Wartime Trotskyists

58 Pages·1990·4.002 MB·English

by  Steve Booton

WARTIME
_ TROTSYISTS-

,
e
o

a
Steve Booton

w
C

e
y
o

y
N
e
e

l
l
o CONTENTS
Pages

e
o
1-5
Introduction

o
e
6-10 Revolutionary Policy for War
11 "Officers and Representatives for Nottingham Trades Council”
1941 |

12 "R. 0. F. Works Committee's Central. Council”
2/11/1941 (by kind permission of Claude Bartholemew)
13-17 Nottingham and Workers’ Management
18 "Policy for the R. Q. F.s"
16/6/1942 ('Socialist Appeal’)
19 "The fight against compulsory transfers”
i942 (Socialist Appeal’)
20 "War Production in Chaos!”
2/22/1942 ¢(’ Socialist Appeal’)
21 "C.P, Policy in Royal Ordnance Factories”
6/1942 (’Socialist Appeal’)
22-26 The Successes and Failures of the WV. I. L.’s Policy
27 "Barrow Workers Fight”
9/1943 (’Socialist Appeal')

28 "Class War waged from Loft HQ”
15/7/1942 ('Daily Mail’)
29 "Open Letter to Cc. P.” .
Ff
no date (’Workers International News’ )

r
c
30-38 Birth of the Revolutionary Communist Party

e
t
S
CONTERTS

39
"Resolution on Fusion”
1-2/1/1944 (RSL Conference)
40 "Beveridge for Strength”
1/1943 (’Socialist Appeal’>
41
"New Power against Agitators”
6/4/1944 ('Daily Herald’)
42 “Appointment with Fear”
9/4/1944 (‘Empire News’ )
43-50 The R.C.P. and the Neath Election
~
~
[
"100,000 Miners can’t be wrong”
51
1944 Mid March Supplement (’Socialist Appeal’?

52 "Retain Our Factories”
1945 (National JSS Committee - Nottingham
[

- 33 "1700 Miners Strike”
¢
7/1945 ('Socialist Appeal’)

m 94-55
r Conclusion

A
F

.
7

o
r

,
o
r

l
r

/
—
—
—
‘

O
F

T
F INTRODUCTION

c
f
On the 18th of April 1942, 2,500 engineering workers, downed tools at
Nottingham's Royal Ordnance Factory. This was not the only, certainly not

the most important strike of the war period; the action was sparked off .
T
C by management’s threat to transfer workers to private enterprise. It was
not that the shop stewards’ committee at the ROF opposed transfers, but
the demands of the strikers for workers’ control of transfers, for

reasonable accommodation and the maintainance of agreed pay rates, makes
7
this action worthy of investigation. Another thing which set this action
apart was its leadership; Eric Nightingale, Claude Bartholomew and Jack
Pemberton were members of the Workers International League, which was a
f
c Trotskyist organisation. This thesis could not pretend to be a
comprehensive history of the Trotskyist movement of the period, rather I
hope it will go some way to dispel the web of lies and propaganda used
-
by Government, Media, and Stalinist alike.
f
As walls in Berlin fall and workers carry arms in Romania, it is fitting
that the shroud of mystery which covers Stalinism and Trotskyism , is -
lifted, it is fitting to use the Trotskyist demand open the books. One
great problem arises when undertaking historical study, and that is one
of objectivity. As far as I’m concerned, I've got a story to tell. To do
so 1 will be using such sources as 'The Sunday Despatch’, 'The Daily
Worker’, official records, ‘Socialist Appeal’ (the paper produced by the
WIL), coupled with the literature produced by the Nottingham stewards
C and the National Joint Shop Stewards, in addition to material from the
F Militant Workers’ Federation. I make no pretence to sit on the fence.
During war or indeed any other time, it could and has been argued that we
should have an industrial truce; my experience leads me ta believe these
ff truces benefit those with a profit to make - why should war time be any
different?
O This thesis involves more than an historical report. Using personal
p interviews, with Claude Bartholomew, who was a member of the WIL and sat
on the EC of Nottingham Trades Council; was both a Secretary of the Shoo
Stewards Committee, and Secretary of the National Joint Shop Stewards
or Committee; I intend to build a unique picture of the work of this group
of militants. Now 81 years old, Claude offers his memories of the
period, and his insight into the role that the Communist Party of
Great Britain played in industry. Today, when in the Labour movement
‘everyone is an anti Stalinist’,it is easy to forget those who stood
against the stream. Ted Grant who today is Editor of the Militant, then
edited the 'Socialist Appeal’. Ted occupies a unique position inside the
British labour movement. As a pre-war Trotskyist, Ted was an active
anti-fascist street fighter, often having to fend off Stalinists as well
fascists. Today Ted can speak to 10,000 supporters at a Militant
Rally. During the War,with limited forces, and faced with Government
legislation and propaganda, Trotskyism made an impact. As the Trotskyist
movement is as much a product of Communism as its opponent Stalinisn,
the dispute between the two is bound to history, so we have, at least in
part to examine the role played by the Commnist Party of Great Britain.
-1-
7
-?-
— Unlike in other countries the dispute, beween Trotsky and Stalin made

