'The Part Played by Labour': working-class anti-fascism in 1945-51 and 1974-9
two post-war campaigns against fascism represent some of the largest
protest movements that Britain has ever seen.
The first campaign started with a trade union-based protest against
the release of Oswald Mosley from detention in 1943.
After 1945, with Mosley at large, former supporters of the British
Union of Fascists attempted to organise street meetings to raise the
profile of a series of fascist groups.
Protests included letters sent in to the Home Secretary by trade
union branches and individual anti-fascists, calling for a ban on Mosley's
new supporters. There were
street-level demonstrations against Mosley, organised by groups such as
the militant Jewish anti-fascists of the Forty-Three Group.[i]
There were public meetings, called by the Association of Jewish
Ex-Servicemen and Women. Political
parties, including Labour, the Communist Party (CP) and others to the left
also organises against the threat. The
activity of the anti-fascist is not a complete explanation of the failure
of Mosley's Union Movement. Clearly,
there were other factors that contributed to the defeat of the fascists.
The legacy of the war and a growing (if till incomplete)
consciousness of the events of the Holocaust forced fascism onto the
defensive. The ending of the
British presence in Palestine in 1948 also meant that there was no longer
a wellspring of popular anti-Semitism on which fascists could draw.
Yet the activity of many thousands anti-fascists undoubtedly
contributed to the demoralisation of many of Mosley's key activists,
including Mosley himself, who left Britain in 1951 promising never to
The second campaign was of similar size.
It reached its height during the decline of the 1974-9 Labour
government. The far-right
National Front received 119,000 votes in the May 1977 Greater London
Council elections, and almost quarter of a million votes in local
elections, nationally. During
this period, the Front claimed to have up to 20,000 members, while it had
the money and the resources to distribute five million leaflets each year.
The NF stood 413 candidates in local elections in 1977, and
promised to stand 318 candidates in the 1979 General Election.[ii]
National Front activity often took place at football grounds or in
workplaces. It was closely
associated with racist violence. Anti-fascist
responded with an extraordinary range of local initiatives.
The single largest campaign, the Anti-Nazi League, counted fifty
local Labour Parties among its affiliates, along with 30 branches of the
engineering workers' union the AUEW, 25 trades councils, 13 shop stewards
committees, 11 NUM lodges, and similar numbers of branches from the TGWU,
CPSA, TASS, NUJ, NUT and NUPE.[iii]
Between 1977 and 1979, around nine million Anti-Nazi League
leaflets were distributed and 750,000 badges sold.
Around 250 ANL branches mobilised some 40,000 to 50,000 members.
On the strength of individual donations, the League raised £600,000
between 1977 and 1980. Meanwhile,
the work of the League was complemented by the activity of Rock Against
Racism (RAR). In 1978 alone,
RAR organised 300 gigs and five carnivals.[iv]
Probably around half a million people were involved in anti-racist
activity, joining demonstrations, handing out leaflets or painting out
The purpose of this paper is first of all to draw attention to
working-class involvement in these campaigns.
This contribution has been defined deliberately narrowly.
The emphasis here is on trade union involvement.
That is not to say that other forms of working-class contributions
were insignificant. It would
be just as feasible to emphasise the role of community activism based on
working-class districts, or the role of particular women's groups often
with a strong socialist-feminist or working-class tinge.
Yet trade union activity is a particular indicator of class
involvement, a sign that any campaign was not just rooted on the edges of
working-class experience, but involved some of the central organisations.
Taking such a method also enables us to avoid important but tangled
definitions of class location and consciousness.
Faced with the involvement of an occupational group such as the
Amalgamated Engineers' Union or Miners Against Nazis, it would be hard for
anyone to quibble that these were anything other than groups of
Second this activity is examined critically.
Emphasis is placed on the contradictions of the two campaigns,
especially the complex relationship between activists and the leadership
of the Labour Party. Both
campaigns took place while Labour governments were in office.
Each originated with activists critical of Labour, often organised
in far-left parties (including the Communist Party in 1945-51 and the
Socialist Workers Party in 1974-9). On
both occasions, people from such backgrounds attempted to work in close
alliance with other activists, from the trade union and Labour party
mainstream. Such alliances
always had the potential to break down under the pressure of the different
strategies of those involved and given the different interests represented
by rival traditions. Alongside
motives for fractiousness, there were also impulses towards unity.
