The Communist Technique in Britain [1 ed.]

Citation preview

The Communist • Technique In Britain BOB D ARK E,

Hac kney Borough Councillor, and for eigh teen years a leading Comm unist until he resigned in May 1951, explain s how the Briti sh Communist Part y can exert a n influe nce vast ly out of proportion to its numerical strength . Thi s is not an ex-Co m mun ist ~ intel lectu al's expose bu t th e plain, factual ~ CO N TI N UED account of a working man wh o tells us I N Sl OE

h o w U n i o n after U n i o n in the East E n d fell under Communist control. He explains the Communist technique of taking over a U n i o n , organizing strikes, getting r i d of nonC o m m u n i s t U n i o n leaders. He reveals that the Peace Campaign sprang directly from C o m i n f o r m instructions, and he accuses it of decept i o n and forgery. He tells of his role as a Parliamentary

agent

when

the

Party

tried

desperately to w i n the South Hackney seat in the 1945 General E l e c t i o n . H i s story is authentic. As a member of the Party's important N a t i o n a l Industrial Policy Committee

he

knew

more

of

the

Party's

tactics than the average comrade. But perhaps the most damning thing of all is his account of the corruption of family life and family loyalties, of the Party's imposition of an i r o n and uncompromising discipline. * This book is one of the Penguin Specials, a series devoted to the discussion of subjects of current interest

and

importance,

political

or

otherwise.

In this and other Penguin series there have been books expressing diverse opinions on national and world affairs — such as THE CASE FOR CONSERVATISM by Quintin Hogg,

LABOUR

MARCHES

ON by

John Parker, THE CASE FOR COMMUNISM by W. Gallacher, I

CHOOSE

Barbara Ward's

POLICY

ATTITUDE TO

AFRICA

Michael Scott, Martin

PEACE FOR by

by K. Zilliacus,

THE W.

WEST, Arthur

and

Lewis,

Wight, and Colin Legum.

PENGUIN

BOOKS

S 160

THE

COMMUNIST T E C H N I Q U E IN BRITAIN BOB

DARKE

BOB

DARKE

The Communist Technique in Britain PENGUIN MELBOURNE

•

BOOKS

LONDON

•

BALTIMORE

FIRST

M A D E

BY

PUBLISHED

A N D

P R I N T E D

FOR

P E N G U I N

T H E

W H I T E F R I A R S

L O N D O N

A N D

I N

1952

G R E A T

BOOKS

B R I T A I N

L T D

PRESS

T O N B R I D G E

L T D

T O

M Y

B R O T H E R

John Darke W H O

WAS

A

FOR

G R E A T

F I G H T E R

F R E E D O M

INTRODUCTION The more the English workers absorb Communist ideas, the more superfluous becomes their present bitterness. . . . E N G E L S , Condition of the Working-class in England. IT was a Wednesday, 16 M a y , 1951. I am a bus conductor, and we divide up the days arbitrarily. There are those w h e n it rains and those w h e n it doesn't. On 16 M a y , 1951, it had not rained and I had gone through my w o r k automatically. W h e n it was over I handed in my money and tickets at the depot and went home. I remember there were children playing on the pavements in the evening half-light. T h e East E n d of L o n d o n was in that vaguely restless m o o d y o u can sense on a Spring evening. I noticed that. I noticed a lot that on any other day I might have ignored. I have made that walk over and over again in my m i n d since then, trying to remember my emotions, but I can remember only what I saw that evening, not what I thought or felt. W h i c h is o d d , perhaps, for I was g o i n g home to place on record my resignation f r o m the Communist Party whose loyal and industrious servant I had been for eighteen years. I was not a rank-and-file Communist but a Cadre Leader w h o got his orders in confidential f o r m from H a r r y P o l l i t t , and I had been a member of the Party's N a t i o n a l Industrial Committee for ten years. A man w h o holds such positions of trust does not drift out of the Party like a bored comrade w h o decides not to turn up to branch meetings. Circumstances force h i m to make a clean break. Perhaps I was t h i n k i n g that as I walked home. Whatever I was t h i n k i n g it was a lonely w a l k , and in a way this is a lonely book. I live in Nisbet H o u s e , H o m e r t o n , a block of council flats in the B o r o u g h of Hackney, where washing is always hanging on the lines on the verandas, and there are bicycles and prams in the tiled hallways and sheds. Such a block of flats in the 7

East E n d is a w o r l d of its o w n , closer-knit than the luxury flats in the West E n d where, I imagine, a man can l o c k his d o o r on his neighbours. B u t if, in the East E n d , y o u can't keep your o w n business from the neighbours that also means that your circle of friends is all the wider. F o r example: to the o l d dears at the foot of the steps that evening, gossiping w i t h arms a k i m b o , I was not Mr D a r k e , the mystery man of Flat T w e l v e . I was B o b . B o b D a r k e , B o r o u g h C o u n c i l l o r , C o m m u n i s t . T h e y knew all about me, my wife A n n , and our t w o daughters. T h e y called to me ' E v e n i n g , B o b . H o w are things?' H o w were things? A b o u t n o w they were critical. As I climbed the steps the block was alive w i t h noise, w i t h children's voices, footsteps on the stones, the inevitable radio. My flat was empty and quiet. A n n was at w o r k and my girls were not yet home from school and w o r k . I sat d o w n , and w i t h an unexpected peace of m i n d I wrote my letter. There were six pages of it, for I had a lot to say, and w h e n I had finished it I read it again before I sealed it. I went out and posted it, and as it slipped into the m o u t h of the letter-box I l o o k e d about the street and felt free for the first time in many years. I don't k n o w h o w a man feels w h e n he comes out of p r i s o n , probably not the same, for it wasn't my body that had been liberated suddenly. M a y b e I felt a little fear and shame too. I was n o w an apostate. That letter-box had not only taken my letter, it had taken my life, or what I had made of it u n t i l then. I knew what lay behind me, but what lay ahead I d i d not try to guess. F o r a while I walked about the streets and tried to force some drama into that simple act. It was almost as if I felt that H a c k n e y should n o w l o o k different, that I should be different. B u t the fact is that leaving the C o m m u n i s t Party is not a sudden act of impulse, at least not for a man w h o has been a member as l o n g as I had. Ironically y o u might define in terms of Marxist dialectic, the theory of the slow, hidden change culminating in an explosive break w i t h the past, the revolutionary moment. To quote the analogy I have heard Party 8

lecturers use: at what point does the caterpillar in its chrysalis change into the butterfly? At what point along those eighteen years d i d I first begin to d o u b t ? I don't k n o w . I wasn't always in agreement w i t h the Party's tactics, there were times when I didn't feel too h i g h l y of myself, but I supported the strategy. T h i s b o o k isn't an attempt to tell y o u that I knew all the time that it was w r o n g . I didn't. T h i s I do k n o w , however. On the afternoon of 16 M a y , 1951, I wrote a letter to J o h n Betteridge, B o r o u g h Secretary of the Hackney C o m m u n i s t Party, and informed h i m that from thereon he c o u l d do w i t h o u t one of the Party's oldest members. F o r years the Party had been saying in the East E n d ' Y o u k n o w B o b D a r k e , the B o r o u g h C o u n c i l l o r ? Y o u k n o w what he d i d for y o u d u r i n g the rent troubles, don't y o u ? W e l l , he's a C o m m u n i s t . Y o u k n o w what he's l i k e , d o n ' t y o u , n o w w i l l y o u believe the capitalist lies?' That sort of propaganda recruited many members. If y o u c o u l d see me y o u w o u l d not see the handsome, idealized picturization of a proletarian hero the Party likes to put on its posters. B u t I was a g o o d recruiting sergeant for the Party, just the same. I turned into a phone kiosk. I knew the local newspapermen fairly w e l l , I think they l i k e d me in a g r u d g i n g sort of way, even w h e n I tried to prime them w i t h Party-line stories. T h i s time, however, I had a story for them that came straight from B o b D a r k e . I felt the reporter's enthusiasm as he cross-questioned me. F o r a moment I had doubts, an uneasy sense of guilt. So strong is the g r i p of the Party on your conscience that even in leaving the feeling of betrayal w i l l override all others if you allow it. I gave the reporter the story and then went to find a friend, not a Party friend (they are as rare as Catholics in the K r e m l i n ) but someone w h o was my friend despite my politics. There was a branch meeting of my u n i o n that evening, and w h e n it was over I went across the road for a d r i n k with Charlie Lee. We talked casually and then suddenly 9

I said, ' I ' m t h r o u g h . It's all over w i t h me and the Party.' I have never seen a glass drop w i t h o u t actually falling. 'Steady, C h a r l i e ! ' I said, and then t o l d h i m h o w it was. I suppose I tried to defend myself, perhaps I explained myself baldly and incompletely, but he understood. He said ' Y o u ' l l need a g o o d friend to stick by y o u n o w , B o b , count m e i n . ' I counted h i m i n . He was the first of those w h o have stood by me since my resignation. I realized h o w it was g o i n g to be, or I thought I d i d . T h i n g s I had said, things I had shouted at factory gates, or argued in the C o u n c i l Chamber and across canteen tables, these were the things I w o u l d n o w be denying. T h e w o r l d was not g o i n g to meet me halfway. I had the whole distance to go alone. T h e local reporter had done his w o r k w e l l . He must have telephoned every paper in Fleet Street, for when I got back to Nisbet H o u s e that night there were pressmen everywhere, in my flat, on the stairs, talking to neighbours. Some of my neighbours were at their doors, w a i t i n g to shake my hand as I came up the stairs. A returning hero couldn't have asked for a finer welcome, except that I wasn't a returning hero. I had enough sense, however, to realize that these people were paying me a very great compliment. In the h a l l of my flat the pressmen turned on me. I do not remember h o w I answered their questions; certainly w h e n I read their reports of what I had said I was surprised by my o w n eloquence. I c o u l d think o n l y of the fact that I had not t o l d A n n . I kept t h i n k i n g that all the w h i l e the questions came at me. Why did you leave the Party, Mr Darke? K o r e a . Y e s , K o r e a . B u t that was only the last straw. How long did it take you to make up your mind? A year. T w o years. I don't k n o w . Why didn't you tell your wife you were going to resign? I couldn't answer that question. I asked one instead. W h a t had she said to the pressmen w h e n they t o l d her the news? She said 'Thank God it's all over.' 10

There wasn't m u c h more I c o u l d add to that. A n n always had the ability to sum things up. T h i s b o o k is not an attempt at autobiography. My o w n personal story has its little tragedies and humours. Where they intrude on this narrative they w i l l be there only to s h o w what I d i d as a result of my Party membership. I was a g o o d Party member as the Party w o u l d see it. T h e y received twentyfour hours' service a day f r o m me. Three hundred and sixtyfive days a year. F o r eighteen years I never t o o k a holiday at a l l , let alone w i t h my wife. My spare time was the Party's, my home, my income, my happiness, and that of my family, was placed in p a w n to the Party. A n d if ever I grew impatient w i t h this, w h y the R e v o l u t i o n was around the corner, wasn't i t ? In the beginning I believed that that was h o w things should be. M a n y times I have heard Communists pleading consideration for their family as an excuse for neglecting Party duties. T h e y were t o l d ' I f your wife objects, get her into the Party. If y o u r children cry, get them into the Y o u n g C o m m u n i s t League. If they w o n ' t j o i n and they w o n ' t keep quiet, then leave them. W e ' v e no time for decadent bourgeois morality, Comrade. A C o m m u n i s t is above self. A C o m m u n i s t has no private life.' T h e y were right there. A C o m m u n i s t has no private life. T h e real story here is the C o m m u n i s t Party of Great B r i t a i n as I experienced it, and the purpose of what follows is to explain h o w this numerically small organization can do what it does and can make its members do what they do. I shall attempt to explain h o w it is possible for a few thousand Communists to speak and act on behalf of millions w h o hate C o m m u n i s m . T h i s book is concerned w i t h my experiences w i t h i n the Hackney C o m m u n i s t Party, but it should not be read w i t h i n the context of that b o r o u g h alone. There are not E n g l i s h Communists, Czech Communists, Russian Communists. There are only Communists. There is no brand of E n g l i s h C o m m u n i s m w h i c h , because of B r i t i s h temperament and tradition, w o u l d be more acceptable to the people in this country. There is only Communism. 11

A n d what has happened in H a c k n e y to-day c o u l d happen in the country t o - m o r r o w . I was never a C o m m u n i s t intellectual. I put in my Party w o r k ' o n the knocker'. That is a p r o u d and bitter phrase used often enough in the Party to describe the comrades w h o take the fight out into the streets. It is used to strike a difference between men l i k e myself ' w h o w o u l d never desert the Party', and the A r t h u r Koestlers, the Douglas Hydes, the Charlotte Haldanes, w h o were 'always bourgeois at heart and certain to sell out.' W e l l , maybe I am bourgeois at heart after all. B u t I fought on the kerbside, at the factory gate, in strike committees, in a militant march f r o m Stepney to Trafalgar Square. I have w a l k e d w i t h an ashplant in my hand confident, even hopeful that the police w o u l d be forced to break up our demonstrat i o n and give the Party its martyrs. B u t if this sounds a little cynical to y o u be assured that m u c h of what I fought for as a C o m m u n i s t I fight for still as a Socialist. It has taken me eighteen years to realize that I have been carrying the w r o n g banner in the right fight. T h a t was the banner of M a r x , L e n i n , and Stalin, and if y o u w i s h to k n o w the danger and strength of the Party that follows i t , then y o u must k n o w of its w o r k in a district like Hackney. M u c h of what I w i s h to tell in this b o o k w i l l be unintell i g i b l e unless some important questions are first answered. T h e y are questions that have been p u t to me since I left the Party, and the answers are those I have made myself wherever I c o u l d . Others are answers put to me in the f o r m of questions w i t h w h i c h I agree. T h e simple question: ' W h y do people join the P a r t y ? ' is perhaps as impossible to answer in general terms as another que st ion: ' W h y do people leave the P a r t y ? ' In my o w n case I think the same answer can be given to each question. I joined the Party because I could no longer tolerate a system w h i c h I believed to be bad. Party propaganda h a d t o l d me that that system was doomed anyway and my efforts w o u l d hasten its end. I wanted to w o r k for the improvement of society, for freedom, justice, progress, and the full 12

expression of M a n ' s talent and ability. I still want to w o r k for these things, but I k n o w that I cannot do so inside the Party, that C o m m u n i s m w i l l not b r i n g t h e m . Given that, then, if many Communists join the Party with such praiseworthy motives what happens to turn them into what they become? Y o u must accept an analogy to understand the answer here. T h e C o m m u n i s t Party is at war w i t h the rest of society. M a r x i s m declares there is no compromise in this war, no peace between one side and the other. T h e Communist is taught that his enemy (that is anybody but a Communist) is ruthless, merciless, and unprincipled. To defeat h i m the C o m m u n i s t is justified in being more ruthless, more merciless, and more unprincipled. He is t o l d that the existing society w i l l double-cross and out-smart h i m and his fellow Communists if it is given the chance. Y o u can test this for yourself. Question any C o m m u n i s t on the ethics of his behaviour and he w i l l not attempt to defend himself by denying the charge. He w i l l cite cases where, in his o p i n i o n , the present system has been just as unethical. He is at war and a war cannot be w o n if y o u permit yourself the indulgence of seeing your enemy's point of view. He has an end in view, the establishment of a C o m m u n i s t society. That, to h i m , is a g o o d end and anything that hastens it, however bad in itself, is a g o o d thing. T a x a Communist w i t h the lack of democracy in a trade u n i o n controlled by a Party minority and he w i l l not attempt to explain that the minority is in fact a majority, he w i l l say that the minority is w o r k i n g for the general g o o d , therefore its actions are justifiable. Has the Communist no conscience then? He has a conscience, but he places it in pawn to the Party w h e n he joins. T h e Party takes care of his moral scruples by p r o m i s i n g h i m that by his efforts he w i l l b r i n g the R e v o l u tion and universal peace. H a r r y Pollitt it was, I t h i n k , w h o said ' E v e r y C o m m u n i s t in a capitalist society is a capitalist at heart.' T h i s wasn't a matter of benevolent tolerance, it was a w a r n i n g to all comrades to beware of the capitalist fifth c o l u m n w i t h i n 13

themselves. W h e n a Communist is disturbed by the voice of his conscience he remembers the words of P o l l i t t and drowns it. Why is the Communist so intolerant? O n c e again the war analogy. If y o u w i s h to defeat the enemy y o u do not tolerate h i m , y o u hate h i m . T h e C o m munist is taught and readily believes (because he wants to believe) that there is no middle line. M a r x i s m preaches the inevitability of revolutionary change w i t h i n society. A n y o n e w h o denies this is acting against it and thus hindering the c o m i n g to power of the Communists. H i s extermination as a political force is a number one p r i o r i t y . A middle line w o u l d lessen the pace of change and therefore is in itself reactionary, except in the case of the Popular F r o n t against Fascism w h e n the Party believed that the situation demanded a measure of co-operation w i t h n o n Communists (only w i t h the belief that the non-Communists were being given enough rope to make a halter for themselves). T h e C o m m u n i s t does not respect a free society for tolerati n g his existence, he despises it. He believes it tolerates h i m only because it is afraid of h i m . Does the Party never do good then? Yes, it does. But the g o o d it does is relative. T h e C o m munist is prepared to do g o o d o n l y in so far as that g o o d strengthens the Party, intensifies the struggle between different classes, brings the moment of revolutionary change the nearer. T h e c o m i n g to p o w e r of the working-class is a g o o d t h i n g . If the moment of revolutionary change is hastened by acts that are i l l e g a l , unjust a n d i n h u m a n , the end, to h i m , makes them right. A man may be driven into the Party by the social injustice meted out to his parents in the f o r m of poverty, privation, industrial accidents. He joins the Party to build a society where such things are impossible. But once in the Party he is not expected to place his emotions before his loyalty to the Party. I have k n o w n of C o m m u n i s t s w h o joined the Party because they c o u l d no longer stomach the sight of their parents 14

w o r k i n g l o n g hours for small pay, and then seen them t u r n on those same parents, deride them for being dupes of a capitalist system, for being 'lumpenproletariat'. Why is it impossible to argue with a Communist? H e w i l l only argue o n his o w n terms. H e i s right. Y o u are w r o n g . Y o u are w r o n g because y o u have not accepted his belief that the Marxist interpretation of life is the only one. If y o u have not accepted it y o u are on the other side. Y o u cannot be speaking the t r u t h . I have had a v i v i d experience of this lately. A w o m a n in Coventry asked me to talk to her son whose C o m m u n i s t Party membership troubled her. I talked to the lad and to his friend, a Party official. My experience of the Party was wider and longer than theirs. Y e t whatever chapter, whatever gospel I quoted I c o u l d not convince them. T h e y blandly refused to believe me. W h y ? I had deserted the Party. I had gone over to the other side. I was n o w on the side of 'capitalism' and they suspected my motives. So l o n g as I remained in the Party they w o u l d have listened to me and believed me. Once I was outside the Party they w o u l d not believe a w o r d I said. Why will a Communist break the law of the country, the rules of his union without hesitation, and yet violently attack an opponent for doing the same thing? T h e Communists regard the laws of this country as a product of a capitalist society designed to protect a capitalist class. He believes they bear no relation to h i m . He has no loyalty to capitalism and breaking its laws is not treachery or treason. If it is possible to use those laws to weaken his enemy he w i l l do so, but not because he has any respect for their ethical content. He does not believe in human justice as an eternal value. It is to h i m only capitalist justice devised to keep the workers in suppression. He w i l l break the law when it suits Party strategy. He w i l l observe it when it is part of Party tactics. Why has the Communist no respect for family life? I have k n o w n few Communists w i t h a happy home life. 15

T h e essence of family relations is tolerance. T h e essence of Party w o r k is intolerance. T h e Party likes its members to be free from family trouble. A comrade whose wife or parents oppose his way of life is a potential danger to the Party. He is instructed either to recruit his family into the Party or leave them. There is no compromise. He is taught to believe that those of his family w h o do not share his beliefs are dupes of the capitalist system. T h e stronger becomes his family's opposition the stronger becomes a Communist's hatred for his family. T h e C o m m u n i s t is a man w h o lives on hatred. He soon believes that everybody's hand is against h i m . He trusts no one w h o is not on the Party line. E v e n his wife. T h e Party takes charge of his conscience and his love. O n c e he accepts this principle that a l l w h o are not w i t h us are against us he w i l l be ready to do anything, say anything. What reward can he expect for selling himself into slavery like this? Generally a fanatic expects no reward other than the opportunity to w o r k hard for what he believes. But the Party is not all fanatics. It is a Party of strong vested interests. M a n y t o p line Communists h o l d g o o d jobs in the unions, salaries up to a thousand a year, a house, sometimes a car. They h o l d these jobs by virtue of the Party's backing. A n d in return for these jobs they w i l l be dishonest, treacherous, amoral. They are generals in the endless war, and no g o o d general ever w o n a battle by t h i n k i n g first of the lives he c o u l d save. Still, not all Communists can think the same thing. Why do they never express their doubts publicly? Of course there are disputes in the Party, violent differences of o p i n i o n . But once the vote is taken, all are bound to abide by its result. A n y t h i n g else w o u l d be 'fractionizing', a heresy punishable by expulsion from the Party, h o u n d i n g from any u n i o n office held, a malicious whispering campaign. D o u b t s , disputes, disagreements are never made public. T h e Party must appear as a s o l i d , united front. T h e enemy must see no weaknesses. T h e C o m m u n i s t Party is at war. It is at war w i t h the rest of society, it is at war w i t h n o n - C o m m u n i s t Socialism, it is at 16

war w i t h religion. It is at war w i t h tolerance and compromise. M a r x i s m teaches that man is a product of his environment but that man is capable of changing his environment and thus changing himself. A n y t h i n g that hastens that change is justifiable. Anything. A n d if the C o m m u n i s t wants the change badly enough he w i l l d o anything.

17

CHAPTER

ONE

What the bourgeoisie produces is above all its own gravediggers. Its fall and the victory of the proletariat are equally inevitable . . . The Communist Manifesto. EMILE BURNS is a coldly severe comrade whose intellectual standing w i t h i n the British C o m m u n i s t Party is higher than is generally believed on the outside. T h e general public rarely hears of or from h i m . He does not appear in B o w Street Magistrates' C o u r t on M o n d a y , charged w i t h disturbing the peace of a Sunday afternoon in Trafalgar Square. B u t every loyal comrade has his ear tuned to what Burns has to say. He is a Party theoretician. He is not expected to walk the streets w i t h a quire of Daily Workers, he is expected to interpret the Party line. He spoke at a N a t i o n a l Congress of the Party some years ago, and although I cannot remember his exact words the sense of them went something like this: It is said that there can never be Communism in this country. But everywhere there is a Communist, everywhere there is a Communist branch, there is Communism. That challenge to the complacency of our enemies brought the comrade delegates to their feet w i t h a cheer and a p r o longed hand-clap. Burns had touched our inner fears and o u r inner arrogance. F o r there is fear inside every C o m m u n i s t , fear that the R e v o l u t i o n may not come in his time. F e w m e n can be the selfless enthusiasts most Communists w o u l d w i s h to be. E v e n the intellectuals, w h o like to think they understand the whole slow process, must sometimes dream of the day when the barricades w i l l go up, and they w i l l come i n t o power, after someone else has done the fighting. B u r n s ' appeal to our arrogance was equally adroit. It was also a reminder to those outside our ranks that the influence of the C o m m u n i s t Party should not be judged on its numerical strength alone. Such occasions of naive enthusiasm are rare inside the 18

Party, certainly at annual congresses where the cheers, handclaps and speeches are as i n d i v i d u a l and spontaneous as the movements of a drill-squad. Whatever the emotions the comrade writers and artists of the cultural groups may put into their w o r k , the rank-and-file comrade is not expected to regard himself as a hero. N o t u n t i l he's dead, anyway. Y e t I can remember another occasion when the romantic inside the C o m m u n i s t realist came to the surface for a moment. I had marched to Trafalgar Square at the head of a contingent of East E n d ' w o r k i n g - m e n and w o m e n ' (thus the Daily Worker described us the f o l l o w i n g day, although we had recruited every Party member east of Aldgate p u m p for the march, and d r u m m e d up a few intellectuals f r o m Highgate and Hampstead too when the numbers l o o k e d thin). There was a brush w i t h the police and with flying columns of Fascists. O u r red banners (stitched by w i l l i n g or u n w i l l i n g comrades' wives) were flying against the grey stones. O n e or t w o of the marchers were bleeding, a few more had been arrested. B u t we had been successful, we had made our demonstration of protest, the appearance of our martyrs at B o w Street the f o l l o w i n g m o r n i n g w o u l d get space in the capitalist press, and the Defence F u n d we w o u l d organize for them w o u l d enlist the support of more non-Communists. We were in the Square and we were s h o w i n g our solidarity by cheering at the right moment d u r i n g those endless speeches. A comrade w h o had marched all the way beside me turned w i t h shining eyes. ' T h i s is h o w it w i l l be, B o b , on the day the workers take p o w e r ! ' It was all right for h i m to say things like that then. H a d he allowed his imagination as m u c h rein on a less theatrical occasion he w o u l d have been seriously disciplined for unrealistic thought. But there was the thought at the back of his m i n d . T h e barricades w o u l d come in our time. We all believed it in our o w n fashion and in our o w n hearts. 'The last fight let us face!' sings the Internationale, and n o b o d y reminds himself that the song was written over a century ago, and that the man w h o wrote it believed too that the last fight w o u l d be the next one. 19

On the day that Burns spoke the words I have roughly quoted many comrades turned to me and nodded significantly. I was Comrade B o b D a r k e f r o m H a c k n e y , and Hackney was C o m m u n i s m . Party branches in Prague, even, had been told to study us as an example. H a c k n e y could not have been a better arena for the struggle between revolution and reaction. Its true roots go back no further than the last century when the Industrial R e v o l u t i o n and the rise of V i c t o r i a n imperialism spawned out of its marshes a tightly-packed, teeming b o r o u g h of 190,000 people, the youngest people in the w o r l d , the industrial working-class. Hackney is overcrowded, politically quarrelsome, but it has a b i g heart, and its people k n o w what it is to live under capitalism. It is a reservoir of labour, cheap labour very often. W i t h i n its wandering boundaries are a score of industries, from the docks to fancy buttons. There are m i l i tant trade unions, slums, poverty, Fascism, Jew-baiting, and the strongest, most successful branch of the B r i t i s h C o m munist Party. It has a heart, I say, a b i g heart, and I love it for it. I saw what that heart meant to Hackney when I served w i t h the F i r e Service d u r i n g the war, and I w o n ' t hear a w o r d said against the people of the b o r o u g h n o w . There are 880 Communists in H a c k n e y , that's a l l , just 880. There are also a little over 200 members of the Y o u n g C o m m u n i s t League, all between sixteen and eighteen and most of them the dutiful sons and daughters of Party Members. There may be a few more comrades, professional men and w o m e n for the most part, w h o carry no Party card because it w o u l d be too dangerous or because the Party w o u l d rather have them l o o k e d u p o n as disinterested, right-minded citizens. E v e r y o p e n member of the Party w o r k s hard, every one is strongly disciplined, every one influences to a marked degree the factory or shop in w h i c h they w o r k , the block of flats where they l i v e , the club to w h i c h they belong, the union of w h i c h they are members, the family w h i c h accepts and cherishes them despite their irritating habit of talking C o m m u n i s m o v e r the breakfast-table. 20

T h e y are d i v i d e d into t w o equally balanced branches, N o r t h and South, and they are controlled by a B o r o u g h Secretariat, fourteen strong. At one time or another they have decisively made Party-line weapons out of twentyeight of the thirty-five u n i o n branches in the b o r o u g h . T h e y have been the whip-haft of the local shop stewards m o v e ment. T h e y have had t w o of their members elected to the B o r o u g h C o u n c i l , and they have been able at times to make the L o n d o n Trades C o u n c i l speak w i t h the voice of C o m munist Policy. F o r effort alone, then, y o u must give them f u l l marks. As a Hackney B o r o u g h C o u n c i l l o r (as m u c h t h r o u g h the Party's w i s h as my own) and a member of the Trades C o u n c i l , I was naturally one of the Party's most important members — if only as a w i n d o w display to show the sort of goods kept inside. I fitted the role as if I had been tailored to it. W o r k i n g class in o r i g i n , speech and habit, Hackney-born and bred, my name was k n o w n throughout the b o r o u g h . To me C o m munism was simply a fight against l o w wages and h i g h rents, against slums, tuberculosis, rotten schools, ignorance, and exploitation. It was only many years after I joined the Party that I began to see that C o m m u n i s m was something more than an attempt to raise the standard of l i v i n g in Hackney. It w o u l d be dangerous to assume that my resignation crippled the branch, although its prestige has suffered. I am no f o o l and I do not think I have damaged its striking force. Do y o u recall that story of the Tsarist armies in W o r l d W a r I, h o w only the front ranks had rifles and the rest walked behind waiting for Death to give them something to shoot w i t h ? W e l l , someone p i c k e d up my rifle as soon as I dropped out. T h e Communist Party can and still does make Hackney speak w i t h the authority of L e n i n and Stalin. W h e n it wants to it can control the greater part of the democratic machinery of the b o r o u g h , although not necessarily in a democratic manner. T h i s , although only one in every 200 of Hackney's citizens holds a Party card. O n e t h i n g , however, the Party has been unable to c o n t r o l 21

in H a c k n e y — the ballot box at a Parliamentary election, and they have tried hard enough, as I shall tell y o u . To understand their failure here is to understand b o t h the strength and the weakness of the Party. T h e structure of the Hackney branch is not only the same as any other branch in Great B r i t a i n , it is the same as any Party branch in the w o r l d . It differs only in the degree of its effectiveness. That is a point w o r t h remembering w h i l e y o u read this book. O t h e r political parties have sprung from the peculiar demands and characteristics of our people. In its infancy the B r i t i s h C o m m u n i s t Party was also a B r i t i s h product u n t i l L e n i n gently laughed it out of its swaddling clothes. To-day the Party branches in Nicaragua (and there's b o u n d to be one there) or N o r w i c h keep in step w i t h the prototype. A n d the prototype was manufactured east of the V i s t u l a . That isn't to say that the Party has never recruited traditional B r i t i s h heroes into its struggle. At various times it has enlisted G e r r a r d Winstanley, J o h n L i l b u r n e , B u n y a n , M i l t o n , Shelley, Blake, even C r o m w e l l w i t h some reservations where Irish members are concerned. I must confess that I always preferred these B r i t i s h revolutionaries to V o r o shilov and Budyenny. M a y b e other comrades d i d too, but they never t o l d me, and I never t o l d them. T h e B r i t i s h C o m m u n i s t Party is controlled, r i g i d l y and unquestioningly, from its glass-walled headquarters near Covent G a r d e n . It may not admit this, not openly, for that w o u l d suggest that all the rank-and-filer had to do was to keep in step. But it is a fact, just the same, although there is a perverse f o r m of democracy on paper. Consider the Hackney B o r o u g h Secretariat, for example. T h i s is led at the moment by the Secretary, Comrade J o h n Betteridge, an able, agile, and resolute man w h o models himself diligently on Comrade M a l e n k o v of the Soviet P o l i t b u r o . Comrade Betteridge's parish may be a little smaller than the Russian comrade's, but he has the same authority w i t h i n its limits. T h e members of his Secretariat are carefully chosen so that all activity in the b o r o u g h , industrial, social, professional, 22

and racial, is represented on it. At any given moment someone on the Secretariat c o u l d give a detailed picture of the day-to-day problems in any one of those spheres — w i t h the C o m m u n i s t solution to them, of course. T h e democratic nature of the branch is written in the scriptures. Theoretically all members of the Secretariat are elected by the body of the branch once a year at an aggregate meeting. T h e y are subject, once more theoretically, to a majority vote, to the approval of the rank and file, and must be re-elected or rejected annually. Y o u cannot quarrel w i t h that, can y o u ? T h e n h o w does it w o r k i n practice? E a c h year the existing Secretariat draws up its o w n panel of names for the new Secretariat. It does this after it has consulted w i t h the L o n d o n D i s t r i c t Committee ( w h i c h is the co-ordinating authority of all branches in the L o n d o n area). T h e Secretariat is often so satisfied w i t h its w o r k d u r i n g the past year that it suggests that it should be re-elected en bloc. Of course, the L o n d o n D i s t r i c t may not agree, in w h i c h case changes w i l l be made in the list. T h e panel is then placed before the aggregate meeting and comrades are i n v i t e d to vote on it. T h e y have absolute freedom o f choice. T h e y may vote Yes o r N o . O f course N o w o u l d be a wasted vote, for there is no alternative to the panel. T h e y are entitled to reject the suggested panel o u t of hand and suggest an entirely new one. I say that they are at liberty to do this — but I have never k n o w n of it being done. It w o u l d indicate a lack of faith in the w i s d o m of the branch and district leadership. It w o u l d smack of 'fractionizing', a heresy punishable by expulsion. A panel of names set up in opposition to the resigning Secretariat's suggestions w o u l d have no more hope than Sir W a l d r o n Smithers w o u l d have of sitting in the Presidium of the Supreme Soviet. Basically then, the resigning Secretariat is re-elected every year. D o n ' t think the rank and file ever regard this method as undemocratic (they have a vote, haven't they?) — or if they d o , they never say so. T h e C o m m u n i s t , taught to regard 23

himself as the leader of the working-class, is also taught to be an uncritical follower of his o w n leaders. A m o n g the ordinary members of the Party there is a fanatical w o r s h i p of leading Communists, British and Russian. It expresses itself in idealized portraits, in tedious biographies published by headquarters, and although the teaching of Marxist philosophy is against the whole procedure the Party makes no effort to correct it. Its tactical value is enormous. T h e Party must be able to s w i n g abruptly on the p i v o t of its leadership, confident that there w i l l be no criticism, no objections from below. W h e n an abrupt reversal of the Party line has meant that all comrades must deny themselves thrice in the market-place I have never heard one of them suggest, openly, that perhaps the Executive has been guilty of a mistake. T h e leading C o m m u n i s t is never guilty of a mistake. It was some other fellow. If y o u are m o v e d to smile at this childishness, remember that it is the Party's greatest strength. A n y other party, based on the free w i l l and conscience of its members, w o u l d break up under such a dictatorship. T h e more submissive the C o m munist, the more powerful the C o m m u n i s t Party. A n d no C o m m u n i s t w o u l d admit that the leading n o n C o m m u n i s t statesmen of the w o r l d are wiser, more intelligent, more astute than his B o r o u g h Secretary — or himself for that matter. He knows all the answers. There are three full-time paid members of the H a c k n e y Secretariat: the B o r o u g h Secretary, an O r g a n i z i n g Secretary, and a Propaganda Secretary. T h e y are not highly paid, and acc o r d i n g to the rule a paid member of the Party may not receive more than the average w o r k e r in his or her trade. T h e B o r o u g h Secretary of Hackney receives about £7 a week, w h i c h is a little more, in my o p i n i o n , than he w o u l d get w o r k i n g at his o w n trade. A C o m m u n i s t branch is expected to support itself financially. T h e money goes upward in the C o m m u n i s t Party, not d o w n w a r d . If g o l d does come from M o s c o w , I never knew of any that reached Hackney. Payment for branch officials must be f o u n d by members, and nobody is more 24

enthusiastic in seeing that it is collected than the officials themselves. T h e weekly membership subscription is fourpence, and since a large p r o p o r t i o n of this is passed up the line to the D i s t r i c t Committee it is obvious that a branch cannot support itself by subscriptions alone. T h e money must come f r o m somewhere else. T h u s it is that the C o m m u n i s t has a red flag in one hand and a collecting box in the other. T h e Party frowns on membership levies, w h i c h it regards as 'social-democratic measures' (and if there's anything worse than a T o r y it's a Social-democrat). It m a i n tains that C o m m u n i s t funds must come f r o m the pockets of non-Communists. In this way the Party prevents itself f r o m being drained to death and compels its members to keep in contact w i t h the large mass of the n o n - C o m m u n i s t w o r k i n g class. If y o u want a workmate at the bench to donate sixpence to this or that fighting fund you've got to keep talking to h i m . A n d if he only parts w i t h the sixpence to stop y o u talking then half of the battle has been w o n at any rate. A n y o n e w h o gives money to a Communist-sponsored f u n d is f r o m thereon ear-marked as a 'possible'. A record of his name is kept. He w i l l be asked again for money, and if he gives it he w i l l be recorded as a 'sympathizer'. Such are the first cautious steps towards recruiting new members. Regularly every F r i d a y , at the gates of factories, in canteens, workshops, at dockyard gates, in c o u n c i l flats and transport depots in H a c k n e y , the g o o d comrade may be seen rattling a box or w a v i n g raffle tickets and c a l l i n g : ' H e l p the Party, comrades! T h e C o m m u n i s t Party! T h e only party that fights for the w o r k e r s ! ' There's always some Party cause to be in need of money. T h e Daily Worker F i g h t i n g F u n d . T h e Peace Campaign. T h e latest martyr's defence fund. T h e Rent Committee's Defence F u n d . T h e A n g l o - I r o n - C u r t a i n Society's F u n d . T h e International B r i g a d e . . . the Strike C o m m i t t e e . . . the Spanish prisoners. A l w a y s a fund. A l w a y s a fund because the branch is always in desperate need of money. A l l branch members are sub-divided into groups according 25