r little impact until the early 30s. Even though Trotsky wrote, "Where is
C
Britain going” in 1925, the differences between what Trotsky was
advocating, and the policies applied, seemed to by pass the majority of
the CPGB. Reg Groves then a member of the Balham Branch of the Commnist
Party,takes up the story. Although he says the book influenced them, he
says they weren't aware that the book was written against, (1) "the majority
of CPGB leaders , who saw the Party as a militant wing of the reformist
Labour Movement, not as an independent alternative to it”. It was not
until early in 1931 that any real dissent emerged inside the
CP. Throughout the late 20s the CPGB had stagnated. William Rust, Editor
of the Daily Worker explains, in June 1930 in an article in Commnist
Review, (2)"The whole Party must face the fact that just as the Party
Membership is small and stagnant, so the circulation of the Daily
Worker is very low and unsatisfactory”. The Party had in fact just undergone
a change of policy; gone were the policies of alliance with the Left
Trades Union leaders, which Trotsky had criticised. At its Leeds conference
of 1929 the new policy, Class against Class, was introduced.
This policy took the International Commnist movement on a new turn,
away from the traditional movements of the working class and towards
impending tragedy. This policy classed Social Democrats and Fascists as
parts of the same force, as Stalin said Social Democrats and Fascists are
not opposites but neighbours. The Communist International therefore
turned its attention from forming any alliance with the Labour movement
against the fascists, to breaking up their meetings. Again it was Trotsky
who sounded the alarm. The British Communist Party's membership stood at
2,555 in 1931. The Party and its line of Class against Class, was

a isolated from its periphery more than ever. It was under this mood and
o
‘ under these conditions that the first British adherents to Trotskyism
emerged. Reg Groves first bought the American paper, the Militant, in an
anarchist book shop in Charing Cross Road in the Spring of 1931. The
7 Balham branch of the CP were soon reading Trotsky’s articles on
Germany, and were soon in commnication with the International
Trotskyist Left Opposition. As Groves explains, (3) "we were deeply shaken

c by Trotsky’s powerful indictment of the Communist International’s policy
C
in Germany”and, "by Trotsky’s warnings of the disaster that would follow
for the workers of Germany”.

