Histories of the Labour Party and tales of Labour
heroes can perform a very specific function. They can ‘legitimise’
woolliness, lack of theory, class-collaboration and opportunism as a
natural and beneficial product of British conditions and as being in
line with the superiority of British institutions to those of other
countries. The argument goes that the British Labour
Party arose from advantages unique to Britain, advantages not in the
possession of ‘lesser breeds without the law’.
Typical is Francis Williams in his Fifty Years’
March, published to celebrate the fiftieth anniversary of the Labour
Party, with a foreword by Clement Attlee, the party leader at that time.
Williams describes Fred Rogers, the first chairman of the Labour Representative
Committee which in 1908 adopted the name Labour Party. He tells us that
Rogers was ‘indeed a practical Christian, of a kind which has
fortunately been frequent in the British Labour Movement. Perhaps no
man among them all could better have represented the qualities which
have given the British Labour Movement its special character.’
He also informs us that: ‘Keir Hardie and the delegates to the
conference showed their practical wisdom and their understanding of
the British political character.’ Here is his flowery description
of that ‘British political character’. It translates into
- two words - political opportunism.
That character thrives best in a constitutional framework
which does not
impose upon it the rigidness of a doctrinaire philosophy or even of
a
narrowly defined practical programme, but leaves instead sufficient
freedom for the interpretation of events and needs and the common sense
application of fundamental philosophies according to the circumstances
of the time.
The labour movement in general and the Labour Party in
particular are thus peculiarly British. One final quote from Williams:
‘The Fabian Society gave British Socialism much of its intellectual
content more rooted in British reality and natural attitude of mind
of British people than Marxism.’
Here, of course, we are in the presence of one of the
most widely spread of myths: that Marxism is something alien to the
inimitable development of Britain. Today, it is true, there exist leaders
of the Labour Party who will tell us that Marxism has made a ‘contribution’.
They are even prepared, like Wedgwood Benn, to name Marxism as one of
the factors going to make up the Party. Michael Foot himself, has recently
been found (Observer January 10, 1982) to praise not only the contribution
of Marx to socialism, but also of Trotsky — while, naturally,
declaring himself against any of today’s Trotskyists. But this
type of acknowledgement of Marxism is grafted onto the doctrine of British
exceptionalism. The importance of our movement is our Britishness and
the labour movement has developed trying to resolve the problems of
our nation.
MARXISM AND METHODISM
Mr Morgan Phillips, when he was General Secretary of the
Labour Party, once said that the Labour Party owed more to Methodism
than Marxism. Mr G.D.H. Cole in A Short History of the British Working
Class Movement told us that the Independent Labour Party was the
‘soul’ of the movement which brought about the Labour Party
while the Fabian Society was its ‘brain’. The ILP he described
as ‘humanitarian radicalism adopting a socialist policy as the
means to a more equable distribution of wealth and happiness’.
Francis Williams, Morgan Phillips, G.D.H. Cole and Wedgwood Benn —
who directs us to look at the Bible as being part of the coalition of
forces on which the Labour Party is built — this brigade sounds
off from right to left about the practical Christianity, Fabian evolutionism
or woolly ILP radicalism combining to form the Labour Party. We have
to admit that, in one sense, they are absolutely correct. It is these
ideas plus much more of what, from the point of view of socialism, can
only be called backwardness, which have formed the official ideology,
the ideology of Labour Party leaders.
The outlook of the leaders of the British Labour Party
is a sort of amalgam of Conservatism and Liberalism, partly adapted
to the requirements of the trade unions, or rather their top layers.
All of them are ridden with the religion of ‘gradualness’.
In addition they acknowledge the religion of the Old and New Testaments.