to their professions and trades, or according to their particular strength and peculiar duties. E a c h of these groups is given a fixed sum w h i c h must be collected f r o m non-Communists w i t h i n that particular g r o u p i n g . T h e sum may change as time goes o n , but it never changes d o w n w a r d . C o m m u n i s t busmen, for example, were expected to collect £5 a m o n t h from D a l s t o n busmen. I have had to collect that myself, and, like other comrades, no doubt, I had to get the money more f r o m force of personality than from argument. T h e Secretariat accepted no excuses for returns less than the amount stipulated (indeed they brought disciplinary action if it happened too often), and they rarely praised returns in excess of the amount. To my knowledge no one ever suggested that n o n - C o m munist busmen were reluctant to donate £5 a m o n t h to the Party. Comrade busmen brought the money i n , and sometimes o n l y their wives knew where it really came f r o m . In all my years w i t h the Party I can never remember a time w h e n there was not this hysterical demand for money. C h u r c h repair funds and flag-day organizers c o u l d learn m u c h from the Party. E v e r y m o n t h the H a c k n e y B r a n c h had to send a c o n t r i b u t i o n of £20 to the L o n d o n D i s t r i c t Committee, and L o n d o n D i s t r i c t never accepted excuses in lieu. Of course this business of m a k i n g the money up out of your o w n pocket was never officially recognized. Y o u weren't supposed to give your o w n money, y o u were supposed to give someone else's. T h e o n l y Party members w h o were a l l o w e d , indeed expected, to give their o w n money were professional members, doctors, lawyers, w h o were largely under cover. T h e Party drained them of contributions. ' C o m e o n , Comrade, y o u do n o t h i n g else for the Party. We are expecting ten pounds f r o m y o u this m o n t h . ' I k n o w of a number of comrades w h o gave up the Party after a careful review of their bank accounts. T h e H a c k n e y B o r o u g h Secretariat B r a n c h Headquarters, for there is property in the b o r o u g h and has meets at this or that comrade's 26

meets once a week, not at none. T h e Party owns no no fixed meeting place. It house. T h u s does it save

money and thus does it tie each comrade's private life more closely to the Party wheel. No C o m m u n i s t can indulge his fancy for bourgeois tastes w h e n they are likely to come under the scrutiny of his Party associates. I have k n o w n Party m e m bers to sit in their o w n living-rooms without protest w h i l e other members of the Secretariat ridiculed and censured their choice of furniture, curtains, b o o k s , newspapers, even toys f o r their children. O n c e a month there is an aggregate meeting of the f u l l branch, at w h i c h times a local hall is h i r e d , and there is a careful examination of Party cards at the door. G r o u p meetings are held once or twice a week, even daily if there is a fight o n . C o m m u n i s t fraction meetings w i t h i n unions (I shall deal more thoroughly w i t h u n i o n activity later) meet as often as affairs warrant. Secretariat meetings are conducted briskly and efficiently. T h e wife of the comrade in whose home the meeting takes place may take part if she is a Party member. If not her place is in the kitchen m a k i n g tea. T h e Secretary calls the meeting to order and the members, sitting uncomfortably on the floor (for w h o in Hackney has fourteen chairs in his l i v i n g - r o o m ? ) , quickly get d o w n to business. First of all the representatives of each g r o u p i n g report on their activities. A docker, for example, may give a t h o r o u g h outline of the current situation at the docks. He may explain w h y it is possible or impossible to organize a two-hour p o l i t i cal strike there against the K o r e a n war. Or he may concern himself solely to an analysis of the internecine war w i t h i n his u n i o n . He must also report on the number of Daily Workers sold a m o n g dockers, the number of new C o m m u n i s t Party members made, the number of 'sympathetic' contacts w h o can be m i l k e d of money for the fighting funds or eventually recruited into the Party. A housewife may report on the success or otherwise (and it had best not be otherwise) of the Peace Petition canvassed in her block of flats. A school teacher has her report to make, largely concerned w i t h the Party activities w i t h i n parentteacher organizations. Since she is regarded as an intellectual, 27

she w i l l be astute enough to show the proper h u m i l i t y before her proletarian comrades. T h r o u g h all these reports runs one consistent thread — the Party L i n e . If the line is Peace, for example, each g r o u p representative must show h o w his g r o u p has been exploiting it. He may call u p o n representatives of other groups for advice and assistance. He may appeal for a glamour-figure from L o n d o n D i s t r i c t — T e d Bramley, Peter K e r r i g a n , even H a r r y P o l l i t t — to come d o w n and lend support. T h e reports must be constructive and i l l u m i n a t i n g . T h e y are not expected to report failure. Invariably they reflect credit on the Party and the comrade w h o makes them. T h i s part of the Secretariat's meeting is always l o n g and tedious, but it is conducted w i t h great solemnity. There is no j o k i n g , there is no frivolity. E v e n where Christian names are used they sound c o l d and inhuman. W h e n all the reports have been made the B o r o u g h Secretary rewards them w i t h praise or criticism. He is listened to w i t h respect, for none there believe they are just listening to C o m rade J o h n Betteridge. T h e y are listening to a man w h o has received his instructions from higher up. T h e B o r o u g h Secretariat is a lever to be lifted or depressed by the L o n d o n D i s t r i c t Committee, according to the Party L i n e , w h i c h is itself evolved by the N a t i o n a l Executive of Party. W i t h i n all other political parties it is possible for members of the rank and file seriously to influence their party's whole policy. That never happens in the Communist Party. L o n d o n D i s t r i c t is a body on w h i c h sit representatives of all the b o r o u g h parties, and what Comrade J o h n Betteridge had to tell us about L o n d o n District's decisions had all the solemnity and authority of the tablets Moses brought d o w n f r o m the mountain. W h e n the B o r o u g h Secretariat hears its instructions f r o m L o n d o n D i s t r i c t there is always a full discussion of them. Do not let such a statement mislead y o u . T h e discussion is never critical. It is never in disagreement w i t h the instructions themselves. There is never any suggestion that the instructions indicate a softening of the brain a m o n g the Party's leadership. 28

N o . Discussion is concerned solely w i t h h o w those instructions can be carried out. W h e n Betteridge placed before us L o n d o n District's c o m mands that agitation and propaganda against the Americans must be intensified, no one protested, no one questioned the w i s d o m of it. T h e discussion went on until past m i d n i g h t , and it dwelt on means by w h i c h we c o u l d persuade the H a c k n e y docker or the Hackney housewife to hate A m e r i c a . Y o u w o u l d be surprised by the ease of it. T e l l an East E n d e r whose home has been three times bombed that the Americans want to launch a third w o r l d war, and h o w w o u l d y o u expect h i m to feel? T e l l a Hackney housewife that the Americans are c o m p e l l i n g the B r i t i s h G o v e r n m e n t to spend money on arms that should be spent on food, and h o w w o u l d y o u expect her to feel? T h e hate-America campaign was one of the easiest w h i c h the Communists waged in Hackney. W h e n its poison began to w o r k then the C o m m u n i s t had only to suggest that Russia could send Britain food were it allowed to do so, that Russia was disarming while A m e r i c a armed. Sometimes there are embarrassing moments, and the extraordinarily efficient if robot-like machinery of Party activity comes to a paralysed halt. T h i s is invariably w h e n the Party L i n e hiccups. T h e halt may last for a few days, but m o m e n t u m is q u i c k l y regained. It is more like m a r k i n g time than a halt. I often w o n dered whether the National Executive of the Party was ever aware of the strain it put on its branches when it reversed the Party L i n e . Perhaps it knew but trusted in the discipline it had forged. Those few days of uncertainty, however, can mean all or everything to the ordinary Party member. H i s greatest fear, after a l l , is that he may unwittingly speak against the L i n e w h i c h has yet to be announced. Such fear stifles h i m into silence. Thus he had a marked willingness to accept the new L i n e when it comes, if only to put himself out of his agony. C o n s i d e r , for example, the way the Party's attitude to the M a r s h a l l Plan hit us at branch level. There were comrades w h o made the mistake Czechoslovakia made and welcomed the 29

P l a n . There was a time lag between the announcement of the Plan and the Soviet Government's declaration against i t . W h e n we in Hackney heard about the Plan we went about for days without mentioning it. N o b o d y was g o i n g to catch us out, least of all L o n d o n District. If non-Communists quizzed us about it, w e l l — we smiled enigmatically. A c c o r d i n g to theory a Communist, if he is a g o o d M a r x i s t , should come to the same decision as Stalin, and at the same moment. B u t I have never k n o w n anyone w h o succeeded in d o i n g thus. So when the M a r s h a l l P l a n was announced we all waited for Comrade Stalin to make up our minds, and none of us waited more anxiously than the Daily Worker. We were so relieved when we heard from M o s c o w , via L o n d o n D i s t r i c t , that we accepted the new line without argument. T h e Hackney Secretariat that day got d o w n to a discussion on h o w opposition to the Plan c o u l d be organized w i t h i n the b o r o u g h . No one got up to say, ' W e l l , is it a g o o d idea, this M a r s h a l l P l a n , or isn't i t ? ' So far as we were concerned it wasn't. T h e campaign we launched was simple. It was based on the assumption that few people in Hackney understood the motive or nature of the Marshall Plan. Therefore all we had to do was to make the simplest interpretation of it and leave them to make up their o w n minds. A n d our interpretation was that the M a r s h a l l Plan meant war. If you agreed w i t h the M a r s h a l l P l a n then y o u were agreeing to another war, w i t h the atom b o m b . T h e topsy-turvy business of T i t o also went unexplained for days. There was no meeting of the Hackney Secretariat u n t i l the issue was clear; at least there was no meeting at w h i c h T i t o was discussed. H i s portrait was the only likeness of a C o m munist leader that h u n g on the walls of my home, and d u r i n g the meetings that were held there in those anxious days no comrade dared let his eyes wander to that s m i l i n g face. T h e w h o l e w o r l d was discussing T i t o . We were keeping our mouths shut. H a d anyone else in the Party t h r o w n d o w n a challenge to Stalin we should have attacked h i m immediately. But T i t o was different. He was a Communist hero. H i s portrait h u n g next to Stalin's in most C o m m u n i s t s ' homes. T h e shock of his break 30

w i t h the Russians stunned the Party, and not a few of us p r i vately believed that it was to be the beginning of a great schism. B u t neither I nor anyone else was allowed time for such heresies to develop. I must admire the Party Executive for the smart way they handled a delicate situation. T h e Daily Worker d i d not, of course, present an objective picture of the struggle between T i t o and the C o m i n f o r m . It began a systematic and sustained barrage of anti-Tito abuse and propaganda. We accepted it readily. We had been l i v i n g on our nerves for so l o n g that we were in the m o o d to accept anything. O n l y when every Party branch was formulating plans for 'fighting T i t o i s m ' d i d the D i s t r i c t Committee start explaining the Cominform's case (Tito's case we could get from the capitalist press). Probably most of us never read it. I don't suppose many Communists to-day c o u l d tell y o u what that case is, but they c o u l d most certainly tell you the names T i t o should be called. Y e t the T i t o split was perhaps the most critical phase the Party passed through. If anything had been likely to split the B r i t i s h and other C o m m u n i s t parties it was the T i t o affair. B u t y o u w o u l d n ' t have thought it f r o m the attitude of our leaders. I remember one speaker w h o came d o w n from headquarters to talk to us about T i t o i s m . He was calm, self-assured, like a school teacher patiently lecturing a d u l l class. As far as I can remember the gist of what he said, our Party's leaders had k n o w n all the time of T i t o ' s possible defection. N o t h i n g had been said about it publicly because it had been hoped that he w o u l d be persuaded to see the light. B u t what could you expect from a man w h o had been an A m e r i c a n agent d u r i n g the w a r ? There it was, flung at us casually like that. T i t o was an A m e r i c a n agent. D u r i n g those wartime moments when we had all but made a saint of T i t o he had been taking money from the Americans. He had betrayed us, let us d o w n . We hated h i m . F r o m then on we were all in step w i t h Uncle Joe again. A n d the portraits of T i t o were taken d o w n f r o m the walls 31

and quietly burned. H a r r y P o l l i t t had once talked p r o u d l y of the signed photograph of M a r s h a l T i t o w h i c h h u n g on his w a l l . I wonder what he d i d w i t h it. T h e H a c k n e y Party's discussion of the new anti-Tito line was, I suppose, a comic business, had I been in the m o o d to appreciate its humour. We were all anxious to talk about the new line, the new v i l l a i n w h o out-Trotskyed T r o t s k y , the new jackal of capitalism. We were all far too busy to l o o k over our shoulders to see if our consciences were s h o w i n g . W e d i d well w i t h a n t i - T i t o i s m i n Hackney, probably better than other branches. Just what our campaign d i d I couldn't tell you. M a y b e the congratulations we got from L o n d o n D i s trict were merely an acknowledgement of the power of our lungs. I don't k n o w what went in the Secretary's fortnightly reports to L o n d o n D i s t r i c t , not in detail anyway. But in substance they informed District of the w o r k done, the number of Workers s o l d , new members made, disciplinary action taken, the number of Party line resolutions carried in union branches, the success of Party activity in B o r o u g h C o u n c i l and Trades Council. They gave District a full picture of Party activity, and since every branch in the country sent in similar reports you w i l l see that the Executive always had an up-to-date briefing on its members' w o r k everywhere. F r o m Comrade Betteridge's point of v i e w that fortnightly report is probably the most critical thing he does. Certainly I always noticed a tense and detached expression on his face until approval of his report came through. A n d i f approval d i d not come t h r o u g h , i f instead the D i s trict was decidedly displeased, then the B o r o u g h Secretary had to appear before it to explain, as uneasy and apologetic as any rank-and-file member w o u l d be when brought before h i m to explain w h y , and w h y , and why. But the Party's Executive is fortunate in its non-commissioned officers. It is rarely displeased w i t h them. It rarely disciplines them. There is no reason w h y it should, for it chooses them itself. 32

CHAPTER

TWO

The Communists disdain to conceal their views and aims. They openly declare that their ends can be attained only by the forcible overthrow of all existing conditions . . . The Communist Manifesto. THE name o f M a l e n k o v , Secretary o f the C o m i n f o r m and sometimes regarded as Stalin's successor, has a hysterical effect on B o r o u g h Secretaries. To them he might be l i v i n g r o u n d the corner. They talk, act, and w o r k as if at any moment he is likely to drop in and ask them h o w the class struggle is g o i n g in their part of the w o r l d . An indication of his importance and influence is the fact that leading B r i t i s h Communists have lately received presentation portraits of M a l e n k o v . These are to be h u n g on the walls of their homes if there is r o o m (and if there isn't they are under obligation to take d o w n V o r o s h i l o v ' s or Budyenny's). Less decorative are the copies of M a l e n k o v ' s speeches w h i c h arrive regularly at the homes of the B r i t i s h Party's leaders. These are carefully read and digested, and a lack of imagination and fire in the current speeches of leading B r i t i s h Communists may be due to M a l e n k o v ' s arid dialectics. T h i s fantastic hero-worship is perhaps one of the most significant features of the C o m m u n i s t Party. It has increased since the Party strengthened its working-class membership. W h a t makes a w o r k e r in H o m e r t o n worship the idealized portrait of a man 2,000 miles away, I don't k n o w . E v e n if each comrade were not expected to k i l l himself w i t h Party w o r k he w o u l d do it just the same, because Comrade M a l e n k o v or Comrade M a o Tse-tung might get to k n o w that he took time off for a cigarette when he should have been shouting: ' B u y your Daily Worker here . . . ! ' I k n o w that some intellectuals in the Party are amused by all this worship of the god-heads. T h i s is particularly true of the cultural workers in the Party w h o regard themselves as less doctrinaire, more tolerant. But the intellectuals do not C.T.B.

33

count (unless it was to die in Spain fifteen years a g o ) ; the Party rests on the comrades w h o w o r k on the knocker. C o m e the R e v o l u t i o n , what happens to intellectuals anyway? There are few intellectuals in the Hackney Branch to-day; it is solidly a working-class phalanx, and what intellectuals there are realize that their brains are considered the least justification for their being accepted as Communists. T h i s was not the case w h e n I joined. At that time there weren't more than 3,000 dues-paying Communists in the w h o l e country. T h e Party's attack on the L a b o u r Party at the 1931 General E l e c t i o n had isolated it from the six m i l l i o n w o r k i n g - m e n and w o m e n w h o had voted against Ramsay M a c D o n a l d ' s L a b o u r Nationalists. Communists fought against both. I d i d not k n o w it at the time but I had joined a Party that was almost extinct. Y e t one of the first things I read as a C o m m u n i s t was an announcement by Rajani Palme D u t t , a C o m m u n i s t leader w i t h a card-index m i n d w h o can be extreme left or extreme right, but never anything in between. Surveying the r u i n of the L a b o u r Party after that election he declared that there was n o w only one party of the w o r k i n g class, the C o m m u n i s t Party. T h e C o m m u n i s t Party had a new recruit in me. I was twenty-five, the son of a glass-blower, and I was chairman of the local branch of the N a t i o n a l U n e m p l o y e d W o r k e r s ' M o v e m e n t . I had joined that organization w i t h o u t realizing that it was Communist-controlled. I became a branch chairman w i t h o u t realizing that I w o u l d never have got the posit i o n had not the Communists thought I w o u l d be easily malleable and that I w o u l d eventually be recruited. Because my brother J o h n was a C o m m u n i s t (he left in disgust l o n g ago) I was half-way toward j o i n i n g the Party. W h e n I agreed I was introduced to a local gathering of the people Comrade D u t t had said were the only representatives of the working-class. It was a cell meeting, held in a bare attic, w h i c h one of the comrades, had he been decadent enough, w o u l d have called his home. I was probably the only working-class man among them. T h e cell-leader was a man w h o hated the capitalist 34

system so m u c h that he refused to pay his debts and m o v e d when they became too heavy. T h e rest of the members had no regular w o r k . T h e y had no homes either, so far as I c o u l d judge, and if one had had the time it w o u l d have been an amusing exercise to w o r k out w h o was l i v i n g w i t h w h o m . M o s t o f them were unshaven, most of them were dirty, and all of them talked. T h e y talked and talked. B u t I was hot for the cause. I and my family had felt the rough edge of capitalism. I hated it for its exploitation, its bitter cruelty and its relentless persecution of the unfortunate. In face of this hatred I d i d not stop to ask myself whether this little society of cafe-revolutionaries had either the w i t or ability to change the face of the earth. I mention this to contrast the present-day character of the Hackney C o m m u n i s t Party. I have seen it g r o w f r o m a loose-gathering of t w o dozen intellectual wastrels i n t o a storm-troop of men and w o m e n d r a w n from all branches of working-class life. It is not important n o w what the H a c k n e y Party was, only what it is and what it w i l l be. A n d I suppose it is important to k n o w what I a m , if anything I write is to be taken seriously. U n t i l I joined the Party I was drifting. My father had taught me to trust in trade u n i o n i s m . My brother J o h n had taught me that a m a n was not a man u n t i l he fought for what he believed was right. Between the t w o of them they helped me to make up my m i n d , and my first positive political action was w h e n I was w o r k i n g in a timber m i l l . It was 1926. I walked out of the w o r k s one day and as I passed the foreman I said: 'I support the General S t r i k e ! ' I wasn't even a u n i o n man then. B u t I was later, and I always shall be. By 1933 I had seen enough in the East E n d to convince me that something violent, something drastic was needed. There was mass unemployment. Fascist streetcorner meetings were held every n i g h t ; there were b r o k e n heads, Jew-baiting, a l l the ugly, dirty, mean business of worker fighting worker. A n d if the Communists I met when first I joined outraged the working-class morality my mother had d r u m m e d i n t o me 35

B 2

then that didn't matter. These people were out to stop the whole dirty business I hated, and I was w i t h them to the h i l t . I fought the Fascists before I joined the Party, and in j o i n i n g them I was led to believe that anti-Fascism was not just an emotional t h i n g , but a plank in a great political platform. L o o k i n g back on it, dirty t h o u g h it was, it seems a m u c h cleaner fight than the one I was engaged in w h e n finally I broke w i t h the Party. T h e H a c k n e y Communist Party to-day should be p r o u d of the w o r k its members d i d in the past, but I doubt whether it is. I suppose, in a way, I helped to change the character of the H a c k n e y Party. It is hard to believe that its members to-day have any connexion w i t h the long-haired men and shorthaired w o m e n , the corduroys and plus fours that made up the C e l l I joined. On demonstrations the Party organized I resented these people; they were a paradox in what was supposed to be a spontaneous outburst of working-class indignation. T h e y seemed as unreal as I w o u l d be collecting fares in carpet slippers and pyjamas. There was little or no activity w i t h i n Hackney's trade unions for the very simple reason that few trade unionists then were Communists. We just talked. H a r r y P o l l i t t is a shrewd psychologist and he was the first a m o n g the Party's leaders to urge that the Party should exist on a broad front, that it should go all out to enrol electricians, dockers, factory workers, housewives. T h e intellectuals should be kept in cages for demonstration purposes. After a few years the oddities w h o had initiated me disappeared. T h e y had fire and they had fanaticism. Q u i t e a few died in Spain, up along the Jarama, perhaps a little surprised to find what a political discussion over a coffee-cup c o u l d b r i n g them to. T h e Party didn't m i n d them d y i n g i n Spain. Some C o m munists had to go there and get shot, and it was best that they should be the expendable ones. W h e n I started active w o r k for the Party I began to enlist w o r k i n g men like myself, paintworkers at first, for I was then w o r k i n g for L e w i s Bergers. Factory groups of C o m 36

munists came into being, then cell fractions inside the u n i o n s . T h e Party Congress decided that ' E v e r y factory must be a C o m m u n i s t fortress' and we w o r k e d night and day in H a c k n e y to fulfil the order. We blossomed into a broad red flower in the garden of the East E n d . T h e Z i n k e n Cabinet factory had the biggest Party membership. There were soon twenty Communists a m o n g the D a l s t o n busmen. Bergers, w h e n I left the factory, had twenty active comrades. By the time the war broke out we had our fingers in everything. We were a party of w o r k i n g - m e n and we were a dangerous party, aggressives, militant trade unionists, tried, t o u g h , ruthless. I don't think the T o r y Governments of the inter-war years realized what a g o o d recruiting-sergeant they were for the C o m m u n i s t Party. To-day every H a c k n e y C o m m u n i s t knows his duty. W h e n the Party finds a valuable w o r k e r , such as it considered me, it is the policy to w o r k the m a n to his death, literally sometimes, to pile obligations on h i m and abuse h i m if he weakens. W h a t are the duties of a C o m m u n i s t ? To start w i t h he must be a member of a trade u n i o n and he must be active in that u n i o n . He must be an active member of the C o m m u n i s t cell w i t h i n that u n i o n . If he can j o i n a local club and f o r m part of a C o m m u n i s t cell w i t h i n that, then he is under an obligation to d o so. H e must: Pay his fourpence a week subscription. Support the Daily Worker Fighting Fund. Collect money for the Daily Worker Fighting Fund. Sell the Daily Worker. Buy as much Party literature as possible. Sell as much Party literature as possible. Attend every branch meeting of his union. Attend every Communist cell meeting within his union. Turn out for every demonstration in his area. Turn out for every District demonstration. Join an Anglo-Iron-Curtain Friendship Society. Join another Anglo-Iron-Curtain Friendship Society. Get his wife to join the Party. 37

Get his father to join. Get his children to join the Y o u n g Communist League. Do as he's told. Hate America. L o v e Russia.

E v e r y year a Party member must fill in a f o r m and return it to Central Office. It must give a full report of his activities d u r i n g the past year. On the basis of these returns the Party is able to assess the strength of its membership and its vitality. That f o r m haunts the average comrade f r o m the end of one year to another. Where the Party has a member w h o manages to fulfil a l l the above obligations and still have time to b l o w his nose, the Party w i l l pile more w o r k o n h i m u n t i l h e becomes too i l l to carry more. That is not an overstatement. It is not a coincidence that so many Communists sicken w i t h tuberculosis. T h e names of the comrades w h o m the Party w o r k e d to death make a tragic list. A m o n g them is B i l l Rust, editor of the Daily Worker. W h e n the Party claims, as it always does on the anniversary of his death, that he died for C o m m u n i s m , they are not i n d u l g i n g in polite courtesies. It is i r o n i c that the anniversary of B i l l Rust's death should be used by the Party as an excuse for goading on the eagerbeavers w i t h i n the ranks. E v e r y b o d y is urged to collect more money, sell more Daily Workers in memory of B i l l Rust. T h e Party never gives its members a moment for reflective thought. E v e r y Sunday m o r n i n g the Literature Secretary's staff tour the b o r o u g h , pushing a quota of literature through the comrades' letter-boxes. T h e y are expected to read it and sell it. I doubt, from my o w n personal experience, whether much of it is really sold. I've burnt quires of it on my little fire — but I've turned in the money to the Literature Secretary just the same, and I'd hate to say what A n n felt about that. There was little enough money in o u r house at the best of times. There are some comrades w h o are excused active w o r k on the streets. Because of my w o r k and position on the B o r o u g h C o u n c i l and Trades C o u n c i l I was not expected to do door-tod o o r canvassing, for example. It was a case of ' W e can't put 38

B o b D a r k e on that, he's got enough to handle in his o w n sphere.' A n d I had too. F o r every h o u r I put in as a bus conductor, I sometimes put in t w o for the Party. Where the Hackney Secretariat met opposition to the burden of w o r k it threw on a comrade's shoulders such opposition invariably came from the professionals in our ranks. I remember the case of a w o m a n , a gentle, k i n d l y s o u l ; heaven knows what made her j o i n the Party in the first place. H e r husband was also a C o m m u n i s t , and that may be the explanation. She was a doctor, and the first idealistic spasm that made her j o i n the Party must have quickly passed, for she rarely attended meetings and w o u l d not do the w o r k others d i d . Y e t she was not expelled. T h e Party does not expel its p r o fessional members, although it is always quick to mistrust them. H e r husband, active enough in the Party, got the brunt of its dissatisfaction. 'What's M a r y d o i n g for the P a r t y ? What's she telling her patients? She must talk to them m o r e about C o m m u n i s m . She must get them to sign the Peace Petition. T a k e her 200 petition forms to display on her surgery table.' That w o m a n had my sympathy. She was a fine doctor, w i t h a g o o d heart. I believe she had the opportunity of becoming a leading local medical figure. It may have been that the Party decided that she w o u l d be of more value to them in general practice. She had too many patients, her personal reputation was h i g h . T h e Party considered the number of her patients joyfully, there were so many m e n and w o m e n w h o could be t o l d about C o m m u n i s m w h i l e their temperatures were being taken. It must have been humiliating for her, but she had spirit and occasionally t o l d the Party to leave her alone. Still they d i d not expel her, but they changed their tactics. T h e y decided that she c o u l d be relieved of obligation to w o r k for the Party in return for a handsome and regular financial c o n t r i b u t i o n . I believe she was g i v i n g large sums a m o n t h to the Party. T h e y even went to the level of b o r r o w i n g money from such a member. 39

That was h o w the Party operated, and still does operate. It pushes some members to a point where they d i g in their heels, and then it takes money f r o m them. It might reasonably be asked w h y this w o m a n d i d not resign. I think as an active member, she d i d eventually, but it must only have been after a great spiritual struggle. H e r husband remained a Party member and G o d knows what their family life was like after that. A n y b o d y w h o steps out of line can feel the weight of the Party's hand. A discreet phone call here and there, a whisperi n g campaign, and irreparable damage is done. I k n o w , I ' m feeling it n o w . We had a member w h o was a chemist, a pleasant if d u l l middle-class shopkeeper w h o must have been dragooned i n t o the Party before he knew what was happening to h i m . W h e n , d u r i n g the war, E a r l B r o w d e r proposed the dissolution of the A m e r i c a n C o m m u n i s t Party, his action was at first applauded, but finally he was expelled. We all supported his expulsion without a blush for the fact that u n t i l recently we had been justifying his dialectical understanding of the situation that made his Party's dissolution essential. O u r chemist rose to his feet d u r i n g one aggregate meeting to ask w h y the Party rank-and-file had not been given more information about Browder's expulsion. He wanted to p r o pose a resolution criticizing the Executive before the forthc o m i n g Party Congress. H e r e was heresy! He d i d not get an answer, of course, that is if y o u do not consider an immediate tirade of abuse an answer. T h e abuse went on l o n g after the meeting and the unfortunate chemist was harried this way and that u n t i l he fell i l l , resigned, and m o v e d away f r o m the district. A l l he had done was ask w h y . N o b o d y does that in the Party and gets away w i t h it. T h e C o m m u n i s t Party welcomes school-teachers into its ranks, and we had several in Hackney. So far as my k n o w ledge goes they were never instructed to colour their teaching w i t h open C o m m u n i s t propaganda, although I have k n o w n one or t w o reckless enough to do it. T h e i r w o r k for the Party must be more subtle. T h e y buy 40

the Worker, of course, and are under obligation to sell it a m o n g their colleagues. T h e y must interest n o n - C o m munist staff of the schools in the Peace Campaign, in the Party's policy o n education, i n cultural links w i t h I r o n C u r t a i n countries. T h e y must play as active a part as possible in the N a t i o n a l U n i o n of Teachers. B u t their primary instruction is to be on the best terms possible w i t h their pupils, to take them s w i m m i n g , to football, to organize clubs and social activities outside the schools. T h i s is not mere good-heartedness. A c h i l d w h o likes his teacher and knows that he or she is a C o m m u n i s t makes a ready recruit for the Y o u n g C o m m u n i s t League. Parent-Teacher associations f o r m a principal arena for the activity of the C o m m u n i s t school-teacher. Communists are under obligation to make these associations political wherever possible, to use them as a platform for expounding C o m munist policy on education, on peace, on war. I wonder h o w many parents have signed the Peace Petition because it was circulated among them by that nice M i s s B r o w n w h o teaches F o r m Three? T h e obligations of the professional comrade are thus specialized. T h e lawyer must place his knowledge and services freely at the service of the Party whenever it comes into conflict w i t h the law. T h e printer must use his i n k , paper and machinery to turn out local literature. T h e doctor and nurse must find a moment when a pleasant talk about the C o m m u n i s t approach to nationalized medicine and all the world's ills w i l l take a patient's m i n d off his o w n trivial sickness. T h e housewife must organize her neighbours into little afternoon teas. By accident a friend might drop i n , and by accident the friend w o u l d be a w e l l - k n o w n Communist like B o b D a r k e , and he w o u l d be only too happy to answer any questions the g o o d ladies m i g h t have on the question of tents, and housing, and w h y their sons have been conscripted to K o r e a . T h e party w o r k of the C o m m u n i s t factory-worker, depending as it does on u n i o n activity, deserves a chapter to itself, 41

for it is in the unions that the Communists have their greatest power. T h e Hackney Communist Party, i n c o m m o n w i t h other branches, has one supreme obligation. It is to sell the Daily Worker wherever and whenever possible. E a c h comrade is geared to this massive circulation drive and the harder he works the harder he has to w o r k . T h e Literature Secretary of the Hackney Branch sat on the local Trades C o u n c i l at one time, w h i c h was not merely an accident. Literature is held to be the Party's strongest a m m u n i t i o n , and the wider it can be spread the better. I doubt if there is a political party in the w o r l d w h i c h spends as m u c h time and money per head of membership on the p r o d u c t i o n and distribution of literature. T h e presence of the branch's Literature Secretary on the Trades C o u n c i l guaranteed a bountiful flow of Daily Workers, Labour Monthlies, Challenges, and all the plethora of party publications, toward that section of life where it was believed they w o u l d do most g o o d — the trade unionist. T h e selling of the Daily Worker is organized like a military campaign, w i t h a tactical appreciation of the strategical situation. On Saturday afternoons and evenings the branch membership turns out en masse to sell the special edition of the Worker — in Ridley R o a d , in the Jewish quarter, in markets, outside cinemas and dance-halls. H a c k n e y Communists sell about 20,000 extra copies of the Daily Worker every Saturday. Some Communists w o r k themselves into nervous breakdowns over this business of selling the Worker. T h e D a l s t o n bus garage has a Worker-seller outside the doors every F r i d a y m o r n i n g w h e n u n i o n subscriptions are paid. Where Party members have reported that a block of council flats is sympathetic to the Party then it is invaded almost daily by comrades w h o knock at every d o o r and flourish a copy of the paper under every nose. If P o l l i t t , or Palme D u t t , or B u r n s , or any w e l l - k n o w n Party member is to write a special article for the Worker, B o r o u g h Secretaries are alerted three or four days beforehand. We in H a c k n e y were masters of the tactics required on 42

such occasions. A secretariat meeting (generally at midnight) determined the districts where m a x i m u m and m i n i m u m sales c o u l d be expected. E a c h g r o u p decided that it c o u l d p r o v i d e so many five-man squads for w a l l and pavement chalking. A n d out those squads w o u l d go into the dark. W h i l e t w o comrades kept watch for wandering policemen the others w o u l d hurriedly chalk slogans: 'Read P o l l i t t in the Worker to-morrow!' On the day of publication of the special article no Party member is excused f r o m the operation. A housewife, for example, is t o l d to get up at five in the m o r n i n g to take a quire of Workers to the gates of this factory or that, and sell them before she goes h o m e to see her children off to school. Examples of such self-sacrifice on the part of the w o m a n were always used to goad on other comrades. T h e fact that the w o m a n concerned might become a nervous wreck, or lose her husband, or r u i n her family life, is regarded as irrelevant. D i d not Russian w o m e n go into the front line w i t h troops d u r i n g the war, comrade? In addition to the torrent of literature that flooded d o w n to us f r o m District we had our o w n output in H a c k n e y w h i c h a comrade printer turned off the machine for us. We selected factories for special types of propaganda. If there was a local strike on we made a point of rushing out a special pamphlet on it. We studied the habits of workers in different factories, where they ate, whether they sat outside the gates at dinnertime, what their routes h o m e w a r d were. We waylaid them w i t h literature, w i t h loudspeaker vans, we harried them, we pursued them, we captured them. We w o r k e d , still they w o r k tirelessly. There is no special Party police, n o b o d y detailed to watch y o u and see that y o u exert the last ounce of energy. N o t one comrade really trusts another, however. A n d weakness w i l l be exposed by denunciation. We w o r k e d in every section of Hackney life that mattered to the wide political battle, and that means every section there was — even creches. We w o r k e d , and I repeat the Party still w o r k s , in unions, schools, hospitals, factories, garages, 43

flats, clubs, dance-halls, canteens. We had the r u n of the kerbstones and the playgrounds. We had our finger on the carotid artery of the b o r o u g h . W h y d i d the people of H a c k n e y listen to us when we spoke of things that were so palpably untrue? Because our prestige was h i g h , our personal prestige that is, not the Party's. People listened to me and trusted me for what I had done for the b o r o u g h , not because I was a C o m munist. A n d every comrade was expected to w i n this sort of trust. No activity w i t h i n the b o r o u g h was too insignificant to warrant our interest and interference. We regarded the racial p r o b l e m as the key-plank of our peculiar problems in Hackney. There was a h i g h percentage of Jews in our ranks, but they d i d not predominate. Indeed I believe Central Office w o u l d have frowned on our becoming a predominantly Jewish branch. Emphasis had been placed on w i n n i n g Jewish sympathy d u r i n g the anti-Fascist activities of the inter-war years. That emphasis is still maintained. There are few Jews in the East E n d w h o are hostile to the Party, whatever their standi n g , and that is an important measure of the Party's success in this sphere. East E n d Jews never t u r n d o w n requests to buy Party literature or support Party activity. T h i s is not because they are Communists or even potential Communists. It is a recognition of the w o r k the Party puts in against antiSemitism. A n t i - C o m m u n i s t propaganda since the war w h i c h has attempted to prove that the Soviet U n i o n has been itself guilty of anti-Semitism has had little success among East E n d Jews. Y e t I never felt happy w i t h Jewish Communists. T h e y were too sensitive, their feelings were too close to the s k i n . T h e y were certainly among the hardest-working, most active members of the Party, but they made me uncomfortable. A n d a great many Gentile comrades felt the same way. T h i s chapter is largely a survey of the type of n o n - u n i o n w o r k the H a c k n e y C o m m u n i s t does and is expected to d o . It is in the main designed to show h o w we were expected to infiltrate and take over even the smallest of public activities. 44