n
a After a brief period producing the magazine the "Commnist”,which put
a
the Trotskyist position, Reg Groves, along with Harry Wicks were expelled
from the CPGB in August 1932. They were joined by Hugo Dewer from
Tooting, Henry Sara, and the rest of Balham CP. The expulsions couldn't
have come at a worse time. The Trotskyists, now isolated from their place
in the CP, had to come to terms not just with their isolation ,but with
the terrible results of the Great Slump and in January 1933, the tragic
death of the German Labour Novement, as predicted by Trotsky. The major
questions for the British Trotskyists were, where should work be aimed, and
how could they best pursue their policy? The German situation had in many
ways created a new problem. If the Commnist International was to pursue
policy, which was counter to revolution, and against the interests of
the International working class; how long could Trotskyists, barred from
entry or influence continue to support it?
-3-
oc em yafIrTtSstFttnpeknohumhhaoLtece ieh4fdoenaet oaide cemcr9n ersumvvai e3trun1wsrieteig,4c9ieste e ph;tL, numI3ahCrohte. ri eeg2eenlo nia ooao ntim nrfbnbg(tesf wmgiBl6eI”um trFmerhl)u areLtte.a hooee,netnoPtomt enrs rl maesioecs. y ote"f inatsrf.k s t nsgii,t TwthhIwiignh mo ahestovhnvoe tteTanyeh epiui dnhHh rdga,e lltled.eoIeo at l aeidw yepNnIhtzn l t uLceeatsiep psoPS itnetwkn e TuckoThdbiwdrlyrehteoeetcereoieynie ie suirteiodn sn oatxoilmepa atsodtt cehd dppi "lls.l if I oieern ikCanLobom nrtogpeoPsytornsoLda t iat miti manneCauh ptmissoedllbtoeechenApeu dt nr,oyfemrrtnpftern e u ,mo eotdnotm iriieduvtmea nnCLtttoMr re pe idafceaaoh otent ttnr nkebem vPedthVl itesniomIaeee eilyte ntLruyr umia roerhs Pi runtne”nnen.e ib vna yngio,n dyido(te wd t dsta5 rfaemmie.v) ,et,mh enal n aS t ma eodntm tdohnnaterv ybh pted "htbn e eehT L oeuRttaa dmehrte sehrhitgs eeth damedeingtieo ee nd gio ythet Cn, etueo rvIddif obm e Life oeaFomsag,aPoncolunejnsmtr” rfjLgadtlattof ceu , e oogal eoi ibn rn,u, rerbotnrmi titra npoirnetheihnbBsed utsyetdsoedanret- r,o thy a,wakoid ee n da nad rt nlewtdsrvatIiiyta beLpsdPhiLos tsora deA(tleaf aPsf h4yt htya mi ir’)i e eg atre tns nt l u tery sLtwhgoahesTe hiaetast" nei,uIerr oncheb9aehn d L lotoa 0oabee Pttrte%nuowdlT sCht t idursr Irtpefhon t eknio lo eomb dmfiootir tt"me ffe ptosesPBM 1ul ,rtraikC9rinit tot 3rtnPyilthiecsh9ahstGaithies tve.oeByppe tistah t in epesitaf nt crhton fgrIt?owe int iL inosra”arF br c,.slku iht tt i eno gf -
TdateItCfhmfi1nhaioxnoeradae9 onrt tm ons 3tfrrneym4culhiet reuinnuuevm ofnnsilxreettfiaattt .dt.hesoter fe ct ia f oct, ortnhi snThaolwnTad hlae mlhyoniel lee rg vA f.Lokeittfg oSeh hd "frnCoareepooPduvsitdorSo"weGto hfs cpu CBthn eteuslb h sol aT sgp rasreroAacrstgoneqflfoao feaaotritu t wtipncseea cpyrkiafsCsfa, ogysrthtap. saoiearnrso enifstailclo dtnftisytiip’ se toc,pshIh,tcniyrnm r y tt,ai,soM o en uo Dfa.Ctgve lihol hetccpneolanhmo eo rensfeseuumdogs Alt nlttb v”Cgoihdte oPapcef triGk wtah,nBteiseep bh’tdr ciTdoeehsn e i rl tcsCoi1hPetrbct9eP oSoy ine3is na tte4v lekrthw,aeisioytT e tdlet ,shirhrhd .i res oae s neTt tntea-a sss adatuduwkGn er;ponedyestc oo drmm ritGnp aeims irplwranCatooilensnaot ntst no ttnsotsit ase twbLnediafufsaadr otrtatilbn avhonnsgodo eab:ech wC u dtilts ort sieimS hCmv igemrPi,d en—teitG M h icnBfoefo oieov Fctviasnwterahreacoltdmo uesrya res rs ynotn e.otp tdf sa p uepduTpy nneo itst eedd .
Fgnowrdpngrfeolodieua rrowoditi-mroe mddthfeiawssd wt ,fn ,r,uoTl ig mcrrtet chaoake hneum"deden c eH tlero eahsettnsrfaem ’w ti dsfa i ,e eedwo svctdabPnte eoUvlrslrt lgneeytoaoceoi on,rapotfp doide nhn iokwsl1 efnei9lh ecirgt 3oeannr,mh 0 nrntee i syea”etal twr ii tl it tianethostisddeaHfc whdim unaaae n,s scwlwd ttSyklnatuhotr.keehgestreeai drr a t ,ele sonr aidsw TidoN bn t"r naeaihaPfowllsens rca yt bintaco yssdsm topik ulef,moenny p e rioelditfsnylwlusuotes, tiorhs trb h t ertun eea t” r imns a.ina pcop nt egiyl erlwsnrow.oa6g i,ev 1syBBat nx eymrnise rieoin.wTmanncodsah1aledtfkuali9siun,twsts 3orste t o8i ctn',rror ro sitnwfbabi aahsufeegvl t.htlsre upa e; onrvta uitiohmgwpohoTngaifuoenirgtr el er n oalikrgtmmeteep sstmcicardothekhltns esrl ayi,rc esani ytinirwgs.acfcggbie mnopatetia drc lh hnl y . difI wtntiai turysththms s Aehwabt elad e sao ort fnd sguC P a l
t
o
o