They all consider themselves to be highly civilised people, yet they
believe that the Heavenly Father created mankind only then, in his abundant
love to curse it, and subsequently to try, through the crucifixion of
his own son to straighten out this highly knotty affair a little. Out
of the spirit of Christianity there have grown such national institutions
as the trade union bureaucracy, MacDonald’s first ministry and
Mrs Snowden. (Where is Britain Going Leon Trotsky, pp.36-37)
When they tell us that this ‘coalition of forces’
is the strength of the Labour Party as an instrument for socialism they
are talking absolute and anti-working class nonsense. In fact, they
are saying that opportunism is the prime strength of the British movement
and thus giving to themselves the right to continue as opportunists.
The real history of the Labour Party and the lessons from
it are vital for workers today. For we with our fathers and grandfathers
have paid a price for the Christian Socialism, woolly pacifism, wordy
radicalism and Fabian reformism which came into the Labour Party from
the capitalist class, and dominated it. History as told has been stood
on its head. In reality, it is not Marxism that came into the labour
movement out of line with the development of the major historical force
in Britain — the working class. Those who uphold Britishism as
against Marxism cover the truth — that Marx and Engels and the
group around Engels in the 1880s and 1890s, played a central role in
the breaking of the working class from the capitalist parties.
Those who fought consciously for an independent working
class political movement in the latter half of the nineteenth century
were Marx and Engels and the men and women influenced by them. The Marxists
represented the essence of the movement of the British workers; it was
the opportunists, the various brands of bourgeois radicals who grafted
themselves on to it.
No historian who does not study the development of Marxism
as a theory and as a movement in the 19th century can understand the
development of the British working class or indeed that of the world
working class. We are saying here not only that Marxism provides a method
of analysing developments; but that Marxism, in this period developed
its basic principles in close association with the working class movement
and through practical intervention in it.
To look at the last half of the 19th century in particular,
and fail to see it, so to speak through the eyes of Marx and Engels,
is to see only an inexplicable collection of events. It is incontrovertible
that only Marx and Engels foretold the major developments in the working
class and only Marx and Engels prepared for them. Their strength was
that they saw the decline of capitalism inside its greatest expansion.
They saw the centralisation and concentration of capital in the middle
of the greatest apparent strength of Free Trade, competition and laissez
faire. And, above all, after the collapse of Chartism they envisaged
and fought for the rise of working class political independence. They
represented ‘the future in the present’. This came out of
their understanding of the fundamentals of capitalism and of the laws
of history. And any explanation of the development of the working class
in this period has validity in proportion to what it owes to Marx and
Engels.
TRADITION OF CHARTISM
It was on February 27, 1900 that a conference in the Memorial
Hall, Farringdon St., London, set up the Labour Representative Committee.
This step towards a mass party of the British working class was taken
60 years after this class set up its first mass party — the National
Charter Association. Not that the traditions of Chartism were raised
at the conference, and certainly most of those present would know very
little about them. National Charter Association and Labour Party were
formed under decidedly different circumstances. The first came into
being when British capitalism was in its youth. When the latter was
formed, capitalism had begun its decline as a system. In that 60 years
capitalism and working class consciousness had gone through great changes.
Chartism was the widespread movement of a working class
which was being brutally forged by the rapid growth of capitalist manufacture.
When Chartism took on the character of an independent working class
movement in the 1830s, the working class had already been through three
decades of spontaneous outbursts and brutal isolated struggles, including
an agricultural revolt. It had passed through the bitter experience
of betrayal by bourgeois reformers. The industrial capitalists had united
with the working class in a campaign for an extension of parliamentary
suffrage. But when they achieved the Reform Act of 1832 which extended
the vote among property owners they deserted their former allies. They
used their new parliamentary strength to bring into being a Poor Law
which set up the hated workhouses, which the poor called Bastilles,
and legislated the persecution of the poor which was to drive ruined
artisans and the agricultural dispossessed, into the factories. ‘The
demands of the Charter’(1) ‘wrote Engels in Condition of
the Working Class in England in 1844, ‘harmless as they seem are
sufficient to overthrow the whole English Constitution, Queen and Lords
included.’ Inform the Chartist movement was a movement for political
reform; in reality it was a class movement against capitalism.