T h e best example I can quote, since I was personally c o n cerned, is the case of the H a c k n e y Cycle Speedway C l u b . T h i s was formed after the war and had a membership of some sixty boys and girls in their teens. At the time the Party became interested in i t , it was a happy, non-political g r o u p without a Communist in it, except perhaps a couple of Y o u n g C o m m u n i s t Leaguers w h o , I suspect, joined it as a relaxation. O n e of these Y o u n g C o m m u n i s t Leaguers innocently asked me, as a B o r o u g h C o u n c i l l o r , to help the club get a cycle track, a bomb-site w h i c h they wished to convert i n t o a cinderway. T h e C l u b had three teams and wanted to k n o w whether the L C C w o u l d grant them the use of a bomb-site. I put the situation to the B o r o u g h Secretariat and got their approval. To support me I had the local unions s w i n g i n t o line, pass resolutions, make representations. We built up quite a pressure on the subject and eventually the boys and girls got their track. At the b i g meeting held to celebrate the success of the campaign and the opening of the track the Party sent the Y C L into action. M a n y of them had been told to j o i n anyway, while the agitation was g o i n g o n . Party literature was on sale d u r i n g the m e e t i n g ; copies of Challenge, the Y C L paper, contained a special article by me. It was called ' F i g h t i n g for youth facilities w h i l e money is spent on war.' M o r e and more y o u n g Communists joined the club and the sellers of Challenge made a straight target of it. H a v i n g secured the club's g o o d w i l l by leading the fight for its cinder-track the Party decided that the Y C L should recruit every member o f the club into the Party and get every one of them to sign the Peace Petition. I had already talked to the club about it and about the uselessness of N a t i o n a l Service, but w h e n the Party wanted me to keep up my contacts w i t h the club and s w i n g it even closer into the orbit of Party activity, something made me jib. F i n a l l y I stayed away f r o m the club altogether and flatly refused the Party's instructions to get every one of those boys to sign the Peace Petition. I entered the great rent fight more enthusiastically. 45

As a b o r o u g h councillor I k n e w w h e n council rents were to be increased l o n g before the p u b l i c were warned, and I reported this fact to the Party Secretariat. An immediate meeting was called and the matter was discussed l o n g into the night. T h e meeting was often held i n m y home, and a l l the w h i l e A n n waited in our tiny kitchen. W h e n the Party decided to fight the rent increases it d i d so because it realized that by securing p u b l i c support we w o u l d raise the prestige of the Party w i t h i n the b o r o u g h . T h e quest i o n of fighting rent increases because they were an unnecessary burden d i d not enter i n t o it. We had one question to answer o n l y : W o u l d the Party benefit by opposing them? A l l the Party machinery came into action w h e n we had made our decision. Propaganda leaflets for distribution a m o n g the affected tenants, petitions to the c o u n c i l , p u b l i c demonstrations. T h e struggle began innocently enough, without any party tag. U n d e r standing orders of the c o u n c i l I am able to make statements to the local press. I made one, d a m n i n g the p r o posed rent increases, advising a l l tenants to h o l d a general ' n o n - p o l i t i c a l ' meeting to express their dissatisfaction and formulate plans to defeat the measure. P r i o r to this I had already m o v e d the reference back of the council's p l a n to raise rents. E v e r y o n e in the b o r o u g h knew that B o b D a r k e was against rent increases and prepared to fight. W h e n the c o u n c i l refused to see a tenants' deputation (inspired by Communists l i v i n g in the affected blocks) it gave C o u n c i l l o r M o r r i s Blaston, the other C o m m u n i s t on the c o u n c i l , the chance to declare that the tenants were not being treated fairly. H i s spirited objections were fully reported in the Press. T h e Press also reported that there was to be a mass meeting of tenants, and that 'indignant tenants w h o threatened to m a r c h into the T o w n H a l l had to be restrained by C o u n c i l l o r D a r k e ' . There was no doubt in the minds of anybody in H a c k n e y n o w that the C o m m u n i s t Party was the o n l y party prepared to fight the rent increases. A l t h o u g h the mass meeting had been advertised as ' n o n 46

p o l i t i c a l ' the Party saw to it that no opportunity was missed. C o m m u n i s t stewards were in c o n t r o l of the crowds. Party literature was on sale on a table at the back of the h a l l , and w i t h it was a little pile of membership forms. T h e Daily Worker carried a special news coverage of the c o m i n g fight. T h e hall was c r o w d e d , as y o u w o u l d expect it to be, w i t h people w h o found it hard enough to pay the rents they d i d w i t h o u t paying more. There were speeches, contributions f r o m the body of the h a l l , but f r o m the Party's point of v i e w they meant n o t h i n g . I was a m o n g the speakers w h o advised the immediate f o r m i n g of a Tenants' Committee. T h e Party likes these committees. So l o n g as they exist, however dormant, they are a m e d i u m for propaganda and Party line activity. We had no difficulty about f o r m i n g this committee. T h e rent increase proposed was twenty-five per cent of existing rents, and I still t h i n k it damnable. T h e people in that hall wanted action, and if the f o r m i n g of a committee meant action they were ready enough to vote for it. N o w we, as Com munists, d i d not want any sort of a c o m mittee. We wanted one that was securely under our t h u m b . To get it was easy enough. T h e average E n g l i s h m a n , no matter h o w badly he feels about a matter, is reluctant to accept office to fight against i t ; he w i l l vote for the man w h o seems most willing. Party members strategically placed about the hall proposed and seconded Party nominees. We elected a malleable n o n party chairman and secretary, and I was elected president. E i g h t blocks of flats were i n v o l v e d in the rent increase, and the committee we elected consisted of two tenants f r o m each block. O n l y a m i n o r i t y of them were Communists, but that was all we needed. T h e others knew n o t h i n g about committee w o r k and were prepared to lean heavily on us w h o d i d . T h e L a b o u r Party helped us by d o i n g nothing. It was never able to fight back against the Communist Party in H a c k n e y . L a b o u r Party members in the body of the hall at that meeting did attempt to raise the R e d B o g y , but we easily turned feeling against them. ' T h i s is not a political meeting,' we protested. 47

' T h i s isn't a C o m m u n i s t meeting. If there are Communists here, so w h a t ? T h e y are here to fight for the people.' E n g a g i n g frankness like that brought the house d o w n . Because, as I have said, the innocents on that Tenants' C o m mittee k n e w n o t h i n g about the w o r k they should be d o i n g , they relied largely on my advice. I advised an immediate committee meeting, w h i c h brought up p r o b l e m number one. There was no money. Where should it meet? My home was available. W h y not meet there? So there we met. A n d if a local C o m m u n i s t or two happened to be there on the same evening, w h y that was a coincidence; their advice was gratefully received. It was my job to separate the sheep f r o m the goats in this committee. O u t of the sixteen, I remember, I concentrated all the Party's propaganda on five. We d i d not stop the rent increase but we strengthened the Party's influence and prestige and we secured an open d o o r into eight blocks of council flats. F o r weeks after that fight we flooded those blocks w i t h literature, w i t h Peace Petition forms, w i t h membership forms for the Party. T h e Tenants' Committee was kept in being l o n g after the original need for it had passed. It was g i v e n a b l o o d transfusion every so often and we ran it as an effective vehicle for Party propaganda. It was always useful, geared to the Party machine, w h e n b o r o u g h or parliamentary elections came along. B u t to the average comrade it probably meant an extra headache. It added one more to the many obligations he must undertake, more stairs to climb w i t h quires of the Worker, more doors at w h i c h to k n o c k , more recruits to secure. Affairs like this rent fight are what the Party means w h e n it talks of the 'day-to-day struggle'. To an innocent that might mean the day-by-day struggle of the w o r k i n g class against capitalism, toward a better life. To the Party it means the daily struggle of the C o m m u n i s t for the extension of C o m m u n i s t influence. We were all in it. Everyone w h o came to me for help w h i l e I was a councillor was, as far as the Party was concerned, 48

a potential reader of the Daily Worker, a potential member of the Party. C o m m u n i s t nurses at the hospital were under obligation to let TB patients k n o w of the Party's plan for the consumptive. O l d age pensioners' pennies were welcome w h e n given in gratitude for our u n t i r i n g struggle to raise their pensions. No man was too o l d to join the Party, and the older he was the better it w o u l d l o o k when the Daily Worker announced: 'Veteran Pensioner joins C o m m u n i s t Party — " N e v e r too o l d to fight," he says.' A n d what satisfaction does the Party member get out of i t ? He tells himself, as I t o l d myself many times, that he is b r i n g i n g the R e v o l u t i o n nearer. If he gets tired, exhausted, then he consoles himself w i t h the thought that there are casualties in all wars. If his spirit dries up w i t h i n h i m and he is wise, he tells no one. Sometimes the carrot is dangled before his nose. T h e ' R e d Star of L e n i n ' , for example, was evolved as a reward for any C o m m u n i s t w h o c o u l d recruit ten new members in three months. W h e n that worthless award was introduced all areas of B r i t a i n were given targets. L o n d o n ' s whole target was 5,000, and of that Hackney was expected to find 200. T h e ' R e d Star of L e n i n ' . Y o u may find it silly, but comrades went mad in their drive to earn it. To become a hero. To have their pictures in the Daily Worker. T h e ' R e d Star of L e n i n ' . Poor Lenin.

49

CHAPTER THREE Our Party, honest, self-sacrificing, influential, and capable of leading and attracting the backward masses... L E N I N , Left-Wing Communism. E V E R Y C o m m u n i s t is under an obligation to belong to a trade u n i o n . T h i s firm rule is not w i t h o u t some philosophical foundation. Marxist theory maintains that the beginning of class consciousness in the w o r k e r occurs at that moment w h e n he begins to struggle against his employer. If a C o m m u n i s t is around w h e n the struggle starts, all the better. T h e Party views the trade u n i o n branch as a political weapon, the most important one in the armoury if absolute control of it can be secured. A m o n g themselves this attitude of m i n d is quite shameless. A few days before I left the Party I had been told to consider the point that it w o u l d be a g o o d thing if u n i o n branches in H a c k n e y were to organize token strikes against the war in K o r e a . We had two or three factories ear-marked for this, and had I stayed in the Party there is no doubt I w o u l d have joined in the g o o d w o r k . W o u l d the factories we had ear-marked have come o u t ? T h e y w o u l d . Were all the workers C o m m u n i s t , then? T h e y were not. Then how? T h e y were factories where C o m m u n i s t influence and c o n t r o l of the trade u n i o n machinery was strong. T h e B r i t i s h w o r k e r is in the main a g o o d trade unionist and he is loyal to his u n i o n and trusts it. N o b o d y knows this loyalty better than the C o m munists, and nobody is more cynical about abusing it. ' W e must capture the u n i o n s ! ' shout the Communist Parties everywhere in the w o r l d . A n d they do it so damned easily. It is not necessary for the Party to have a majority membership of the unions. It is necessary to have a hard core w h o never miss a u n i o n meeting. It is necessary to have at least three of the key positions on u n i o n executives held by open or under-cover Communists. 50

Wherever Communists go all out to swing a u n i o n or a u n i o n branch into their p o w e r they aim at placing Party members into the posts of Secretary, Chairman and Treasurer. Particularly the Treasurer, for we must remember that the Party wants money, always it wants money. W i t h a Party Treasurer in control of u n i o n funds he can be expected to agree to u n i o n grants to any Party line organization that asks for them. W h e n Communists in the u n i o n jockey through snap resolutions l o n g after u n i o n business should be finished, appealing for financial support to this or that Iron-Curtain Friendship Society, then the Party-member Treasurer can always be relied u p o n to approve of the donation. He's also there to approve grants to Party candidates at parliamentary elections, to approve of donations to a Partyinspired strike a hundred miles away, to approve of contributions to the defence fund for the Communists w h o , were arrested in the latest demonstration. A n d the Daily Worker w i l l give great prominence to such grants, p o i n t i n g out that they have been made in the name of so many hundred trade unionists (who weren't w i t h i n t w o miles of the meeting w h e n the grants were made). C o m m u n i s t unionists always attend meetings, and because they are always in attendance the donkey-work of u n i o n business is w i l l i n g l y handed over to them. They are familiar w i t h u n i o n business, u n i o n politics and u n i o n trickery in a way a casual unionist never is. N o b o d y knows a point of order better than a C o m m u n i s t , and Heaven knows h o w many antiCommunists have foundered on a point of order adroitly p r o duced by a Communist. B r a n c h membership of unions may be large, but attendance at branch meetings is invariably small. T h i s lack of interest on the part of the average unionist is the Communist's b i g opportunity. He w i l l pack a thinly attended meeting w i t h his o w n comrades and his sympathizers, he w i l l ease Party members into the chair, on to the committee. He works like a mole and no n o n - C o m m u n i s t can keep up w i t h h i m . W o r k e r s do have genuine grievances more often than not, and they are grateful to the Communists for the fierce fight w h i c h the Party puts up for them. W h e n election time comes 51

r o u n d many ordinary trade unionists w i l l support C o m munist candidates to branch office because of a belief that they are under some debt to the Party. I have listened to good Socialist trade unionists, w h o h o l d no brief for the Party's attitude in international affairs, swear that they w i l l always support the Communists in u n i o n matters 'because they always fight for the workers'. T r y telling such good-hearted men that the Party is only amused by their naivety. T h e Party sees the trade u n i o n branch purely and simply as a means of furthering the Party line, as a means of waging the international political struggle on an industrial terrain. E v e r y C o m m u n i s t novice is taught that Party w o r k in the unions comes under these headings: Propaganda for the Party and for Russia. Recruiting Party members. Organizing factory workers in the political struggle. Building machinery for class action, for strikes, for eventual revolutionary warfare. To w o r k for these things the C o m m u n i s t w i l l even break u n i o n rules. I n m y o w n time o n the H a c k n e y Trades C o u n c i l I have eased through Communist-inspired resolutions on peace, on K o r e a , on Russia, l o n g after the fixed time for u n i o n business to end. I have eased through those resolutions k n o w i n g that the men w h o might have opposed them and defeated them have l o o k e d at the clock and gone home. A n d while I have stood there in the meeting hall p r o p o s i n g the motions I have k n o w n that a runner was waiting outside, ready to take the result of the vote to the Daily Worker, where a hole in the paper was waiting to be filled w i t h : ' T w e n t y thousand Hackney workers oppose M a r s h a l l A i d ! ' T w e n t y thousand Hackney workers! A solid C o m m u n i s t fraction and a handful of outvoted anti-Communists. A C o m m u n i s t fraction w i t h i n a trade u n i o n works w i t h the same perseverance and industry as a colony of death-watch beetles — except that y o u cannot always hear that w a r n i n g ticking. T h e members of the fraction are under an i r o n discipline; they must place attendance at fraction meetings above all other 52

calls, even personal affairs l i k e bereavement. It never meets at longer intervals than every fortnight, and often more frequently. Because one or t w o of the fraction are branch officers they are fully aware of the agenda of the c o m i n g u n i o n branch meeting. T h i s is fully discussed and a plan of campaign w o r k e d out. 'Comrade A w i l l m o v e this m o t i o n , Comrade B w i l l second i t . ' 'Comrade C w i l l oppose Brother So-and-so's bourgeois m o t i o n . . . Comrade D w i l l support h i m . ' T h e Party member w h o happens to be branch chairman w i l l receive his instructions to admit an emergency m o t i o n after 9.30, w h e n u n i o n business should officially end. W h e r e strong opposition is expected it w i l l be soberly considered. If it can be defeated on a show of hands or a point of order it w i l l be left to that. If not, then the Party w i l l move over to a personal attack on the enemy, start a whispering campaign before the branch meeti n g , canvass for support on the most reprehensible of grounds. O n c e the C o m m u n i s t fraction has w o r k e d out its campaign for the c o m i n g u n i o n meeting the B o r o u g h Secretariat is fully informed. T h e B o r o u g h Secretariat informs L o n d o n D i s t r i c t Headquarters, w h i c h in t u r n informs the Executive and the Daily Worker. If the N e w s E d i t o r of the Worker thinks it w o r t h w h i l e he w i l l have a draft story written, set up in type and waiting l o n g before the u n i o n meeting is held. Whenever a C o m m u n i s t fraction walks into a u n i o n branch meeting it quickly assesses its chances, studies the clock, picks its o w n time to s w i n g its pet resolutions and motions just at that moment w h e n it considers opposition w i l l be at a minimum. T h e Communist Party, w h i c h normally scorns and mistrusts all allies, is in love w i t h one — indifference; the indifference of its enemies. Communists k n o w that if they keep a meeting g o i n g l o n g enough, p r o l o n g i n g tedious discussion on unimportant matters, the resistance of their opponents w i l l be weakened, the anti-Communists w i l l pick up their hats and move off to the pub before it closes. T h e n is the moment for the fraction to 53

strike, to s w i n g through its o w n measures as rapidly as possible. Such is the b o t t o m level of Party activity w i t h i n the unions. There is a second level, probably more important, the D i s t r i c t Office of the u n i o n . It is an essential part of C o m m u n i s t policy to capture the District Office. It is the m o u t h of the funnel. It is the brain and tongue. It speaks for the whole of the area. A n d if one Party member in the District Office likes to say publicly that the war in K o r e a is w r o n g then y o u can be sure that the Daily Worker w i l l say that he has spoken for so many thousand ordinary B r i t i s h w o r k i n g - m e n . G e t a C o m m u n i s t into the District Office and w i t h i n a few months there w i l l be changes in the clerical staff; typists, clerks, even office boys, w i l l be replaced by Party members. G e t a C o m m u n i s t in control of a union's District Office and the rooms can then be used as a convenient centre for Party fract i o n meetings. E q u i p m e n t , typewriters, duplicating machines, chairs, tables can be placed at the service of the Party. I k n o w of several u n i o n offices in the H a c k n e y area (Party controlled, of course) w h i c h lent the w h o l e of their equipment to the C o m m u n i s t candidate in a parliamentary election. So h o w do we get Communists into the D i s t r i c t Offices? Whenever the election of u n i o n officers is due the local C o m munist P a r t y meets at all levels for days on end. It decides w h i c h of their members should stand for the vacant offices w i t h i n the u n i o n . Fractions are geared to support the chosen few. It is hard to believe that trade u n i o n indifference comes to the a i d of the Party even w h e n elections to important u n i o n posts are in question. A u n i o n branch may have a total m e m bership of 900, but if only 100 of them turn up to a branch meeting this is regarded as a superlatively g o o d attendance. Fifty is nearer the mark. O n l y the Communists are keyed up for action. T h e average unionist looks to his branch officials for leadership, and if those branch officials happen to be Communists, so what? T h e B r i t i s h w o r k i n g - m a n has many fine qualities — resolution, courage, self-respect, and integrity — but his tendency to let those he regards as his leaders w i t h i n his o w n sphere do his t h i n k i n g for h i m is the Party's greatest opportunity. 54

W h e n the moment for election of District Officers comes the C o m m u n i s t nominees are put forward in the blandest way possible. M o r e often than not they are men w h o have w o n the branch's approval and respect for their activities in the factories. T h e fraction has done its l o b b y i n g , its canvassing; the opposition is weak and disunited. If, however, there is a risk that a Communist nominee may be defeated by a united vote f r o m the other side, then the Party w i l l calmly propose a decoy to split the vote. T h e Party calls such tactics 'taking the van of the organized working-class'. Of course, sometimes the Party overdoes it in its anxiety to capture the offices of a u n i o n . I can remember a time w h e n , in the F i r e Brigades U n i o n d u r i n g the war, we had secured the offices of President, General Secretary, and N a t i o n a l Officer and Treasurer. E v e r y District Office had a party m e m ber as a secretary, and the clerical staffs were heavily laced w i t h Party members. B u t w h e n Party headquarters decided to exploit this situation and s w i n g the F i r e Brigades U n i o n behind the campaign for a Second F r o n t it met w i t h intense opposition f r o m the rank and file in the stations. T h u s y o u had a situation where the ordinary trade unionist was so m u c h out of sympathy w i t h the officers he had ostensibly elected that he violently repudiated their decisions. H i g h - p o w e r e d Party conferences were held on this issue. Heads r o l l e d in the Party and we were all t o l d to get d o w n there below and put in some hard w o r k among the rank and file. H a v i n g once captured the u n i o n branch and the D i s t r i c t Office, however, Communists can go to w o r k in the factories w i t h the confident feeling that they w i l l have official u n i o n backing for any Party line campaign they like to start. It is never necessary for the Party to have o v e r w h e l m i n g numbers in a factory to s w i n g it into l i n e . I k n o w a factory where some 2,000 workers were employed. Of its twelve shop stewards six were Communists and there was a fraction of thirty Party members a m o n g the workers. N o t many Party members, w o u l d y o u say? B u t that factory 55

was constantly passing resolutions along the Party line, c o n stantly getting itself into the Daily Worker for its 'advanced thinking'. T h e secret, of course, lay w i t h the six shop stewards. T h e Party controlled only one in every sixty of the workers, but it controlled half of the shop stewards. A C o m m u n i s t shop steward has t w o duties: first to the Party, and second to his u n i o n workmates. He obeys the first always, and the second only w h e n it coincides w i t h the first. It is his job to handle day-to-day grievances w i t h i n the shop, to be responsible to the u n i o n branch on u n i o n matters, to be the mouthpiece of the u n i o n and the go-between w i t h the employers. U n d e r u n i o n rules he may not negotiate w i t h the employers on matters of policy, wages, hours of employment, etc. I say he may not do this under u n i o n rules, but of course the C o m m u n i s t shop stewards have become policy makers, particularly in the Amalgamated E n g i n e e r i n g U n i o n . Because of his influence over the workers, his position of authority and power, it is the easiest thing possible for a C o m m u n i s t shop steward to intimidate the ordinary worker. I have k n o w n cases where obstinate anti-Communists have been gently eased out of a job by C o m m u n i s t shop stewards. T h e y are m e n of incredible power. T h e C o m m u n i s t w h o finds himself chosen for and elected to u n i o n office sits in an uncomfortable position. Where a C o m m u n i s t has personal ambition it is invariably concerned w i t h the h o l d i n g of u n i o n office. Consequently the struggle for such offices is bitter and prolonged. If a C o m m u n i s t holds paid office w i t h i n a u n i o n he knows he w i l l h o l d it just so l o n g as the Party wishes h i m to. T h u s his first and o n l y allegiance is to the Party. Remember that when y o u hear a w e l l - k n o w n C o m m u n i s t official declaring that he is 'not speaking as a Communist but as a unionist'. T h e Party never attempts to out-vote a non-Communist official w h o is deeply-entrenched in the esteem of the union's rank and file. B u t go he must if he stands in the way of the Party. A n d go he generally does. He is w o r k e d to death. M o r e and 56

more w o r k is piled on h i m by his C o m m u n i s t colleagues in the D i s t r i c t Office u n t i l he collapses under i t , or fails so miserably to fulfil his duties that a recommendation for his dismissal seems the kindest measure possible. In the F i r e Brigades U n i o n d u r i n g the war I was part of a conspiracy that removed eight national officers w h o stood in the way of the C o m m u n i s t march to f u l l c o n t r o l . M o s t of them we w i p e d out of the way by breaking d o w n their health w i t h over-work. We contributed handsomely to the eulogies that marked their retirement from office. W h e r e the rest fought back we turned on a whispering campaign, accusations of immoderate d r i n k i n g , of g a m b l i n g and immorality, of a personal or domestic life that reflected ' o n his standing as a u n i o n officer'. If his personal life was so blameless that not even the most credulous w o u l d believe lies about i t , then we r u m o u r e d that he was in truck w i t h the bosses, that he was a T o r y sympathizer. A n d if that were not successful we whispered that he was a secret C o m m u n i s t . That always w o r k e d . T h e B r i t i s h trade unionist w i l l tolerate an open C o m m u n i s t , but never a secret one. Is it surprising that Communists engaged in this sort of thing rapidly lose sense of moral values and integrity? T h e y are encouraged to believe that conventional fair-play and chivalrous behaviour are merely 'bourgeois decadence'. I thank G o d that I have managed to check myself before my sense of values was completely debauched. It is not my business here to d w e l l on the torture my o w n conscience went through sometimes. A C o m m u n i s t becomes in time a bitter and implacable man, and he is most bitter and most implacable toward the still small voice w i t h i n h i m . A n d it is probably a most v i v i d indication of Communist cynicism that while secretly deriding decency and honesty such as the ordinary man cherishes, the Party makes a point of arrogating such virtues to itself in its propaganda. It leans heavily on the reputations w h i c h the average Communists w i n for themselves a m o n g their fellow workers or unionists. W h e n the Party is attacked for its amorality it 57

w i l l t u r n and point t o men l i k e me. ' Y o u all k n o w B o b D a r k e ' , it w i l l say, ' Y o u k n o w the sort of bloke he is, can the Party be so terrible w i t h men like h i m in i t ? ' There is one frank answer to that. Yes it can. I have already pointed out that the Hackney C o m m u n i s t Party at one time or another controlled twenty-eight out of thirty-five u n i o n branches in the b o r o u g h . Y e t at no time has its trade u n i o n strength been higher than 150. Those 150 men and w o m e n s w u n g Hackney's unionists behind the banner of L e n i n and Stalin on more occasions than I l i k e to remember n o w . W h a t they d i d and what they are still d o i n g is miraculous, if the d e v i l can w o r k miracles. Hackney's Communists have forged a pattern for the Party's seizure of power. A g a i n and again I have sat in little cafes in G r a y ' s Inn R o a d , in the dusty rooms in the K i n g Street headquarters, and I have heard the Party's leaders say s m u g l y : ' W e c o u l d take over the country in twenty-four hours . . . '

58

C H A P T E R

F O U R

In making their livelihood together men enter into certain necessary, definite relations independent of their wills. . . M A R X . Critique of Political Economy. F R O M the end o f the war u n t i l m y resignation I was a member of the Party's N a t i o n a l Industrial P o l i c y Committee. It was an h o n o u r and I was flattered by it — it's a rare man w h o doesn't feel his pulse quickened by power. H o w many of the ordinary public k n o w of the existence of this committee? I've even met Party members w h o k n e w little of its existence or influence. Y e t it is the C o m m u n i s t H i g h C o m m a n d in the Party's unending war in the unions. T h e office w o r k e r w a l k i n g home d u r i n g a bus strike, the housewife c o o k i n g on an o i l stove d u r i n g a gas strike or making do w i t h short rations because the dockers are out, straightforward Socialists fuming as their unions vote the Party ticket — all of them can thank or blame the N I P C for their discomfort. There is always an outcrop of Party committees w h e n the political situation blows up into a storm. But the N I P C is a constant body. It is not a natural product of the B r i t i s h C o m munist Party or the British political scene, but an instrument of C o m i n f o r m policy. It is shackled to the W o r l d Federation of Trade U n i o n s , a C o m i n f o r m puppet, w h i c h integrates the trade u n i o n activity of C o m m u n i s t Parties throughout the world. A w o r d about the C o m i n f o r m and Britain. T h e B r i t i s h C o m munist Party was never invited to j o i n it (and many comrades still rankle under the implied slight). Its instructions are passed t h r o u g h to Britain f r o m visiting French C o m i n f o r m members, w h o are received by the N I P C m u c h the same way as Moses must have been received w h e n he came d o w n f r o m the m o u n tain w i t h his tablets. Some of the British comrades may not like what the C o m i n f o r m has to tell the N I P C , but they keep their mouths shut. I remember when the trouble about the Russian war 59

brides was most intense, several leading B r i t i s h Communists were disturbed by the way Russia was b l i n d l y destroying its o w n prestige in this country. A French C o m m u n i s t from the C o m i n f o r m came and harangued us. He t o l d us that the Soviet U n i o n ' s attitude was consistent w i t h current tactics. Its refusal to allow its citizens to marry foreigners or even release those w h o had was a natural product of the 'war' situation. I don't think the B r i t i s h comrades were c o n v i n c e d , but they accepted the k n o u t , and the Daily Worker never t o l d the public that many of Britain's leading Communists w o u l d have been o n l y too happy if Stalin had let the war brides go. T h e y t o o k their instructions and passed them d o w n the line. T o - d a y y o u w o u l d n ' t find a C o m m u n i s t w h o doesn't believe that Russia was right in her refusal to give those unfortunate w o m e n exit visas. T h u s the N I P C serves a t w o f o l d purpose: it is a funnel for C o m i n f o r m policy g o i n g d o w n , and it is a clearing house for information c o m i n g up f r o m the eager-beaver Party fractions w i t h i n the unions. On the Committee (its membership w i l l vary) sits every w e l l - k n o w n Party leader in the unions and a few more w h o aren't k n o w n to be in the Party at a l l . M o s t powerfully represented are C o m m u n i s t fractions in the key industries — m i n i n g , engineering, foundry workers, transport, b u i l d i n g . Professional workers are also represented, but they are more or less a decoration. I never knew a cultural comrade w h o had the nerve to give a u n i o n comrade advice. C o m m u n i s t strategy to-day is determined by the N I P C . Since the end of the war the most hackneyed Party slogan has been ' L e n i n said trade unions decide everything.' M o r e accurately c o u l d it be said that the trade unionists in the Party decide everything. General secretaries, presidents, district officers, and national organizers of some of Britain's most powerful trades unions are members of the N I P C . T h e y attend its meetings and discuss the secrets of their unions w i t h the Executive members of the Party, w i t h o u t any bourgeois scruples as to whether such discussions w o u l d be approved by their brother unionists. 60

M a n y of them travel f r o m one end of the country to the other to attend the meetings. N o t one of them to my k n o w ledge pays his travelling expenses out of his o w n pocket. N o t that the Party pays either. As leading trade u n i o n officials they are expected to use the u n i o n funds for such jaunts. What are u n i o n funds for but to fight for the w o r k e r s ? A n d w h o fights strongest for the w o r k e r s ? T h e C o m m u n i s t Party. T h e logic is inescapable. B i g men, tough men they are w h e n y o u see their faces in the Press. B i g m e n w h o can bully the toughest of miners or engineers and b r i n g them out on strike at the lift of a finger. A n d yet there they w i l l sit, as I have seen them, t r y i n g to outdo each other in passion and e m o t i o n as they speak of ' O u r beloved Leader and Teacher, Stalin.' T h e y are m e n w h o have accepted the first and only premise of C o m m u n i s t Party membership — loyalty to the Party transcends all other loyalties. T h e loudest applause a t N I P C meetings goes always to the man w h o can tell h o w his u n i o n has been seduced i n t o backing the Party's current political line. A l m o s t as l o u d is the applause that goes to the comrade w h o can tell h o w his fraction has ousted a non-Communist official and filled the vacancy w i t h a trusted comrade. W h e n a majority of C o m m u n i s t shop stewards in one u n i o n marked the ballot papers themselves d u r i n g an election for an official to the union's executive n o b o d y , at the f o l l o w i n g N I P C meeting, questioned the ethics of such tactics. It was hailed as a victory. To me, small fry a m o n g such b i g fish, there was some satisfaction in watching these men being roundly abused for falling short of their Party duty. If A r t h u r D e a k i n ever said one-tenth to these men of what P o l l i t t and Burns used to say, they w o u l d b r i n g their unions out in a raging strike. B u t they sit s t i l l , h u m b l y and patiently, w h e n a member of the Party's E x e c u tive charges them w i t h negligence. M e n like A r t h u r H o r n e r , J i m Gardener, A b e Moffat, J o h n H o r n e r , may eat fire in p u b l i c , but the dish is humble pie at N I P C meetings. W h y ? T h e answer's simple enough. They h o l d their positions of influence only by the Party's consent. T h e y have a 61

vested interest in the Party l i n e , and n o b o d y answers the boss back. W h e n a comrade comes under Party censure at N I P C meetings he does not argue, he does not apologize. T h e Party regards apologies as reactionary sentimentalism. If the guilty one tries to make any reply he brings the rest of the Committee d o w n on h i m in full cry. If he's a wise m a n he takes his medicine, and if his bitterness corrodes his s o u l , w e l l , that's his fault for h a v i n g a soul. T h e N I P C meetings are generally held i n one o f those d u l l , green rooms at the Party's headquarters in K i n g Street, Covent G a r d e n . In a r o o m where a portrait of M a r x or a bust of L e n i n keeps a c o l d and watchful eye on the proceedings. There is no laughter, no mutual g o o d feeling, no real tolerant comradeship. E a c h m a n is watching for another's weakness. It is on the weakness of others that the Party comrade rises. I remember that w h e n I attended my first N I P C meeting I felt that I had wandered into an emotional desert. I was w i t h out a match for a cigarette, and w h e n I began asking for a light I got the same answer a l l alone the l i n e : 'I don't smoke, comrade.' I subsequently f o u n d that most of them didn't d r i n k either. T h e y were l i k e elders of the k i r k in conclave. At the e n d of the meetings there was never the pleasant half-an-hour's chat over a pint y o u naturally expect f r o m a band of w o r k i n g men. E a c h comrade left the b u i l d i n g h u r riedly, w a l k i n g away on his o w n w i t h barely a g o o d night. We never left the b u i l d i n g together but at irregularly spaced intervals. We never l o o k e d over our shoulders. We never stopped u n t i l we got on a bus. We were s u m m o n e d to the meeting in the most casual of ways. N e v e r by telephone. Sometimes by w o r d of m o u t h , sometimes by a vaguely w o r d e d note: 'Some of our friends are gathering on Friday for a talk. We shall expect y o u . ' A three-line w h i p never had more urgency than that last sentence. Meetings were conducted w i t h a brisk and soulless efficiency. G e n e r a l l y one of the Party's N a t i o n a l Executive was in the chair — P o l l i t t , B u r n s , the late G e o r g e A l l i s o n . There was never an element of doubt in our discussions, never a saving 62

touch of h u m i l i t y . M a y the L o r d help us, we were so right and the rest of the w o r l d was always so w r o n g . It was this belief that we were so right that gave us our strength. Business affairs generally centred about the w a x i n g and waning strength of the Party w i t h i n the unions, and the extent to w h i c h the current p o l i t i c a l line c o u l d be exploited on the industrial front. I have heard discussions on using a grievance over the tea in one factory canteen as a means of fermenting a sudden strike that c o u l d be used a l o n g the political line. Invariably, when enlisting a union's support, the question w o u l d always b e : ' A r e we strong at the top or at the b o t t o m ? ' T h i s is not just an academic question. T h e answer makes a lot of difference to the action the Party can take. A r t h u r H o r n e r , for example, is excused for not c o m i n g as far into the open as his namesake J o h n H o r n e r of the Firemen's U n i o n because the Party accepts the fact that it is 'weak at the bott o m ' in the miners' u n i o n . In this way A r t h u r gets the sympathy of the moderates w h o w o u l d not stomach a fire-eating Red. T h e Party likes to be in strong control of the union's offices, but if it loses its g r i p on the rank and file it knows that it can be voted d o w n . T h e b i g F o r d strike in 1952 was an example. Party shop stewards w h i p p e d up feeling a m o n g n o n Communists and got the strike they wanted, but after the rank and file of the u n i o n had had time to t h i n k they voted d o w n the shop stewards and went back to w o r k . T h e N I P C w o u l d debate a defeat like this at great length, send out instructions to Party fractions w i t h i n the unions to intensify recruitment, distribution of Party literature and undermining o f anti-Communist unionists. T h e Party is never pleased w h e n the ordinary w o r k e r thumbs his nose at the 'vanguard of the people's fight'. T h e r e may be some fun in getting between the shafts and p u l l i n g the cart, but only a f o o l w o u l d suggest that the horse should take the reins. A r t h u r H o r n e r was once r o u n d l y abused at an N I P C meeti n g by H a r r y P o l l i t t . He was t o l d that he and others were making the miners' unions top-heavy. There were too few 63

Party members g o i n g d o w n i n t o pits w i t h the lads, said H a r r y , compared w i t h the n u m b e r resting in comfortable leather chairs in u n i o n offices. A r t h u r could have said that it was a l o n g time since P o l l i t t had gone without a leather chair, but he didn't. N o , A r t h u r sat s t i l l and let P o l l i t t abuse h i m . P o o r A r t h u r ! I l i k e d h i m . He was probably the one exception to that lack of c o n v i v i a l i t y I have remarked among the N I P C . Whenever he was missing it was a case of 'Where's Comrade H o r n e r ? ' ' O h , he's across the road h a v i n g a beer.' Someone w o u l d be sent to find h i m — I went sometimes — and there A r t h u r w o u l d be right enough, sitting in the public bar behind a pint, his hat on the back of his head. T h e Party never really approved of behaviour l i k e this, but they couldn't change A r t h u r . T h e y couldn't stop h i m , for example, f r o m being on g o o d d r i n k i n g terms w i t h some of Fleet Street's industrial correspondents. Complaints o r criticisms raised a t N I P C meetings generally concerned the difficulties facing the exploitation of the Party line. I remember J i m Gardener, the F o u n d r y W o r k e r s ' General Secretary, arguing furiously that there should be 'more M a r x i s m in the unions'. What he meant, of course, was that the C o m m u n i s t Party Central Office should take advantage of the fact that J i m and his comrades ran the u n i o n and funnel more Party literature through the union's head office. If y o u think that w o u l d be difficult y o u should read some of our b i g trade u n i o n journals. W o r k e r s w i l l trust their o w n u n i o n papers where they w i l l be sceptical about the rest of the Press. So C o m m u n i s t propaganda, blandly undisguised in many cases, is flooded into u n i o n papers. J o h n H o r n e r often writes the editorial for the Firemen's U n i o n journal, and he w o u l d be a bigger man than I think he is (and a worse C o m munist) if he kept his politics out of it. C o m m u n i s t busmen i n L o n d o n r u n their o w n paper, called the Platform. It's a non-union paper and at the moment it is violently anti-Deakin. It claims to be non-political (despite the fact that Communists argue that no one can be n o n political) but its policy is directed by Comrade B i l l Jones of 64

D a l s t o n Garage, and its 'non-political' publisher is said to be non-party. Y e t I k n o w many L o n d o n busmen w h o read the paper because they think they are getting an impartial non-official v i e w of union affairs. Do not think, however, that the N I P C has it all its o w n way w i t h the unions. A g a i n and again at its meetings I saw comrades earnestly debating what was to be done w i t h the Transport and General W o r k e r s ' U n i o n , as if this m a m m o t h were a refractory c h i l d . T h i s is one u n i o n w h i c h the Party has failed to capture although it has carved its niches here and there. But the failure to take over the T G W U has been a l o n g standing source of irritation to the Party. At one time the feeling was that if the T G W U couldn't be captured it should at least be smashed. Advocates of this sort of action were many, but they were always talked out of it by George A l l i s o n , member of the Communist National Executive, w h o was a sitting observer at our meetings. He w o u l d say, ' O n e day, comrades, that u n i o n w i l l be ours. Just imagine what the Party c o u l d do at the Trade U n i o n Congress if we controlled a m i l l i o n and a quarter votes. We c o u l d change the policy of the country.' T h e thought that one day the c o n t r o l of a m i l l i o n and a quarter Transport U n i o n votes might pass to them always silenced the fanatics. But they haven't got these votes yet, and n o w that A r t h u r D e a k i n has stopped Party members from h o l d i n g office in the u n i o n there seems little l i k e l i h o o d of their getting them — unless they split the u n i o n . T h e forming of such breakaway unions is a favourite C o m munist tactic when the Party fails to take over the union by 'democratic' means. At the moment the Party is w o r r i e d about the busmen's u n i o n . O n c e they fought for and got a closed shop in the u n i o n . But n o w Party members are unable to h o l d office in it Communist p o l i c y has turned full circle. In my o p i n i o n , it w o u l d l i k e to see a breakaway u n i o n . Consistency has no place in Communist tactics. It believes in expediency, and a very clear example of the Party's cynical interpretation of expediency came my way in Hackney W i c k . O v e r 300 workers in a furniture factory went C.T.B.

