Workers was based in Leeds and dominated by Catholics of Irish descent. The largely Jewish and non-Catholic membership in London were, with some justification, afraid that their problems were not being properly dealt with by the Leeds leadership. The London organiser, Sam Elsbury, was a founder member of the Communist Party. When in October 1928 a dispute broke out over a non-unionist at the Rego factory in London, it was endorsed by the London District Committee. The union’s national leadership would not sanction the strike because, they said, it was prejudicial to a new national agreement they were attempting to organise with the employers’ federation. The strike was well run with the strikers, mainly young women, holding marches, manning pickets and making street collections. Public sympathy was gained and considerable trade union aid forthcoming. After nearly three months the strike was settled with Rego’s recognising the union, but not the union shop, and the reinstatement of most of the strikers. At this stage the Leeds cabal took action against Elsbury, expelling him from the union and forcibly taking over the London office. In other times the Communist Party would have mounted a full-scale campaign for Elsbury’s reinstatement in the union, with some possibility of success. Instead, following the new Party-line, on the 7th March 1929 the United Clothing Workers Union (UCWU) came into existence. The new union recruited a majority of the London membership rapidly and a substantial minority of the Leeds membership. Elsbury was well satisfied with his work. What the new union needed more than anything else was a little time to consolidate the organisation and to build up the funds. Unfortunately it is a feature of all dual unions that they are never afforded the time to consolidate their position.

In the North London factory of Polikoff the overwhelming majority of members joined the UCWU and the management recognised the union. When NUTGW members applied for jobs in the factory they were informed they would have to transfer to the United Clothing Workers. The NUTGW Federation who complained to the Wholesale Clothiers successfully brought pressure to bear to withdraw recognition from the UCWU. Elsbury attempted to stave off the inevitable trouble, for his union was in poor shape to win, by insisting that his members were prepared to work alongside any trade unionist. Polikoff nevertheless refused to permit the collection of UCWU dues in the factory. Elsbury called a strike for union recognition. Arrayed against the UCWU were not only Polikoff (who according to most testimony was quite prepared to recognise both unions) but also the NUTGW, the TUC – in particular the T&GWU who threatened to black deliveries to Polikoff if the UCWU were recognised – the London Trades Council and the Employers Federation. The NUTGW were sending down their members to break the strike. The strike started on May 4th. By May 9th Polikoff’s had applied to a magistrate for sixty-seven summonses against UCWU strikers for breach of contract. Polikoff also indicated that they might find it necessary to apply for 500 or 600 summonses in all. Polikoff’s manager explained to the bench the reason for his actions: "It is very difficult for me to say, but we want to teach these people a lesson. At the present time they are members of what is known as a breakaway union – a Communist organization – and they are not members of the orthodox union which is recognised by the Trades Union Congress. We want to recover from them the money they have lost us....The damages must be at least a week’s wages....They have practically shut our works."

Elsbury demanded a meeting of the Central Committee to enquire into the failure to provide the promised financial support which had turned out to be very minimal. The strike dragged on. Polikoff secured a conviction on May 23rd against one of the strikers, who was fined £4.15s.0d, and asked for a further eighty-eight summonses. The remaining sixty-six cases were adjourned for a fortnight, although there was little doubt as to their outcome. The same day Elsbury called a meeting of the strikers and confessed his inability to provide funds for the strike or to pay the fines. Amid tears and recrimination the strike was called off. Each returning worker was presented with a document to sign in which he or she promised not to join or pay subscriptions to any organisation not recognised by the TUC. Membership of an unofficial union would be punished by instant dismissal. The whole brave venture had resulted in nothing to either union and a massive increase in apathy. A situation that kept Polikoff’s an open shop for over seven years.

The Communist Party had got the United Clothing Workers involved in a strike that Elsbury would have preferred to avoid, on the promise of funds. Elsbury expected a party enquiry to exonerate him; in fact the reverse was the case. Elsbury was ordered by the party to relinquish his post as secretary and to hand over to Pountney, a distributive worker, drafted in during the Polikoff dispute to assist as an organiser. Elsbury refused and resigned from the party, a resignation that was subsequently made official by his formal expulsion. The CP-controlled Executive Board dismissed Elsbury from his post and forcibly expelled him from the UCWU office. The election of Pountney was achieved at the inaugural National Conference. But the failure of the Polikoff strike, the brutal expulsion of Elsbury and the hostility of NUTGW in particular and the trade unions in general, coupled to a chronic shortage of funds to pay provincial organisers, denied the union any effective future. Pountney and the Executive attempted to lay the blame on the "renegade" and "social fascist" Elsbury, but the impetus was spent. The UCWU declined into a small East London union of a few hundred dedicated adherents until, in 1935, it closed up shop completely.