Chartism collapsed at the end of the 1840s. Its last big
rally was in 1848 on London’s Kennington Common. It was the year
of European revolutions. The Chartists were in sympathy with the struggle
against absolutism in other countries. When the Kennington rally took
place the Duke of Wellington, instructed by the Cabinet, prepared as
if for a revolutionary uprising in London. Among other measures, no
less than 170,000 special constables were enrolled. After the demonstration,
hundreds of Chartists were arrested, imprisoned and transported. But
it was the development of British capitalism which undermined Chartism.
From the end of the 1840s to the depression of the middle
of the 1870s was the ‘Golden Age’ of British capitalism.
Its products moved freely throughout the world unequalled by those of
any other nation. Engels wrote at that time that British capitalism
was like an ‘industrial sun’ with all other countries as
markets for her manufactured goods, supplying her in return with raw
materials and food and revolving round her. At this time the British
bourgeoisie were moving into complete political as well as economic
dominance in Britain itself. Their representatives and the state began
that long experience of using sections of the working class or their
leaders in order to rule.
The organisations of the working class completely changed
their nature from those in Chartist times. The old volatile organisations
of struggle had gone. They had been intensely political. In their place
came the ‘New Model Unions’ embracing a minority of workers.
They were organised to protect the skilled workers through the control
of the supply of labour and with a major purpose, the payment of benefits.
They protected their trade with apprenticeship regulations, entrance
requirements and high contributions. They were prepared to strike but
the strike was solely a weapon of bargaining. Their motto was ‘Defence
not Defiance’. The leaders of these organisations had not the
least desire to return to the type of struggles of the Chartist period.
On the contrary, they were repelled by them and many of them were thoroughly
imbued with the ideas of expanding capitalism, that a man could rise
with ‘self help’. Political assistance to their organisations
they sought through an alliance with representatives of the ruling class,
in particular the Liberals, although in the 1860s they were compelled
because of legal chains on unions to bring them into political struggle
for the vote.
RECURRING CRISES
Bourgeois economists saw the capitalist expansion as unlimited
and bourgeois leaders expressed overweening confidence in the capitalist
system. Marx and Engels foresaw not only the recurring crises of overproduction
but also the decay of the system itself, its gravediggers being the
proletariat which must inevitably exert its independence. Great economic
developments eventually forced forward independent politics among the
working class. But it is not a question of the prescience of Marx and
Engels. They had based their practical activity on this and intervened
to assist it. Marxism was thus part of that movement that brought that
conference in 1900, long before it took place.
All through the decades following the end of Chartism
they worked to encourage any movement to political independence from
the capitalist parties. During the ‘Golden Age’ of British
capitalism they knew very well the problems of developing the British
working class, which was part of a nation ‘which exploits the
whole world’. In October 1858, Engels had written to Marx declaring
‘the English proletariat is becoming more and more bourgeois’.
But the conclusion that the two socialist fighters drew from this was
not to write off this class. Their scientific opinion was that certain
historical processes would have to be gone through before the inevitable
rise of the class which would take place in new forms. In this same
letter to Marx, Engels wrote:
One is really driven to believe that the English proletarian
movement in its old traditional Chartist form, must perish completely
before it can develop itself in a new form capable of life. And yet
one cannot foresee what this new form will look like.
That there will be a new proletarian movement is not an
issue for Engels, despite the working class becoming ‘more and
more bourgeois’. The only question is: what form will the new
moment take? Marx and Engels worked for that movement. From 1864 till
1871 — the time of the the Paris Commune — they worked with
leaders of the British trade unions on the General Council of the International
Workingmen’s Association(2) (the First International) and sought
to influence any step toward class independence. This wasn’t a
case of Marx discussing occasionally with a coterie of trade union leaders,
in isolation. The General Council of the First International had very
real links with the mass of workers in Europe. The minutes of the General
Council are full of discussions of assistance to workers struggling
in Europe. At a period when British employers frequently attempted to
use foreign workers as blacklegs, the General Council had continous
appeals from groups of British workers.(3)
The Council was linked with trade union branches and the
London Trades Council. During this latter half of the 1860s it was a
‘mighty engine’ as Marx called it, with its roots in the
British labour movement. Even the conservative union leaders were being
compelled to demand legal rights for their orgarnsations.(4) The demand
for Parliamentary reform began to take hold again. For these new trade
unionists, however, it had not the same content as the demands had for
the Chartists — a change of system.