The chief of these was the threat represented by the right.
As long as that continued, the alliances tended to hold.
Yet strong or weak, both campaigns raised the question of whether
Labour was responding to its roots?
political bodies without discrimination
indication of the nature of the postwar campaign against Oswald Mosley is
the collection of letters and petitions, numbering some 302 items all
told, collected by the Home Office between January 1945 and December 1948,
and now deposited with the Public Records Office at Kew in London.[v]
This material has already been analysed in some depth elsewhere,[vi]
this paper just summarise those findings.
In general, the material must be used wit some caution.
We might expect it to reflect the uneven geographical distribution
of the fascist campaign. There would also have been political pressures from the left
and right influencing the desire of anti-fascists to express themselves or
not. It also seems from the
notes on these files that many of the original documents have been lost.[vii]
Despite these drawbacks, this sample remains the best single source
of information on the background and nature of the anti-fascist movement.
Signing a letter of protest was just about the minimum activity
that might have been taken by someone opposed to the threat of fascism.
It could be possible to look at other evidence, such as arrest
figures or membership files. Yet
such records would tend to draw attention primarily to the most active
individuals. The distribution
of letters points more closely to the rank-and-file of the campaign.
The items include 90 letters from individual trade union branches,
14 letters from co-operatives or branches of the Co-operative Party, 21
petitions, and so on. Twelve
were letters from town meetings, 27 were trade union motions sent by
trades councils and stewards' bodies, 106 were individual letters, 46
items were motions passed by political parties, resident's associations,
debating societies and the like. Even
this brief summary makes it clear that working-class organisations were
the one group most likely to protest.
Of the 302 letters and other items, one third came from trade union
branches and districts. If we were to add the letters from groups of workers and
socialist organisations, from tenants' associations and from individuals
rooted in working-class campaigns, the proletarian aspect would represent
a clear majority. Yet while
working-class bodies did take full part in the campaign, middle-class and
popular front anti-fascists were obvious by their absence.
There were no letters or motions from branches of the National
Council of Civil Liberties, no petitions of churchmen, no expressions of
outrage from Liberal MPs. Only
two student bodies sent protests, Ruskin College, and the pupils of the
Princeton School of Languages.[viii]
Shop stewards' organisations or trades councils passed several
motions. Hounslow Trades
Council called a joint meeting with Heston and Isleworth Labour Party, and
other 'social, political and religious' organisations to discuss how
fascism could be beaten. Birmingham
Trades Council went further. As
well as calling for a ban, the council sent a circular letter to local
unions asking their members to keep an eye out for fascist activities, and
proposed setting up a Birmingham 'anti-fascist league'.[ix]
There were of course obstacles facing the campaign.
While many of those who sent letters were individual members of the
Labour Party or affiliate members, through their union, few felt much
identification with the national government's strategies for limiting
fascism. Their main complaint
was that no obvious strategy could be found.
The Home Secretary Chuter Ede opposed any purge of fascists from
the Civil Service (while sanctioning a purge of suspected Communists). He opposed police actions to prevent inflammatory speeches,
or to harass the right. In
particular, he refused to support any new legislation outlawing racism or
fascism. It was this refusal
in particular that sparked the anti-fascist campaign.
all the correspondence recorded in the files, the most heated took place
between Julius Jacobs of the London Trades Council and Chuter Ede.
Jacobs initially wrote in April 1946, forwarding a motion calling
upon the government 'to make all forms of fascist activity illegal'. Ede replied two weeks later, arguing that 'this would be a
restriction of the wide freedom of opinion, enjoyed by all political
bodies without discrimination, which has contributed greatly to the
development of healthy democratic public life'.
Jacobs asked 'whether or not that ... is the opinion of HM
Government?' Ede insisted
that it was. In July, Jacobs
suggested that the matter at stake was not whether the law should be
extended, 'but rather whether or not organisations propagating fascism can
rightly be considered as political bodies who should enjoy the wide
freedom of expression of opinion without discrimination?'