65

C

on strike against the introduction of new p r o d u c t i o n methods. T h e workers had a case and there was a great deal of sympathy for them outside the factory. There was no indication that the workers w o u l d not have got what they wanted through n o r m a l arbitration, but it is not the Party's w i s h to have industrial disputes settled amicably. T h e war they fight admits no armistice. T h e y want a fight, and the harder the opposition the better, for only through a fight can the Party justify its claim to be the vanguard in the workers' struggle. O n l y through such a fight can it recruit new members, increase the sales of the Daily Worker. O n l y by such fights can it maintain a r u n n i n g ulcer in the nation's economy. T h e Party swung into line immediately on the Hackney W i c k strike. T h e secretary of the Strike Committee was a C o m m u n i s t of course, and the Party fraction in the factory had the w h o l e affair w e l l in hand w i t h i n twelve hours. T h e Party branch had been alerted and so had the N I P C . T h e Strike Secretary was as happy as a sandboy and no doubt convinced that he was a budding M a l e n k o v . Factory gate meetings had shown that the workers were strong behind the fight, and the Party realized that here was a chance to get the whole b o r o u g h mobilized. T h e Strike Committee called a mass meeting for Friday evening. Shop stewards from all over the borough were i n vited to listen to the strikers' case. I was i n v i t e d too, as Secretary to the Hackney Trades C o u n c i l , w i t h the v i e w that I should submit a report to the council. As a Party member and branch official and a member of the N I P C , I knew all about the strike. I knew what I was supposed to do. My attendance at the meeting was merely a matter of f o r m . It was held in a local hall, w h i c h was packed. There were shop stewards from all over the b o r o u g h , many rank and file unionists, and a reporter from the Daily Worker. There was the usual table laden w i t h copies of the Worker and the latest Party pamphlets on the political situation. T h e Party fraction in the F u r n i t u r e Trades U n i o n had r u n off a duplicated pamphlet on the fight. T h e Furniture Trades A d v i s o r y Committee of the 66

Party had its case for the industry all there in a red-jacketed booklet. T h e Strike Committee Secretary outlined the situation, r i d i culed the attitude of the u n i o n heads, and t o l d the meeting that this was g o i n g to be a fight to the finish. Planted Party men in the hall asked pre-arranged questions. If the strike was defeated, he told us in answer to one such question, we c o u l d expect worse conditions in all factories in the b o r o u g h . T h i s was a test strike. T h e capitalists were watching this strike; if the workers lost then the capitalists w o u l d bear d o w n in other industries. It's an o l d Party line but it always has the same rousing effect. There was one t h i n g , however, said the Strike Secretary. To stay out was g o i n g to cost something like £ 8 0 0 a week. N o w , w h o was g o i n g to find i t ? 'We're all in this, comrades. We ask y o u to hand up what y o u can. Y o u shop stewards, get your factories to guarantee so m u c h a week for our lads.' Those shop stewards w h o were Party members didn't have to consult their workmates to find out h o w much they could guarantee. R i g h t off the nail they promised £20, £ 3 0 , even as m u c h as £ 4 0 a week. W h e n the Strike Secretary had added up the figures and decided that that w o u l d do very nicely, I was asked to speak. I pledged the Trades Council's support to the hilt. I c o u l d do that safely enough; the Party was r u n n i n g the Trades C o u n c i l at that time. N o b o d y , I said, was g o i n g to let the lads d o w n . I had under-estimated my o w n Party's ability to let anyone and everyone d o w n whenever it pleased them. T h e meeting w o u n d up w i t h a unanimous resolution of solidarity, w h i c h the waiting runner rushed off to the Worker. It just got there in time. I prepared a full report for the Trades C o u n c i l meeting on the f o l l o w i n g Thursday. I had Strike F u n d collection sheets printed and sent to all Party shop stewards in the borough. I met the Strike Secretary on Tuesday and satisfied myself that the position had not changed. B u t just as I was about to enter the Trades C o u n c i l meeting on Thursday a Party comrade, member of the Furniture 67

c

2

Trades fraction, rushed up to me breathless. What he had to say took the breath out of me too. ' M i n d h o w you go in there, B o b . T h e strikers have just gone back. T h e Strike Committee called off the strike, on the Party's orders.' I got through that council meeting somehow. I didn't k n o w w h y the Party had called off the strike, and just then I didn't want to k n o w . T h e best I c o u l d do was to propose that the strike (the n o w non-existent strike) should be discussed at the next meeting of the Trades C o u n c i l . It was never discussed. What had happened? T h e Party's F u r n i t u r e Trades A d visory Committee had decided that an unofficial strike in the industry w o u l d be ill-advised at that moment. They were p r o posing delicate negotiations w i t h the General Secretary of the u n i o n . T h e y believed that this unsuspecting gentleman was out o f favour w i t h the T U C leaders, and anyone that m u c h out of favour was regarded as ripe meat for Party recruitment. In this case the Party never got their man, but I got some pretty queer looks from the non-Communist members of the Trades C o u n c i l for the next two or three months. T h e Communist w i t h a job to do in the u n i o n is never allowed to sleep. Y o u can take this literally if y o u w i s h . If the Party member fulfils every obligation thrust on his shoulders he finds himself limited to something like four hours' or less sleep a day. I was d o i n g very little sleeping up to the time I resigned. Late-night fraction meetings kept me up w e l l past midnight every night and the strain was telling on me physically. T h e Press w h o filled my little flat that night my resignation was made public took many pictures of me — and I appealed to them not to publish them. I had w o k e n up suddenly to the change in my appearance that had taken place over the years. I had seen the haggard, w o r n face often enough as I looked in my shaving m i r r o r , and maybe I told myself that it didn't matter, all this was for the Party. But once the Party was past I realized I d i d not want my face to appear thus in the papers. N o t so that my children could claim that this demented lunatic was their father. 68

T h i s is not just a story of personal vanity. It has a deep meaning: the conscientious Party member w i l l drive himself to the limit and wear the signs of his physical strain as if they were medals. T h e greatest physical strain is placed on the Party member w h e n the annual conference of his u n i o n takes place. T h e policy and tactics w h i c h the Party fraction must f o l l o w at this conference are thrashed out at Party headquarters night after night. T h e policy is integrated w i t h the current line, the tactics are determined by the peculiar circumstances of u n i o n affairs. Party fractions of all branches of the union are aware of the Party's general stand, and it is their job to see that their branch delegates wittingly or unwittingly support this stand. It is less a stand on u n i o n affairs than on the political situation: D o w n w i t h Fascism, F o r a People's Peace, A Second F r o n t N o w , F o r Peace in K o r e a , F o r a U n i t e d Germany. Communist delegates w o r k out their campaign to a bluep r i n t ; they k n o w where to filibuster, where to slip motions through on points of order, where to count on support from Party members on the Executive, where it is tactful to ignore it. T h e opposition w h i c h Party line resolutions can expect is seriously considered and prepared against. Party-controlled branches throughout the union submit their resolutions to the Party's District Office before p u t t i n g them d o w n on the union's conference agenda. A l l this is not undertaken lightly. It means hours of late night discussions, and the g o o d comrades are almost dead beat before they arrive at the conference. A n d when they get there not for them the after-hours fun of the average delegate. No strolling the promenade in flannels and open-necked shirts. No little tea-parties w i t h their wives. T h e Communist's w o r k goes round the clock. I have sat in hotel lounges l o n g after non-Party delegates have gone to bed, and I have seen the dawn come before the Party fraction settled its tactical campaign for the f o l l o w i n g day's meeting. Sometimes, if things went badly for us d u r i n g the m o r n i n g , there w o u l d be a hurried Party conference d u r i n g the l u n c h hour in some unobtrusive cafe. 69

Party delegates at u n i o n conferences regard themselves as representatives of the Communist Party, as fighters for the Party line. T h e y may each represent thousands of n o n - C o m munist trade unionists, but this fact is regarded purely as armament when the v o t i n g comes up. T h e Party likes, if it is possible, to have control of the c o m mittee that arranges hotel accommodation for the conference. If they have this control Communists are paired off w i t h n o n Communists in hotel bedrooms. ' W o r k on your room-mate,' w o u l d be the order. 'Soften h i m u p , see if he's sympathetic to the Party. If he isn't, then see what y o u can get h i m to give away.' I remember the times I've lain in a hotel bedroom late at night, keeping my room-mate awake as I pumped information out o f h i m o r Party policy into h i m . It is not surprising that I always came home from u n i o n conferences feeling that I had been released from a cage. I've been in many towns for many conferences, but I couldn't tell y o u what they l o o k e d like. I never had time to stroll the streets; there was always Party business to be discussed in some narrow hotel r o o m or in the l i v i n g - r o o m of a local Party member. Trade U n i o n Congresses were the same, except that Party activity was, if anything, more intense, w i t h one Party delegat i o n chasing another through the hotels of the t o w n like a three-ring circus. A n d when it was all over, w h e n y o u were back home, was there time to take a deep breath and relax? There was not. W i t h i n t w o or three days y o u got an urgent call to meet at Party headquarters and discuss the success or otherwise of Party fractionizing. It is easy enough to talk of capturing the offices of a u n i o n , and many Party members talk loosely about it, as if it were like b u y i n g twenty cigarettes. In practice it requires an i r o n w i l l and the relentlessness of a tiger. T h e Party cannot always rely on swinging the elections to capture the vacant offices. It cannot always rely on forging ballot papers, such as happened at least once in the Transport 70

and General W o r k e r s ' U n i o n . V e r y often the non-Communist h o l d i n g the office coveted by the Party is too strong in popular favour. He has to g o . A n d I saw many enough go. In one case the officer concerned was a L o n d o n D i s t r i c t Secretary of the u n i o n , a non-Communist of the highest i n tegrity w h o had the affairs of his u n i o n very m u c h at heart. Naturally enough, he rejected the Party's opening gambit — an attempt to recruit h i m i n t o Party membership. T h e Party fraction in the District Office of the u n i o n then sat d o w n one pleasant summer evening to decide ways and means of getting r i d of h i m . It was easy enough w h e n we had considered all the facts. He was not a w e l l m a n ; he had been w o r k i n g hard, had fallen sick and had been absent from his duties on many occasions. There was the usual g r u m b l i n g about this among the rank and file, w h o were unaware of his sickness. Party fractions in the branches encouraged the g r u m b l i n g by one of those slow, poisonous whispering campaigns. At the same time more w o r k was piled on the unfortunate man's shoulders. W h e n he was beginning to l o o k his sickest a few chosen members of the Party fraction took h i m aside over a cup of coffee. It was a nice friendly chat and I don't suppose he felt the edge of the blade as it cut his throat. He was told that it was obvious that the w o r k was getting too much for h i m . As things stood there was no chance of the burden being lightened. W o u l d he not be w e l l advised to find employment somewhere else? He c o u l d rest assured that the union w o u l d give h i m the best of references, and financial assistance if necessary. He was advised to think it over. He saw the point. H a d he been healthier he might have fought back. But no sick man has ever got the better of the Party, except by walking out of a w i n d o w like Masaryk. So he resigned. He got his references and his financial honorarium — and the Party got his job by launching an election when it was least expected. He was a straightforward, honest man — I believe he's the successful manager of a small L o n d o n factory n o w — but he hadn't a chance. 71

We got r i d of a N a t i o n a l Officer in m u c h the same way. Party personalities were i n v o l v e d in this business. W i t h i n the fraction we had a c o m i n g lad, out to make his way in the Party, a y o u n g man so w e l l indoctrinated w i t h Marxism that he used to talk to himself. He was an ambitious and ruthless man, a chain-smoker and a bundle of nerves. He wanted the N a t i o n a l Officer's job and he talked the Party into backing him. In this case no attempt was made to recruit the N a t i o n a l Officer, a sentimental campaign was started immediately. ' P o o r o l d so-and-so, getting too o l d for the job. F a l l i n g d o w n on it. Sick too often. A w a y from the office too often. Better if he was retired.' He was retired, and our likely lad m o v e d into the position. There are probably people naive enough to believe that the men and w o m e n w h o h o l d h i g h office in a trade u n i o n have been members of that u n i o n for many years. There may be people w h o believe that when the Party wishes to take over a u n i o n it can do it only w i t h men w h o have served a l o n g time in the u n i o n . B u t it is indicative of the Party's cynical attitude that it w i l l move a man into a u n i o n w i t h the express intention of getting h i m on to the executive w i t h i n a matter of months. I k n o w . It happened to me. I reached leadership in the Firemen's U n i o n w i t h i n a year of joining it. My elevation to that leadership saved me for the Party. I had been g o i n g through a period of doubt and unhappiness. Russia was not yet in the war, M o l o t o v was shaking hands w i t h Ribbentrop and the whole picture was disturbing to me w h o had spent many night-hours chalking 'Fight Fascism N o w ! ' o n Hackney's pavements. M o r e o v e r my brother J o h n , w h o never lived to see this book and my rejection of the Party, had abruptly abandoned the Party after the Russo-German Pact. I never agreed w i t h his decision. I never argued w i t h h i m about it, but just the same what he had done had unsettled my faith in myself and the Party. 72

I stayed away from Party meetings — w i t h the excuse that w o r k made attendance difficult. That was never a g o o d excuse for the Party but this time it had some sense. I had answered the Party instructions to j o i n the F i r e Service some months before, and duty hours at the station didn't give me the opportunity to attend Party meetings. I used that as an excuse, but in fact I was t h i n k i n g about the leaflets I had distributed a l l over Hackney, the leaflets that claimed Russia to be the only bulwark against Germany, and there were the two of them d r i n k i n g v o d k a together. There were a lot of Party members w h o felt like me in 1940, and the Party propagandists were hard at w o r k t r y i n g to convince us that Russia was merely b u y i n g time. We didn't like the price that was being paid, however. O n e day in J u l y , 1940, I received a visit from a Party c o l league in the F i r e Service. 'I want a chat w i t h y o u , Comrade Darke.' ' Y o u can arrange that through the Hackney B r a n c h . ' ' N o t in this case, Comrade. At the moment I ' m in charge of Party w o r k in the F i r e Service. There's a lot to be done to w o r k for a People's G o v e r n m e n t and a People's Peace. We don't hear a lot from y o u these days. Y o u k n o w the Party values your services, and there's a b i g job waiting for y o u in the u n i o n if y o u want it. H a v e y o u some quarrel w i t h the Party?' It was a l l said so casually that I found myself telling h i m that the Hitler-Stalin alliance had upset me. ' W e l l , y o u can thrash that out w i t h other Party members, you k n o w . W h y not come along for a chat?' I fell for it. Back into intense Party activity I went. T h e little chat never took place. A n d pretty soon I was so busy w i t h u n i o n w o r k , so busy telling other people w h y Russia had found it necessary to buy time that I couldn't hear my o w n doubts. W i t h i n a few weeks of my g o i n g back I received a letter. T h e form of it was familiar enough. It told me that Firemen Communists were h o l d i n g a little 'get-together' and I was requested to attend, p u t t i n g this commitment above all others. 73

There was a postscript to the letter: ' W h e n arriving show your Party card but state Firemen's U n i o n . ' I was supposed to be on duty on the night in question, but a w o r d to a Party union official, w h o in turn had a w o r d w i t h the Station Officer ('Fireman D a r k e w o u l d like the time for u n i o n business') secured my release. We met in a hall just off Gray's I n n Road. It was packed w i t h C o m m u n i s t firemen. Its doors were guarded by stewards and even the mice w o u l d have had to h o l d a Party card to get i n . As w e l l as firemen there were also members from the Party's cultural groups — artists, writers, lawyers, journalists, doctors. People w h o were surprised by the cultural activity of L o n d o n ' s firemen during the war can thank the Party for it. There was a great deal of talk, a great deal of quoting f r o m M a r x , L e n i n and Stalin, and a great deal of nonsense about a People's Peace. T w o decisions were finally voted u p o n and passed unanimously: 1. T h e Party must set up strong Communist fractions in every F i r e Station. 2. T h e Firemen's U n i o n must be completely captured by the Party. E v e r y Communist w h o was not at that moment engaged on Party w o r k in some important sphere, the services, the unions, G o v e r n m e n t w o r k , w o u l d be instructed to go into C i v i l Defence w o r k . To get at least one Communist in every fire station was easy enough. J o h n H o r n e r , General Secretary of the u n i o n , or some other Party official had only to chat w i t h an unsuspecting station officer and suggest the transfer of this or that (Party) fireman to this or that station ('To facilitate union business'). Once there the Party member had to tap each member of the station, discover the sympathetic ones, distribute Daily Workers, h o l d discussion groups, put a spark into u n i o n activity along the Party line ('Peace N o w ! ' ) . A few weeks after that meeting w h i c h decided the political fate of the war-time Firemen's U n i o n I was told to put myself up for election to the Executive C o u n c i l of the U n i o n . It 74

was a position w h i c h w o u l d make me virtual leader of a l l the firemen in the East E n d . I had no difficulty in w i n n i n g the election. My prestige stood h i g h to begin w i t h , but the Party d i d not leave the result to this quixotic chance. E v e r y Party fraction went to w o r k and bull-dozed my election. Possible opponents were undermined by smear and slander. Branch meetings were packed w i t h Communists, points of order rigged. A n d when I was victorious I was instructed to attend the Party's District Office to get my orders: I was to b u i l d up the Party's strength in every station, organize Marxist classes, fight for the Party w h i c h was at that moment 'For a People's Government and a negotiated Peace!' ( Y o u can still see some of my o l d slogans on Hackney's walls, where the people we wanted to negotiate w i t h haven't b l o w n them down.) I was t o l d that the Party members in the U n i o n ' s offices w o u l d give me every material and financial support — a Party clerk in the head office w o u l d supply me w i t h stamps, notepaper, typewriter, telephone, anything I needed. W i t h all this I was to increase Party membership in the u n i o n , help to sew the L o n d o n F i r e Brigade i n t o a neat redlabelled packet. We w o r k e d at that u n t i l Russia came into the war and the demand for a 'Negotiated Peace' became a ' T h i s is a Just W a r ' overnight. There were too many bombs falling in Hackney, too many fires to be fought for me to have m u c h time to think about the contradictions i n v o l v e d by that right-about face. T h e Party went all out to exploit the situation that had made Russia our ally, and made pro-Soviet propaganda almost official. We were instructed to organize a Firemen's Delegation to fly to M o s c o w taking fraternal greetings. It had to be an innocent affair. We hand-picked the innocents and smuggled in an u n k n o w n Party member to h o l d a watching brief. T h e n the G o v e r n m e n t forestalled us and sent an official delegation instead. B u t we made the best use of that setback. ' W e l l , ' we said, over a cup of tea when an A l l Clear sounded, ' W h a t can y o u expect? 75

T h e capitalist government w o u l d naturally prevent B r i t i s h workers from meeting their Russian comrades. They're afraid to let us go.' W h e n the call came for a Second F r o n t the East E n d section of the Firemen's U n i o n was given the job of taking in the van. We were t o l d to pass a resolution w h i c h w o u l d be sent to the union's Executive C o u n c i l and f r o m there to the W a r Office. O u r campaign for the Second F r o n t was so successful that the Party ordered me to give lectures to Party leaders from other unions where the opposition to the Second F r o n t campaign was strong. T h e y t o l d me of their difficulties, but I didn't listen. 'Defeatism!' I shouted at them in best Marxist style. 'Difficulties are made to be overcome, Comrades! If the Party of Stalin demands it y o u have got to accomplish it. Y o u can fail your brother unionists but y o u cannot fail Stalin, our Teacher and our Leader.' I t o l d them that the N a t i o n a l Executive of the Party wanted Second F r o n t resolutions c o m i n g from every u n i o n branch; they wanted them p o u r i n g i n t o the u n i o n head offices, to the W a r Office, to Members of Parliament. Walls and railway arches were to be covered w i t h slogans. ' N o excuses w i l l be accepted.' We utilized every opportunity. W h e n we learned that the G o v e r n m e n t intended to set up an overseas contingent of firemen to assist the ground forces d u r i n g the second front, I was t o l d to volunteer for it. W i t h i n forty-eight hours of the Government's decision being made public the Press was p u b l i s h i n g 'Communist Firemen's U n i o n Leader volunteers for the Second F r o n t . ' I never went, of course. If anybody remembers that headline I doubt whether they remember that B o b D a r k e wasn't in the Second F r o n t after all. I volunteered on Party instructions and on Party instructions as leader of the Communist block I made way for someone else. T h e Party fraction in the Firemen's U n i o n hammered this question of a Second F r o n t so hard that it was a wonder we had time to fight fires. Before one of our annual conferences 76

the President of the u n i o n spent days in the Party's H e a d quarters in K i n g Street w o r k i n g out his presidential address w h i c h was to be a blatant demand for the opening of the front. It ran to thirty pages and every comma of it was checked and double-checked by the Party's theoreticians. W h e n we held that conference the President delivered his address in front of a blaze of Hammers and Sickles, Stars and Stripes and U n i o n Jacks. T h e Scottish A r e a Committee of the u n i o n , Partydominated, put up the resolution demanding an opening of the Second F r o n t . W i t h that and the presidential address, it wasn't surprising that the papers carried the story 'Firemen demand Second F r o n t N o w ! ' We nearly pulled off the same t h i n g at the Trade U n i o n Congress that followed our conference, but not quite. H o w ever, Party delegates to the Congress made such a r o w about the Second F r o n t that the question dominated all others. W h y were we d o i n g this? M a y b e rank and file C o m munists thought that the object of it all was to take warstrain off the R e d A r m y . B u t a far more likely explanation was put to me by one of the N a t i o n a l Officers of the Firemen's U n i o n , a barrister. ' Y o u k n o w what w i l l happen, B o b ? A Second F r o n t n o w , w i t h the R e d A r m y so powerful, w i l l enable the Russians to sweep through E u r o p e , and y o u can well imagine that wherever the R e d A r m y goes it w i l l stay, and the workers w i l l gain power after the war is over.' T h e workers? W e l l , the vanguard of the workers, anyway, the Communist Party. To keep a Party stranglehold on a u n i o n composed of men w h o sometimes like to make up their o w n minds is not easy. It is not done solely by capturing a majority of positions in the offices, by s w i n g i n g a majority of shop stewards into Party membership. T h e best way is never give the ordinary man time to make up his o w n m i n d . M a k e it up for h i m q u i c k l y , and shout l o u d enough to d r o w n the voice of his o w n free w i l l . Go d o w n to Dalston bus garage any Friday evening and 77

y o u ' l l see what I mean. In the days before the u n i o n banned Communists from office y o u ' d find a comrade there behind a table collecting u n i o n subscriptions. On the table w o u l d be copies of the Daily Worker, copies of Party literature, membership forms. A l l the time he or somebody else w o u l d be shouting: ' C o m e o n , mates, h o w about something for the Party? H o w about your Daily Worker? H o w about something for the Daily Worker F i g h t i n g F u n d , the A n g l o - I r o n Curtain Friendship Society?' I can remember h i m sitting there in the garage on Friday evenings collecting his money, while the Treasurer of the Hackney Communist Party h u n g about behind his shoulder trying to get a w o r d w i t h h i m . A n d w h e n he got the w o r d the conversation, so far as I can remember, w o u l d go something like this: ' L o o k , Party funds are a bit short this week. We have not got enough to pay my salary and the other paid officers. H o w about the D a l s t o n busmen m a k i n g a c o n t r i b u t i o n ? ' T h e collector w o u l d explode. ' T h e Dalston boys have already donated £ 1 0 to the Party this m o n t h . Where do you think the money comes f r o m ? ' 'I k n o w , but we're a bit short and the Party relies on the Dalston garage.' ' G o away and give me time to t h i n k , ' w o u l d be the reply. A n d the Treasurer w o u l d t u r n to me, his face red. ' Y o u k n o w , B o b , he oughtn't to talk to me like that. After all I ' m Treasurer of the Hackney Party, he should show me some respect before the lads. I ' m g o i n g to report h i m to Central Office.' B u t he w o u l d wait because he wanted his money. W h e n the u n i o n business was over the collector w o u l d p u l l out a handful of notes and peel off ten of them — a 'donation from the Dalston busmen towards the vanguard of the people's fight.' W h e n the Hackney Peace Committee wanted to send a delegation to a Peace Festival in Paris we found we hadn't the £ 5 0 needed to send them. I went along and t o l d the collector. He pulled out his pack of p o u n d notes and counted out fifty right there in the Dalston bus garage. 78

It went d o w n on the records of the Peace Committee as 'a loan from the D a l s t o n busmen.' It was never paid back to my knowledge. W h e n the delegation came back I was w o r r i e d ; I could see no way of paying it back. 'So what,' I was t o l d . ' Y o u got a new Party member out o f it, didn't y o u ? ' He was right. O n e of the delegation had returned and joined the Party — and the Party considered that was w o r t h £ 5 0 of the Dalston busmen's money any day.

79

CHAPTER FIVE Victory is impossible without a long, persistent, desperate life and death struggle, a struggle which requires discipline . . . L E N I N , Left-Wing Communism. T H E Communist Party c o u l d not operate without firm discipline or without penalties w h i c h w i l l make that discipline effective. Discipline is as m u c h based on the Party member's fear that a slight error of judgement can easily be construed as betrayal, as it is based on the Party's power to do h i m serious harm if he offends it. T h e power to do harm is probably least effective among the intellectuals, the professionals, and the loosely-grouped members. It is, however, most strong among the people I knew best, the trade unionists w h o have position, power, and income at stake if they offend the Party. Should it so decide the Party is able to take all these things away from a man and drive h i m into the wilderness. After I left the Party eighteen months passed before I was able to h o l d office again in my u n i o n . I w o u l d be a fool if I d i d not believe that the Party d i d its utmost to prevent me from obtaining it. Communist discipline is not just a simple matter of allegiance to the Party's decisions and loyalty to its policy. It is an inherent feature of a comrade's personal and public life. It is an unquestioning reflex of his behaviour. After a p e r i o d of time as a Party member, a m o n t h , a year, two years accordi n g to the degree of his w o r k , a Communist is expected to become 'self-disciplined'. There's a sad i r o n y in that phrase. O n e might just as well talk of a ventriloquist's d u m m y as being self-disciplined. T h e self-disciplined Communist is one w h o purges himself of all genuine self-criticism, all honest and refreshing doubt, all tolerance and independence of thought. Let it be understood that he is ready enough to do this when he joins the Party. This serious step is generally undertaken by a man w h o believes that the Party has some wonder80

ful answer to his or the world's troubles, some magic formula that explains everything and w i l l solve everything. T h i s mystical feeling is encouraged among recruits. T h e y are reverently introduced to Marxist-Leninist theory, so tortuous a philosophy that few Communists ever f o l l o w it beyond a few catch-phrases and a few quotations from L e n i n or Stalin. If they are told that such-and-such an action is strictly w i t h i n the logic and dialectic of M a r x i s m - L e n i n i s m they w i l l f o l l o w it blindly. I've often witnessed a disciplinary committee telling an offender that perfectly honest and decent statements made by h i m are, in terms of Marxist thought, rank heresy, and I have seen h i m accepting that interpretation because his faith in the M a r x i s m he does not understand is stronger than reason. Self-discipline in a Communist means, more often than not, g o i n g to the comrade w i t h the wider knowledge of M a r x i s m - L e n i n i s m and asking h i m to put y o u right. B u t it is as w e l l to make sure that the Marxist expert y o u go to is not himself in need of self-discipline. O n c e a comrade accepts the need for regular harsh criticism from other comrades he is easily convinced that this is genuine 'self-criticism', and the acceptance of it is true 'self-discipline'. T h i s may or may not explain the surprising confessions of weakness and ' w r o n g t h i n k i n g ' w h i c h appear in I r o n Curtain countries under the signatures of Party notabilities. Y e t men are men, and the natural instinct of a m a n in a civilized community like ours is to think for himself and to disagree openly w i t h those w h o m he believes to be w r o n g . To deal w i t h this shocking bourgeois muddle-headedness the Party l o n g ago set up disciplinary committees. They may be on a national scale, headed by a national officer like Peter K e r r i g a n , or they may be committees hastily formed by branch secretariats w h e n faced w i t h a rash of deviationism among branch members. A l l w o r k the same w a y , however, and all have about as m u c h resemblance to a fair trial as my bus has to the Comet. Do not think the accused comrade is allowed either to make a speech in his o w n defence or call other comrades to support 81

his point of view. T i m e and time again I've seen K e r r i g a n hammering on a table w i t h his b i g fist and shouting ' D o n ' t y o u try to get out of this by m a k i n g a speech. T h i s isn't a bourgeois court of law. Y o u ' v e no legal rights here, you're a Party comrade before a Party court.' A n y t h i n g can b r i n g a comrade before such a court — an outright breach of policy (however unwittingly), a p u b l i c expression of a personal point of v i e w that is in contradiction to the expressed Party line, a l o n g history of m i n o r shortcomings (arriving late at branch meetings), a lack of zeal in Party duties, being behind w i t h subscriptions, too close an intimacy w i t h bourgeois friends. A n y t h i n g . T h e Hackney Party Secretariat once took disciplinary action against a shop steward w h o was one of the most active of our comrades. He was too active in fact, and became the v i c t i m of his o w n energy. He was a y o u n g man of twentyone and keen to w o r k for the Party. In addition to his Party duties as a shop steward he volunteered to assist me in my w o r k on the Trades C o u n c i l . I knew he was taking on more than he could manage and I tried to dissuade h i m , but it was impossible. Inevitably he fell d o w n on his w o r k as my liaison officer. He was late for meetings, forgot appointments, submitted inaccurate or insufficient reports to the Secretariat. Branch officials grew impatient w i t h h i m and finally placed his name on the agenda for the next Secretariat meeting, 'Comrade X — disciplinary action.' T h e Secretariat elected itself a court to try h i m . W h e n he heard what was awaiting h i m he d i d a very foolish thing. He wrote a letter of apology to the B o r o u g h Secretary. T h i s , of course, exposed h i m as infected w i t h bourgeois sentimentalism, as lacking in self-discipline, and likely to betray the Party on emotional grounds. W h e n he came before the disciplinary committee he already had the scales weighed against h i m . I remember his face as he stood before us, so desperately anxious to please, so desperately anxious to atone for his little sins. T h e Party had been his life, and if the Party thought he had sinned he was ready to believe that he had too. 82

We met in the l i v i n g - r o o m of a house in A m h u r s t R o a d , I remember, w i t h this y o u n g man standing in the corner, b i t i n g his lips and l o o k i n g f r o m face to face. T h e B o r o u g h Secretary opened the proceedings by reading out a series of charges w h i c h , to the ordinary man, w o u l d have indicated that the y o u n g chap had merely failed through excess of zeal. 'Failure to report to so-and-so . . . failure to pursue the Party line w i t h f u l l v i g o u r . . . failure t o this . . . failure t o that . . . ' On a y o u n g man so anxious to be a success the reiteration of that one w o r d 'failure' must have had a deadly effect. He was not t o l d w h o accused h i m , or where the charges originated. He broke in on the B o r o u g h Secretary w i t h another attempt at apology. T h e Secretary leaped to his feet furiously shouting: ' W e don't apologize in the C o m m u n i s t Party. We take our punishment!' So he stood there, white and trembling, and, I ' m sure, w i l l i n g to take any punishment if only it w o u l d b r i n g h i m back the favour of the Party to w h i c h he had given his y o u n g life. I could see by his face that he seriously believed he had done that Party a great w r o n g , that he had put the R e v o l u tion back a couple of aeons. I had g r o w n to like h i m while he had been struggling to do his best for me, and I appealed to the committee for leniency, but the B o r o u g h Secretary cut short my appeal w i t h the statement that leniency w o u l d be cowardice. T h e Party needed to close its ranks, it was approaching the final struggle w i t h capitalism, and any weakness on the part of any comrade was desertion in the face of the enemy. He suggested a severe reprimand w h i c h w o u l d be made p u b l i c among other comrades, and suspension from all Party duties for six months. N o t a terrible sentence, y o u might say, except that to this y o u n g man it meant the end of the one t h i n g he had been striving for — the Party's trust in h i m . T h e ventriloquist's d u m m y had in fact been left alone on the stage. W h y d i d he accept that court's decision? W h y d i d he not realize that any court w h i c h d i d not allow h i m one w o r d in his o w n defence must be a mockery of the 'democratic' Party it represented? 83

He accepted the court because his i n i t i a l acceptance of the Party and Party discipline made acceptance of all its decisions automatic. I could see by the w o r k i n g of his face as he stood there that he believed the punishment just, however u n pleasant. If they had decided to put a bullet in the back of his neck he w o u l d probably have thought them justified too. As for asking other comrades to appeal for h i m , I don't suppose it entered his m i n d . That w o u l d have been 'fractionizing', w o r k i n g against the majority decision of the Party. A n d he had been taught to hate the heresy of fractionizing. Was not T r o t s k y the arch-fractionizer in all the history of C o m m u n i s m ? E v e n had he attempted to enlist the support of other c o m rades in his o w n defence he w o u l d not have got it. O n c e a Party member comes under suspicion or disfavour no other comrade is foolish enough to be seen in conversation w i t h h i m . To do that w o u l d be to r u n the risk of summary expulsion. U n t i l that y o u n g man's six months in the wilderness were over he l i v e d the life of a sick d o g . A n d when the time was over he was put through a severe cross-questioning in the parrot answers of M a r x i s m to see if he had acquired 'selfdiscipline' d u r i n g his exile. O n D i s t r i c t Committee level disciplinary courts operate i n m u c h the same way. I attended several of them. T h e y were led by T e d Bramley, organizer of L o n d o n D i s t r i c t , a y o u n g palefaced man w h o m I rarely saw s m i l i n g . At heart though I believed he sincerely wished to be k i n d whenever kindness c o u l d be contained w i t h i n the demands of M a r x i s m - L e n i n i s m . Before us once came a leading shop steward in Smithfield Meat M a r k e t w h o was accused of disobeying the instructions of his B o r o u g h Secretary, thus being guilty of deviationism. He was never t o l d w h o his accuser was, and he was sufficiently w e l l drilled not to ask. It is possible that he might never have appeared before a disciplinary court had his name not been up for election to the L o n d o n D i s t r i c t , and those in the Party w h o opposed his election were anxious to spoil his chances by any means possible. T h e details of the charge against h i m are not relevant, but in substance it was this: he had refused to accept the B o r o u g h 84