But it was a move to independent working class action
and Marx and Engels were there in the centre of it. The National Reform
League, which had been formed by Chartist Bronterre O’Brien, in
1849 affiliated to the International Workingmen’s Association,
and brought in a number of working class leaders who were socialists.
Marx played the major part in levering into action the
campaign of agitation and massive working class demonstrations that
resulted in an extension of the franchise in 1867. The Reform Act gave
the vote to the majority of working class males in the towns.
THE FIRST INTERNATIONAL
The demonstrations had taken place all over the country.
Big meetings were held in Trafalgar Square and on July 25 a huge demonstration
in Hyde Park. The park gates were closed by order of the Cabinet and
meetings there declared illegal. Thousands of demonstrators stormed
the park from Bayswater Road. Despite the presence of great numbers
of police and troops they tore up a hundred yards of railings up to
Marble Arch. The police attacked and the demonstrators proceeded to
tear up railings all the way to Hyde Park Corner. ‘Here (in London)’
wrote Marx to Engels, ‘the government has nearly produced a rising.’
Three weeks before he had told Engels.
The workers’ demonstrations in London, which
are marvellous compared with anything we have seen in England since
1849, are purely the work of the ‘International”(5) Mr Lucraft,
for instance, the leader of Trafalgar Square, is one of our Council.
This shows the difference between working behind the scenes and disappearing
in public and the Democrats’ way of making oneself important in
public and doing nothing.
The emphasis is that of Marx. Marx refers again in another
letter — to Kugelmann — to his keeping ‘behind the
scenes’. He was not imposing dogmas on the labour movement but
working through the reality of its own contradictions to set going independent
class action.
The movement fell back in the 1870s. The trade union went
to their limits, of safeguarding their organisations under the present
system. They achieved a greater degree of legal protection in the early
1870s. They were repelled by the Paris Commune. After the Reform Act
of 1867, the Reform League faded.
The next movement to independent politics was at the end
of the century. It is significant that a part in preparing that movement
was played by the campaign for the legal eight hour day, the very demand
which Marx and Engels saw in the middle of the century as central to
the development of the working class!
The demand for the legal eight hour day was a demand of
the international working dass. The chapter on ‘The Working Day’
in Volume 1 of Marx’s Capital (which was published in 1867) brings
out the importance of this demand. A reading of this chapter will show
how it was rooted historically in the consciousness of Britain’s
oppressed. Marx relates that from the fourteenth century, that is from
around the time of the Black Death, until well into the middle of the
eighteenth century, the Labour Statutes in England were designed to
increase the working day compulsorily.
The establishment of a normal working day is the outcome
of centuries of struggle between capitalist and workers. Centuries must
pass ere the ‘free’ worker under stress of the developed
method of capitalist production voluntarily agrees (i.e. is compelled
by social conditions) to sell the whole of his active life, his very
capacity for labour, his birthright for a mess of pottage.
He ends the chapter by declaring:
For protection against the worm gnawing at their vitals,
the workers must put their heads together, and must as a class compel
the passing of a law, the erection of an all powerful social barrier,
which will compel the workers themselves from entering into a free contract
with capital when by the terms of that contract they and their race
are condemned to death or sold into slavery. In place of the pompous
catalogue of the ‘inalienable rights of man’, they put forward
the modest Magna Carta of a legally limited working day — a charter
which shall at length make it clear when the time ‘which the worker
sells is ended, and when his own begins’. What a change in the
picture!(6)
Hours of work, particularly among the mass of unorganised
and unskilled workers, remained a burning issue throughout the century.