Finally, four weeks later, Chuter Ede brought the discussion to an
end, insisting that the government saw no need to take any further steps
The issue raised by this exchange, the question of how
working-class activists responded to the actions of 'their' party in
power, is discussed more fully later in this paper.
now to the equivalent campaign in the 1970s, one is struck by the same
quality of working-class participation that characterised the anti-fascist
In November 1978, for example, Bill Dunn of the Communist Party of
Great Britain, wrote an article for the Morning Star reporting on
successes of anti-fascists, including members of the Anti-Nazi League, in
winning the support of trade unionists for their campaign.
Twenty trade union executive committees had voted to back the
League. Six hundred trade
union and workplace organisations were 'in direct contact' with the ANL.
'Among them are ANL groups working in massive factories like
British Leyland Longbridge or Fords of Dagenham, Yorkshire miners, civil
servants and local government'. Bill
Keys, general secretary of the print union SOGAT, had addressed anti-Nazi
rallies in Northern England, as well as marches in London.
There were also Anti-Nazi League blocs among the print workers of
Fleet Street, and among technicians and journalists working on television.[xii]
Preston, the fire-fighters union and the postal workers' union backed the
League, as did the joint shop stewards' committee at Leyland motors.
The convenor at Leyland's Len Brindle backed the ANL. In Nottingham, the League received support from the
white-collar union ASTMS, and the teachers union.
One of the most important members of the League in the city was Don
Devin, an activist within the National Union of Hosiery and Knitworkers.
In Manchester, supporters included FBU members from New Mills Fire
Station. Elsewhere, the
technicians' union ACTT worked with the League in arguing that the
National Front's broadcasts should be banned.
One journalist Francis Wheen rang Alan Sapper, general secretary of
the ACTT to suggest that such disruptive action would only make martyrs of
the NF. 'Democracy is
threatened', Sapper replied, 'We don't need to bother with philosophical
arguments. We can discuss
democracy until the concentration camps come in.'[xiii]
workplace ANL groups were little more than a badge, while others were able
to establish an occasional paper or magazine.
The latter included Rail Against the Nazis, members of the rail
union RMT, ASLEF and TSSA. Their
banner showed a high speed train knocking over gang of Nazis.
Members of Kings Cross ASLEF initially set up the branch.
One member of this union branch, Leno Carraro was arrested at
Lewisham in 1977. The branch
took great pleasure in paying his fine.
When the ANL was established, a leading steward Steve Forey took a
petition around his colleagues in the branch.
Badges were sold and stickers put up.
Forty people attended a meeting in the depot, to establish a local
group. Members of the Kings
Cross branch took part in protests against the National Front at Brick
Lane. This activity then led to the formation of a national
network. John Robson from
Wood Green was a key activist in this campaign.
'One day, I put up a poster saying that at the next meeting we
would affiliate to the Anti-Nazi League.
About fifty people came, and there was a big row, but we
affiliated. After that the
branch never looked back.'[xiv]
industry were this support was especially important was education.
The Front made a series of attempts to recruit school kids,
culminating in the publication of a Young National Front paper, Bulldog. In response,
the ANL dedicated resources to the formation of Skaters' and School Kids'
sections. SKAN had its own
16-page magazine. Featuring
interviews with reggae bands like Steel Pulse or poems from Leon
The group Teachers Against the Nazis wrote education packs against
racism and fascism, establishing a tradition of anti-racist education that
would continue at least into the 1990s.
An ANL teachers' conference was held in Manchester in May 1978,
with John Rowbotham speaking for the NUT.[xvi]
The follow-up conference in June 1979 was organised under the
banner of Campaign Against Racism in Education.
Speakers included a school student from Soweto and A. Sivanandan of
Race and Class.[xvii]
The first National Education Conference of Teachers Against the
Nazis took place on 23 September 1978, the day before the second Carnival.
Many speakers were long-term anti-fascists, including Maurice
Ludmer the editor of Searchlight and
Joan Lestor the Labour MP. Yet
alongside traditional anti-fascism there was also space for a discussion
of the broader issues of racism in education, with workshops on 'Asian
Girls in Schools' and 'Why Schools fail the Black Community'.
