British Communists and the 1932 turn to the trade unions

Abstract

The Comintern’s Third Period, 1928–1934, based on Stalin’s ‘second revolution’ in Russia, capitalist crisis and the claim that social democracy and fascism were twins, generated sectarian, ultra-left politics which proved inimical to Communist activity in trade unions. This article sheds new light on that issue by exploring three connected episodes: the British party’s (CPGB) renewed turn to the unions, heralded in the January resolution of 1932; the roles the Comintern and CPGB leader Harry Pollitt played in this initiative; and the subsequent attempt by Pollitt to revise the politics of union work. This triptych reviews both primary sources and recent historiography. It argues that some accounts have overestimated the novelty of the January resolution, blurred its meaning and exaggerated Pollitt’s part in it. The resolution did not attempt to change the line but its application. Its impact was limited. Bids to go beyond it were muddled and unsuccessful. The 1933 move towards the united front, and subsequently the popular front, was of greater significance in creating an effective Communist presence in trade unions than the events of 1931–1932.     

中共六届六中全会上共产国际指示评析

1938年，中共召开的六届六中全会上，王稼祥传达了共产国际的一系列指示：强调中共党内要团结。本文认为王明回来传达的关于建立抗日民族统一战线意图的中共政治路线，是得到共产国际肯定的，同时毛泽东中共最高领袖地位的确立，也使王明的政治地位迅速走低，直至延安整风彻底远离中共中央核心机构。     

台湾共产党成立之研究

俄国十月革命后,列宁站在世界无产阶级革命的战略高度,提出了民族和殖民地理论,在这一理论的指导下,共产国际指示日本共产党筹建台湾共产党。1925年11月,在中共的推荐下,林木顺与谢雪红赴苏联莫斯科东方大学学习,为台共建党做准备。1927年10月,谢雪红、林木顺在莫斯科被共产国际执委片山潜召见,片山潜正式代表共产国际向他俩传达了筹建台湾共产党的决定。在共产国际、日共、中共指导和帮助下,1928年4月15日,台湾共产党在上海正式成立。     

‘The Trojan Horse’: Communist Entrism in the British Labour Party, 1933–43

Abstract

Entrism – the infiltration of political organisations by competitors – is typically associated with Trotskyism. Large-scale Communist entrism in the British Labour Party has been neglected by historians and reference in the literature is slight and impressionistic. Archival material permits reconstruction of a sustained attempt by the Comintern and British Communists to subvert Labour Party policy between 1933 and 1943. Documenting the development and dimensions of Communist entrism, this article establishes that, by 1937, 10% of Communist Party (CPGB) members were operating secretly inside British Labour, campaigning to change its policy on affiliation and engineer a Popular Front. Biographies of 55 such Communists provide new data and permit a typology of entrist activity. The episode sheds new light on Popular Front initiatives and the extent of genuine support for them within Labour. It illuminates the conspiratorial side of Stalinist activity at a time when the CPGB presented itself as a conventional British party.     

The revival and decline of rank and file movements in Britain during the 1930s

The economic and political crisis of 1931 provoked the reappearance of rank and file movements in Britain. This article examines the unofficial organisations that developed in building, engineering, passenger transport and the railways – as well as more ephemeral bodies. It critically synthesises the existing historiography and replenishes it with new material from the Russian archives. The progress of rank and filism to 1939 is surveyed and the largely forgotten project of a new Communist-led rank and file organisation, a Trade Union Militant League, which would supersede the National Minority Movement, is recuperated. The article stresses the role of Comintern policy in harnessing and moulding grass-roots rebellion. It validates that strand in the literature which argues that Moscow’s subsequent turn to the popular front and aspirations to alliances with labour movement leaders predominated over, and legitimated, indigenous influences, enhanced existing adaptation to trade unionism, and encouraged subordination of oppositional movements to activity in official structures. By 1939, the Communists had abandoned the idea of a national rank and file movement they had pursued since 1923. Little survived of the revolutionary enterprise launched in 1931. Rank and filism endured only as a handful of sectional, party-sponsored, trade union ginger groups.     

A Cold War before the Cold War: Early Soviet Relations with the West

The field of international relations has seen considerable debate about the reasons for conflict between revolutionary states and status quo powers. The two works reviewed here deal with the early years of the Soviet regime. The material presented indicates that tensions were largely the result of Bolshevik attempts to “export the revolution.” This indicates that it is the nature of a revolutionary state and its desire to challenge the international status quo that leads to tension with other powers.     

Bolshevism,Stalinism and the Comintern: a historical controversy revisited

ABSTRACT

‘Bolshevization’ and ‘Stalinization’ have been used variously by historians of American and British Communism to designate and date the processes by which the Comintern and national parties were subordinated to Soviet policy. Despite their pervasive influence on the American and British left, this literature reveals little curiosity or consensus about the politics of Bolshevism and Stalinism, their history and relationship, indeed, these labels have sometimes been employed inexactly and interchangeably. In some narratives, Bolshevization dates from 1924 and was completed from 1929. In others, the Comintern and its affiliates were Stalinized from 1924, in still others, from 1929. The historiography of the Soviet Union, in contrast, includes forensic interrogation of Bolshevism and Stalinism, their meaning, periodization and consequences as well as the continuities and disjunctures between them. This work has been overlooked by historians of the American Workers’ Party and the British Communist Party. The present article assesses both literatures. It utilizes insights from Sovietologists to argue that Stalinism constituted a politics and practice connected with but distinct from Bolshevism. Reviewing Comintern and party history, it proposes a specific periodization. State Bolshevism, 1919–1923, saw subjugation of the American and British parties to Russian imperatives. Incipient Stalinism, 1924–1928, witnessed restructuring of the politics of subordination. From 1929, Stalinization accomplished a distinctive subordination. It enthroned a politics and practice foreign to that of Lenin and the Bolsheviks which endured, through different phases, until the 1950s.