The majority of skilled men had gained the sixty-hour
week by 1860 and the fifty-four hour week by the early ‘seventies
(though it was not always retained), but the working day for tramwaymen
was sixteen hours or more, for railwaymen from sixteen to twenty hours;
bakers, chemical workers and gas-stokers worked twelve hour shifts and
sometimes more. Among unionists Scottish miners still worked twelve
hours; in other mining districts all but the privileged aristocracy,
the hewers (whose representatives in Parliament voted against the Miners’
Eight Hour Bill in 1888) worked anything up to eleven hours. Shop assistants
under eighteen were granted a seventy-four hour week by the Shop Hours
Regulation Act of 1887, which, for lack of inspectors, was never operated.
The unpaid overtime of clerical workers, the limitless hours in the
sweated home industries (clothing, furnishing, etc) will never be computed.
Thus Dona Torr in Tom Mann and his Times describes hours
worked in the mid-1880s when Tom Mann, at that time a follower of Marx
and Engels, wrote his popular pamphlet on ‘What a Compulsory Eight
Hour Working Day means to the workers’.
An agitation for an eight hour day was what Marx calls
the ‘first fruit of the Civil War’ in America. He describes
it as ‘a movement which ran with express speed from the Atlantic
to the Pacific, from New England to California.’(7)
At the same lime the Geneva Congress of the First International
had called for the eight hour day,(8) and said that without it, ‘all
further attempts at improvement or emancipation must prove abortive’.
In the 1870s, an old member of the First International
and personal friend of Karl Marx — Adam Weiler — continually
raised the question at the Trades Union Congress (which came together
first in 1868). In 1878 he read a paper to the Bristol Congress advocating
legislation to limit the hours of labour. A vote in favour was carried
in 1883 but no action followed.
This fight for the eight hour day was an intensely political
fight against all the conservatism and sectionalism, all the bourgeois
ideology in the trade unions. The compulsory eight hour day was a question
which posed the uniting of the whole of the class as a political force
against the ruling class. As such it was hotly and stubbornly resisted
by the leaders of the trade unions. They refused to make the hours of
work a political issue. They and their supporters among the skilled
rank and file argued that the issue should be settled by sectional strength
and bargaining. The mass of workers who were unorganised and not able
to bargain with their skill, did not concern them. They would use the
Liberal arguments about free relationships between workers and employers
without interference.
EPOCH OF IMPERIALISM
But just as great economic forces were at work in the
1 840s which broke up Chartism, so the whole economic base of the ‘New
Model’ unionism was being undermined. The monopoly of British
capitalism was broken up and the ‘new forms’ which Marx
and Engels foretold began to emerge.
Capitalism developed in Europe and America. Free competition
was giving way to monopoly; free trade and laissez faire to state assistance
and to imperialism. The great overproduction crisis of the seventies
spurred forward the epoch of imperialism. Capitalist rulers in a number
of countries began dividing up the world for raw materials, areas of
investment, spheres of influence.
To be sure Britain developed for another few decades as
the foremost imperialist nation. By the end of the century it had annexed
a third of the world. But it was a system in decline, protecting itself
against the very productive forces it was its historical task to introduce.
The force which capitalism created, the working class, began to move
again towards its independence.
Writing in February 1885 an article entitled ‘England
in 1845 and 1885’, Engels had this to say:
The truth is this: during the period of England’s
industrial monopoly the English working class have to a certain extent
shared in the benefits of the monopoly. These benefits were very unequally
parcelled out among them; the privileged minority pocketed most. But
even the great mass had a temporary share now and then. And that is
the reason why since the dying out of Owenism there has been no Socialism
in England. With the breakdown of that monopoly the English working
class will lose that privileged position; it will find itself generally
— the privileged and leading minority not excepted — on
a level with its fellow workers abroad. And that is the reason why there
will be Socialism again in England.