As well as teachers, other white-collar workers contributed. Following
a National Front arson attack on the Anti-Nazi League headquarters in
London, the Civil Service Union gave a one-off grant of five hundred
pounds to the League, to pay for repairs.[xviii]
Ten national trade unions voted to back the League, and several
more were assisted the anti-racist campaign.[xix]
In February 1979, two hundred people attended a Miners Against the
Nazis conference, held in Barnsley. Speakers
included Arthur Scargill, Jonathon Dimbelby, Paul Holborow and Alex
It has often been said that members of the Socialist Workers Party
(SWP) dominated the Anti-Nazi League.
For example, Richard Thurlow writes, 'the decline of the NF was
partially due to the successful undermining of it by the Anti-Nazi League.
When the latter itself was blatantly taken over by the Socialist
Workers Party the organisation folded as the bulk of the membership
refused to tolerate being controlled by a notorious factional hard-line
The SWP did indeed play an important role in sponsoring and
initiating a campaign. Yet
the movement could not have grown without the support of rival left-wing
forces. The SWP could count
several dozen supporters in the mines, but not hundreds.
The turnout seen in February 1979 could only have been made
possible by co-operation with Communist miners in Yorkshire, Derbyshire
In Manchester, the trades' council and the AUEW-TASS divisional
council both affiliated to the ANL. At
other times, the Manchester Teachers' Association, ASTMS (Central
Manchester) and COHSE (Ladywell Hospital) all gave their support.
The district council of the National Union of Railwaymen affiliated
to the Anti-Nazi League.
Perhaps the most striking example of Anti-Nazi League success among
industrial workers came on the docks.
Early on, socialist dockers set themselves the task of undoing the
defeat they had suffered in 1968, when the dockers marched in support of
Powell's racist 'Rivers of Blood' speech.
The port of London shop stewards committee voted to affiliate to
the League. Alongside Bob Light and Eddie Prevost, Mickey Fenn was a key
activist. Always at the front
of the marches, he was arrested in June 1977 and accused by the police of
assaulting fascists. The
charge was dropped. In an
important move, the London dockers provided the stewards for the first
Carnival - and also loaned the ANL their banner, 'Arise Ye Workers.'
It was a massive turn-around after the defeat of ten years'
As in 1945-51, the campaign was characterised by a certain tension.
The clear majority of those who took part would have voted Labour.
Many had canvassed for Labour in 1974.
Many others would go on to do the same in 1979.
Yet within the literature produced by ANL supporters (and certainly
in the memory of prominent activists form the time), there is a strong
sense of betrayal by the government.
The Labour Party had won the two 1974 elections on the back of a
leftward-moving popular mood, and its manifesto was the most radical in
the party's history, promising the abolition of the House of Lords and the
public schools, and increased taxes for the rich to pay for better public
services. Tony Benn and Michael Foot joined the Labour cabinet, while
TUC left-wingers, including Jack Jones and Hugh Scanlon, were brought into
close contact with the government. Yet
the effects of Labour government had undoubtedly been to reduce the levels
of militancy within society. Unemployment
rose from 600,000 in 1974 to over one million, five years later.
The result was a sharp fall in strike levels.
The government reduced spending on public services, and even closed
hospitals. Within the trade
unions the established lefts were confused and demoralised by Labour's
lurch to the right. The
period of the Wilson-Callaghan government was a time of popular
disillusionment that prepared the way for the Tories' victory in 1979.
The National Front was also seen to have gained from the failure of
the Labour government and the general disillusionment with the left.
In July 1976, for example, the writer James Fenton wrote a piece
for the New Statesman,
describing an National Front meeting addressed by Robert Relf in Tilbury,
Essex. Fenton asked 'Who
speaks against the National Front?' His
article was typical of the period, in expressing the frustration of a
generation of young anti-racists who were fed up of waiting for Labour to
take a lead:
Tories talk in a code which yields the argument without the slightest
language' barely conceals the assumptions which the Tilbury meeting
shared. Indeed it is in a way
refreshing to go from Westminster to such a gathering and gear people say
what they really mean. As for
Labour, the issue is fought in the worst possible terms - arguments about
numbers, and whether the pool of immigrants will ever dry up. And all the while (it was a constant feature of Monday's
immigration debate) there is an air of congratulation - all the
participants in the debate, or nearly all of them, are being so
responsible. Thank God we can
sit down together and discuss the matter in a civilised way.
concluded, 'if the Front have grown, as they have, to the point where they
are no longer treated as a joke, it is not because the Left have sometimes
opposed them on the streets; it is because Parliament has been embarrassed
to meet them head on.'[xxii]
Such views became a sort of common sense, not just among the people
attached to organised left groups, but also in the colleges, on the
stewards' committees and with Labour activists.
to the 1940s, one strong feature that was distinctive of this period was
the extraordinary degree of working-class loyalty to the institutions of
the labour movement, including the Labour Party.