Secretary's guidance in a p r o b l e m affecting his u n i o n in the market. He had chosen to act on his o w n initiative and judgement. As it happened his decision was the right one and the p r o b l e m was solved. That, however, made no difference to the Party. He had disobeyed instructions and thereby jeopardized Party discipline. N o t once d u r i n g the h o u r and a half he stood before the court d i d he or any of us suggest that his success in the u n i o n p r o b l e m excused his behaviour. Nelson's b l i n d eye w o u l d have been worthless in the C o m m u n i s t Party. He said nothing. I had heard that he intended to fight the court, but he must have g i v e n in instinctively w h e n he saw our faces. He c o u l d not have seen any sympathy in them. Bramley's statement was surprisingly lenient, but the rest of the Committee, w e l l briefed, I suspect, by the man's enemies, were out for b l o o d . ' D o y o u believe that a g o o d Marxist must accept the Party's decision as the o n l y decision?' ' Y e s , I d o , comrade.' ' D o y o u believe that Party discipline is based on the acceptance of the majority decision w i t h i n the P a r t y ? ' 'Yes, I d o , comrade.' ' D o y o u believe that the B o r o u g h Secretary is only the instrument of that majority decision?' ' Y e s , I do, comrade.' ' D o y o u believe that self-discipline must begin w i t h a willingness to accept criticism f r o m other comrades?' 'Yes, I do, comrade.' 'Self-criticism w i l l d o y o u g o o d . ' I am convinced that he left that disciplinary court certain that he had been w r o n g . T h e success of the course he t o o k on his o w n initiative was irrelevant; he had acted perversely as a Marxist and as a Communist Party member, and that was his crime. He accepted the belief that to deny the charges laid against h i m w o u l d have betrayed a lack of self-discipline. So he went w i l l i n g l y into the wilderness and served his term of suspension before the Party considered he was docile enough to come back into the fold, where someone else w o u l d do his t h i n k i n g for h i m . 85

T h e Party's disciplinary and expulsion committees were never more active than at the end of the war and the first months of peace. Heads rolled into the dust of the renewed political struggle. Communist Party membership had soared as a result of this country's alliance w i t h the Soviet U n i o n and as a result of the people's genuine admiration for the achievements of the R e d A r m y . N e v e r before had the non-Communist Press done so m u c h to encourage recruiting for the C o m m u n i s t Party. Thousands of new members took out Party cards. T h e membership figure by 1945 was, I believe, above 100,000 (it is less than a t h i r d of that to-day). We gloated over the situation and l o o k e d forw a r d to the post-war situation w h e n , we were confident, the Party w o u l d take power. To strengthen the Party's position the N a t i o n a l Executive decided on a tightening of discipline and a purge of membership. It c o u l d n o w afford to cut away what it believed to be dead w o o d . A great number of our new recruits were fellowtravellers in reverse, members w h o still had sympathies and affiliations w i t h other political organizations, or w h o had joined us more because of Stalingrad than M a r x . T h e Executive decided that as the first step toward parting the sheep from the goats all Party members should declare themselves openly as Communists and cut whatever ties they had w i t h other political organizations. Of course some m e m bers were excused from this public exposition. They were men and w o m e n w h o were d o w n on Party files as 'Personal Security'. They held jobs in the G o v e r n m e n t service, in the professions, in Parliament. B u t in the m a i n we were t o l d : ' C o m e out into the open, declare yourselves as Communists.' T h e Party knew that many new members — and many o l d ones for that matter — were not g o i n g to l i k e this. T r o u b l e was expected f r o m trade u n i o n officials w h o w o u l d be u n w i l l i n g to risk their position by an open declaration of Communist membership. Part of the Party's new policy was to drive these men (these 'potential deviationist traitors') into the open and expel them. E x p u l s i o n committees were set up in every district to deal w i t h them. I was selected to sit on one such c o m mittee, and as a result of my experiences I got a very clear idea 86

of h o w the R e d Trials behind the I r o n Curtain must be c o n ducted. Trade unionists w h o tried to argue against the p o l i c y of open declaration were bluntly expelled forthwith and w i t h i n a few months found themselves gently eased out of u n i o n office and replaced by other Party members. Others accepted the committee's decision, declared themselves as Communists, and were left on their o w n to cope w i t h their unions' natural indignation. T h e central figure in this great wave of disciplinary action was Peter K e r r i g a n , six feet of tough Scots-Irish, uncontaminated by the k i n d l y emotion of bourgeois decadence. That m a n lives the Party. He serves it w i t h a singleness of m i n d that is frightening. Y e t I believe, even if he does not, that what satisfies h i m most is the feeling of power w h i c h his position gives h i m . He deals w i t h recalcitrant Party members w i t h brutality and u n relenting determination. T h r o u g h o u t the country Purge Committees w h i c h were set up in all branches and trade u n i o n fractions, modelled themselves faithfully on the tactics of Peter K e r r i g a n . He was, I am sure, p r o u d of them. W h i l e they dealt w i t h the weaker-willed, the back-sliders among the rank and file of the Party, he dealt w i t h the h i g h level deviationists: trade u n i o n officers, trades c o u n c i l m e m bers, branch secretaries, prospective parliamentary candidates, fellow-travellers inside the L a b o u r Party. I c o u l d not say h o w many he drove out of the Party or h o w many L a b o u r Party officials at the moment can thank Peter K e r r i g a n for their Simon-pure Socialism. M a y b e they should feel grateful to h i m , but it c o u l d not have been enjoyable while it lasted. O f course this wave o f witch-hunting and disciplinary courts presented a great opportunity to Party members w h o were fighting each other for office inside the Party of the unions. I remember one case particularly v i v i d l y . T w o Party members in one u n i o n were jockeying each other for a seat on the Executive. O n e of them got in his b l o w first w i t h the Disciplinary Committee, accusing the other of dereliction of Party duties, of defection f r o m the Party line, of 87

fractionizing to secure office, of placing personal ambition before Party loyalty. H o w far the Party recognized this charge for what it was and h o w far it accepted it as fitting w i t h i n its o w n scheme I don't k n o w . Suffice it that the accused was told one day that a few h i g h - r a n k i n g Party members in his u n i o n wished to discuss a serious matter w i t h h i m . He had no idea, I think, what it was about and w i l l i n g l y suggested that the meeting should take place in his o w n home. K e r r i g a n accepted the offer. We met in the l i v i n g - r o o m of the comrade's furnished flat, and I think he must have realized what we were about when he saw us enter. There were six of us on the D i s c i p l i n a r y Committee, chosen f r o m national officers of the u n i o n . But I think it was the entrance of K e r r i g a n w h i c h t o l d the comrade that he was facing a disciplinary court. We grouped ourselves on chairs and hassocks about his l i v i n g - r o o m . K e r r i g a n sat in the centre, his arms folded on the table b e l o w his open-necked shirt, a b i g man, a massive man w i t h closely-cropped hair. No smile on his face, his eyes l o o k i n g d o w n at the papers before h i m . T h e accused was t o l d : ' T h i s is a D i s c i p l i n a r y Committee, comrade. Certain charges have been laid against y o u . ' M a y b e he was surprised, maybe not. He just l o o k e d at us and took his stand by the radio in the corner. He stood there for the w h o l e t w o hours of the meeting chain-smoking. H i s wife, w h o was pregnant, stood in the doorway w i t h an expression of blank and uncomprehending astonishment on her face. She was a Party member too, but to her credit she d i d not desert her husband but kept l o o k i n g at h i m w i t h helpless sympathy. In his clipped emotionless voice K e r r i g a n read out a fourteen-page document listing the man's crimes. T h e y were not charges at all as the man in the street w o u l d understand them, but w i l d accusations and abuse: 'Unreliable, opportunist, deviationist, provocateur, bourgeois t h i n k i n g , f r a c t i o n i z i n g . . . ' T h e charges came as news to most of us on the committee, I think, but it was obvious that t w o of the committee members had been w e l l briefed by the man's enemies, for when K e r r i 88

gan had read t h r o u g h the charge sheet they added a few of their o w n . I said very little on that occasion. In fact, I knew very little about the man and d i d not k n o w whether the charges were true or not. I was g i v e n no opportunity of hearing the other side, for he was n o t asked to defend himself and w o u l d not have been allowed to had he tried. I knew that the Party was determined to purge itself of this m a n , otherwise it w o u l d not have d r a w n up that fourteen-page indictment of abuse and malice. F o r t w o hours the flood of invective went o n , the w o r d s d r o p p i n g in Kerrigan's quiet tones. A n d w h e n he had spoken each of us had to say our piece, ask our questions. K e r r i g a n went from one to another of us, n o d d i n g his head. We all expressed the same thought, I suppose, the same bitter anger at a comrade's betrayal. A l t h o u g h I knew K e r r i g a n was determined on expulsion, I suggested that perhaps a probationary period...? K e r r i g a n cut me short by n o d d i n g his head at the next man on the committee. W h e n we had all spoken K e r r i g a n l o o k e d at the accused. ' W e l l ? ' He straightened himself by the d o o r and started to speak. A p o l o g i e s . Excuses. An attempt at self-defence. K e r r i g a n stood up behind the table, his face red. He banged his fist. ' E n o u g h of that! Y o u ' r e not in a court of law. T h i s is a meeting of Party officers. D o n ' t try to defend yourself as if y o u had a legal right t o ; y o u can't get away w i t h that b l o o d y nonsense here!' T h e n somebody — I don't remember w h o — said they w o u l d like some tea, and the wretched man's wife went away and made it. We drank it as if we had a right to it. K e r r i g a n sat silently, put d o w n his cup, wiped his m o u t h w i t h a handkerchief, and said quietly, 'I've made my decision. Y o u k n o w what I ' m g o i n g t o d o ? E x p e l y o u ! ' I l o o k e d at the accused. H i s face was white. He knew what expulsion w o u l d mean. H i s u n i o n office w o u l d g o , the Party w o u l d turn against h i m and he w o u l d be lucky if he held his job. To our astonishment he began to cry. I think it was the strain rather than Kerrigan's decision that 89

brought on the tears, but there he stood w i t h them r o l l i n g d o w n his cheeks as if he were not aware of them. H i s wife cried out to h i m f r o m the doorway. ' T i m e w i l l prove y o u r i g h t ! ' I don't k n o w what she meant by this. K e r r i g a n stood up again and shouted, as m u c h to her as to her crying husband. ' N o n e of that sob-stuff! If I had my way I'd show y o u b o t h what should be done to saboteurs!' I made another appeal for a probationary period. I c o u l d see that the Committee wasn't w i t h K e r r i g a n a l l the way on this. ' G i v e the comrade a chance,' I suggested. ' H e ' s done fine w o r k for the Party in the past, and he's helped to b u i l d u p the Firemen's u n i o n . . . ' ' O u r job is to b u i l d the Party, not the unions,' K e r r i g a n cut i n stubbornly. ' M y mind's made u p . E x p u l s i o n . What's the Committee's o p i n i o n ? ' I think he was a little surprised w h e n the Committee reached a majority decision for a probationary period. B u t it made no difference to the p o o r chap in the l o n g r u n . As far as the Party was concerned he was finished. F o r a m o n t h he was harried and spied u p o n . Communists in his u n i o n office submitted w e e k l y reports on his actions to the Party, w h o m he spoke t o , where he went, what he said in unguarded moments, what his wife was d o i n g . A l l other Party members were informed that he had been before a disciplinary committee on charges of deviationism and betrayal, and the men w h o coveted his job sharpened their knives. He knew what was happening, he had seen it happening to others. H i s life must have been hell d u r i n g that m o n t h , and before his probationary period was over he threw up his u n i o n job and ran out on us. He never submitted a formal resignation from the Party, but he never saw us again. I never knew what happened to h i m , except that I learned the Party drove h i m from pillar to post. Some weeks after the man ran I met K e r r i g a n again. 'Remember that meeting,' he said. 'I was right, wasn't I? T h e man was no g o o d , he hadn't the guts to take punishment. We should have expelled h i m there and then.' 90

That was the first time I saw a man cry before a Party disciplinary committee, but it was not the last. T h e i r tears, of course, were an emotional reaction to the strain placed on them, a product of the confusion w i t h i n their o w n hearts. O n c e I asked one of them, more in curiosity than sympathy, ' W h y did you cry?' I put this question after I had left the Party myself, and he answered me without animosity: 'I thought it was a terrible thing to be expelled.' ' D o you think s o n o w ? ' ' N o , it doesn't matter n o w . But while I was a Party member it seemed as if the whole w o r l d was packing up on me. I felt I was betraying myself. I thought those bastards on the disciplinary committee were so right.' T h e tears of an accused Party member meant n o t h i n g to the Party. ' D o n ' t let a l l that sentiment fool y o u , B o b , ' an Executive member once t o l d me. 'That's all y o u can expect f r o m guilty men, t r y i n g to w i n over our sympathy.' N o , there is no sympathy for the transgressor w i t h i n the Party. As far as it is concerned every C o m m u n i s t is in the front line of the war against capitalism. T h e waverers can feel thankful that their defection and weaknesses are not punished by a firing squad. T h e o d d thing is that every comrade too believes that he is in the front line, and if the Party turns against h i m he feels that he has deserted in the face of the enemy. I have had my o w n experiences as a drill-sergeant, i n s t i l l i n g discipline or 'self-discipline' i n t o the doubters and the waverers. T h e years just f o l l o w i n g the war were critical ones for the personally ambitious w i t h i n the Party. L e a d i n g members were spying on each other, each watching for a false move. T h e intellectuals were on the way out, it was becoming the day of the cold-blooded, the mass-agitators of the K e r r i g a n stamp, the commissars from the days of the Spanish C i v i l W a r . T h e y weren't afraid of b l o o d . A l l leading Party members like myself once received a 'personal letter' from Party Headquarters. It t o l d us of the great responsibilities w h i c h were ours, the need for increased 91

vigilance (increased spying and informing), for increased firmness of purpose (expulsions of the weak), for an i r o n loyalty to the Party line (to h e l l w i t h personal feelings, yours or the other man's). That letter ended on a flourish of trumpets. ' G l o r y to the C o m m u n i s t Party! G l o r y t o International C o m m u n i s m ! G l o r y to our Leader S t a l i n ! ' G l o r y be! B u t the letter was more than an invigorator. It was a subtle w a r n i n g that the slightest weakness w o u l d n o w be regarded as betrayal and w o u l d be answered by the most severe disciplinary action. T h e Party had reason to feel in need of such severity. Events were m o v i n g so rapidly on the continent as one country after another went over to C o m m u n i s t rule that the Party was naturally alarmed by the bewilderment and confusion in its o w n ranks. T h e Daily Worker wasn't large enough to answer all the questions w h i c h comrades were privately asking themselves. T w o - d a y 'explanation schools' were set up in D i s t r i c t offices to brief leading Party members in the unions on the changing state of E u r o p e . Ostensibly they were discussion groups, in fact there was about as m u c h discussion as there is between a new recruit and a Regimental Sergeant-major when the p r o b l e m of keeping step comes up. I conducted several such classes for u n i o n leaders in East L o n d o n . I recall one particular comrade, a u n i o n president receiving a salary of £ 8 0 0 a year (thanks to the Party w h o made h i m president) w h o was sufficiently perturbed by things to get to his feet and speak his m i n d . I knew what he was t h i n k i n g . He was afraid that any defence on his part of the Communist rape of Eastern E u r o p e w o u l d not be stomached by the rank and file of his u n i o n . He argued that the Party should w o r k for continued and peaceful friendship between Russia and the Western Powers. He wanted a greater measure of compromise on the part of Stalin. He was feeling so badly about this that he referred to O u r B e l o v e d Leader as 'Stalin' and not 'Comrade Stalin.' My reply was straight from stock. It c o u l d have been K e r 92

rigan himself speaking. W h e r e , I asked h i m , d i d he get the audacity to criticize Comrade Stalin's w i s d o m and profound understanding of M a r x i s m ? Thanks to the C o m m u n i s t Party he held a powerful job in his u n i o n , and received a salary far larger than the average w o r k e r in this country. H i s criticism of Comrade Stalin was defeatism and opportunism. 'I w i l l leave it to the comrades present to decide whether y o u are fit to h o l d the u n i o n job y o u d o . ' That was a l l , but the crack of the w h i p was quite audible. He knew what was at stake, so he held his tongue. He had only to l o o k about the meeting there to see at least t w o men w h o w o u l d jump at his u n i o n job once the Party abandoned him. I c o u l d , of course, have forgotten his remarks. But someone else w o u l d have passed them on to Central Office, and then I w o u l d have had to answer for my failure to report this serious breach of Party discipline. So I submitted my report. He came before a disciplinary committee, but he was lucky. He was merely cautioned. Some comrades brought thus before the committee w o u l d make vain attempts to justify their mistakes, or ask for the name of the Party member w h o accused them. T h e i r demands were never answered. ' Y o u d i d say it, comrade, didn't y o u ? Y o u d i d say i t ? Y o u d i d say i t ! It doesn't matter w h o told us, you did say it!' It is easy enough to understand w h y a trade unionist w i t h a job to lose answers to the disciplinary w h i p . It is not so easy to understand w h y other men, w h o have no such position to lose, break before a disciplinary committee and admit to 'crimes' w h i c h do not exist. I have thought a lot about this psychological puzzle and can come to this conclusion o n l y : a Communist hands himself over to the Party when he joins. He abandons all other spiritual supports, all other faiths. He lets the Party take responsibility for his conscience and his actions. He accepts the Party as a guide, as a Father Confessor. It does his t h i n k i n g and his feeling for h i m . It promises h i m the R e v o l u t i o n in return for his b l i n d loyalty. If it turns against h i m in anger or 93

disgust he has n o t h i n g , and must be like the y o u n g c h i l d w h o incurs its mother's anger. He is alone. He thinks himself the luckiest man on earth if the Party forgives h i m and gives h i m a chance of w o r k i n g his passage back. In fact, the luckiest ones are those w h o are expelled and are t h r o w n u p o n the necessity of t h i n k i n g for themselves again. I have never met an expelled Communist w h o does not believe that the most fortunate day of his life was the day he appeared before a Party disciplinary committee and was summarily expelled. T h e passage he has to w o r k back is not to the insanity of Party membership, but the sanity of c o m m o n sense, of mental and spiritual independence. To the outsider, perhaps, the C o m m u n i s t Party may appear to be a tightly-knit, well-drilled body, every man in step. In fact it is continually in danger of the o d d comrade here and there p u t t i n g out his left foot when Central Office demands the right. A little logical thought makes this obvious. Trained not to think for himself, trained to accept the Party line, trained to f o l l o w the lead of B i g Brother, the comrade is vulnerable w h e n left on his o w n for a moment and under the necessity of acting on his o w n initiative. W h e n a Party member is forced to act on his o w n initiative he is invariably w r o n g . C o n sequently disciplinary committees are never short of material. Rarely, however, does the p u b l i c see the Party out of step. O n l y twice have I witnessed a p u b l i c conflict in the Party. T h i s was at t w o consecutive Party Congresses. In each case delegates f r o m a local branch put forward a resolution expressing disagreement w i t h and m i l d criticism of the Party's activity d u r i n g the previous year. At any other political party's conference such criticism might have been answered from the floor, discussed soberly, gone on record or been put to the vote. But in this case the reaction of the Communist Party Congress was a small war in itself. F o r some minutes other delegates on the floor watched to see w h i c h way the cat was g o i n g to jump. T h e n P o l l i t t , as General Secretary, launched into a violent speech, merci94

lessly attacking the resolution and its proposers as deviationist, provocationist, opportunist, Trotskyist, any term found in the Party abuse book. Y o u w o u l d have thought that the little b o r o u g h resolution was g o i n g to wreck the Party. H a v i n g been g i v e n their lead from the Executive other delegates leaped to their feet and excelled each other in attacking the harmless resolution. T h e y were w e l l disciplined. N o b o d y attempted to answer the criticism raised in the resolution, but all abused the comrades w h o had m o v e d it. They were only too happy to crawl out of the conference hall w i t h their resolution unanswered. Probably the term 'discipline', w h i c h I have used again and again, is the w r o n g w o r d . B u t I do not k n o w of another. Here in the West we understand discipline to be a conscious emotion, accepted by the i n d i v i d u a l and applied by h i m in full understanding of its value and necessity. We are disciplined to use the pavements because we understand the risks of w a l k i n g in the middle of the road. W i t h the C o m m u n i s t discipline is something far less c o n scious withal the Party's talk of 'self-discipline'. It is more of a reflex action. It is the beginning of the dictatorship of the proletariat, the basis of absolute obedience and absolute, unquestioning loyalty. After eighteen years' experience of this discipline I think I can understand h o w it is that Party leaders on trial in P o l a n d , H u n g a r y , Czechoslovakia behave like puppets in the dock. T h e y have become creatures of C o m m u n i s t discipline, accepting the Party's absolute authority, so that even w h e n the Party places them on trial for their lives they still obey the commands of that discipline. I k n o w this because even in a m i l d way I have been subject to it. I have had to answer to Party accusations that I have been derelict in my duties, and even while something inside me t o l d me that the accusations were farcical I accepted the Party's rebuke. I believed in the Party. I trusted it. I c o u l d not believe it could be w r o n g . If it said I d i d these things then it was right, whatever I felt. Whatever I felt was the last flickering of a bourgeois attitude. It is the remarkable effectiveness of this discipline that 95

makes the ordinary comrade perform the most fantastic of duties. H i s greatest fear is letting the Party d o w n . In H a c k n e y each comrade had to agree to take so m u c h Party literature a week. My particular allotment amounted to three shillings, in addition to w h i c h I was given a great deal more literature to sell among my contacts. It was not left to me, or to anyone else, to secure the literature oneself. O n c e a week a member of the Literature Secretary's staff called at Nisbet H o u s e , consulted his little book of reference, and handed over to me the amount of literature listed there. D i d I distribute all this paper as I was supposed to? D i d I sell i t ? Sometimes. B u t I suppose I must have burnt something like 10,000 leaflets in my time. Some I burnt because I knew I w o u l d n ' t be able to sell them, some because I was in d o w n r i g h t disagreement w i t h what they said. I d i d not voice my disagreement, however: I merely shared it w i t h my boiler fire. I am convinced that hundreds of comrades d i d and still do the same thing. N o w it might be argued that Party discipline is not so effective if Communists prefer b u r n i n g Party pamphlets to selling them. But the comrade's first obligation is to hand over to the Party the money for all the literature given h i m . If he does that he feels he has done his duty. If he does that he is well disciplined. Party discipline also obliges each comrade to buy so many tickets for each new U n i t y Theatre show. He is not asked h o w many he w o u l d like. He is t o l d h o w many he w i l l take. T h e figure of h o w many he should take is decided after a consideration of the number in his family and the number he should be able to sell among friends. If a Party leader such as P o l l i t t , Gallacher, Jackson, or Palme D u t t writes a b o o k , b o r o u g h secretaries are under o b l i gation to order large numbers of them for distribution among Party members, for purchase, and for sale. I once bought ten copies of W i l l i e Gallacher's b o o k . I was able to sell t w o of them, but I turned in the purchase price of ten. Of course, if any Party member is fool enough to voice a 96

m i l d protest about this forcible sale of literature, books and theatre tickets, there is a ready answer for h i m . ' W h a t are y o u c o m p l a i n i n g about? Y o u k n o w what L e n i n said? Propaganda is the greatest weapon.' L e n i n always said something. I can afford to smile n o w at the East E n d busman w h o once l o o k e d me straight in the eye w i t h o u t a flicker of a smile and said, ' B l i m e y , B o b , d i d L e n i n have an answer for everything? T h u s , dutiful servants of Party discipline, we c h o k e d ourselves and our bookshelves w i t h Party literature. My heart went out to a comrade w h o once complained at a branch meeti n g that he had been unable to get r i d of the pamphlets del i v e r e d at his door because his wife had been sick. 'Perhaps she's sick of y o u , comrade,' he was t o l d . 'She'd t h i n k more o f y o u i f y o u had more self-discipline. Y o u talk about your wife being sick. L o o k what L e n i n had to do. He had to leave his wife, and y o u talk about your wife being s i c k ! ' T h a t comrade's sale of Party literature was the highest for months after that crack of the w h i p , but I bet his kitchen boiler helped. T h e Party's insatiable hunger for money means that the disciplinary w h i p must always be in the hands of its officers. At branch meetings there are frequent snap showings of Party cards. A n y comrade whose subscriptions are more than a fortnight behind is held up to general h u m i l i a t i o n . 'There y o u are, comrades. Here's the man w h o has been lett i n g the Party d o w n . Y o u k n o w h i m n o w , d o n ' t forget h i m . No disciplinary action w i l l be taken against h i m this time, but he can take it as a w a r n i n g . T h e Party of L e n i n and Stalin has no r o o m for a comrade w h o cannot pay his dues.' Since the Party considers finance of the highest political i m portance it also regards defaulting in this sphere as a m o n g the gravest of crimes. E v e r y Party member is issued w i t h a series of collection sheets for the Daily Worker F i g h t i n g F u n d , for the Peace Campaign, for this or that A n g l o - I r o n - C u r t a i n Friendship Society, and he is expected to fill them up w i t h donations f r o m sympathizers or non-Communists. He is told h o w m u c h he is expected to collect and it is rarely that he does not produce the money. Whether it genuinely C.T.B.

97

D

comes f r o m sympathizers, whether the names he writes on the collection sheets are real, is another matter. He is self-disciplined and he turns in the money. If he doesn't then the Party B o r o u g h Treasurer w i l l have a little talk w i t h h i m and he is a l u c k y comrade if he gets off w i t h just a series of admonitory quotations f r o m L e n i n . There is little opportunity for relaxing in the Party. E a c h comrade is watched by other comrades, and in his t u r n he watches them. If he suspects some slight negligence, a weakeni n g of effort, he is under obligation and under disciplinary c o m p u l s i o n to report such to the B o r o u g h Secretariat. He does not regard this as i n f o r m i n g . It is self-discipline. If, for example, a comrade fails to attend the meetings of his factory g r o u p twice r u n n i n g , then the leader of that g r o u p w i l l i n f o r m the B o r o u g h Secretary. He in his t u r n sends for the defaulter. If the man's excuses are unsatisfactory he w i l l be handed over to a disciplinary committee w i t h i n the factory group. T h i s can exact severe punishment. T h r o u g h a Party member w h o is a shop steward or a foreman, the g r o u p can get the offender transferred to another department where the w o r k is less congenial, where there is less opportunity for overtime. It can even ease h i m out of w o r k altogether if the g r o u p c o n siders his crime serious enough. If the Party decides that a member w o u l d be of more value in another job, in another factory, he is b l u n t l y t o l d to change. I've k n o w n comrades give up positions w o r t h £1 5 a week and take another at £10 just because the Party wanted them in a factory where Party membership was weak. T h e self-disciplined comrade accepts this arbitrary disposal of his b o d y and income either because he is a zealot or because he k n o w s that if he disobeys the Party w i l l see to it that he loses his job altogether. A n d i f h e complains, ' H o w d o I explain this loss o f income to my w i f e ? ' he gets a very short answer f r o m the B o r o u g h Secretary. ' W h o do y o u t h i n k y o u are, comrade, to want a job at £15 a week? D o n ' t y o u k n o w H a r r y P o l l i t t only gets £8?' M o s t w o m e n , even C o m m u n i s t s ' wives, like t o d o their 98

s h o p p i n g where they w i s h . B u t a Communist's wife gets little opportunity if her husband is w e l l disciplined. A n d there is always someone to see where y o u r wife does her shopping. T h i s is h o w the conversation went w i t h me once: 'I saw your wife g o i n g i n t o X ' s shop the other day, B o b . Why?' ' T o buy something, probably.' ' T h i s isn't a funny matter, Comrade D a r k e . D o e s n ' t she k n o w that man is a T o r y ? W h y doesn't she shop at the C o - o p ? ' 'She probably didn't want t o . ' 'It's not a question of what she wants. She's your wife; get her to j o i n the C o - o p . We should b u i l d up Party strength in the C o - o p guilds, y o u k n o w that. Let's not see it happening again.' My self-discipline was g o o d . I accepted the w h i p . I t o l d A n n . B u t I w o u l d n ' t like to repeat what she said. She d i d n ' t have my self-discipline. A g a i n and again I meekly obeyed Party instructions to buy tickets to this or that Soviet film show, not because I wished to see the film or w o u l d have thought it enjoyable, but because I k n e w that my absence w o u l d be marked and become the subject of punitive action. W h e n these films were s h o w n , generally under the auspices of the British-Soviet Friendship Society, every Party member was expected to buy a ticket for himself, another for his wife, a t h i r d for a friend. A comrade appointed by the B o r o u g h Secretary w o u l d stand at the d o o r of the hall and check the attendance. A n y absentee w o u l d be summoned before the B o r o u g h Secretary w i t h i n seventy-two hours. ' W h y weren't y o u at the film show, comrade? Y o u k n e w it was being held. Where were y o u ? I suppose y o u went to the dogs instead, or some other f o r m of capitalist entertainment? T h e Party expects every comrade to support progressive movements, and that doesn't include the dogs.' After a while y o u got i n t o the habit of b u y i n g these tickets, d i g g i n g deeper and deeper into your pocket to keep that flow of Party finance at h i g h tide. O n l y n o n - C o m m u n i s t wives of 99

D 2

Party members c o u l d see the w h o l e t h i n g in its true ridiculous, idiotic light. Perhaps it is not always easy for the Party member to obey the c o m m a n d that he should be arrested as part of a propaganda stunt. M o s t well-disciplined, enthusiastic Communists get arrested at some time or another. I ' m l u c k y ; I always escaped it. B u t the arrests are not accidents; they are part of the Party's p o l i c y , they fit neatly i n t o its campaign, and they require absolute obedience on the part of the martyrs, a great deal of 'self-discipline'. W h e n the call-up of Z Reserve m e n began the L o n d o n D i s t r i c t Committee decided that a protest should be made against it and that that protest should be part of the general Peace Campaign. It was decided that six m e n should chain themselves to the railings in W h i t e h a l l . T h e D i s t r i c t Committee h e l d a meeting to discuss the proposal and to consider six likely candidates. T h e y finally decided on six comrades w h o were ex-servicemen. These were ordered to report to D i s t r i c t Headquarters for a briefing on a special detail. T h e y had no idea what it was a l l about u n t i l they arrived and none of them objected w h e n they were t o l d . T h e y were instructed to wear their campaign medals, p i c k up their chains and set out for W h i t e h a l l at the given time. T h e w h o l e scheme was carried out perfectly. T h e men were arrested, they shouted their slogans, there was a scuffle w i t h the police and a passing Daily Worker cameraman was l u c k y enough to get a picture. T h e f u l l story was published in the Worker, and the E d i t o r d i d not consider it necessary to p o i n t out that all the men were Communists and that the campaign had been w o r k e d out in detail in a C o m m u n i s t office. N o , it was merely 'Six ex-servicemen demand end of call-up.' T h e Party members w h o carry out details like this are always hand-picked and their obedience to Party discipline must be infallible. T h e Party cannot afford the risk that one m a n may get c o l d feet at the crucial moment. Generally their training is so g o o d that the w h o l e t h i n g goes through w i t h o u t a hitch. T h e demonstrator w h o had his face 100

g r o u n d i n t o the dirt of L o n d o n A i r p o r t w h e n he shouted, ' R i d g w a y , go h o m e ! ' got his picture in all the papers. T h e Party got wide publicity for its anti-American campaign, and g o o d discipline paid dividends. Just as it pays dividends w h e n 'a g r o u p of working-class w o m e n ' (see Daily Worker) t h r o w leaflets in the path of a C i t y procession. It pays dividends w h e n the childless C o m m u n i s t carries someone else's baby in a squatters' demonstration. It pays dividends w h e n an agitator in Trafalgar Square is clubbed and dragged off by the police w i t h his face streaming w i t h blood. If the v i c t i m is t h i n k i n g of anything at that moment it is of the gratitude the Party w i l l feel for his self-discipline. T h e comrades w h o act as the front-line m e n in Party stunts l i k e this can get n o t h i n g more out of it than their o w n sense of elation and martyrdom. M a n y of them lose their jobs as a result. A few l u c k y ones may find a Party shop steward or foreman in their factory w h o w i l l cover up for them. B u t for the rest, if they lose their jobs, 'So what, comrade?' they are t o l d . ' D o n ' t y o u k n o w that y o u ' l l always get the sack under capitalism for being a C o m m u n i s t ? ' If his self-discipline is of a h i g h enough order the C o m munist w i l l accept the sack as something a k i n to the O r d e r of Lenin. Self-discipline pays!