e
e
-4-

OO I believe the position of the Trotskyists at the time is summed up by
this undated internal document of the Workers International League. —
nn (7) "During the campaign of the Left Opposition for re-entry into the
CP, it was possible for a loose collection of individuals to hold
together, for in this country it enabled them to appear in public as
critics”, while binding them to no real program of activity. From 1934-
1938 a continuous series of splits took place. The political lines, were
ee @ rule, not fundemental in character, but on questions of tactics, which
were raised to immtable principles. The factions were characterised
by a core who, generally Speaking, broke along the lines of personal
affilation. The few who remained on the periphery of these factions -
a mainly fresh elements turning to the Trotskyist viewpoint - moved
aimlessly from one group to another, seeking a lead.
During the whole period, the International Secretariat was completely
misinformed as to the real situation in the British movement - its _
strength, the form of work it conducted, its support among workers and
every other aspect of its activities. The loose connection between the
[I.8. and the British section, facilitated this. Each year, sometimes
twice, a unity conference was called, and without any serious
preparation or intention. The soft elements who had proved themselves
incapable of any continuity of organised work, who'd dropped out of the
movement from time to time, appeared on the platform and played a
predominant role in the discussions. Each year it became more and more
obvious, that a genuine unification between the old elements was
absolutely precluded, because of the determination of the leaders to
retain their positions, and most important, because of the absence of a
genuine rank and file. It was evident that unification would only take
piace on the basis of a common program of action and on the basis of
common work.”
By 1938 there were three groups supporting the Trotskyist position; the
Militant group, the Revolutionary Socialist League and the Workers
International League. It is the W.I.L who’s fortunes we are to follow.
That year there was yet another unity conference called, attended by the
three groups. As the W.I.L described it, "there was no political
discusion on the different tactics and perspectives for Britain which
had separated the groups for years; there was only the "Peace and Unity
Agreement"”,which the groups were given twenty minutes to sign. All but
the W.I.L did. The V.I.L. organisation based as it was around the influx
of Trotskyists from South Africa, Jock Hagton and Ted Grant were joined
by Ralph and Millie Lee, Heaton Lee and Dick Frieslich. The split with
the other Trotskyists was a break with previous practice, moving from
propagandism to active intervention. Margaret Johns, then an active
Trotskyist of the time takes up the story. (8) "When I look back from a
distance, I think there was already a political difference between
Lee, Haston and that section; and Harber, Jackson and myself.”
Altogether, they were moving very much towards the type of movement that
developed later - that is agitational work more than propaganda work - more
inclined to go straight to the workers in general rather than go via the
organisations. We were still recruiting people who had already been
recruited by some other labour organisation; they were more
» With general membershiphe pnr emseas e tmieinnmg bse Jro cakt recMHaiallslltsio.en ’'ss "BypP llaa1cc9ee3 0 in we
:
obnasfeor p whel raitS.etht ahe,ata rd tIwenhtadadioy,d tu ss ttihSnretp ui hlraeaWvlrchli eeiev caehMdd Wiie anlr Sits thththeahie one np ce Wy ‘P.,aPhIki elyen.a rsLsis stwcpoi aavenwerlcacrti,set in imtveepPtte”orooh s.nlse ai ivltti ioieeTfcaowh arnde ll sit y sht ephT euari nctond 0eWt cs .stotIkhohm.yterLeioi . ng s.gatB snpsrair,orwse uBtasape ret f.rao iOrvlodueetutnT e ;hah olautto tfgh to ihh— ase i tsstyh shseoqawet uw ouuinhrljeCgek}tsPe r sGtre R i c oounl d
Reading
The unbroken Thread. ..Ted Grant
The Balham Group ...., Reg Groves
Against the Stream ... A] Richardson and Sam Bornstein
The war and the International... Al Richardson and Sam Bornstein
(1) Page 14 The Balham Group
(2) Page 2B." ” ” ”
(3) Page a7 1 a ”
(4) Page 146 Against the Stream
(5) Page 146" " ) , 3 Won
@ {44 ooanoop " "on
rx Pave 1 The War and the International
(8) Page 4 " ! t . $ _” PB Li Bd ”
(9) Page 9 "” ” ” ”
The Struggle for a Revolutionary Policy for War
i
The break between the Workers International League and the Revolutionary
Socialist League became more relevant with relation to the coming war. The
WIL adopting a policy of proletarian militarism and the RSL one of
revolutionary defeatism. Andy Paton puts across WIL’s policy in "Youth For
Socialism," which is taken from the December 1940 issue.
(1) " No worker in this country wants to come under the bloody tyranny
of Hitler. On the contrary he will fight against this with all his
strength. But he cannot do this while Britain is capitalist: while
India is in bondage: while the capitalist class controls the army
and the workers are unarmed.
The defeat of Hitler, the defence of Britain, the ending of the war
- these are not simply a mattero f superior arms or more numerous
arms. More important is who wiélds arms and for what. If it 1s
militant workers fighting for Socialism they will, besides the
weapons they take out of the hands of the capitalists have one
Supreme weapon which Hitler cannot fight - the fact that German
workers can now join them in the fight against Hitler free from
the fear of British capitalism waiting to pounce on then.”
WIL, maintaining its policy, called for Labour to take complete power
on a socialist programme, and the breaking of the electoral truce.
Its industrial base being a barrier between the Trotskyists and the
working class, the CP posed a problem. In September 1939 the CP in line
with their Popular front tactics, were still supporting the war,calling
the Trotskyists allies of fascism. But not the first time the CPGB was to
find itself out of step from the Russian dominated Communist
International. The CPGB backed down, (2)even going so far as to advertise
Hitler’s peace appeal, in line with the foreign policy of the Russians.
The CP, finding itself in this rather embarrassing position, toned down
its attacks on the WIL, and tried-to set up a popular front for peace, the
People’s Convention which held a conference on the 16th of March 1940. The
WIL, realised it should intervene, the CP was after all an important part
of the Labour Movement. It put in a resolution, from Willesden no2 branch
of the Amalgamated Society of Woodworkers and Southall N.U.R. which called
for the securing of power by the workers; arming of the working
class; nationalisation under workers’ control, for Labour to take power and
that the colonies should be freed coupled with an appeal to the German
working class. The resolution was of course rejected. Nevertheless, the
Trotskyists had made a start.
(6)