Even the Communist Party of Great Britain, the largest party to the
left of Labour, insisted that socialism could only begin with a Labour
government. In the words of
the Communist Party's programme, The British Road to Socialism, 'British Communists declare that the
people of Britain can transform capitalist democracy into a real people's
democracy, transforming Parliament, the product of Britain's historic
struggle for democracy into the democratic instrument of the will of the
vast majority of her people.'[xxiii]
One contemporary activist, Peter Sedgwick described the political
feel of the times. The
politics of the Labour Party were still an expression of values deeply
held in the Labour movement. Even
Labour's constitution reflected the relationship between party and class:
organisational mythology of the committed Left amounted to the
construction of a vast shadow panoply of trade-union structures, manned by
conscious militants at branch and district level, and by progressive or
reactionary, Left-wing or Right-wing, responsible or autocratic General
Secretaries and Executives in their national offices.
Like the constitutional map of Soviet Russia projected by Sidney
and Beatrice Webb in the 1930s, the initiatives of the rank-and-file were
supposed to send countless pressures upwards, channelled and summed in the
block vote of six or seven digits that were cast at the annual Trade Union
Congress or the Labour Party Conference.
As the neurologist's recording equipment marks the gross electrical
rhythms of the brain, each stroke on the graph representing the aggregate
of millions of tiny voltages from the individual neurons, so the
Conference or Congress vote aggregated the voices of invisible throngs: or
rather would do so, provided that the recording machinery itself were not
spiked by treacherous leaders.[xxiv]
very success of the anti-fascist campaigners would surely point to the
basic truth of Sedgwick's argument. A
majority of trade unionists continued to feel that the high politics of
their party could be determined by the cumulative weight of a thousand
The problem in this case was that - despite all the pressure -
Labour leaders still refused to act.
Anti-fascists expected Labour to take action.
Between 1945 and 1951, however, there were no Labour-sponsored
demonstrations against fascism, no speaking tours, and no campaign.
There was no change in the law, to ban fascist parties or to outlaw
anti-Semitic propaganda. The
Home Secretary, J. Chuter Ede, actively argued against using the law to
stop fascism, and his position was adopted by the rest of the Cabinet.
Not surprisingly, this stance was criticised from within the Labour
Party. There were various
amendments calling for the fascist parties to be banned at the 1946, 1948
and 1949 Labour Conferences. In
addition to these Conference motions, a small number of Labour MPs,
including L. J. Solley and John Platt-Mills, did speak out against
fascism, supporting anti-fascist demonstrators in court, and calling for a
change in the law to ban fascism.
Yet despite the role played by individuals, the basic fact remained
that the government did not listen. Different
writers expressed a common sense of frustration.
Bert Lee suggested that Labour should ban anti-Semitic statements,
while Adelaide Poole wrote to Chuter Ede to tell him that 'the Jewish
citizens have as much right to be in this country as the rest of us', and
M. Ross simply wanted Ede to 'arrest Mosley'.[xxv]
L. J. Orman told the Home Secretary that the problem was not the
law, but the police's unwillingness to use it:
suppose it is perfectly in order for a lousy swine like Jeffrey Hamm to
get up on a street corner in the East End of London and shout, 'Down with
the Jews. Burn the
synagogues. Kill the Aliens',
and he gets away with it, but if a person tries to pull him up, what
happens? The so-called keepers of law and order, the police, go up to this
person and tell him he'd better move away before he gets hurt ... These
guardians of the law and order from Commercial Street Police Station
openly boast about being members of Jeffrey Hamm's fascist party.
Cohen was one of many writers who found it extraordinary that fascism
could be tolerated, 'We have just concluded a war to wipe out similar
Grassroots Labour Party opinion may have been broadly against the
government, yet it was by no means unanimous.