101

CHAPTER

SIX

If your wife objects, Comrade, leave her. D U R I N G a l l my years as a member o f the Party I frequently had the uneasy feeling that my personal life was not all that was expected of a C o m m u n i s t . A n d if I was not happy about it neither was the Party. On and off my home and my family came under severe criticism f r o m other Party members. It was only toward the end that I began to question my docile acceptance of their criticism. T h e way I was under obligation to l i v e , the way a true C o m m u n i s t is expected to live w i t h i n the four walls of his home, never appealed to me. I c o u l d never explain w h y , except that perhaps it seemed to me to be a negation of the Party's preaching. B u t w h e n I resigned the Party remembered its failure to regiment my wife, my c h i l d r e n , and my home, and many comrades said: ' B o b D a r k e was never a true C o m m u n i s t anyway'. He was never a true C o m m u n i s t . He never made his wife j o i n the Party. He never recruited his daughters i n t o the Y o u n g C o m m u n i s t League. He never made his father into a C o m m u n i s t . Or his sister. Let it be realized that I understood the Party's attitude. I was a Party leader in the East E n d . T h e fact that my wife was never a C o m m u n i s t , never stood beside me on a platform, c o u l d never be quoted in the Worker or in my electioneering propaganda, was a serious disadvantage. B u t I was not unique. There are many Communists w h o suffer their greatest defeats at their o w n hearthsides, and have the same battle of loyalties that I experienced. W h e r e a Party member's private life, such as it is, does not fit the Party's pre-ordained pattern, he lives out his personal affairs in the dark. I've k n o w n a comrade to leave his wife and yet keep the fact secret f r o m the rest of us for months. N o t that the Party is indifferent to the personal lives of its members. It is astute enough to realize that its greatest weak102

ness lies not in the p o w e r of counter-propaganda, but in the spirit and conscience of the Party member himself. It knows that he can be seduced more easily by his wife's tears than by capitalist temptation. Consequently the Party is always smelling out the e v i l , always p o k i n g , p r y i n g , p r o b i n g i n t o the Party member's private life, directing it where possible, destroying it where necessary. A n d whenever the naive comrade, disturbed by his wife's tears and complaints, brings his p r o b l e m to his B o r o u g h Secretariat the answer he gets is always the same. ' R e c r u i t her into the Party. If she w o n ' t j o i n , leave her.' T h e Party w i l l take a maternal interest in even the dress of those comrades it regards as prestige winners. W h e n I first stood for the local c o u n c i l elections I had my photograph taken for the propaganda sheets and posters. I t o o k a p r i n t a l o n g to the B o r o u g h Secretary for his approval. I have the average East Ender's l i k i n g for colour in my clothes and the tie I had been wearing for this photograph was no exception to that taste. T h e Secretary l o o k e d at it and l o o k e d at me and then roundly abused me for being photographed in a ' b o u r geois tie'. There seemed no point in telling h i m what he should k n o w , that any working-class lad f r o m H a c k n e y puts on a coloured tie w h e n he takes his Sunday m o r n i n g w a l k d o w n the Lane. I couldn't see that I was betraying my class by conforming to it. 'Communists standing for election,' I was bluntly t o l d , 'must have no bourgeois contamination. Fancy a comrade like y o u standing as a representative of our Party wearing a spotted tie. G e t some more pictures taken this afternoon, this time in a dark tie.' 'I can't go to-day. I ' m w o r k i n g . ' ' T a k e the day off then. Y o u ' v e got to make sacrifices for the Party.' T h e damnable feature of this incident was that although I objected, my objection came more from irritation than indignation. I was even half-way toward being convinced that the B o r o u g h Secretary was right. E v e n if I had t h o u g h t 103

he was totally w r o n g I w o u l d still have done the same thing — gone out and changed the tie. N o t o n l y was my wardrobe under constant surveillance, but my bookshelves too. O n e day the Literature Secretary of the H a c k n e y Branch called in on business. We talked for a w h i l e about this, and then suddenly he s a i d : 'Comrade D a r k e , have y o u bought a copy of H a r r y Pollitt's b o o k , Serving My Time?' 'Yes. It's in the flat, somewhere.' 'Where is it then? W h y can't it be seen? A r e y o u ashamed to show i t ? ' He stood up and peered suspiciously at the books. ' S h o w it to me.' It w o u l d be useless to remember h o w many times I was m i l d l y or roughly reprimanded for not hanging the pictures of Marxist heroes on my w a l l . M o s t comrades were pretty dutiful about this. M a r x , L e n i n and Stalin l o o k e d d o w n o n them u n c o m p r o m i s i n g l y while they ate, slept, and cleaned their teeth. A l l the moral support my walls gave me was the one portrait I have mentioned of T i t o . A n d I took that d o w n eventually. My reply to the Party's suggestion that I should put K a r l M a r x up there above my fireplace went something like this. 'It's A n n ' s home as w e l l as mine, and she doesn't want the picture.' I c o u l d see that that was not considered a very g o o d reason. D u r i n g the 1950 General E l e c t i o n I was t o l d to hang a Party banner outside my w i n d o w s , o v e r l o o k i n g the m a i n road. T h e rules of the c o u n c i l flats naturally forbid anything l i k e this and I said so. I also said that my wife was not keen on the idea. T h e B o r o u g h Secretary l o o k e d at me for a few seconds before he said: ' N o w , Comrade D a r k e , we didn't expect that sort of nonsense f r o m y o u . Y o u ' r e a leader of the Party, aren't y o u ? If your wife doesn't like i t , aren't y o u the boss in your o w n h o m e ? A n d as for the council's by-laws it's y o u r duty to defy them when they are reactionary.' S t i l l I d i d not hang out the banner. H a d it not been for my position in the B o r o u g h and in the Party, had I been an ordinary rank and file member I might probably have faced a disciplinary committee. 104

T h e Party was equally indifferent to whatever economic struggle I might have been facing in my personal life. It c o u l d be hypercritical of a member w h o was, to the Party's m i n d , earning too m u c h money. It was indifferent to his struggles if poor. T h e Party's cynical attitude in this respect was particularly evident after my resignation. I had i n c u r r e d , on the Party's behalf, debts I had gradually piled up in my Party duties. T h e Party made no effort to h o n o u r them. T h e y were paid out of my o w n pocket, time and time again. T h a t , perhaps, is understandable. Less understandable is the cost to me of one particular celebration of H a r r y Pollitt's birthday. T h e Party decided that dear o l d H a r r y s h o u l d receive some sort of presentation, and that I, as a w e l l k n o w n East E n d C o m m u n i s t , should make the presentation. It was proposed that there should be a gathering of selected Party members one Sunday evening, at L i m e G r o v e Baths, Shepherds B u s h , and that the presentation should be the culmination of all the junketing. It was put to me more as an order than as a request, but I turned it d o w n . I t o l d the organizing committee the t r u t h : I c o u l d not afford to take time off f r o m the late shift. ' D o n ' t w o r r y , C o m r a d e , ' I was assured, 'the local branch w i l l make up y o u r loss of wages. Y o u ' l l lose n o t h i n g . ' So I went. I lost a day's wages at time and a half, and I walked half-way h o m e to H a c k n e y in t h i c k fog. I d i d n ' t h u r r y the Party but a few weeks later I tactfully suggested that some recompense for my loss of salary w o u l d be appreciated. ' W h a t do y o u think I a m , ' said the secretary of the H a c k n e y Party, 'Father Christmas?' My personal feelings about this dishonesty are not u n important, but I tell the story to illustrate the Party's indifference toward the sacrifices of its members, its unspoken acceptance of a stupid loyalty. I t o o k it of course, however badly I felt about it. If my conscience became a nuisance, I t o l d it that I had g i v e n up a day's wages for the cause. It was about this time, I remember, that Party w o r k was beginning to tell on me physically, as it does on a l l comrades 105

w h o w o r k their bodies like mules. I had sleepless night after night. I rarely smiled at home, I t o o k little or no interest in domestic affairs and plainly showed my b o r e d o m . I sat motionless by my o w n fireside a n d f o u n d n o t h i n g to say either to my wife or my children. M a r x says that environment can change h u m a n nature, and if he d i d n ' t he's certainly got credit for saying it. I do k n o w that membership of the Party can change a man's nature. A l l m y energies, m y enthusiasm, m y d r i v e were absorbed by Party tactics, Party scheming. My workmates, my friends, those I had left anyway, told me frequently that I was changi n g , that I l o o k e d i l l . A n d I felt i l l , but it was not the sort of illness y o u c o u l d tell a doctor about or expect h i m to diagnose. Y e t I was not without some defensive respect for my family, and I exercised it w h e n the Party made an adroit and cynical attempt to recruit b o t h A n n and my father. B o t h the B o r o u g h Secretariat of H a c k n e y and the L o n d o n D i s t r i c t Committee c o u l d never understand w h y A n n was not a Party member. T h e y k n e w that many ordinary comrades f o u n d it difficult to recruit their wives, but few Party leaders were married to non-Communist w o m e n . It was a paradox to them. It was more, it was a challenge. O n e day, d u r i n g a n intense new membership drive, A n n came to me and silently showed me an envelope she had received. Inside was a Party card, made out in her name and stamped w i t h t w o months' subscriptions. Together w i t h it was a registration slip on w h i c h new members were supposed to list particulars of their age, place of w o r k , u n i o n , position in the u n i o n and 50 o n . A l l this had been filled in for A n n , by somebody at Party Headquarters. A n n said n o t h i n g to me, she just left the card in my hand. Later in the day my father sent a similar envelope r o u n d to me. There was another Party card in it, made out in his name. I took them both r o u n d to the Secretariat, but they got a blow in first. ' B o b , b o t h your wife and your dad are a couple of months behind in their subs. W e ' v e stuck the stamps o n , but just let us have the money, w i l l y o u ? ' 106

T h e y didn't get the money, and maybe they d i d n ' t like the way I was l o o k i n g for they d i d n ' t press the point. A n y w a y the cards went in the kitchen fire. I was shaken by this, shaken more, I t h i n k , by A n n ' s unspoken contempt. A n d it was while I was in this frame of m i n d that the Party tried another confidence trick. A y o u n g member of the local Literature Secretary's staff arrived at my d o o r w i t h 4 0 0 leaflets and 4 0 0 letters signed w i t h m y name. It was the first time I had seen the letters but the Party had a v i r t u a l copyright on the use of my name by then. T h e letter was an appeal to the tenants of the block of flats in w h i c h I l i v e d , asking them to j o i n the Party. ' L e t every tenant have one of these, w i l l y o u , Comrade D a r k e ? ' said the y o u n g follower of M a r x , Engels, L e n i n and Stalin, and went on his way cheerfully, confident that he had advanced the r e v o l u t i o n by a second or two. D i d I climb the steps of the block and deliver 4 0 0 letters signed w i t h my name by someone else? I did. I am grateful for one t h i n g , the Party made no frontal attack on my daughters, m u c h as it may have wished to. T h e girls had enough to put up w i t h as it was, and came home often enough from school and w o r k in tears because of the jeering they had received on my behalf. O u r s was never a very happy home, and the credit for the fact that it s t i l l h u n g together goes to my wife. I often l o o k e d at those cartoons of happy, virile C o m m u n i s t families w h i c h appear by the artist G a b r i e l in the Daily Worker, and I wonder where the d e v i l he gets his inspiration. There must be many C o m m u n i s t wives like A n n , watchi n g their homes being turned into Party offices, w a i t i n g hand and foot on strange men w h o w a l k in and out as if they o w n e d the place. A c t i n g as a buffer between father and children. A Party member is often t o l d that he holds his children in sacred trust for Socialism. It is tacitly understood that their early indoctrination is his responsibility. He is never told h o w this indoctrination must be conducted either. T i m e and time again Party members have come to me, 107

genuinely w o r r i e d . ' B o b , h o w do I start on my k i d ? I want to tell h i m something about Russia and C o m m u n i s m , he's o l d enough n o w . B u t h o w do I go about i t ? ' Or else it w o u l d be, ' B o b , my k i d wants to go to Sunday school. I ought to stop h i m , oughtn't I ? ' Or ' M y kid's got this idea that he should join the Scouts. W h a t do I do about i t ? ' As I have said the Party issued no instructions. E v e r y Party member was on his o w n w h e n it got d o w n to the questions his children ask h i m . Of course, the intellectuals in the H a c k n e y B r a n c h had their o w n g l i b and confident solution. ' D o n ' t drive the k i d away, B o b , but if, for example, she comes h o m e f r o m school and says that the K i n g is a g o o d m a n , then y o u should say so is U n c l e Joe. If she asks w h o U n c l e Joe is, y o u should tell her that he is a g o o d man w h o lives in Russia and gives presents to little boys and girls, like Father Christmas.' Of course, that w o u l d n ' t help the Party member w h o had already started on g o o d Marxist lines by telling his children that there isn't a Father Christmas. F r o m the Party's point of v i e w I was probably a c o w a r d , I ran away f r o m this p r o b l e m . I left my children to their mother and to their school-teachers. As it turned out they d i d a better job than I c o u l d have done, despite the superior advantage I had w i t h 'dialectical materialism'. At Christmas every C o m m u n i s t is t o l d to buy his children books f r o m C o m m u n i s t bookshops i n C h a r i n g Cross R o a d , or R e d L i o n Square, or at the annual Daily Worker Fair. E v e r y year I spent ten or fifteen shillings this way on b o o k s , mostly printed by the F o r e i g n Languages P u b l i s h i n g H o u s e in M o s c o w , but o n l y rarely d i d I give them to my daughters, and they were not m u c h of a success w h e n I d i d . Party members were always on dangerous g r o u n d w h e n it came to non-Party reading. T h e y c o u l d not actively enjoy the literature, classical and m o d e r n , that is left to the free choice of the average man. W i t h his bookshelves under open scrutiny f r o m v i s i t i n g Party members, the C o m m u n i s t is always r i s k i n g criticism of his deplorable taste in bourgeois authors. 108

N o w and then, however, a Marxist theoretician l i k e T . A . Jackson w i l l write in the Daily Worker and give the green l i g h t to books by B u n y a n , D i c k e n s , M a r k T w a i n , and for a w h i l e after such articles Party members w i l l indulge t h e m selves in the official literary taste w i t h the same enjoyment a small c h i l d might have w h e n his mother tells h i m he can help himself to a spoonful of jam f r o m the larder. As far as the Party was concerned my private life was about as personal and as private as the forecourt of N i s b e t H o u s e . If A n n bought n e w curtains I k n e w they w o u l d be carefully studied w h e n next a branch official called. If the rooms were repainted I k n e w that the amount of money I had spent w o u l d be carefully calculated and I w o u l d be expected to make a more handsome donation to the B r i t i s h Soviet Friendship Society the next time the hat went r o u n d . I w o u l d face censure for permitting myself bourgeois luxuries. If A n n and I went to the local cinema (and G o d knows we went rarely) a Party member was sure to see me and report me to the branch. If I t o o k a holiday (which I d i d not) the Party w o u l d have w o r r i e d because I was wasting the Party's time on selfish pleasures. I was not unique. E v e r y Party member is under the same surveillance, and every Party member becomes, as I became, a remote-controlled robot. I never even permitted myself the relaxation some Party leaders get . . . an occasional junketting tour of an I r o n C u r t a i n country, and the chance to indulge i n g o o d l i v i n g . There is a peculiar paradox in all this. Official M a r x i s t lecturers speak smoothly enough of the fact that 'a m o r a l weakness is a political weakness'. If they mean anything at all by moral weakness they mean a failure to accept Party discipline. B u t H e a v e n knows h o w many homes have been b r o k e n , h o w many husbands and wives estranged by the Party's demand for ' m o r a l strength'. U n d o u b t e d l y many Party members take the easier course, they leave their wives, either as a physical act or a spiritual one. If they want physical satisfaction in another w o m a n they find it, and it can be f o u n d no doubt, in the Party. Immorality 109

a m o n g the r i c h is a 'bourgeois vice', a m o n g Party member it is probably 'a realistic solution to the p r o b l e m ' . It was a solution I never considered or chose for myself. T h e Party's instruction to the distracted comrade to leave his wife if l i v i n g w i t h her has become unbearable is not just a taunt. H i s g o o d sense w o u l d be commended if he t o o k the advice. T h e Party argues that the solution to marriage is that it s h o u l d consist of t w o of the same m i n d and o u t l o o k , a C o m m u n i s t outlook. Perhaps where man and wife are equally fanatical Marxists there is such a t h i n g as a happy marriage for Communists. B u t even then it does not w o r k out. B o t h J. B. S. Haldane and Charlotte Haldane apparently c o u l d not make marriage a success despite their joint allegiance to the Party. M a y b e the Party has an explanation for that, but if so I never heard it voiced. W h e n I became a Mass Leader of the Party the strain on A n n increased, for a mass leader, responsible for the l o c a l campaigns in his industry or district, must t u r n his home into an office that is open day and night. He is in direct t o u c h w i t h H a r r y P o l l i t t , and the b i g names of C o m m u n i s m walk in and out of his home so often and so fast that there is hardly any point h a v i n g a doormat. H i s wife c o u l d serve as that quite efficiently. Certainly my acceptance of the p o s i t i o n brought really strained family relationships. A n n grew q u i c k l y tired o f the fraction meetings that were held in my home almost every night. She and my daughters g r e w naturally impatient w i t h being m o v e d i n t o the kitchen every time the d o o r b e l l rang. Simple things mattered to A n n . Simple things l i k e a tidy home, cleanliness, and being able to talk to her husband w h e n he came home from w o r k . She had little time for things l i k e that w i t h ten or even fifteen Communists present every evening, hardly saying a w o r d to her, and accepting the tea she made them as if they had just ordered it across a cafe counter. She cried often enough in the early m o r n i n g w h e n the flat was quiet again. F o r a while her tears w o u l d upset me, and 110

then, like a damn f o o l , I w o u l d tell myself that sacrifices had to be made for the Party. Party membership does something to your sense of values, your sense of family responsibility, twisting them i n t o the ideological struggle, so that after a while y o u begin to see your wife's perfectly reasonable complaints as mere 'capitalist weaknesses'. E v e n the emotions w h i c h spring naturally in the ordinary man are distrusted by the C o m m u n i s t . W h e n the strain of the blitz k i l l e d my mother I remember standing at her grave, l o o k i n g across to my brother J o h n on the other side. He was c r y i n g w i t h o u t restraint. B u t I d i d not cry. I was telling myself that it was selfish to give way to my emotions, that a M a r x i s t was dedicated to the class struggle, to the inevitable r e v o l u t i o n . I was a B o l s h e v i k . I was t o u g h . A B o l s h e v i k does not give way to tears. I was ashamed of myself for w a n t i n g to cry. Because of things like this I t o o k even my friendships l i g h t l y and c o u l d not see the value of them. I ought to have seen that value one night d u r i n g the b l i t z , w h e n B e n J o n s o n Street went up in flames and Paddy the P i n g - P o n g player l o o k e d at me across the hose we were h o l d i n g . He l o o k e d up towards the sound of the bomber above us. ' W e l l , B o b , this may be it. M a r x ain't around n o w , is he? But outside of the fact that you're a C o m m u n i s t , B o b , it's been grand k n o w i n g y o u . If we all g o , we a l l go together, Marxist and Social-Democratic lackey.' N o w I can see that Paddy's friendship was a tremendous thing. T h e n I saw h i m as a 'sympathizer', a man w h o c o u l d be counted on for a donation to the Party if friendship's lever was pressed l o n g enough. I recruited h i m to the Party. On another occasion my wife said to me bitterly: ' O t h e r men belong to political parties, but they're not like y o u . T h e y make something out of their wives and families. L o o k at y o u ; you're getting older every day and you're never at home w i t h us, y o u never go out w i t h us. Y o u ' l l regret it some day. A l l y o u think of is the Party, n o t h i n g else counts w i t h y o u , B o b ; not your family, not your home, not me.' At the time I believe I t o o k that as a compliment, t h i n k i n g it gave a true picture of a self-sacrificing Bolshevik hero. 111

Party leaders are frequently p r o u d of their ' B o l s h e v i k toughness', and the unhappier their home life the greater the toughness, I imagine. I married A n n before I became a Party member, and I d i d not tell her about it u n t i l I had made the step. There is p r o b ably some significance in this, a ready acceptance of the theory that a g o o d C o m m u n i s t owes a secondary allegiance only to his family. T h e first real job the Party gave me was among the unemp l o y e d . O n e of its conditions, more or less, was that I s h o u l d remain unemployed t o o ; not a very difficult t h i n g to do in the early thirties, but not an easy situation for a wife to put up with. A s A n n became more and more w o r r i e d w i t h the shortage of money she concluded that I had no intention of finding w o r k , and t o l d me so. She was right of course. T h e Party had g i v e n me a job a m o n g the unemployed and, if I was w o r k i n g hard at it, I wasn't getting paid for it. To have found a job and g i v e n up my w o r k w i t h the unemployed movement w o u l d have seemed l i k e betrayal to me. So, w i t h no money in my pocket, I turned my back on my wife's complaints. A sense of m o r a l values was not all I gave up for the Party. I had been a lover of football and b o x i n g . I watched C l a p t o n O r i e n t play as often as I c o u l d and frequently visited the East E n d ' s b o x i n g arena, Premierland. A n d i n addition A n n and I went regularly to the cinema. L i k e any other new C o m m u n i s t I soon f o u n d that I c o u l d not carry on w i t h these and also fulfil the duties w h i c h the Party was p i l i n g on my shoulders. So I gave up my pleasures, and after a time I found that I had lost the taste for them. I got into the habit of telling A n n that she c o u l d go out alone. I accepted, without thought, her decision to find w o r k . N i g h t after night I was out u n t i l t w o or three in the m o r n i n g , attending meetings, c h a l k i n g slogans on pavements and walls. A n n w o u l d get up at 6.30 a.m. to do her housework before g o i n g off to w o r k . If I thought about the injustice of this at a l l , it was that C o m m u n i s m w o u l d b r i n g a new society where such sacrifices w o u l d not be necessary. 112

I got my excitement, the sort of excitement a C o m m u n i s t needs n o w and then to make the drudgery seem w o r t h w h i l e . It came f r o m the great marches of unemployed f r o m the East E n d to Trafalgar Square. There were inevitable clashes w i t h the police w h i c h we more or less p r o v o k e d . If our demonstrations were banned by the authorities we w o u l d w a l k on the pavements f r o m the East E n d . Isolated contingents f r o m each district, under the c o n t r o l of experienced Party members, marched on the Strand. O n c e there we w o u l d f o r m up in the roadway, a piper appearing f r o m somewhere, and we w o u l d crash t h r o u g h the police barrier. We carried banners on stout ash sticks. If necessary the banners c o u l d be ripped f r o m the sticks, w h i c h w o u l d then become sturdy weapons. I remember ordering a couple of dozen of these sticks once, using specifications g i v e n me by an experienced Party member. T h a t was excitement . . . t o stand i n Trafalgar Square w i t h b l o o d y faces about y o u and sing the ' R e d F l a g ' . Of course no family can stand this sort of t h i n g for l o n g . It was my father w h o tried to put his foot d o w n . An honest, selfrespecting trade unionist, l o y a l to the L a b o u r Party and blunt in his manner, he held his tongue l o n g enough. He had v i r t u ally taken over my family duties. W h i l e I was out w i t h my ash plant, or my piece of chalk, or my bundle of leaflets, he came i n t o sit w i t h A n n w h e n our baby was i l l . O n e m o r n i n g before A n n left for w o r k she said to m e , ' Y o u r father wants to see y o u about the way you're living.' I went along to h i m confidently enough, and what he had to say made little difference to me. ' B o b , for G o d ' s sake pack in this C o m m u n i s t business! Where is it g o i n g to get y o u ? Study A n n a bit, w i l l y o u , b o y ? O n e day y o u ' l l come home and f i n d y o u r family's gone.' There is no C o m m u n i s t text-book to supply the answer to an appeal like that. B u t the new Party member is so flamingly certain that he is right and everybody else is w r o n g that I suppose the answer I gave is stock: ' I ' m sorry y o u see it that way, D a d . B u t what I ' m d o i n g i s really for A n n and the k i d : f i g h t 113

i n g for a n e w society, fighting for the o n l y Party w h i c h can change things for people like u s . . . ' A n d so o n , and so o n . F r o m an ordinary standpoint there is no m o r a l justification for a C o m m u n i s t ' s desertion of his family obligations, but it must be realized that he does not see it as desertion. T h e Party demands sacrifices from h i m , demands discipline, and in return offers h i m the exciting feeling of dedication. T h e greater the hardship the greater the sense of dedication. If the sacrifices his family have to make for h i m t o u c h his consciousness, they rarely increase his hatred of people w h o are not called u p o n to make sacrifices. N o t o n l y must a Party member give up his family; he must give up friendship. Party duties make friendship almost i m possible anyway. He must be ready and w i l l i n g to denounce the man w h o has given h i m friendship and destroy h i m if the Party decides. I can speak w i t h feeling about this, for I can never hear a C o m m u n i s t t a l k i n g about comradeship and loyalty w i t h o u t t h i n k i n g o f H u g h Lister. I met h i m w h e n I was w o r k i n g for L e w i s Bergers. W h e n I joined this paint factory it was a n o n - u n i o n house, and largely as a result of the organizing w o r k I put in there the Party fraction inside was able to b u i l d up u n i o n membership to fifty per cent w i t h i n a few weeks. F o r this w o r k I received a T U C d i p l o m a and the T o l p u d d l e M e d a l , awards w h i c h I deeply appreciated. T h e Party appreciated them too and shamelessly exploited them. ' C o m m u n i s t wins trade u n i o n h o n o u r ' made g o o d copy for the Daily Worker. A result of this publicity, however, was a letter f r o m the Reverend H u g h Lister, leader of a mission in the East E n d . It was a friendly letter, i n v i t i n g me to have a chat or a cup of tea w i t h h i m . I put the letter before the Party (I w o u l d have been a fool not to). We had heard of h i m , of course, and his w o r k a m o n g the people. ' G o and see h i m , comrade,' I was t o l d . 'See what he's up to.' I went to see h i m , and we drank more tea than was g o o d for either of us and we talked about the East E n d . I was surprised by his knowledge and understanding and by his grasp of trade 114

u n i o n problems. At last I said to h i m , a little vaingloriously probably, ' I suppose y o u k n o w I ' m a C o m m u n i s t . H o w d o y o u feel about that?' He smiled at me tolerantly, a b i g man sitting behind the teapot in his priest's u n i f o r m . ' B o b , I k n o w you're a C o m munist all right. B u t in our b o r o u g h there's far too m u c h social injustice, far too many sweat-shops. W h a t about y o u and I cleaning it up a b i t ? ' Our borough, I thought: T h i s is a little outside his province. W h a t c o u l d a parson k n o w about social injustice or sweatshops? What c o u l d he teach a C o m m u n i s t about fighting them? I almost laughed at h i m . ' H a v e y o u ever heard of a C o m munist and a priest w o r k i n g together?' 'I've read my M a r x , B o b . B u t h o w about i t ? Shall we get started?' A n d then he t o l d me that he was an honorary trade u n i o n member. I learnt a lot more about h i m after that, not o n l y of his kindness and compassion, his w o r k against Fascism and racial prejudice, but his solid w o r k for trade u n i o n i s m . I d i d not give h i m an answer then. I put his offer before the Party and left it to the vote. F o r a week or so I lost t o u c h w i t h h i m , and then I was t h r o w n out of w o r k again. F o r six weeks I was ' o n the stones', and it was not t i l l toward the end that I got to k n o w that H u g h Lister had been calling at my home once a week to b r i n g a parcel of food and a toy for my family. T h e Party t o l d m e : ' W a t c h h i m , comrade. Use h i m , but d o n ' t let h i m get the leadership of the workers in the b o r o u g h . That's our role.' T h a t was the beginning of a friendship w h i c h I betrayed and w h i c h he honoured. I asked h i m first if he w o u l d speak on a trade u n i o n platform, and any earlier doubts I may h a v e had about h i m were dispelled w h e n his fire and sincerity had a tremendous effect on his audience. Between us we w o r k e d out a campaign for organizing some of the n o n - u n i o n factories in the b o r o u g h . I k n o w w h y he was d o i n g it. He believed it was his Christian duty to raise the standard of w o r k and l i v i n g for the people of his parish. A n d he probably k n e w w h y I was d o i n g it t o o : to raise the m e m bership and influence of the C o m m u n i s t Party. 115

He was a superb tactician. He c o u l d have sat in his mission m o u t h i n g comfortable platitudes, but he preferred to come out on the kerb and fight for what he believed. We went from factory to factory. We w o r k e d u n t i l the early hours of every m o r n i n g . O n e night it w o u l d be at his mission, another night at my home. We prepared propaganda sheets, we briefed speakers, we organized help for strikers and for the unemployed. We had two factories on strike at one time, and the way he w o r k e d a m o n g the strikers was enough to make the oldest u n i o n member envious. Of course he had enemies, a g o o d m a n always has, and they said he was a R e d . I put that to h i m one day, and he just smiled at me in his gentle, tolerant way. ' W e l l , B o b , it's probably being said that I ' m converting y o u to the C h u r c h , and y o u k n o w h o w absurd an allegation that is.' Whenever I raised Lister's name at Party meetings the reaction was the same. He was a 'sentimental idealist', he was o n l y 'playing w i t h the workers' struggle'; at the first sign of trouble he w o u l d back out. T h e y mistook my efforts to praise h i m as doubts about his influence. ' C a r r y o n , Comrade D a r k e . D o n ' t w o r r y about h i m . W e ' l l w a t c h h i m and w e ' l l take care o f h i m i f i t becomes necessary.' O u r joint campaign was a tremendous success. We organized five factories, we instituted collective bargaining machinery where it had never existed before. We secured w o r k and wage conditions w h i c h had been strongly opposed by the employers in the beginning. Lister's jubilation over such successes was completely without self-satisfaction. W h a t is the point of this story? That it is possible for C o m m u n i s m and Christianity to w o r k together? N o . T h e point comes i n the sequel. I n m y o w n attitude. I went along to a Party branch meeting one day. I announced that the L i s t e r - D a r k e campaign had recruited 3,000 new trade unionists. I reported that there was a m o v e to make Lister honorary chairman of a u n i o n branch, and I think I wanted the Party to support h i m . ' H o w many C o m m u n i s t recruits d i d he get?' I was asked. ' H o w many Daily Workers d i d he sell?' 116

A n d t h e n : ' D o n ' t get the w r o n g idea, comrade. Encourage Lister to boost up u n i o n membership if y o u l i k e , but don't expect us to lift h i m into u n i o n office.' T h e Party decided to capture the chairmanship itself and agreed to oppose Lister w i t h a man whose influence they believed to be just as strong. Myself. I accepted the n o m i n a t i o n (I had no choice, it was a Party order) w i t h some misgivings. B u t Lister seemed so genuinely pleased that I soon lost my feeling of shame. Of course I d i d not defeat h i m ; he w o n the position without m u c h difficulty. That was the signal for the Party to go into action. At that moment my health broke d o w n . T h e union's doctor advised me to give up a l l activity and rest. Rest to an East E n d e r in those days meant financial hardship, and I d i d n ' t escape it. I lay on my back i l l w h i l e the Party's attack on Lister as a 'careerist' and 'capitalist adventurer', as a 'bourgeois dilettante' and 'middle-class reformist', got i n t o full swing. He knew what my Party was d o i n g , but it d i d not alter his feelings for me. W h i l e I lay i l l he called regularly w i t h parcels o f f o o d , w i t h f i n a n c i a l help, w i t h toys. H e offered t o send A n n and o u r daughter to his mother's home in Cheshire for a holiday, and he was genuinely disappointed w h e n she refused. Eventually he was stung by the Party's vicious whispering campaign, by its high-pressure tactics at u n i o n meetings, and he began to strike back. He began to attack the Party on the platform. Of course that made it easy for the Party to b r i n g its attack into the open. T h e y twisted his attacks on the Party i n t o 'attacks on the w o r k i n g class', they held up his w o r d s to prove that he was 'anti-Semitic' and 'Fascist'. T h e y accused h i m of being in truck w i t h the employers. T h e y declared he was ready to sell out the u n i o n . T h e y kept up the sustained attack for so l o n g that the p o i s o n began to work. W h a t was I d o i n g ? I was keeping my m o u t h shut because I was under Party discipline. I sat t h r o u g h meeting after meeting w h i l e comrades abused H u g h Lister, and I said n o t h i n g in his defence. He was my friend. He had been a friend to my family. B u t I was tough. I was a B o l s h e v i k . Private emotions came second 117

to Party loyalty in the revolutionary struggle. Or maybe I was a m o r a l c o w a r d ; it seems a saner explanation. Before the climax the Party's slander campaign became more vicious. He's meeting the bosses without the union's permission . . . He's not to be trusted, he's a member of the boss class himself. He'll sell out to them when the pinch comes . . . Look at the way he talks . . . Look at the way he lives . . . You wouldn't say he was one of us, would you? It was successful of course. T h e ordinary rank and file unionist, bewildered by a confusion of loyalties, began to stay away f r o m u n i o n meetings. Lister's strength weakened, the Party's grew. He k n e w what was happening. He wrote to me one day. He d i d not attack me for what my Party was d o i n g . He merely expressed his anxiety for our friendship and hoped that we w o u l d keep it alive whatever happened. I never replied to his letter. Y e t I ' m glad that one of my family was loyal to H u g h Lister. My brother J o h n , staunch trade unionist and indifferent C o m m u n i s t even before he threw up his membership in disgust, became a firm friend of L i s t e r , and the friendship lasted u n t i l their deaths. Cancer t o o k J o h n a few years ago. Lister died as an officer early in the war, fighting the Fascism he had hated and opposed l o n g before anti-Fascism became fashionable a m o n g his class. In the meeting r o o m of the 1/149 Transport and General W o r k e r s ' U n i o n , H a c k n e y B r a n c h , hang t w o large portraits. O n e is of the Reverend H u g h Lister, the other is of J o h n Darke. I go to l o o k at them n o w and then. It's a penance in a way.

118

CHAPTER

SEVEN

Such a Party, using every avenue of expression, could make an exceptionally valuable parliamentary platform for arousing the great masses of workers to energetic struggle against the capitalist enemy... W I L L I A M G A L L A C H E R , Revolt on the Clyde.

No one c o u l d have been more pleased w i t h the decision to h o l d a General E l e c t i o n in 1945 than the B r i t i s h C o m m u n i s t Party. It felt confident that its prestige and that of Russia was h i g h . It believed that the widespread sympathy and admiration for the Soviet U n i o n w o u l d be responsible for the return at least of a third of the candidates w h i c h the Party proposed to send to the hustings. T h e thought of h a v i n g a Party fraction at Westminster was attractive to a l l of us. W i l l i e Gallacher had amply d e m o n strated the tactical and propaganda value of h a v i n g a voice in the H o u s e and, despite its avowed revolutionary nature, the Party had a paradoxical yearning for the political respectability w h i c h Westminster w o u l d b r i n g . It was also bitterly envious of Continental Parties, particularly the F r e n c h , w h o have been able to pack their legislative chambers w i t h C o m m u n i s t s . It k n e w that its failure to put more than one man into Parliament was a matter of contemptuous amusement a m o n g other E u r o pean Communists and merely convinced them that the B r i t i s h C o m m u n i s t Party was ineffectual and weak. W h e n the N a t i o n a l Executive finally published the Party list of candidates it aroused considerable jealousy and bitterness. M a n y local leaders w h o had been nursing their o w n areas for years naturally expected to be chosen, but they were r o u g h l y disillusioned. Where some were chosen it was in constituencies where even the L a b o u r candidate had not the ghost of a chance. In those constituencies where the chances seemed g o o d , such as H a c k n e y , the E x e c u t i v e sent d o w n the b i g guns of the Party — the H a r r y Pollitts, B i l l Rusts, W i l l i e Gallachers, and P h i l Piratins. I ' l l not deny that I had my o w n hopes of standing for the 119

Party in a parliamentary fight, but I was given no chance of d w e l l i n g on the ambition. I got my orders early, and they were brief. I was t o l d to act as Parliamentary A g e n t in H a c k n e y for B i l l Rust, E d i t o r of the Daily Worker, darling figure of the Party and one of the few top Party leaders for w h o m I had some affection. I liked B i l l Rust, and I've said before in this b o o k that I believe the Party k i l l e d h i m w i t h o v e r w o r k . H e played the C o m munist leader role, of course. In the open he was stern, austere, relentless. B u t d u r i n g that electoral fight in H a c k n e y he w o u l d sometimes come home w i t h me late at night and w o u l d sit and chat over a cup of tea, chat not about the Party, M a r x i s m , the class struggle, but about homely simple things that can w a r m a man's heart. I considered myself highly h o n o u r e d to be chosen as his agent. N o t only was he a revered figure in the Party but my b l o o d quickened at the thought of a national fight. In it I seemed to see the future crystallizing. Parliamentary elections had always fascinated me, and n o w I was g o i n g to see one f r o m the inside. I was to get the shock of my life. To begin w i t h , I abandoned the job I held and took the Party's starvation wage as an agent. I was t o l d to buy a b o o k f r o m a Party bookshop w h i c h w o u l d outline my duties and responsibilities under law. I f o u n d it h i g h l y enthralling, and it led me to study electoral l a w and procedure still further. I began to admire the scrupulous fairness of the l a w so far as it went. I studied finance and organization. I went back over history and examined tactics and propaganda. I considered myself already w e l l equipped w h e n I was summoned to a meeting of all C o m m u n i s t parliamentary agents. There we sat, and maybe all the rest were as keen and naive as I. T h e meeting was conducted by Peter K e r r i g a n and P h i l P i r a t i n . K e r r i g a n harangued us and glowered at us of course, but we expected that. T h e n P i r a t i n stood up w i t h his s m o o t h , bland face. In the nearest to a sergeant-major's b e l l o w that his t h i n voice c o u l d manage he t o l d us h o w this parliamentary fight was g o i n g to be r u n . ' A t the end of it all y o u are g o i n g to hate me. Y o u ' r e g o i n g 120

to hate the sight and sound of me before I ' m t h r o u g h w i t h y o u . There's g o i n g to be no let-up, no peace, no sleep, no night and no day for y o u . I ' m g o i n g to w o r k y o u u n t i l y o u d r o p . Remember, comrades, we aren't fighting a bourgeois election, we are fighting capitalism. On this election depends the future of the revolutionary struggle in B r i t a i n . ' W i t h that handsome start the meeting went on to cover g r o u n d that approximated to n o t h i n g I had read so trustingly in my little b o o k . I began to feel that perhaps I had made a mistake and bought the w r o n g one. F r o m what we were t o l d then I came to these conclusions: ' W e may get some candidates i n , we may not. In either case w i n n i n g the election comes second to w i n n i n g new recruits, new readers for the Daily Worker. E a c h candidate's fight is expected to b r i n g in so many new Daily Worker readers in the constituency. In Hackney the Party expects 10,000 new readers as a result of B i l l Rust's campaign. ' T h i s election, comrades, is a made-to-measure means of getting our propaganda i n t o thousands of new homes. F o r the first time we can send Party propaganda t h r o u g h the open post to thousands of servicemen throughout the w o r l d . M a k e certain of the servicemen on y o u r electoral rolls, make certain y o u r campaign literature goes out to them wherever they are. T h e soldiers, sailors, and airmen in the ranks are g o i n g to vote Left in this election, anyway. G i v e them help and they'll vote C o m m u n i s t wherever they can. 'Remember, if we can w i n the seats, g o o d . B u t the Party w i l l take no excuses for not w i n n i n g C o m m u n i s t s . ' N o , this wasn't what I had read in the b o o k , so I put it away and d i d not study it again. It w o u l d only have depressed me, anyway. I went back to organize the campaign. U n d e r law electioneering was limited to three weeks before p o l l i n g , but such is the n o r m a l propaganda machine of the Party that we had a nine-weeks' start on the Tories and Socialists. A l l we had to do was step up the customary tempo. A n d h o w we stepped it u p ! E v e r y Party member in H a c k n e y was geared to the campaign. Comrades f r o m districts where no C o m m u n i s t candidate was standing were drafted in to help. L o n d o n D i s t r i c t 121

sent d o w n observers to watch me, to see whether I carried out instructions to the letter, and to submit regular reports to D i s t r i c t o n m y progress. We set up the usual E l e c t i o n Committee required under law, but ours was not a committee, it was a mass meeting. It met twice a week to begin w i t h in our Central Committee R o o m , where the walls were draped w i t h red b u n t i n g , h u n g w i t h p o r traits of M a r x , Stalin, L e n i n and — o h , of course — our candidate, B i l l Rust. T h e committee was drawn f r o m Communists active in all organizations throughout the b o r o u g h — unions, trades councils, housewives' groups, hospitals, local government, and p u b l i c utilities. T h i s was not just so that the comrades c o u l d say afterwards that they had had a hand in p u t t i n g B i l l Rust i n t o Westminster. T h e y were there to receive instructions, to be t o l d h o w to gear their organizations in the fight. E v e r y u n i o n in the b o r o u g h that was safely under Party c o n t r o l was ordered to t u r n over as m u c h equipment to me as it c o u l d , desks, tables, chairs, typewriters, duplicators. M a n y Party-controlled unions passed a 'no business' resolution for the election p e r i o d , and that made it a l l the easier for us to make use of their office equipment. O u r committee rooms were f u l l of it, and I never knew, once the fight was over, whether the same furniture and the typewriters went back to the same places they came f r o m . Certainly they were my unwelcome responsibility for as l o n g as the campaign was o n . W i t h another comrade I spent most nights on guard in the committee r o o m . I remember late one evening we were visited by a Party sympathizer and his wife. He was a disinfectant manufacturer, w e l l k n o w n in L o n d o n , although not for the fact that he made handsome donations to Party funds. He came in and stood in the doorway and smiled at us. He had got the election fever too. He gestured t o w a r d us and said to his wife: 'There, take a l o o k at these comrades. T h e y ' r e the fellows w h o are g o i n g to r u n this country some day.' He went away then, feeling content, no doubt, that he had done his bit for us. 122