It was the most exploited sections which headed the new
awakening of the British working class. Their movement began in the
East End of London and spread rapidly throughout the country. In 1888
six hundred match girls at Bryant and Mays struck against intolerable
conditions and with widespread support won concessions after a fortnight’s
strike. In 1889, 800 gasworkers in East Ham formed a union with a single
aim of demanding an eight hour day. Within a fortnight, there were 3,000
members. By June it had been registered as The National Union of Gas
Workers and General Labourers of Great Britain and Ireland. (It became
the main body forming the General and Municipal Workers Union.) By the
end of July it had 20,000 members and it had begun to spread throughout
the country.
In the next year it reached 100,000. Will Thorne, a member
of the SDF, and who was taught to read and write by Eleanor Marx, became
General Secretary.
In August 1889, dock labourers in South-West India dock
went on strike for sixpence and hour, the abolition of sub-contract
and piece work, extra pay for overtime and a minimum engagement of four
hours. So began the famous strike for the dockers’ tanner. Within
three days ten thousand dockers were out, joined by the Stevedores’
Unions. In a week practically all the riverside workers had joined the
strike. By this time the 30,000 dockers on strike comprised less than
half of the men out. Massive demonstrations and rallies were held during
the strike. It had widespread support among the working class. In total
£30,000 was remitted by telegraph to the Strike Committee from
Australia. The Chartists who had been transported or emigrated there
were taking their revenge.
Two members of the SDF — Bums and Tom Mann, opposed
to the sectarianism of Hyndman and other leaders —were prominent
leaders of the strike. Eleanor Marx assisted the committee in organising
the relief of the strikers, and was a speaker at the mass meetings.
On Sunday September 1 she spoke to a meeting of 100,000 in Hyde Park.
On the advice of Engels, she and her husband — Edward Aveling
— had for some time been working in the working men’s Radical
Clubs in the East End. She and Aveling drafted its constitution.(9)
Inside this new mass ferment of the British working class
was a Marxist yeast. We are underlining that Marxism is not alien to
the British working class but was an indispensable part of every movement
to class independence. Engels was filled with boundless enthusiasm for
events in Britain. In the same year as the formation of the Gasworkers
union and the great dockers strike — 1899 — the foundation
congress of the Second International took place. It decided to call
an international May Day demonstration around the demands which had
been stressed by Marx and Engels — the eight hour day.’(10)
In London on May 4, 1890 there was a march of 100,000
to Hyde Park in support of the eight hour day in accordance with the
International’s resolution. The whole demonstration was a triumph
of the New Union and of a movement to politics over the old craft unions
represented by the London Trades Council who supported the eight hour
day only by ‘free agreement’ and not by legislation. Engels
underlined the historic meaning of the May Day demonstration as the
English proletariat again entering the movement of its class. He saw
the ‘long winter’s sleep’ of the British working class
as being ended at last. In The Fourth of May in London published in
the Vienna Arbeiter-Zeitung,”(11) he wrote: ‘And I consider
this the grandest and most important part of the whole May Day festival,
that on 4th of May 1890, the English proletariat, newly wakened from
its forty years winter sleep, again entered the movement of its class.’
NEW UNIONISM
It was a class movement which naturally linked with the
international movement that he and Marx had fought for.’(12) He
wrote of the ‘new unionists’ that ‘while they are
not yet socialists to a man, they insist nevertheless on being led only
by socialists. But socialist propaganda had already been going on for
years in the East End, where it was above all Mrs E. Marx Aveling and
her husband, Edward Aveling, who had four years earlier discovered the
best propaganda field in the “Radical Clubs” consisting
almost exclusively of workers, and had worked upon them steadily and,
as is evident now, with the best of success. During the dock workers’
strike Mrs Aveling was one of three women in charge of the distribution
of relief, and this earned them a slanderous statement from Mr. Hyndman,
the runaway of Trafalgar Square, who alleged that they had had a weekly
three pounds sterling paid to them from the strike fund.’
We shall return to Mr Hyndman when we deal with the role
of radicalism in the formation of the Labour Party.
Out of the ferment of this time a mass party was posed.
At the end of 1892 a ‘unity’ conference was held at Bradford.