There were instances of Labour branches swung by the instincts of
party loyalty. Although many
hundred trade union branches passed motions that were critical of the
national government, the evidence of the petitions suggests that Labour
Party branches were more cautious. Some
Labour Party members defended the Labour government's argument that an
attack on fascism would be an assault on the principle of free speech,
while others were afraid of siding too openly with members of the CP who
were playing an important role in the campaign.
Other sources reveal that Labour supporters in the AEU tried to
prevent their youth conference from agreeing a motion calling on the
government to ban fascism, while Stepney Labour councillors voted to place
Union Movement books in the council libraries.[xxvii]
The London Labour Party voted 964-140 against banning Mosley from
its public halls, and the Labour newspaper, London
News, said that there was no need for a law against fascism.
All the trouble would end, the paper suggested, if only
anti-fascists would stay at home, 'The plain fact is, as many
eye-witnesses agree, that it is open to the Communist Party to make the
biggest single contribution to the abatement of the present nuisances at
Ridley Road and elsewhere - simply by telling their followers to stay away
from meetings which are organised mainly to give provocation.'[xxviii]
Clearly many trade unionists, and even Labour Party supporters
disagreed with this line, but found it easiest to express their opposition
within stewards committees, trade union branches and trades councils -
rather than within the structures of the Labour Party itself.
The Communist Party was frequently identified at the time as the
main organisational force behind the anti-fascist protests.
Sidney Salomon, a leading member of the Board's Jewish Defence
Committee, opposed the anti-fascist campaign on the grounds that
communism, not fascism was the greater threat, 'The Government, and indeed
a large section of the British public, regard the Communist Party as more
dangerous to the welfare of the state than the fascists... The
Government's policy... is in line with British tradition'.
Police records of the time describe anti-fascist protesters as,
'Communist opposition', or 'Jewish Communists', whether the label was
accurate or not.[xxix]
material in the Home Office archives would suggest that the Communist
Party did indeed play a crucial role, leading the protests, organising
motions and petitions, and giving the campaign a focus and a structure.
Although only a few Communist Party branches sent in motions -
perhaps because the branches felt that their decisions would be unlikely
to sway a Labour Cabinet! It
was clearly CP members who played the decisive role in the trade unions.
This can be established by comparing the geography of the campaign
with the location of the party's industrial support.
Of the 754 delegates to the 1944 party congress, over half were
members of the five main manual unions.
193 were members of the AEU engineer's union, 81 were members of
the TGWU transport workers' union, 52 were members of the miners' NUM, 33
were members of the electricians' ETU, 32 were members of the railworkers'
union, the NUR.[xxx]
This fits the character of the trade union protests after 1945,
with the AEU, the NUR, the ETU and the NUM among the greatest backers of
the campaign. It is also
striking that many protests came from stewards committees and trades
councils, this would connect with what we know of the party's involvement
in these bodies.
One characteristic of the campaign of the 1940s is the sense in
which labour movement actors seem to have behaved as if they believed that
the Labour government was susceptible to mass pressure.
This helps to explain why petitioning was such a characteristic
action of the movement, because the petition is typically the choice of a
critical loyalist. Whether we
ascribe this feature to the grassroots leadership of Communist Party
sympathisers or to the basic moderation of trade union activists, this
the mustard factories
1977-8, the key force on the British far left was the Socialist Workers
Party. It was far a younger
and smaller organisation than the Communist Party of thirty-five years
previously. Its involvement
as a sponsor of the Anti-Nazi League encouraged rivals.
Joan Lestor, Labour MP and a former editor of Searchlight magazine, was the central figure behind the Joint
Committee Against Racialism, which was launched in December 1977.[xxxi]
This, as Stan Taylor indicates, was an 'alternative to the ANL for
moderates'. It attracted wide
support from the Labour Party, Liberal Party, the British Council of
Churches, various immigrant organisations, the National Union of Students
and despite the protests of Margaret Thatcher, the National Union of
Conservative Associations. Another
important backer of the Joint Committee Against Racialism was the Board of
Deputies of British Jews, which was hostile to the anti-Zionist politics
of the Socialist Workers Party, and campaigned against the League,
accusing it of being a front dominated by the SWP.
Unsurprisingly, with such broad representation, difficulties were
encountered in agreeing to policies and consequently, 'activity appears to
have largely centred around distribution of anti-racist literature.'[xxxii]
Committee Against Racialism was criticised in turn by leftwing Labour MPs
who accused Lestor of jeopardising an important campaign.