My career as a Parliamentary A g e n t w i t h i n the law lasted not more than a few days. T h e n another comrade came d o w n from the Party's L o n d o n D i s t r i c t and t o l d me that I was to take my orders from h i m . I was still to be k n o w n as the A g e n t , of course, but the Party was g o i n g to r u n this fight f r o m top level. T h e Central Committee of the Party sent me a message, telling me politely enough that there was no suggestion that I was ill-equipped for the job but it was c o n sidered that L o n d o n D i s t r i c t w o u l d be able to handle it more efficiently. F r o m then on I had no c o n t r o l over the campaign. I t o o k orders, and I carried out those orders w i t h o u t considering the financial consideration i n v o l v e d : a Parliamentary agent's biggest nightmare. ' W e ' l l w o r k it all out w h e n the election's over,' I was t o l d . 'Spend what y o u can and our lawyers w i l l overcome the difficulties.' I have never k n o w n so many Party-line lawyers to appear as d i d d u r i n g that election. E v e r y C o m m u n i s t candidate had t w o or three at his elbow. N o r have I ever k n o w n so m u c h money to be squandered, so m u c h election literature to be scrapped because the L o n d o n D i s t r i c t changed its m i n d after it was printed. A l t h o u g h the electorate of the constituency was about 28,000, over 100,000 leaflets came d o w n from D i s t r i c t one day for distribution in H a c k n e y . T h e y littered the streets for a week. G e t t i n g r i d of the literature became a sports event, as c o m i c as an egg and spoon race. E v e r y time we had a c o m mittee meeting — and we had them three times a week t o w a r d the end — credit went to the comrade w h o c o u l d convince us that he had got r i d of the most leaflets, and recruited the most new members. T h e Daily Worker, of course, made a great deal of Rust's fight. It announced that he was taking up scores of hardship cases of housing and sickness, and s o l v i n g them even w h i l e he was carrying out his n o r m a l electioneering programme. M a y b e he was, but I o n l y k n o w that I turned away scores of such people from the committee r o o m when they came in 123

response to the Worker's i n v i t a t i o n : ' T a k e your problems to B i l l Rust!' We stunted the whole campaign as m u c h as we c o u l d . Just by the central committee r o o m stood an extremely h i g h railway arch. T h e L o n d o n D i s t r i c t representative t o o k one l o o k at it and gave me the order. I t o l d t w o comrades to c l i m b the arch after m i d n i g h t and paint B i l l Rust's name across it in red. T h e y d i d so. T h e railway authorities tried to clean it off, but it was lead paint and it resisted their efforts, so they defaced it. T h e next night I t o l d the lads to go up and paint it again. 'Suppose the police catch u s ? ' ' D o i t , ' I said, 'and w o r r y about the police afterwards.' We covered H a c k n e y w i t h posters, red b u n t i n g , red slogans, red hammers and sickles. S t i l l L o n d o n D i s t r i c t demanded more, sending d o w n frantic orders for a hammer and sickle on this w a l l , a slogan on that. H a d y o u seen H a c k n e y in those days y o u w o u l d not have realized that t w o other m e n were fighting the election as w e l l . W i t h o u t a doubt the Party spent more on the fight than either the Tories or Socialists in Hackney. I felt in my bones that a l l the people of H a c k n e y were getting out of this was a belly-laugh. B u t I was not f o o l enough to tell L o n d o n D i s t r i c t this. I passed their orders d o w n the line. We were w o r k e d to a standstill. F i g h t i n g his o w n c o n stituency P i r a t i n still had time to crack the w h i p over us. In my committee rooms comrades dropped f r o m fatigue almost h o u r l y . O u r loudspeaker vans were out seven days a week. W h i l e the other t w o parties observed a Sunday truce, we gaily ignored it. W h a t do y o u want to do w i t h y o u r Sunday anyway, comrade? Go to church? As the days went on our campaign propaganda turned away from home affairs and began to concentrate on Russia and the R e d A r m y . An exercise of Marxist reasoning at the Party's headquarters had brought it to the conclusion that this election c o u l d be w o n on the one w o r d Russia. We distributed thousands of copies of speeches by Stalin and 124

M o l o t o v , brochures about the R e d A r m y . W e played R e d A r m y songs over our loudspeakers before speeches. Y o u c o u l d not have blamed anyone in H a c k n e y for t h i n k i n g they were b e i n g asked to vote for a candidate for the Supreme Soviet. Part of this emphasis on Russia was to b r i n g in B i l l Rust's Russian wife Tamara. We presented her as a sort of Russian talisman. She toured the b o r o u g h , telling H a c k n e y of the wonders and pleasures of woman's lot in the Soviet U n i o n . B u t I wonder what effect she really had on the w o m e n in the b o r o u g h . I w o n d e r if many of them had the same reaction as my wife w h o once c o m plained to me bitterly: ' W h a t right has she to come d o w n here and tell B r i t i s h housewives what to d o , h o w to live and what to t h i n k ? D o e s she t h i n k we haven't got minds of our o w n ? ' T h e w h o l e of our canvassing tactics were down-to-earth. T h e day starts early in H a c k n e y for the average m a n and w o m a n , and Party canvassers were k n o c k i n g at doors almost before the residents got one foot out of bed. T h e canvassing went on u n t i l late at night. W i t h o u t a doubt the Party k n o c k e d at every d o o r and spoke to every voter in the borough. We already had most of the blocks of c o u n c i l flats pretty w e l l organized in wartime shelter committees, welfare c o m mittees and so o n , and these Party-sponsored organizations n o w began to pay dividends. Party housewives were ordered to organize heart-to-heart kitchen meetings of their neighbours. I dropped in casually to over 200 of these tea-cup meetings, sometimes alone, sometimes w i t h B i l l Rust or his wife. W h i l e we balanced a cup of tea on our knees we talked disarmingly of Russia, capitalism, war and the danger of A m e r i c a n imperialism. A m e r i c a n soldiers were still d y i n g in the Pacific at that time as our allies, but the Party as early as 1945 was feeling the pulse of anti-American feeling in E n g l a n d . Hackney's trade unions were m i l k e d of funds wherever possible. Before some of them shut up business for the elect i o n Party treasurers on their committees readily approved 125

Party-line resolutions suggesting donations to ' B i l l Rust's campaign for the workers'. O u r professional members were not allowed to escape the hard graft either. A l l doctors and nurses w h o held Party cards were instructed to hand over to my committee a list of their colleagues w h o were believed to be sympathetic, or w h o w o u l d at least read a leaflet before b u r n i n g it. Schoolteachers were t o l d to do the same. T h e l a w prohibits electioneering inside a hospital, but Party members among nurses and domestic staffs of Hackney's hospitals were g i v e n bundles of leaflets to leave about the wards, in b o o k s , behind doors, in washrooms and lavatories. A special leaflet was d r a w n up for distribution in p r o fessional circles. It went something l i k e t h i s : 'Dear fellowteacher (or nurse, or doctor), You will of course want to know why a member of your profession is supporting the Communist candidate for this constituency...' It was signed 'A Communist Doctor' or 'A Communist Teacher.' In the factories Party factions held shop-gate meetings, distributed leaflets, pinned posters on notice-boards declaring, under a hammer and sickle, or a U n i o n Jack entwined w i t h the R e d F l a g ' F e l l o w - w o r k e r , V o t e for Peace!' E v e r y campaign w h i c h the Party had conducted d u r i n g the past ten years was scrutinized. Lists of names l o n g since forgotten were resurrected, names of people on housing lists, names o f T B patients w h o had appealed t o the Party for help, all were heavily canvassed. I was g i v e n the job of v i s i t i n g a number o f T B patients w h o m I had helped and getting them to attest to their willingness to vote for R u s t , for C o m m u n i s m , for Peace. On the eve of the p o l l we held a m a m m o t h meeting w i t h prairie-fire demonstrations all over the b o r o u g h . We toured H a c k n e y behind a great banner that shouted 'Russia Stands for Peace! F o r Security! F o r Progress!' A n d the next m o r n i n g the g o o d people o f H a c k n e y went to the polls and put B i l l Rust at the b o t t o m . W h e n it was all over I was in a flat spin. L o n d o n D i s t r i c t suddenly remembered that I was the Parliamentary A g e n t , 126

and that the responsibility was all mine. T h e comrades w h o had come i n t o the b o r o u g h went back. T h e boss f r o m L o n d o n D i s t r i c t went back. A n d B i l l Rust, 'the standard-bearer o f C o m m u n i s m in H a c k n e y ' went back t o o , to edit the paper w h i c h had given h i m that title. A n d they left me alone in the committee r o o m . W i t h the bill. At a conservative estimate, w i t h n o t h i n g but my m e m o r y to rely u p o n , I should say that B i l l Rust's fight in 1945 cost the Party something l i k e £1,000. U n d e r law our election expenses should not have exceeded £ 4 8 0 . T w o Party lawyers came d o w n to help me sort out the paradox and w h e n they were finished it all l o o k e d right and proper on paper. B u t as far as the H a c k n e y C o m m u n i s t Party was concerned we faced a deficit and hundreds of hardship cases in h o u s i n g and sickness w h o had been i n v i t e d to put themselves in B i l l Rust's hands, and I was left carrying the baby. O n c e the election was over the Daily Worker announced that the Party had set up a F i g h t i n g F u n d to pay for the fight. T h e y got their c o n t r i b u t i o n , but the money never seemed to trickle through t o H a c k n e y . W e were t o l d t o pay our o w n debts. A n d pay them w e d i d , somehow. We hounded our well-to-do sympathizers, extorting m o n e y f r o m them by threats, jeers and promises. People like o u r disinfectant manufacturer must have regretted his o v e r confident satisfaction w i t h the thought that men l i k e me were to inherit the earth. T h e Party held a post-mortem on the election. It was, in the jargon of the Party, a 'bashing'. Candidates and their agents assembled to hear the worst. T h e worst was really bad. We had put up one h u n d r e d candidates and seen ninety-eight go d o w n . 'People are ungrateful for Russia's war effort.' ' T h e y still remember 1940, of course.' ' T h e y can't, the B r i t i s h public's memory is t o o short.' We were called to order sharply by the chairman. ' C o m rades! W h a t is a parliamentary election? If y o u have mastered y o u r M a r x i s m y o u w i l l k n o w that C o m m u n i s m cannot h o p e to gain power by methods w h i c h were expressly designed to 127

protect a bourgeois society. O u r role is one of constant agitation, constant propaganda, of b u i l d i n g a party of a l l classes of workers, of scientists, doctors, writers, and artists. We are an octopus w i t h tentacles that must close about the machinery of the state.' L i s t e n i n g to further arguments that the p o w e r of capitalist propaganda had been too m u c h for us to fight, I c o u l d n o t help t h i n k i n g of the C o m m u n i s t tornado that had b l o w n t h r o u g h Hackney. There had never been electioneering p r o paganda l i k e it. A n d had not the L a b o u r movement t r i u m p h e d in the elections despite powerful r i g h t - w i n g propaganda? T h e n came the bashing. We had not done enough. We had not exploited to the f u l l the Party's influence. We had n o t recruited enough new members. We had not f o u n d enough new readers for the Worker (what happened to the 10,000 R u s t was to b r i n g in H a c k n e y I never knew). We had failed to drive the Party's p o l i c y home to the people. It was obvious that we had failed. H a d we succeeded every Party candidate w o u l d have been elected. T h e logic of that argument seemed inescapable. B u t many of the comrades w h o , l i k e me, had been chosen to be Parliamentary Agents were bewildered and confused. T h e y k n e w , as I k n e w , that the Party had overreached itself in the emphasis it had placed on Russia. T h a t the electoral law may have been b r o k e n by the Party here and there was unimportant, it had committed a greater crime. It had failed to understand the psychology of the ordinary British working-man. Some of the comrades w h o thought this way wanted to place their criticism on record before the Party's Central Committee. T h e y got a very short answer and it closed their m o u t h s : ' T h e Central Committee of the C o m m u n i s t Party of Great B r i t a i n K N O W S B E S T ! ' After the shouting and the w a i l i n g and the lamentations died d o w n the Party produced the jam about the p i l l . ' Y o u r Russian comrades w o u l d be p r o u d of y o u . Y o u have taken masses of propaganda to the people. T h e Communist Party of Great B r i t a i n has, t h r o u g h this election fight, become the mass party of the people.' 128

H a d i t ? I d o n ' t k n o w . O u r membership i n H a c k n e y s h o w e d no sharp leap upwards, and I heard later that recruitment suffered badly as a result of our circus tactics. Certainly the 1945 General E l e c t i o n forced the N a t i o n a l E x e c u t i v e to d o some hard t h i n k i n g . It was finally decided that the C o m m u n i s t electoral campaign had foundered because of the Party's failure to s w i n g the workers in the factories. T h i s failure showed the need for tighter organization of factory groups, for the w h o l e emphasis to be placed on the shop stewards' movement, on capturing the unions, on s w i n g i n g the Party's p o l i c y on the firm h u b of the industrial front. It was a wise decision, considered in its context alone. In the years that followed the Party grew stronger and stronger in the unions and the factories. Rust d i d not give up hope of representing H a c k n e y after his first resounding defeat. To h i m and other Party leaders the b o r o u g h was a red belt about the waist of the East E n d , a choice prize. He stood again in the H a c k n e y local elections and lost. It nettled his pride, I think, and there was never again any talk of his c o m i n g d o w n to Hackney as the standardbearer of C o m m u n i s m .

C.T.B.

129

E

CHAPTER EIGHT It is our policy to achieve, as between workers who are members of the Party and workers who are not, an atmosphere of 'mutual control'. . . S T A L I N , Leninism. W H E N the Party t o l d me that I should stand as a C o m m u n i s t candidate for election to the H a c k n e y B o r o u g h C o u n c i l I was pleased. Party loyalties apart it was my long-cherished a m b i t i o n to represent my b o r o u g h on its council. I believed that the Party needed an authoritative voice in l o c a l affairs. I also understood the necessity of the local Party branch getting advance knowledge of the local authority's plans. T i m e and time again the C o m m u n i s t Party is able to jump the g u n in local affairs because its councillors have already briefed them on c o m i n g events. T h e fight we were able to put up against rent increases and the enormous value of that fight to the Party in a propaganda sense all stemmed from the fact that I and another Hackney C o m m u n i s t c o u n c i l l o r k n e w what was c o m i n g . I first stood in a local by-election when the Party's credit was very l o w indeed, and none of us expected a victory. B u t it was a trial run and the results were interesting. I p o l l e d 400 votes against the victor's 781. T h e B o r o u g h Secretariat added up the figures, w o r k e d out its analysis and decided that it was w o r t h while nursing Comrade D a r k e . N e x t time we w o u l d make it. U n t i l next time, however, I h a d to l i v e . L o o k i n g back on those days I wonder where my strength came f r o m . My obligations were enormous. I was a member of the Hackney Trades C o u n c i l and the paper w o r k involved there was tremendous. F o r every meeting of the C o u n c i l I had to attend one of the Party fraction to decide our course of action. I was also a member of the Party's local H o u s i n g Committee which meant that homeless men and w o m e n were on my doorstep day and night. I c o u l d not neglect them. B e y o n d my natural w i s h to find 130

them homes if I c o u l d , I was expected to recruit as many of them as possible into the Party, and y o u d o n ' t recruit a C o m m u n i s t just by saying ' S i g n here'. I say I had to live. I got a job w i t h the B o r o u g h C o u n c i l , but I had not held that l o n g before another C o u n c i l seat fell vacant and I had to t h r o w up my local government job to contest it. We lost that fight too, and I was bitterly disapp o i n t e d , but I half-believed the Party when it hailed the fight as 'a great C o m m u n i s t victory'. I found out later why they thought it was; they had recruited more members and more Worker readers than they had expected. ' W e ' r e h o l d i n g our o w n , ' said the B o r o u g h Secretary to me jubilantly. ' N e x t time w e ' l l get y o u into the chamber.' B u t once more u n t i l next time I had to live. I c o u l d not go back and w o r k for the c o u n c i l because I w o u l d have to t h r o w up the job once the elections came up. Eventually I found w o r k as a bus conductor, a choice w h i c h the Party c o n sidered eminently suitable. C o m m u n i s m is strong in the East E n d busmen's u n i o n . F i v e Party members sat on its E x e c u tive at that time, and we dominated the Central Bus C o m mittee. W i t h i n a week of t a k i n g out my u n i o n cards I received the inevitable Party summons to attend the Busmen's C o m munist A d v i s o r y Committee, the co-ordinating centre of all Party w o r k in the public transport w o r l d . T h e meetings were held in the G a r i b a l d i Restaurant in Grays I n n R o a d . In procedure and purpose these meetings differed in no great way from those I had attended in the Firemen's U n i o n d u r i n g the war. We discussed u n i o n policy and tactics w i t h our toes neatly on the Party line. We analysed union elections, and since we more or less controlled the whole t h i n g , we decided w h o should and w h o should not run u n i o n affairs. We were in close touch w i t h the Party's N a t i o n a l Transport A d v i s o r y C o u n c i l w h i c h I later joined. T h e comrade w h o came to give us direction and advice from the Party headquarters was a farmer. H i s knowledge of transport c o u l d not have extended further than a F o r d s o n tractor, but he was the voice of the Central Committee and we listened to h i m dutifully. 131

E. 2

I was thus up to my neck in u n i o n and Party business. T h e B o r o u g h Secretary, soft-footing from comrade to comrade, became my nightmare. I c o u l d expect his k n o c k at my d o o r at any time. Since I was Secretary to the Hackney Trades C o u n c i l the Party was using every moment I had. A Trades C o u n c i l such as Hackney's, w i t h its affiliated membership of 10,000, is a useful m e d i u m for Party activity w h e n it is C o m m u n i s t - c o n t r o l l e d . It can be persuaded to h o l d meetings, to pass Party resolutions, to accept Party-inspired appeals, and to make protests under the cloak of impartiality and ' i n the name of thousands of affiliated trade unionists'. B u t the h i r i n g of halls for Trades C o u n c i l demonstrations costs money and the purse of the C o u n c i l was never b o t t o m less. It often w o r r i e d me, but w h e n I pointed out that C o m munist activity was r u n n i n g the C o u n c i l into bigger debts than it c o u l d afford I was t o l d , 'So w h a t ? It isn't y o u r money and it isn't the Party's. T h i s is a political matter. If y o u get the members of the C o u n c i l to raise the money s o m e h o w , they'll believe in what they're fighting for.' A Party-dominated Trades C o u n c i l l i k e Hackney's is a ready arena for any Party performance that can be devised. Party-line resolutions under the name of the Trades C o u n c i l can expect publication in the trade and local press. I have sat in my l i v i n g - r o o m often enough at night w i t h other members of the Secretariat preparing 'emergency resolutions' w h i c h w o u l d be hustled through at the C o u n c i l meeting next day. T h e Daily Worker w o u l d always be informed that these Party-line resolutions were to be raised and passed, and it always kept a few column-inches open for them. Y e t despite this d o n k e y - w o r k for the Party it was still possible for me to do a lot of w o r k on the C o u n c i l that I really enjoyed. E v e n though the C o m m u n i s t Party has to-day taken over many Trades Councils and is r u n n i n g them like branch offices, the need for their existence w i t h i n the framework of the trade u n i o n movement is strong, and there is m u c h g o o d they can do. W h e n the new B o r o u g h Elections came into v i e w the Party determined to make them a test of its p o w e r and influence. C o m p a r e d to the three-ring circus we offered for Hackney's 132

entertainment d u r i n g the 1945 General E l e c t i o n the Party's behaviour d u r i n g these local elections was m i l d , but the same principles and tactics held g o o d . It was 1946. T h e temperature of the cold war had yet to reach freezing point. There was still a back-log of sympathy for Russia and the C o m m u n i s t Party, and we were determined to capitalize it. T h e Party put up the greatest number of candidates in its history. Its literary output was certainly the highest on record, flowing in a great red tide under the front doors of Hackney's homes: 'Russia is off the ration . . . Soviet p r o d u c t i o n for peace is g o i n g u p . . . Prosperity i n the new people's democracies . . . R e d A r m y demobilization greater than the Western P o w e r s ' . . . Messages from Your Fellow Trade Unionists w h o have just visited eastern E u r o p e . . . C o m m u n i s m brings prosperity and equality t o R u m a n i a . . . 'Britain's homeless on the increase ... R a t i o n i n g increases i n B r i t a i n . . . T h e L a b o u r Party betrays the people . . . Fascism is active again . . . T h e C o m m u n i s t Party offers the only alternative t o exploitation and war . . . ' T h e most significant feature of this propaganda was the Party's recognition of the fact that a resurgence of Fascism was honestly feared in the East E n d . Party propaganda in the J e w i s h quarters at the time I stood for election reached the highest peak since pre-war days. I myself led a Party-organized deputation of housewives to the M a y o r of Hackney's office to place on record a protest against the return of M o s l e y ' s men. We organized the first post-war anti-Fascist demonstration. There were banners, w a l l slogans, fights w i t h Fascists, b r o k e n heads, arrests and the inevitable defence funds. Wherever possible we challenged police restrictions, using the resulting disturbances to strengthen our arguments that R i g h t - w i n g L a b o u r w o u l d do n o t h i n g to stop Fascism. There was a h o l l o w nostalgic echo of the days before the war. A l l other political parties were indifferent to the rise of Mosley's new party. T h e y were perhaps correct in assessing it at no m o r e than its nuisance value. B u t they were fools not to realize that, whatever its strength and potential influence, 133

fighting it was to become of great propaganda value to the C o m m u n i s t Party in the East E n d . W h e n H a c k n e y went to the polls in the local elections the stewards chosen to represent the Party at the p o l l i n g booths were Jews wherever possible. T h e y ignored the rule against electioneering w i t h i n range of the polls and whispered d i s creetly every time a J e w turned up to v o t e : ' D o n ' t forget, vote for the only anti-Fascist Party.' T h e Party faced the count w i t h confidence. It was an i l l founded confidence, for C o m m u n i s m hit the b o t t o m of the polls so hard throughout the country that the resulting vibrations must have shuddered the comfortable chairs of the N a t i o n a l Executive i n K i n g Street. W h e n the trembling stopped sufficiently for the Party to lick its wounds it had one cause for satisfaction. C o m m u n i s m had triumphed i n Hackney. B o b D a r k e was i n . T h e significance of the Party's anti-Fascist stand was not forgotten. It was argued that our victory was largely due to this, and anti-Fascist demonstrations in the East E n d were carried on u n t i l they were dropped in favour of anti-American propaganda. F o r a moment I c o u l d consider where I stood. I was n o w a B o r o u g h C o u n c i l l o r . I was also a member of the busmen's u n i o n , of my branch's C o m m u n i s t fraction, of the Busmen's C o m m u n i s t G r o u p , o f the C o m m u n i s t N a t i o n a l A d v i s o r y Committee on Transport. I was Secretary of the H a c k n e y Trades C o u n c i l and a member of the Party fraction w i t h i n that c o u n c i l , and I was a token member of half a dozen A n g l o - I r o n Curtain Friendship societies. There are only seven days a week, and w h e n I had finished w i t h them there was little time left to consider the fact that I was also a husband and a father. As if all these commitments were not enough, a Party rigged vote also hoisted me on to the Executive Committee of the L o n d o n Trades C o u n c i l as a representative of a l l the East L o n d o n Trades Councils. T h i s body, c l a i m i n g to represent the interests of some 6oo,o0o L o n d o n workers, had a C o m m u n i s t Secretary in c o n t r o l of its Party-dominated office staff. It also had an Executive w h i c h was under a Party majority. 134

T h e L o n d o n Trades C o u n c i l ' s activities get considerable play in the Press, and the Party recognizes it as one of its most effective propaganda mediums. Whenever the Party wishes to put its policy and case before a public body, such as the Fares T r i b u n a l , for example, and is unable to do it openly, it can always rely on the L o n d o n Trades C o u n c i l to speak w i t h its Master's voice. T h e L T C also sends fraternal delegations t o I r o n - C u r t a i n countries and organizes mass meetings for them w h e n they come back. Such delegations are always hand-picked by Party members inside the Trades C o u n c i l . If they are not C o m m u n ists, then just the same they can be relied u p o n to come back w i t h the same excited enthusiasm for the state of affairs they were privileged to examine in their seven days' stay in R u m a n i a , or P o l a n d , or Czechoslovakia. On its home g r o u n d the L o n d o n Trades C o u n c i l goes t h r o u g h the motions required by its constitution. It meets regularly at Beaver H a l l and w o r k s t h r o u g h an i m p o s i n g agenda. T u c k e d away a m o n g the h u m d r u m resolutions on trade u n i o n affairs there is always a protest against F r a n c o , against the Greek G o v e r n m e n t , against B r i t i s h and A m e r i c a n forces in K o r e a , against rearmament, and so o n . T h e important thing from the Party's point of v i e w is that these resolutions should get full publicity as being ' i n the name of 600,000 L o n d o n trade unionists'. It is by such resolutions that the Party endeavours to prove that, although its actual membership is microscopic, it can speak in the name of many hundreds of thousands of non-Communists. As a member of the L o n d o n Trades C o u n c i l and as Secretary to the Hackney Trades C o u n c i l I was readily welcomed at u n i o n branch meetings, at welfare and industrial organizations. I was generally invited by such groups on a recommendation made by the Party fractions w i t h i n them. I went along and lent my 'experience and independent o p i n i o n ' to the problems facing them. T h e Party leans heavily on the i n d i v i d u a l prestige gained by its leaders in such ways. In my w o r k on the B o r o u g h C o u n c i l I entered quite a different sphere. Prestige was to mean everything here. On the C o u n c i l there was no Party fraction, no under-cover trickery 135

to s w i n g votes or resolutions. I was there to make the best propaganda use of that one w o r d ' C o u n c i l l o r ' . I was g i v e n instructions to get myself on every C o u n c i l committee w h i c h c o u l d be used as a sounding-board for Party propaganda, particularly the H o u s i n g Committee. T h i s was important, for t h r o u g h my membership the Party was able to get advance information of rent increases or housing schemes and make the best use of the knowledge in agitation. I was t o l d to get my name in the local press as often as possible, either by what I said in the chamber or by using the papers' correspondence columns. I was under constant direction f r o m L o n d o n D i s t r i c t in what I said and h o w I voted in the chamber. Before each C o u n c i l meeting I was given my instructions and t o l d what to say. T w o observers from the local B o r o u g h Committee sat in the p u b l i c gallery to record what I said and submit a report to the L o n d o n D i s t r i c t Organizer. In my w o r k as a B o r o u g h C o u n c i l l o r and a Trades C o u n c i l lor the Party never missed a trick. W h e n the H a c k n e y Trades C o u n c i l presented me w i t h a watch for four years' service the Party saw to it that the celebration dance should not be lacking political line and guidance. T h e cabaret was p r o v i d e d by the C o m m u n i s t - c o n t r o l l e d U n i t y Theatre G r o u p , whose jolly little songs were threaded w i t h Party line barbs. T h e Party made me use that magic w o r d ' C o u n c i l l o r ' wherever it went deepest. A n d it went deepest a m o n g the parents of children attending c o u n c i l schools. I have already pointed out that Party teachers do most of their propaganda w o r k in the Parent-Teachers' Associations, and I was often i n structed to go along and lecture to these groups, telling them the C o u n c i l ' s attitude toward education and then p o i n t i n g out the C o m m u n i s t solution to the problems of education and rearmament. It was always done w i t h disarming frankness. ' I ' m not here under false pretences. Y o u k n o w m e ; I am B o b D a r k e , your Communist C o u n c i l l o r . I ' m not ashamed o f m y Party. I ' m p r o u d o f it. B u t I ' m not taking M o s c o w g o l d for what I have to say to y o u to-night . . . ' I never really resented the Party's instructions to take up the 136

w o r k that came the way of any member of the B o r o u g h Council's H o u s i n g Committee. T h e Party's attitude was clear enough. A n y b o d y w h o was f o u n d a home by a C o m m u n i s t councillor was ripe for recruitment. B u t I d i d the job w i l l i n g l y less for this reason than for the fact that it gave me a deep and lasting satisfaction to find homes for the homeless. Just the same I had to make a return to the Party of all names of people I had helped. E i t h e r I or some other comrade was then put on the scent. Generally it was another comrade, and his tactics were plain and o p e n : ' Y o u k n o w B o b D a r k e , don't y o u ? He got y o u this flat, d i d n ' t he? W e l l , he's a C o m m u n i s t ; don't y o u t h i n k his Party's w o r t h your support . . . ? ' A l l this w o r k took l o n g hours and determined application. It also meant considerable personal expense. O u t of my wages of £6 5s a week I was expected to pay the postage and cost of w r i t i n g hundreds of letters a m o n t h on the Party's instructions. I once asked for a branch r u l i n g on this expense and was abused for being selfish. By the time I resigned there were two C o m m u n i s t c o u n cillors in H a c k n e y , Blaston and myself. A personal letter f r o m H a r r y P o l l i t t made our duty clear. It said n o t h i n g about serving the people of the b o r o u g h , n o t h i n g about w i n n i n g respect for the Party by diligent and self-sacrificing w o r k , by maintaining the highest integrity in l o c a l government work. It frankly stated that o u r duty was to attack rearmament whenever and wherever possible. We were to oppose and hamper C i v i l Defence plans w i t h i n the b o r o u g h , to m o v e reference back of such motions, to hinder the Council's p r o posals for C i v i l Defence as far as was possible. We were expected to be an irritant inside the C o u n c i l Chamber and prestige-winners outside it. T h e Press notices we received give an idea of our tactics: 'Because it was ruled that they c o u l d not m o v e the reference back of an item concerning C i v i l Defence Statistics, Hackney's t w o C o m m u n i s t members walked out of Wednesday's meeting of the B o r o u g h C o u n c i l . C o u n c i l l o r Darke's parting shot was, " I f this is what y o u call democracy, I ' m g o i n g . " ' ' C o u n c i l l o r D a r k e (Comm.) said: " I t has been reported to 137

me recently that council tenants have been given notice to quit. I am very concerned about it and ask the C o u n c i l to explore every avenue before putting these people to this terrifyi n g experience." ' ' C o u n c i l l o r Blaston (Comm.) accused the Conservatives of t r y i n g to force the C o u n c i l to raise rents.' 'A lively scene in Hackney C o u n c i l chamber last week, w h e n he thrice disobeyed the M a y o r ' s r u l i n g , led to the C o m munist C o u n c i l l o r M a u r i c e Blaston being " n a m e d " by the Council.' W h e n y o u remember, as I have pointed out, that what a C o m m u n i s t b o r o u g h councillor says in chamber is never without the approval of his Party, the incidents quoted above lose something of their spontaneous charm. We could always rely on support from the public gallery of the chamber if the debate below promised to be a hot one. W h e n the C o u n c i l debated the rise of Fascism in the East E n d one of the n o n - C o m m u n i s t councillors, a Jew, came under fire from the gallery. A Jewess in the gallery, a member of the Party, screamed at h i m as a provocateur, and another Party member, also a Jew, shouted that he was a 'renegade and a traitor' to his people. Neither of these demonstrations was spontaneous or unplanned. We knew they were to happen before the meeting started. On another occasion when I was speaking in the chamber against the rents increase I c o u l d have told you to the exact second just when a comrade in the public gallery was to leap to his feet and shout: 'Spend less on war expenditure and more on housing!' U n t i l the Hackney Trades C o u n c i l went through a wonderful metamorphosis a year or so back, sloughing off its C o m munist skin by 62—38 votes in favour of a new Trades C o u n c i l w h i c h w o u l d be free of Party d o m i n a t i o n , we made it dance to our o w n tune. W h e n the M i n i s t e r of N a t i o n a l Insurance — reluctantly no doubt — appointed ' C o u n c i l l o r C. H. D a r k e of Hackney as the trade union representative on the N a t i o n a l Insurance A d v i s o r y Committee for the Shoreditch area' he d i d not make the choice of his o w n free w i l l . 138

My nomination had been decided by the Party branch, submitted to the Trades C o u n c i l on a Party inspired m o t i o n , and recommended to the M i n i s t e r when approved. No one, I suppose, w h o has got this far in this b o o k w i l l suspect the Party of h a v i n g either a sense of p r o p o r t i o n or logic. B u t the ease w i t h w h i c h we c o u l d eat o u r o w n words and suffer no indigestion is plain enough in this story. T h e minutes secretary of the Hackney Trades C o u n c i l was once heavily censured for h a v i n g discussed the C o u n c i l ' s business w i t h the local press. T h e paper concerned rapped our knuckles for censuring the man, whereupon I climbed up i n t o the saddle of the h i g h horse supplied me by the Party. I t o l d the newspaper that the C o u n c i l took a serious v i e w of its business becoming the gossip of outsiders. T h i s , although the C o m m u n i s t fraction of the C o u n c i l discussed its agenda, framed its resolutions w i t h the local Party branch l o n g before C o u n c i l meetings! T h e explanation of course was that the minutes secretary was notoriously R i g h t W i n g and the Party wanted to blackguard h i m . D u r i n g the serious h o u s i n g shortage of the mid-forties the Party w o r k e d the most sensational confidence trick in its history — the Squatters' M o v e m e n t . So pathetic were the hardship cases exploited in this deception that for a while even Fleet Street was convinced that it was n o r m a l , a spontaneous demonstration on the part of the homeless. But w h e n the almost military-like precision of the campaign became obvious there should have been no doubt in anybody's m i n d that the Party was at the back of it. T h e Party never openly admitted that it ran the squatting in West E n d blocks of flats, or the rash of small-house squatting that spread across L o n d o n . T h e Daily Worker covered the campaign w i t h the same poker-face inscrutability it wears when Party members paint anti-American slogans on cars in G r o s v e n o r Square or demonstrate against A m e r i c a n bomber stations. If you only read the Daily Worker it always sounds as if the Party has been taken as m u c h by surprise as everybody else. 139

T h e L o n d o n Squatter M o v e m e n t was conducted by T e d Bramley, f r o m the offices of the L o n d o n D i s t r i c t Committee. Bramley actually appeared in person to r u n the taking-over of blocks of flats in K e n s i n g t o n , and members of his staff occupied rooms in one of the blocks to conduct the campaign the more efficiently. In H a c k n e y the Party was instructed to ear-mark vacant houses, to collect homeless families (there were names enough o n m y lists) and move them i n o n the w o r d go. O f course C o u n c i l l o r C. H. D a r k e was on his feet in the C o u n c i l Chamber soon enough to support the people's action and to call for resolute and sympathetic action f r o m the Chamber. Let it be understood that I was angry as anybody else to see these flats vacant at a time w h e n the housing situation was so desperate. A n d for a time I believed the Party had found the right solution to the p r o b l e m , the arbitrary seizing of property. B u t I soon realized that the Party's real attitude was no less cynical than usual. It regarded the various 'Squatters' C o m mittees' we had formed as no more than propaganda vehicles. T h e Party's leaders knew that the authorities w o u l d not allow the situation to develop and w o u l d suppress it forcibly. It knew, in short, that the squatters' campaign w o u l d be defeated. B u t w i n or lose the Party was g o i n g to benefit on t w o scores: 1. It w o u l d get the kudos for m a k i n g the only forthright effort to grapple w i t h the h o u s i n g shortage and the anomalies that existed. 2. It c o u l d use the opposition to the Squatters' M o v e m e n t as p r o o f that the G o v e r n m e n t was refusing to live up to its Socialism. C o n c l u s i o n ? ' O n l y the C o m m u n i s t Party fights for the workers!' A n d that was h o w it w o r k e d out. H e a v e n only knows h o w many wretched pram-pushing families were m o v e d into flats and rooms found for them by o u r eager-beaver comrades, o n l y to be m o v e d out again by the police. T h e siege of the West E n d flats, the blockade r u n n i n g of 140

f o o d and water by C o m m u n i s t flying squads, got full play in the Party press w i t h a full use of epithets l i k e 'fascist technique', ' L a b o u r ' s T o r y tactics'. F o r weeks after the defeat of the Squatters' M o v e m e n t the Party in Hackney was capitalizing on the misery of the debacle. Homeless couples w i t h families, c o m i n g back to the n o w defunct Party Squatters' Committee, were t o l d ' G o and see C o u n c i l l o r B o b D a r k e . H e ' l l raise your case in the C o u n c i l . A n d don't forget, the C o m m u n i s t Party has been the only political party to help y o u . ' T h a n k G o d I was able to get some of them housed in a decent lasting fashion. F o r a while the Party believed that it had raised its prestige as a result of its organization of the squatters. T h e use of similar hit and r u n tactics in other fields, the arbitrary defiance of the law, were being discussed seriously. T h e n came the L o n d o n County C o u n c i l Elections and the Party realized that the public's intelligence was not as m y o p i c as was believed. I was put up to fight for the L C C. I never got a seat, of course, and the Party suffered its biggest defeat on record. T h e campaign had nearly k i l l e d me. There had not been a night w h e n C o u n c i l l o r B o b D a r k e had not been addressing meetings urging people to make h i m County C o u n c i l l o r B o b D a r k e from n o w o n . So intense was that campaign that even I thought the Party had a b i g chance. M a y b e I was d r u n k w i t h m y o w n Party's arrogance. We were at the b o t t o m of the p o l l where we got our usual worm's-eye v i e w of politics, and I attended the post-mortem, expecting a d r u b b i n g . Instead I f o u n d smug and satisfied smiles. ' W e l l , Comrade D a r k e , it turned out better than we thought it w o u l d . W e ' v e made so many new Party members and so many new readers of the Daily Worker. L o n d o n D i s t r i c t is p r o u d o f the w o r k you've put i n . ' ' B u t we lost the election.' ' D o n ' t w o r r y about that. T h e real fight we've got to w i n is in the unions and on the industrial front. T h e rest is all window-dressing. Bourgeois elections are not the Party's 141

main a i m , y o u k n o w , they are merely valuable propaganda.' Later on I discovered it had not been jam all the way and the Party Executive was really bitter. J e w i s h voters in the East E n d had turned their backs on the Party at last. E v e n the whispered exhortations at p o l l i n g - b o o t h doors, the 'Vote for the only anti-Fascist party', had not brought in the one vote the Party always thought it c o u l d count o n : the vote of the Jew.