“
—
e
o
s

e
n
O
-F-

s In contrast to the People’s Front for Peace, the WIL started to apply ite
e proletarian military policy which both took into account the need
to win the war, and sought to transform it into a struggle for workers’
power. This policy can first be seen in relation to the fight for
n
e adequate air raid precautions, which is described below in a WIL document of
1940.
O (3) "The WIL took up the question without a conscience in relation to
T defencism. They argued that Hitler’s planes were raining down bombs
and was important to make a reponse to this: the workers had
responded ~ they demanded air raid deep air raid shelters. They had to

f act in a fashion which was not chauvinist but was decisively in the
f interests of the defence of the proletariat. They had to act ina
fashion as to immediately raise the question of the war and the
prevailing government not in a ultimatist but in a transitional
T
C fashion. So they campaigned around the underground shelters which
already existed, the London Tube and advised people to break open the
the gates of stations, which closed at lipm, and to occupy them as
7
f deep air raid shelters. The people were only too happy to follow this
advice and the Stalinists embarrassedly followed suit, advocating
improved facilities. The WIL comrades went down into the deep air

7 raid shelters to discuss and to argue with people. It was class
C
actions of this sort that were important”.
On the industrial front a report from the Minister of Labour's chief
7
C concilation officer, from Glasgow in 1939 noted, (4) "the Communist Party
had taken advantage of the growing level of unrest and in the
factories was setting up an organisation not unlike the Clyde workers

-~ committee of the last war”. As Richard Croucher points out in his book,
[
"Engineers At War”, there were more strikes in 1940 than in 1939, thoveh
shorter in duration. The strike at British Auxiliaries, which started on
the 10th of September 1940 is of particular interest, not for the light
W
C it throws on the work of the WIL, more because of the role which was
played by the CP.

o The strike revolved around the sacking of a convenor. Local employers
c
operated an embargo against men who'd been employed at the works. After
two weeks management sent the workers’ employement books to the local
labour exchange. The lacal CP asked MP David Kirkwood to
negotiate. Kirkwood had been responsible for breaking the Clyde workers
front against dilution during the lst World Var. Management were in no mood
for compromise. The men returned without theirvconvenor. It is pointed out
by R.Croucher that the CP may have wished the strike over so as not to
damage its union structure. What strikesm e is this letter, written to
Bevin by the Secretary of the strike Committee, Mr Hector McAndrew,
remarkably close as it is to the arguments put forward by the Workers’
International League.
(5) "In the press reports you say you will not tolerate the word can’t and
any man who uses the word is a friend of Hitler’s and a traitor to
democracy. Well on your own words, Mr Bevin, the MASTERS FEDERATION APE
TRAITORS for keeping 250 men and boys on the street, who are most
anxious to get back to work in the Nations interest” .