The New Statesman magazine,
one traditional voice of the Labour left, ran a front page 'In defence of
National Secretary, Paul Holborrow [sic], is a member of the SWP.
But most of the other members of the steering committee - Peter
Hain, Neil Kinnock, MP, Audrey Wise, MP, Ernie Roberts et al. - are
scarcely Trots, whatever else they may be.
Suppose that Mr. Holborrow and his SWP friends were, with
manipulative cunning, to try and turn the ANL away from its simple
anti-racialist platform and towards some sinister purpose of their own -
nationalising the mustard-factories perhaps, or substituting Vanessa
Redgrave for the Queen - is it really plausible that they should succeed?
It is a long time since the Comintern days when 'fronts' really
were marched and counter-marched with clockwork precision.[xxxiii]
large number of Labour
MPs backed the Anti-Nazi League - including not just Kinnock and Wise, but
Tony Benn, Dennis Skinner, Martin Flannery and Gwyneth Dunwoody.
Labour Party nationally went to great efforts to ensure that it was
associated with the anti-racist cause.
Time Out ran an ad
calling for a Labour vote as a vote against racism.
Meanwhile, the Leveller ran a back-page ad taking a quote from Frank Allaun, chair
of the Labour Party, and superimposing it over a photograph of the crowd
at an ANL Carnival. This was
an unashamed bid for the support of the Rock Against Racism generation:
voting could change the system, they wouldn't let you do it…'
Maybe voting isn't everything.
Certainly you and me voting Labour won't in itself bring socialism. Campaigning against unemployment, poverty, homelessness,
racial and sexual oppression, and the many other evils of the system,
needs all our effort all the time. But
I believe we need a Labour government - with a socialist programme, a
healthy labour movement and a majority of MPs behind it.
So I hope you'll not only vote Labour on May 3rd, but you'll come
out and work for a Labour victory.[xxxiv]
the height of anti-fascist campaigning, debates over the role played by
the Labour government, tended to be postponed, with activists eager not to
turn their rival perspectives into points of principle that might leave a
floating audience cold. After
the defeat of James Callaghan's government, in April 1979, however, there
was a sort of open season on the left, in which rival strategies were
debated more honestly. Following
the 1979 election, for example David Widgery one founder of Rock Against
Racism wrote, 'We face a new Toryism, frankly elitist, not just making
racialism respectable but Reaction itself fashionable.'[xxxv]
The problem was not just that the Tory party had moved right.
What worried more people were the signs that Thatcherism enjoyed
widespread support. In spring
1980 Peter Hain, radicalised by his experiences in the ANL, agreed to
chair 'the debate of the decade', a two thousand strong debate held in
Central Hall between representatives of the Labour Party and the
extra-parliamentary left. Hain's
introduction to the discussion began by contrasting the mood of the late
1960s - when such militant unions as the engineers' AUEW had seemed
capable of transforming society - and of the early 1980s, when the entire
left (reformist and revolutionary alike) lacked popular approval.
In his words,
trade union movement as a whole is in political disarray, unsure of its
grass roots base, uncertain about its national direction; the left outside
the Labour Party is weaker in terms of its political base; the student
movement is passive and middle-of-the road in its politics; and the Labour
Party, whilst moving significantly leftwards; still has not shaken off a
dominant right-wing leadership. Above all, socialism patently lacks the appeal and allegiance
in the working class, which it once had.[xxxvi]
left academic Stuart Hall told the Communist Party's magazine Marxism
Today that Mrs. Thatcher represented an 'authoritarian populism',
which would mean 'a striking weakening of democratic forms and
initiatives, but not their suspension.'
Hall sought to explain Thatcher's success as a cultural project,
using family values and Conservative morality to place its imprint on
political, economic and ideological life.[xxxvii]
If Thatcherism was primarily a form of cultural politics, then it
followed that the Tories could best be resisted in the cultural sphere.
Hall praised RAR in particular as 'one of the timeliest and best
constructed of cultural interventions, repaying serious and extended
analysis.' Perhaps the best
alternative to Conservatism, would be a revised Anti Nazi-style alliance,
perhaps with the name 'Rock Against the Tories', or some other such-like
the downturn in left-wing politics which began in Britain in 1974,
continued after 1979 with a vengeance.