The two red unions formed in 1929 were the only ones formed in Britain but there were attempts to create another out of the Seamen's Minority Movement but only after very careful preparation including the establishing on a wide scale of functioning "Ships Committees", a delaying tactic by Communist Party leader Harry Pollitt while still being seen to uphold the principle of red unionism. No red seafarers' union ever slid down the slipway and instead Pollitt secured the CPGB's endorsement of recruitment to the new seamen's section of Bevin's Transport and General Workers' Union

Comintern took stock, recognised that excessive sectarianism was having negative results virtually everywhere, and halted plans for the formation of a red United Mineworkers of Great Britain.

Conclusions

The turn away from Class Against Class and towards the united front is normally dated as beginning some time between the immediate aftermath of the German catastrophe of 1933. Comintern quickly ditched its policy of Class Against Class after Hitler came to power, Stalin's policy of the inevitability of revolutionary upsurge was replaced by the equally negative Popular Front, which subordinated working class power to that of alliances with "progressive" sections of the ruling class. With little or no explanation the "social fascists" became important figures to be courted and made much of in the anti-fascist front. The very notion of a militant, class-war oriented opposition within the unions was a thing of the past, best forgotten in the crusade to win friends and influence people in high places.  This was translated onto the shopfloor into an accommodation with the trade union bureaucracy.

The drive toward dual unionism alienated many trade unionists, particularly those in the MFGB. A.J. Cook, the secretary of the Federation denounced the United Mineworkers of Scotland. The most prominent disbeliever — and a victim of a politbureau purge — was South Wales miners' leader Arthur Horner, whose distaste for breaking away from the South Wales Miners Federation led to his summoning to Moscow for political re-education, then to Berlin to complete his penance working for the RILU Miners International Propaganda Committee. His reaction against Comintern policy was labelled "Hornerism". One of the attacks made on figures such as Horner was on the basis of his "legalism:" ie, a commitment to the existing bureaucracy of the labour movement as against "unofficial" rank-and-file movements. But given that trade unions are bourgeois institutions, albeit ones based on the working class, a union officials  job is ultimately to regulate and even discipline members and ensure that class struggles are kept inside the boundaries of wage labour.

In general the attitude of the Socialist Party has been against dual unionism and have always opposed to unions being organised and directed by a political party, arguing instead for the need to maintain the independent existence of the union.  From its foundation, the SPGB ere critical of the Socialist Labour Party's and Industrial Workers of the World's policy of withdrawing from the "yellow" pure and simple craft unions and create "industrial unions". However, the One Big Union was an attempt by members in the Socialist Party of Canada to develop a more class-based workers organisation. Later, some individual members of the Socialist Party were active participants in a breakaway London bus-drivers union in the late 30s. One of the problems breakaway unions face is the necessity to be nursed through its birth and early days without meeting disaster. Few have succeeded, especially since they are confronted by alliances of the established trade union and employers who delight in taking full advantage of a split, seeking benefit from divide and rule.

There is no reason in principle why socialists should be opposed to independent revolutionary unions, but it is difficult to conceive of the situation, while capitalism lasts, for them to encouraged. A trade union is, by definition, an all-inclusive organisation. It must take its members, whether by trade or industry, as they are, warts and all, not as some idealised image of the class-conscious card-carrying militant. The argument is made that in particular circumstances a union may be so corrupt, its rules so bureaucratised and the leadership so autocratic as to make membership impossible. The argument begs the question – what about the other members? Trade unions organise millions of workers, the majority of whom are at a low level of working class awareness (trade union consciousness) – a vague sense of solidarity. The task of socialists is by patient, painstaking work to influence and develop the consciousness of these workers. The nature and degree of the bureaucracy will determine the tactics but not the strategy of working in the trade unions and the call for breakaway unions is more often a desire for a short-cut.

 However, to win a union from a bureaucracy is not the main question, albeit an honest administration is better in pure trade union terms. The task is to explain the day-to-day struggles of workers and set it out in a political and economic context. In the final analysis the solution is to be found, not in one factory, not in one union nor a union federation but in the mass movement of the whole class acting a mass revolutionary socialist party.

*See Socialist Courier for a brief history of the United Mineworkers of Scotland