142

CHAPTER

NINE Peace is indivisible MAXIM

LITVINOV.

T H E war i n K o r e a had not begun. W i t h i n the Party w e k n e w that something was m o v i n g somewhere. T a l k of a C o m munist-inspired revolutionary outbreak in Italy, w h i c h many B r i t i s h Communist leaders believed in as a certainty, died away suddenly as if someone upstairs hammered on the floor. On most top levels in the Party our eyes had been on the Far East l o n g before the military commentators of the popular press. We didn't k n o w h o w it was c o m i n g , but we knew something was c o m i n g . T h e dialectic that brought us to this conclusion was obvious enough. T h e y o u n g C o m m u n i s t Republic of China was triumphant, therefore A m e r i c a n intervention c o u l d be expected daily. To forestall that intervention there w o u l d be an abrupt and u n c o m p r o m i s i n g move. M e a n w h i l e , the call for Peace, w h i c h had been more or less dormant on the Party's cluttered platform, suddenly bounded into life. T h e one w o r d Peace has a magical fascinat i o n for a speaker after he has spoken it more than half a dozen times. It keeps p u l l i n g his voice back to its penetrating monosyllable. It began to appear more and more in Party propaganda. T h e Daily Worker began to print it w i t h a capital P. It was top priority in all propaganda. Quietly at first, N a t i o n a l Fraction meetings of trade unionists in the Party began to discuss a Peace Campaign. At first it might have seemed that the importance of such a campaign sprang naturally from the w o r l d situation. B u t if I thought that for l o n g I was soon disillusioned. L e a d i n g Party trade unionists had already been briefed on their duties in the general scheme of the campaign. T h e y were to slow d o w n p r o d u c t i o n where it directly or indirectly assisted rearmament (and that c o u l d be anywhere). They were also to lend u n i o n support to ' n o n - p o l i t i c a l ' Party peace movements. 143

We were already at w o r k on this w h e n we were summoned to what was, in my experience, the most secret meeting the Party has ever held. I received a short message in the post: Comrade Darke, you will find it to your personal interest to attend at —, at — o'clock. Please come precisely at the stated time, for definite reasons. I knew f r o m experience that the simpler the w h i p the more serious the business on hand. E v e r y comrade attending that meeting went through a t h o r o u g h check at the door. T h e Party card had to be up to date. We had each to sign o u r names in the presence of t w o comrades w h o were familiar w i t h our signatures. No names were mentioned or asked for after this. D u r i n g the discussion w h i c h followed we were instructed by the chairman not to announce our names when we spoke, but to introduce ourselves as 'I am an engineer' or 'I am a miner', and so o n . Sitting on the platform was a stranger to me, and I thought I knew the face of every leading C o m m u n i s t in Britain. He was introduced to us as a leading French C o m m u n i s t trade u n i o n official, a member of the C o m i n f o r m and of the W o r l d Federation o f Trade U n i o n s . He stood u p , an angry, bitter man. He t o l d us that w h i l e the C o m i n f o r m had taken note of the B r i t i s h C o m m u n i s t Party's efforts to inaugurate a Peace Campaign it was far f r o m satisfied w i t h the result. There was a lack of fire, of spirit, o f v o l i t i o n . A r m s were leaving B r i t a i n daily for Malaya. W h a t were we d o i n g to stop them? D i d we k n o w that French dockers had t h r o w n guns and a m m u n i t i o n into the sea rather than have them shipped to I n d o - C h i n a ? W h a t had we t h r o w n into the sea? There had been strikes in B r i t a i n admittedly. B u t where had we organized a strike against w a r ? Where had we had a strike in favour of banning the atom b o m b ? ' F r e n c h workers, and the workers of the peace-loving democracies, are becoming impatient w i t h their British Comrades!' I l o o k e d at the faces about me. T h e y were red and embarrassed. I knew what they were t h i n k i n g . W h a t right had this 144

F r e n c h m a n to teach them h o w to suck eggs? W i t h what authority c o u l d he criticize the tactics and strategy of the B r i t i s h trade u n i o n m o v e m e n t ? T h e answer to the second question was easy enough. He had the right of a man whose party belonged to the C o m i n f o r m t a l k i n g to m e n whose party d i d not. So we sat there and t o o k the lecture. We were Communists first and trade unionists second. W h e n the little m a n had finished the chairman got hurriedly to his feet, asked for questions. T h o s e he got were innocuous and uncritical. T h e n the chairman dismissed us hurriedly. 'Leave the b u i l d i n g one at a time, comrades, a couple of minutes after each other.' T r a v e l l i n g home that night on the top of a L o n d o n bus, l o o k i n g at my city drenched in m o o n l i g h t , I was conscious of perplexing and d i s t u r b i n g doubts. T h r o w arms i n t o the sea! Sabotage factories! Stop the munitions reaching B r i t i s h soldiers! There was something unreal about it. Y e t such is the contagious enthusiasm of a C o m m u n i s t Party branch meeting that once I was back a m o n g it my doubts wilted. ' T h e real call to action has come, comrades,' I reported. ' T h o s e not prepared to carry it out had better get out n o w . U n s w e r v i n g loyalty to the Party is n o w demanded. To the Party and to the r e v o l u t i o n . O u r actions must n o w be decisive. There must be no more arms for Malaya. There must be a stop to the war preparations in the West.' T h e Party gave me the dubious h o n o u r of organizing the first Peace M e e t i n g . It was to be the starting g u n for the nation-wide Peace Campaign. It is not difficult to get people to agree that they want Peace. T h e last war had given Hackney 11,000 homeless and thousands of casualties. W i t h the assistance of the Party and as ' C o u n c i l l o r B o b D a r k e ' , I called a mass p u b l i c meeting in the T o w n H a l l . Its key-note was a resolution calling for peace and friendship w i t h the Soviet U n i o n and a demand that the B r i t i s h G o v e r n m e n t take resolute steps to 'Stop the drift to war'. T h e whole purpose of such meetings and such resolutions 145

was to set the public m o o d , to persuade the people that if war came it was against the wishes of the Soviet U n i o n , to give cover to the Party's strike strategy on the industrial front. At that meeting in the T o w n H a l l I arranged for a Party b u i l d i n g w o r k e r to move the resolution. He moved it, telling us h o w many houses a war can destroy, h o w many houses could be built w i t h the money spent on rearmament. T h e seconder was a Party engineer. He told us h o w engineers throughout the country were l o n g i n g to produce 'machines for peace and not for war'. T h e chairman of the meeting — a C o m m u n i s t of course — had been carefully briefed by me beforehand. I gave h i m the names of men w h o should be permitted to speak from the body of the hall and the names of those w h o should be tactfully ignored if possible. T h e meeting was a resounding success. T h e resolution was passed unanimously and those w h o wanted to move an amendment were lost in the rush. It got full play in the Party press and an honourable mention in others. T h e Communist Peace Campaign was under way w i t h a good following wind. O u t of the great confusion, the fear and the bewilderment of the post-war w o r l d , the Party picked the blackest and most terrifying spectacle of all — the A t o m B o m b . At all peace activities, all meetings, all demonstrations, we were instructed to display large posters declaring ' B a n the Atom Bomb!' That slogan has pupped since then. It n o w has a family: ' B a n the A t o m B o m b ! B a n the N a p a l m B o m b ! B a n G e r m Warfare!' Communists in positions of p o w e r in trades councils and u n i o n offices all received a pamphlet prepared by the A t o m i c Committee of the Association of Scientific W o r k e r s , a Party line group if ever there was one. T h i s pamphlet's subject-material consisted of contributions f r o m scientists, many of them Communists, o u t l i n i n g the effects of atomic warfare: the b l i n d i n g , m a i m i n g and k i l l i n g . T h e conclusion reached by each of these eminent experts fitted neatly i n t o the Party's propaganda: 146

' B A N

IT!'

E v e r y comrade got his propaganda briefing direct f r o m his B o r o u g h Secretariat, from the g r o u p leader of his fraction, or f r o m a none-too-difficult reading of the Daily Worker's editorials. ' T h e w o r l d is drifting into war. Russia is w o r k i n g for peace, but she has the atom b o m b too. Can you imagine what L o n d o n w o u l d look like after the atom b o m b has fallen?' T h e non-Party press helped us unwittingly by publishing large maps s h o w i n g the extent of damage w h i c h w o u l d occur if an atom b o m b fell in the centre of L o n d o n . There was great jubilation in the Party when we discussed the propaganda value of these maps to our Peace Campaign. Of course no-one in his right m i n d could disagree w i t h the superficial justice of the campaign, the urgent desire for peace, the banning of the most terrible weapon man has produced. B u t it d i d not take m u c h intelligence to see that the Party's propaganda was directed one way. A man w h o had listened to the French comrade's violent words, as I had, knew that the Peace Campaign sprang less from a people's spontaneous and natural desire than from the direct decision of the Sovietcontrolled C o m i n f o r m . E v e r y Communist fellow-traveller, every man w h o had once lent the weight of his name to Party propaganda and was still gullible, was dragged into the fight; clergymen, artists, actors — all were n o w canvassed. I sat on several platforms behind the venerable Dean of Canterbury, watching h i m w a l k i n g up and d o w n as he spoke, his l o n g white hands fluttering in the air as if he were d r a w i n g fallen hairs from somebody's coat shoulders. We were instructed to infiltrate innocent peace movements and s w i n g them into line behind us. Trades Councils like my o w n , w h i c h danced on the Party line, were quick off the mark, passing resolutions like clockw o r k . In two weeks we called for a ban on the atom b o m b and the withdrawal of troops from Malaya, the expulsion of A m e r i can bombers from B r i t a i n , and for support for Vishinsky's U n i t e d N a t i o n s ' battle in the cause of peace. Of course it was a gigantic fraud; yet the C o m m u n i s t is human and his hatred of war, apart from Party tactics, is as natural as anyone else's. M o s t of us entered the Party's cam147

paign w i t h a w i l l . W e hated w a r , yet w e k n e w , i f w e had studied history, that C o m m u n i s m has come to p o w e r always i n the aftermath o f a w a r . W e k n e w that C o m m u n i s m w o u l d o n l y come to B r i t a i n after a great defeat. We k n e w that the defeat of B r i t a i n in a war against Russia w o u l d b r i n g the R e d A r m y and C o m m u n i s m . T h e n w h y were we appealing for peace? Y o u answer the question. My o w n feelings were in a state of flux. I was a sick man physically and I was very, very tired. T h o s e doubts that had come to me on that m o o n l i t ride h o m e f r o m the F r e n c h c o m rade's talk were deeper rooted than I had suspected. W h a t I had done for the Party, what I was d o i n g , began to leave a sour taste in my m o u t h . B u t I was being carried f o r w a r d by the impetus of the Party's w o r k and I d i d not k n o w that subconsciously I was l o o k i n g for a m o m e n t w h e n I c o u l d leap off the express. A p a r t f r o m one final peace meeting w h i c h I organized in Stoke N e w i n g t o n H a l l , my efforts were all half-hearted n o w . It was the c u l m i n a t i o n of the H a c k n e y Peace Committee's efforts on behalf of the delegation it had sent to the Paris Peace Congress. I had received instructions to hand-pick this delegat i o n , to make certain that no Party members were on it, but to make doubly certain that the Party c o u l d trust the delegation we d i d send. I went t h r o u g h the non-Party members of the committee and discovered that the feet of most of them were becoming rapidly colder. F i n a l l y we selected a y o u n g mother, a member of the Peace Pledge U n i o n . We sent her off to Paris w i t h money hastily b o r r o w e d from the D a l s t o n busmen. We made plans for her return. We arranged the report-back meeting at Stoke N e w i n g t o n and a lecture tour of every trade u n i o n branch and every housewives' g r o u p in the b o r o u g h . It sounded innocuous enough: ' M r s So-and-so, member of the Peace Pledge U n i o n and Hackney's delegate to the Paris Peace Congress.' She came back w a l k i n g on air, thoroughly impressed by the Congress, deeply moved by the Soviet citizens she had met there, and in a tremendous hurry to put her signature at the 148

b o t t o m of a membership f o r m for the B r i t i s h C o m m u n i s t Party. She was taken f r o m district to district and allowed to talk u n t i l she dropped. T h e H a c k n e y C o m m u n i s t Party took all its irons out of the fire for its Peace C a m p a i g n . As Trades C o u n c i l Secretary I received letter after letter ' f r o m an ordinary trade u n i o n i s t ' appealing to the C o u n c i l to fight for peace. I read the letters out at C o u n c i l meetings of course. Y o u c o u l d always tell w h e n they came from a Party member; they were signed ' Y o u r s fraternally'. I was constantly badgered by Betteridge, the B o r o u g h Secretary of the Party, to admit 'non-party peace deputations' to the B o r o u g h C o u n c i l . W h e n the deputations arrived the non-party leaders always greeted me cheerily w i t h ' H e l l o , comrade!' A n d then the Peace P e t i t i o n was inaugurated and the w h o l e campaign became vintage B a r n u m and Bailey, complete w i t h clowns, w i l d animals, and fearless maidens shot f r o m cannons. Carefully worded to confuse the issue, broad enough in outline to include both the Party line and the T e n C o m m a n d ments, the Petition forms flooded off the press i n t o the h o m e of every C o m m u n i s t . I received a quota of 2,000. As a B o r o u g h C o u n c i l l o r , I was t o l d , my circle should be w i d e , and 2,000 signatures were hardly enough. W h a t of the c y c l i n g club y o u helped? W h a t o f the T B patients? W h a t o f the housing cases? W h a t of y o u r wife's friends? What of the parents of your children's friends? In the early days of the Petition it was easy enough to obtain signatures, but later o n , as the n o n - C o m m u n i s t press began to hit at i t , things became less easy. It was then, I think, that the rank-and-file C o m m u n i s t began to forge signatures. T h e Party claimed 27,000 signatures to the Petition f r o m Hackney alone. I do not believe it. My most generous estimate w o u l d put the genuine number at a third of that figure. Certainly my o w n name was never on the Petition. So hysterical was the campaign that the Party never checked to see whether Communists themselves signed it. No Peace Petition carries the name of B o b D a r k e . If it does it is a forgery. 149

I do not make this charge of forgery l i g h t l y , for I have experienced it on other occasions. T h e Daily Worker once p u b lished the terms of a message to V i s h i n s k y congratulating h i m on his struggle for peace before the U n i t e d N a t i o n s . It was signed, said the Worker, 'by five leading H a c k n e y Trade U n i o n i s t s . ' A m o n g them was my name. I neither saw that message n o r had I signed it. W i t h the slogan ' N o t a g u n , not a man for an Imperialist w a r ! ' Party activity on the industrial front was performing some extraordinary gyrations. A l t h o u g h some of the Party dockers' fraction declared that they c o u l d stop every armament shipment t o - m o r r o w , they never got beyond a series of m i n o r stoppages. B u t these short-range victories satisfied the Party, if only because they embarrassed the L a b o u r G o v e r n ment. L e a d i n g Party unionists were told in a series of tedious messages from the Central Committee that 'every extra ton of coal, every hour of increased productivity, helps the proposed war against the Soviet U n i o n . ' Y e t , despite the memory of a C o m i n f o r m representative's bitter derision, our unionists dared not force a strike on the simple issue of fear of the atom b o m b . Instead they ferreted out m i n o r grievances, blew them up i n t o major problems, and forced flare-up strikes wherever possible. Into cold storage went the Marxist theory (applicable enough behind the I r o n C u r t a i n , we were told) that an i n creased standard of l i v i n g went hand-in-hand w i t h increased p r o d u c t i v i t y . In B r i t a i n increased p r o d u c t i v i t y on all fronts was ' p r o d u c t i v i t y for w a r ! ' T o smash the T U C wages restraint p o l i c y the Party girded the loins of every u n i o n and every trades council it c o u l d comfortably dominate. W h e n the policy was baulked the Party openly took credit and broadcast the victory, a little oddly, as a ' b l o w struck for Peace'. By that time every comrade was so punch-drunk w i t h the w o r d that he w o u l d w i l l i n g l y have called b l o w i n g his nose a trumpet call for Peace. My instructions were repetitive, but every time they came d o w n the line from L o n d o n District the note of urgency was more tense. I was to s w i n g the Trades C o u n c i l behind a resol u t i o n of solidarity for every strike in the b o r o u g h . I appealed 150

to the B o r o u g h Secretariat that this reckless activity was endangering the security of the Trades C o u n c i l itself. ' O n e atom b o m b and y o u w o n ' t have a Trades C o u n c i l at a l l , ' I was told. ' T o hell w i t h the Trades C o u n c i l ' s security! G e t it in line w i t h the Party's Peace Campaign.' ' Y o u raise a Party m o t i o n whenever you're t o l d . W h o put y o u in the C o u n c i l Chamber, a n y h o w ? Y o u ' l l raise the m o t i o n ten times d u r i n g the meeting if y o u have to. W h o do y o u think the war-mongers are?' By this time my health was g i v i n g me serious cause for w o r r y . I was overtaken by bouts of dizziness, by almost u n bearable weariness. D a y and night, however, I was badgered to undertake more activity in the Peace Campaign. My name was being used on a l l sorts of occasions (such as the V i s h i n s k y resolution), w i t h or w i t h o u t my permission, and I was too tired and too dispirited to protest. In any case, perhaps I had l o n g ago accepted the fact that my name, my reputation, and my position in c i v i l and u n i o n affairs were the Party's to do w i t h as it wished. I was told to get together all those men w h o had served in the F i r e Service when the bells went d o w n d u r i n g the war. I was to get them to sign a manifesto, drawn up by the B o r o u g h Secretariat, declaring that on no account w o u l d they give their services again to C i v i l Defence. I was to w i n their signatures purely on the strength of my personality, and w h e n once signed the manifesto was to be published in the Worker. I agreed to do it, or, rather, I accepted the instruction w i t h out comment. But I made no effort at all. T h e pace of the campaign by this time was so great that the matter was forgotten. By this time I was beginning to realize I was refusing Party duties time and time again. It occurred to me in a confused sort of way that there was some subconscious purpose behind my reluctance; it was not merely forgetfulness or weariness. W h e n I was chosen to go as a Hackney delegate to the International Peace Congress in L i v e r p o o l in 1950 it was an unspoken admission by the Party that the Peace Campaign was beginning to miss a stroke here and there. Up to then it had been the policy to push non-Communist dupes to the fore151

front, so that some credence c o u l d be g i v e n to the claim that the campaign was 'non-political and non-party'. I was asked to go to L i v e r p o o l because no n o n - C o m m u n i s t of any weight in Hackney was w i l l i n g to go. So I agreed. T h e choice of L i v e r p o o l for the Congress was not circumstantial. It had been at L i v e r p o o l that the Party had had its face soundly slapped w h e n the L a b o u r Party finally turned d o w n our affiliation overtures. T h e Party wanted to return that slap by organizing a great Merseyside rally w h i c h c o u l d be p r o claimed as a victory over the 'war-mongers in the L a b o u r Party.' As it w o r k e d out, the Congress was never held in L i v e r p o o l , but in Warsaw. I put my foot d o w n about that. I was in no m o o d , physical or mental, for a hole and corner race to P o l a n d . W h o went I do not k n o w , nor d i d I care by then. That Congress, despite the hysterical screaming of the Party press, spluttered like a damp squib anyway. B u t I was t o l d to get the H a c k n e y Trades C o u n c i l to arrange a report-back meeting for the delegates w h o returned f r o m Warsaw. Contributions f r o m the Trades C o u n c i l had helped to finance the trip in the first place, so there was barely enough money left to hire a hall for a spurious 'welcome h o m e ' junket. I put this before the B o r o u g h Secretariat and was ordered to go ahead and arrange the meeting and w o r r y about the money afterwards. I d i d a lot of ' w o r r y i n g about the money afterwards', it seemed to me. It was suggested, without the flicker of a k n o w i n g smile, that I should get J o h n Platts-Mills, barrister, ex-Labour M P and fellow-traveller, to speak at this meeting. T h e meeting was an anti-climax. Was it true that the Communist-inspired Peace Campaign had played itself out in H a c k n e y , or was it only I w h o was finished? I was conscious throughout the whole of that meeting of a flat and dispirited feeling. It seemed to emanate f r o m the b o d y of the hall. M e a n w h i l e K o r e a hit the w o r l d . Party leaders were called together to discuss the situation. We knew, almost w i t h o u t telling each other, that here was something different, here was something that was g o i n g to stick in the w o r l d ' s throat. We c o u l d almost see the boomerang 152

of the Peace C a m p a i g n speeding back towards us a n d we barely had time to duck. B u t duck we d i d . We came out w i t h the bland and confident statement, p r i m e d f r o m far off, that N o r t h K o r e a had been invaded by the South. T h e situation was confused enough in the early days for the Party's propagandists to hand-pick their quotable authorities and p r o v e chapter a n d verse in support of the line. I t went d o w n w i t h most o f the comrades w h o were frightened anyway that they were g o i n g to be asked to argue that N o r t h Korea's invasion was a 'tactical necessity', l i k e Russia's invasion of F i n l a n d . So they happily accepted the Party's assurance that it had happened the other way r o u n d . Unexpectedly the Peace Campaign got a new fillip as B r i t i s h soldiers went East to fight for the U n i t e d N a t i o n s . ' H a n d s off K o r e a ! ' came the slogan, e v o k i n g bitter memories in those w h o remembered the Hands-off-this-and-that campaigns of the pre-war days. Party meetings in the early days of the K o r e a n war were unhappy ones for me. Some comrades courageously expressed their doubts in open meeting, questioning the w i s d o m of forcing a military struggle. T h e y were reluctant to drop the o l d M a r x i s t theory that a C o m m u n i s t victory must come only as the result of a nation's internal upheaval. A n y b o d y , and I was one, foolish enough to raise such objections d i d not receive a sympathetic answer. We got didactic slogans. R e v o l u t i o n is a serious business. W h e n C o m m u n i s m becomes a w o r l d P o w e r like Russia, it is under obligation to go to the help of struggling peoples everywhere. Communists cannot wait for opportunities, they must make them. We were t o l d to purge our doubts and remember the w o r d s o f our French comrade f r o m the WFTU. ' W e must match our actions w i t h those of his countrymen. T h e N o r t h Koreans are spilling b l o o d t o b r i n g C o m m u n i s m in Britain nearer. ' I n t o battle, comrades!' B u t here was one comrade w h o could go into battle no more. H i s feet were w i l l i n g , his m i n d faltered. I went t h r o u g h 153

the movements of the Party line falteringly. I helped m o v e a trades c o u n c i l resolution demanding the withdrawal of B r i t i s h forces from K o r e a . I mouthed the words ' A m e r i c a n intervention' on several platforms. A n d then I knew I was finished. T h e stand of the Gloucesters affected me deeply. My comrades were calling these y o u n g lads 'imperialist mercenaries' and 'capitalist lackeys'. I found myself incapable of feeling anything but pride. I was i l l . That was immediately obvious. I was i l l in my m i n d and I d i d not k n o w what to do about it. I c o u l d not go along to the Party doctor we were expected to visit w h e n the strain of Party w o r k became too m u c h for us. I k n e w that in order to explain my sickness to h i m I w o u l d have to tell h i m my doubts, and it w o u l d be too m u c h to expect h i m to keep such confidences to himself. I tried to carry on w i t h aspirins and a tonic from the chemist's. B u t I was not only fighting bodily fatigue, I was fighting a m i n d that had given up at last. W h e n I read of shiploads of a m m u n i t i o n exploding, of factory disasters and strikes, my thoughts went back to the French Comrade's theatrical exhortations: ' T h e arms must never get there! T h i s is the period of C o m m u n i s t h e r o i s m ! ' I never felt less l i k e a C o m m u n i s t h e r o ; I never felt less l i k e a hero at all. A n d then when I was instructed once more to canvass my o l d friends in the F i r e Service, I gave up. I stuck to my house w h e n I was not at w o r k . My doubts, my defection and hesitation soon aroused the local Party suspicion. T h e Secretariat ordered reports on my recent behaviour. My speeches in the B o r o u g h C o u n c i l had been half-hearted, on one or t w o occasions I had spoken against the Party line. I had not resolutely carried out my duties in the Peace Campaign. Something was w r o n g w i t h B o b Darke. In v i e w of my past record the Party d i d not abruptly discipline me. I was visited by a member of the L o n d o n District Committee. He gently informed me that the Party was aware that I was no longer myself. Perhaps I had been 154

w o r k i n g too hard? T h e Party had arranged a M a r x i s t school for a week at the seaside. W o u l d I like to attend? ' W e feel that a refresher course of M a r x i s m and a healthy week by the sea w i l l soon put y o u right.' I k n e w these refresher courses, and I knew what it meant w h e n the Party recommended attendance at one. T h e comrade was under grave suspicion. My ticket and my l o d g i n g , I was t o l d , w o u l d be arranged for me by the Party. There w o u l d be no expense to me. I asked for t i m e , and time was g r u d g i n g l y granted. I found that the thought of attending such a school was only repulsive. W h e n my decision was asked for I sent a blunt refusal. T h e n I burnt the last boat. T h e editor of the local paper challenged me in an editorial to declare w h i c h side I w o u l d be on in the event of a war between Britain and Russia. S u c h questions had been put p u b l i c l y to other leading Communists before this, and their answers had been masterpieces of discreet evasion. Generally they denied the possibility of Russia ever being an aggressor. My reply d i d not f o l l o w the set pattern. I said, in all honesty, that if Russia were responsible for the war then I w o u l d f i g h t for m y o w n country, B r i t a i n . W i t h i n a few hours of the publication of my reply there was a knock at the door. My wife refused to leave me alone. She had never before interfered w i t h my political activities, but n o w , I think, she saw there was a chance of my escaping f r o m the confusion I had brought u p o n myself. She was afraid to leave me alone in case I d i d not take it. At last I persuaded her to leave me w i t h the L o n d o n D i s t r i c t representative. He stood there in my l i v i n g - r o o m , his face red and angry, as he shouted at me. ' L o o k here, comrade, what's happening to you? It is the K o r e a n war, isn't i t ? Y o u ' v e been a Party member l o n g enough to k n o w that if y o u have any doubts about the Party's policy y o u are free to discuss them openly at a special branch meeting where y o u ' l l get a fair hearing.' (This to me w h o had seen that sort of fair hearing often enough!) ' Y o u ought to k n o w that B r i t i s h and A m e r i c a n soldiers are 155

fighting against your comrades in K o r e a , white imperialists d o i n g the w o r k of their capitalist masters. A r e y o u g o i n g soft over a few B r i t i s h lives? L o o k h o w many Russians had to be killed in the R e v o l u t i o n . ' T h e Party's in a desperate m o o d . There's no r o o m for sentiment. A man's either w i t h us or against us. A n d y o u k n o w what happened i n Eastern E u r o p e t o g o o d C o m munists w h o let their emotions take charge.' W h i l e he was talking I c o u l d see that I was being granted a rare and privileged h o n o u r . T h e Party was appealing to me. I suppose I must have argued w i t h h i m . I suppose I must have raised the picture of the Gloucester battalion and listened to his scornful dismissal of their heroism. I suppose he gave up in the end for he left me more angry than he had been when he came. I remember his last w o r d s . ' I ' l l leave y o u w i t h the express instructions to attend a special meeting at Party headquarters. There y o u w i l l be expected to give a full report of y o u r recent activities and a full explanation of your present deviation.' H e went, and w i t h h i m went m y allegiance t o the C o m munist Party.

156

CONCLUSION All roads lead to Communism! HARRY POLLITT.

Comrades, the future is ours! ARTHUR HORNER.

So what can be done about i t ? A b o o k like this, to be neat and tidy, should submit a solution to the grave problems it raises. I do not pretend that I have one. I k n o w that. C o m m u n i s m is the product of the society in w h i c h we l i v e , and the society in w h i c h we l i v e is under constant change. It may o u t g r o w C o m m u n i s m , it may g r o w w i t h it. We cannot escape C o m m u n i s m . It is active in the b o d y of the non-Soviet w o r l d and it is triumphant b e h i n d the I r o n C u r t a i n . We cannot talk it out of existence and we cannot legislate against a l l of its activities w i t h o u t legislating against some of those features w h i c h are the greatest heritage of a democracy. B u t I hope this b o o k may teach something; that it w i l l be some sort of signpost to my fellow trade unionists. Wherever a C o m m u n i s t Party exists it never sleeps. It is able and ready to take advantage of the slightest weakness on the part of any n o n - C o m m u n i s t , be he Socialist or T o r y . It is a party c o n stantly at war. Its members are the victims of a war-neurosis, a war-fever and a war-hysteria. Where a C o m m u n i s t Party gives g r o u n d it retreats not t h r o u g h moderation but t h r o u g h guile. It is not i n v i n c i b l e , but it is controllable. W h e r e its influence and p o w e r have been achieved as a result of the g u l l i b i l i t y or apathy of those w h o oppose it, there can we seek a remedy. By those w h o oppose it I do not mean the reactionary organizations of capitalism. I mean the ordinary w o r k i n g m a n , the Socialist trade unionist w h o must surely be sickened by the spectacle of his u n i o n corrupted by the political o p p o r t u n i s m of Communism. If that ordinary trade unionist is honest he must accept 157

some blame for the spectacle. Wherever the C o m m u n i s t Party of Great B r i t a i n has obtained d o m i n a t i o n w i t h i n a trade u n i o n it has done so by exploiting the apathy of the ordinary rank and file. Wherever it has lost that power, as it has done in some unions d u r i n g the past t w o years, it has been because the rank and file has at last stood up and fought back, has attended meetings, has recognized and rejected the stacked votes and the stacked resolutions of Party fractions. T h e n o n - C o m m u n i s t trade unionist must recognize that the C o m m u n i s t Party, however w i l l i n g it seems to undertake his fight, however successful it seems to be on his behalf, is none the less ready enough to abandon h i m t o - m o r r o w . T h e Party's fight is only his fight when it fits i n t o the general pattern o f w o r l d C o m m u n i s t d o m i n a t i o n . He must realize that his fellow trade unionist w h o is an avowed C o m m u n i s t has a cynical regard for the integrity of the u n i o n , that his ultimate allegiance is not to that u n i o n , not to the Trade U n i o n Congress, but to the W o r l d Federation of Trade Unions and to the C o m i n f o r m that dominates it. We are in danger of seeing a C o m m u n i s t menace in terms of the A l a n N u n n M a y s , the K l a u s Fuchs and Pontecorvos only. These m e n , valuable though they may be to Soviet power politics, are of m i n o r importance in the role of a native C o m m u n i s t Party. T h e C o m m u n i s t Party can only be fought in the unions. Bans and witch-hunts are of small value. T h e C o m m u n i s t Party, l o n g experienced i n t u r n i n g victimization into p o l i tical propaganda, is hit hardest w h e n the workers vote against it. I have not written this b o o k because I w i s h to raise the pile of ex-Communist literature by another inch or t w o . I have written it in an attempt to get home to my fellow trade unionists the extent to w h i c h their interests and their rights are being shamelessly betrayed by the C o m m u n i s t Party. No country in the w o r l d has a greater right to be p r o u d of its w o r k i n g class and trade u n i o n history than has B r i t a i n . We have built up a movement w h i c h is based on man's right to be heard and represented in whatever way he chooses, 158

a movement w h i c h is based on man's fundamental belief in the decency of his neighbour. C o m m u n i s m w i l l replace this w i t h a society based on man's fundamental fear of his neighbour. F r e e d o m of conscience and w i l l is an inheritance we take t o o l i g h t l y , even after the N a z i war. We are in danger of h a v i n g it taken away from us as m u c h by the extreme antiC o m m u n i s t as by the Communists themselves. I have not arrived at these conclusions w i t h o u t m u c h s t u m b l i n g over words and m u c h hesitation. F o r eighteen years I refused to believe that such freedoms were of any value in man's struggle against economic exploitation. T o o readily I accepted the Party's declaration that my conscience was a vestige of capitalist society. In the past months since my resignation I have realized that in fact such freedoms are of great strength. T h e y do not fill my belly. They do not immediately raise my salary above £7 a week. They do not make the steps on my N u m b e r Sixty bus any shorter or the tempers of my fares the more moderate. But they do liberate my soul and allow me to l o o k my fellow-men in the face w i t h o u t shame. We face a conspiracy against such intangible values. There are people, apart from the most cynical C o m m u n i s t s , w h o believe that a D u r h a m miner, a Lancashire cotton w o r k e r or a L o n d o n busman, can get along without freedom of speech and m i n d so l o n g as he fights for economic liberty. I have not lived among w o r k i n g folk all my life to believe that the man in Hackney cherishes freedom of m i n d less passionately than a student in O x f o r d . I say we face a conspiracy against such values. I do not believe it w i l l be defeated in Westminster. It w i l l not be defeated by Fleet Street or by disapproval in the middleclass suburbs. It can be defeated in the trade unions, for it is in the unions that the Party is determined to fight its one-party battle. If it is defeated there its power w i l l weaken. If not, the Communists w h o have taken over Hackney to-day can take over the country to-morrow. 159

Tbe Hot/se of Commons at Work E RIC T AYL OR A257

Th e author is Cle rk to th e Co mmittee of P rivi leg es of the Ho use of Commons. H e ha s written an acc ount of the daily worki ng of the H ou se of Commons at the present time - its procedure, rul es, co m m ittees, and methods of dealing with prop osed leg islation. (2S)

T be Casefor Conservatism Q UINTIN H O G G

635

An

M .P.

states t h e case for h is party. (as )

E conomics

of Everydqy

L ife

GE RT R UD E WILLIAMS A22 1

'In this book b y th e R eader in Social Economics at L o n d on Uni versity, n o preliminary study of economics is taken for gra nted, a nd a clear, st raig h t fo rward explanation is given of th e w orking of the economic p rocesses which continually affect our lives. The style is ad mirab ly lucid .' - The Times L iterary Supplement (2S)

'Tbe Englisb Parliament K . R . M A C K E NZIE A 20 8

A survey of the h isto rical d ev elopme nt of Parliament describ ing how and why it has come to w o rk in the way it does to-day. The Spectator co mmented: ' Mr Mackenzie ha s done an alt og ether ad mi rable piece of w o rk, co vering ground which ha s never been cove red in so succinct a form, which badly n eed ed to be co vered , and which is covered h ere as effect ively as could be hoped for.' (2S)