Out of this came the Independent Labour Party. But before we deal with
this conference we must discuss the Fabian Society and the Social Democratic
Federation.
To be continued
Notes:
1. The Charter demands were: Universal
manhood suffrage; annual parliaments; vote by ballot; payment of MPs
and equal electoral districts
2. The International Workingmen’s
Association was formed from a meeting of London trade unionists called
in support of workers in Poland.
3 . As one example — Minutes of General
Council meeting of October 9, 1866 record a deputation from the ‘Hairdressers’
Early Closing Association’. They read: ‘The deputation stated
that their trade was engaged in struggle for early dosing on Saturday
afternoons. Several middle sized employers were bringing over men from
Pans to fill the places of those me who had been called out of the recalcitrant
shops. The deputation prayed the Council use its influence at Paris
to frustrate the evil designs of these masters. Carter, Marx and Lawrence
spoke in response, pleading the Council to use its best efforts in the
direction mentioned.’ The Documents of the First International
Vol II.
4. Between the repeal of the Combination
Acts in 1825 and the trade union legislation of 1871 -5 the existence
of trade unions had been allowed, but practically everything they did
could be declared illegal under the laws covering conspiracy, contracts
etc., and as the unions became more powerful these old laws were increasingly
used against them.’ Tom Mann and his Times Dona Torr.
5. The power of the International is shown
in that at one time Cobden (the leader, with Bright, of the radical
wing of the industrial bourgeoisie) approached the General Council to
bring the working class behind them in a campaign for universal suffrage.
They have ‘arrived at the realisation that they are incapable
of setting the ball agoing’ wrote Man to Engels. In this letter
dated February 1st 1865, he outlines the tactics worked out by himself
and agreed by the General Council.
6. The picture of the terrible, brutalising
and physically destroying hours that were worked at this time is best
brought out by the example that Marx gives of an engine drivers hours.
The extract assumes added importance as showing the roots of enginednvers
stubborness in protecting their hours today. Marx quotes Reynolds Newspaper
for January 1866. ‘Week after week’, he writes, ‘iii
this same paper under the sensational headings of ‘fearful and
fatal accidents’, ‘appalling tragedies’, etc., we
read a long list of fresh railway catastrophes. Concerning these a railwayman
working on the North Staffordshire line comments: “Everyone knows
the consequences that may occur if the driver and firemen of a locomotive
engine are not continually on the look-out. How can that be expected
from a man who has been at such work for 29 or 30 hours, exposed to
the weather and without rest.” He then gives a week’s shifts
starting at various times and which ammounted to 88 hours and 40 minutes.
7. In his chapter on the working day he
quotes the resolution carried at the general convention of the National
Labour Union held at Baltimore on August 16, 1866. ‘The first
and great necessity of the present, to free the labour of this country
from capitalistic slavery, is the passing of a law by which 8 hours
shall be the normal working day in all states of the American Union.’
8. The proposal which was carried was put
to the Congress by the General Council and declared that ‘a limitation
of the working day is a preliminary condition without which all further
attempts at improvement or emancipation must prove abortive. . . The
Congress proposes eight hours as the legal limit of the working day’.
9. She was secretary of the Silvertown
Women’s branch which she formed out of the Silvertown rubber workers
strike which she led. At the Gasworkers conference she was elected unanimously
by acclaim, to the Executive Committee and as a delegate to the TUC.
The old TUC leaders would not allow her to sit as a delegate as she
was not a ‘bona-fide worker’. Thorne, who in later life
became a right wing Labour leader declared that had she lived, ‘Eleanor
.. . would have been a greater woman’s leader than the greatest
of contemporary women’. (Quoted in Eleanor Marx by Yvonne Kapp.)
10. The American workers had inaugurated
May Day to demand eight hours of work in 1886.
11. Marx and Engels on Britain.
12. Thorns made the point: ‘It was
this spirit of the “New Unionism” that made international
working class solidarity a reality, and strange to say the historians
hardly notice the revolution we created.’ Quoted in Eleanor Marx
by Yvonne Kapp.
Feb 1982