The defeat of the steelworkers, the miners and the GLC demoralised
the generation that had been part of the ANL, and although many remained
part of the movement, there simply was not the space in society for the
creation of a mass pole of leftwing sentiment during the Callaghan or
certainly the Thatcher years.
has been sometimes been argued that the British trade union movement has
been for most of its history a bastion of sectionalism, in which economic
issues have predominated over political concerns.[xxxviii]
The material examined here suggests that this picture has not
always been accurate. In the
1940s and again in the 1970s, activists were able to win significant
sections of the trade union movement to take part in the campaign against
fascism. In doing so, they
demonstrated that there is no necessary separation between industrial
organisation and left-wing politics.
They also highlighted the strength of anti-fascist sentiment.
For if anti-fascism was the work of proletarian majorities, the
fascist parties were dependant rather on fractions of splinters of
different classes. While
drawing sporadic support from individuals in both working-class and
middle-class groups, they were never able to achieve the same sort of
solid institutional backing upon which anti-fascist activists could draw.
Meanwhile, the continuity of working-class support for anti-fascism
was expressed unevenly through national politics, in the different
positions taken by the Labour Party.
In neither case did the fact of popular backing for anti-fascist
politics succeed in converting the leaders of Labour governments to a
strategy of combative anti-fascism. Yet
in neither case was the energy entirely wasted.
Instead, we can trace the effect of the campaigns in splits in the
bloc of Labour MPs in Parliament. We
should also acknowledge the important of the different tactical choices
made by different anti-fascist traditions.
The movement of 1945-51 gave itself the task of transforming
Labour's attitude to the law; in which it failed.
The movement of 1974-9, by contrast, was more successful in
mobilising Labour movement figures towards an extra-parliamentary strategy
of anti-fascist confrontation. Labour's
different responses to these two campaigns was not decided merely by the
politics of the two movements, but also by a politician's judgment of what
forces existed for recruitment.
[i] M. Beckman, The 43 Group (London, 1992).
[ii] M. Walker, The National Front (Glasgow: Fontana, 1977); R. Thurlow, Fascism in Britain: From Oswald Mosley's Blackshirts to the National Front (London: I. B. Tauris, 1998), pp. 245-67; M. Billig, Fascists: A Social Psychological View of the National Front (London and New York: Harcourt Brace Jovanovich, 1978); D. Edgar, Racism, Fascism and the Politics of the National Front (London: Race and Class, 1977)
[iii] A. M. Messina, Race and Party Competition in Britain (Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1989), p. 118; D. Field, 'Flushing out the Front', Socialist Review May 1978; E. Roberts, Strike Back (Orpington: Ernie Roberts, 1994), p. 252; Anti-Nazi League, Inside the National Front, Sheffield's Nazis Uncovered (Sheffield: Sheffield ANL, 1979); B. Dunn, 'No to NF, Morning Star, 15 November 1978.
[iv] I. Goodyer, 'The Cultural Politics of Rock Against Racism', MA thesis, Sheffield Hallam, 2002, p. 3.
[v] See the following Home Office files (HO), in the Public Records Office: HO 45/24467/240; HO 45/24467/242; HO 45/24467/249; HO 45/24467/260; HO 45/24467/264; HO 45/24468/268; HO 45/24468/274; HO 45/24468/298; HO 45/24468/268; HO 45/24468/301; HO 45/24468/340; HO 45/24469/356; HO 45/24469/396; HO 45/24470/449; and HO 45/24470/457.
[vi] D. Renton, 'Not just Economics but Politics as well: Trade Unions, Labour Movement Activists and Anti-Fascist Protests 1945-51', Labour History Review 65/2 (2000), pp. 166-80. This paper should also be compared to the accounts which appear in D. Renton, Fascism, Anti-Fascism and the 1940s (London: Macmillan Press, 2000); D. Renton, 'The Police and Fascist/ Anti-Fascist Street Conflict 1945-1951', in C. Barker (ed.), Alternative Futures and Popular Protests 1997 (Manchester: 1997); and D. Renton, 'Fascism and Anti-fascism and Britain in the 1940s', A. L. Morton Memorial Lecture, Socialist History Society, London, 15 September 2001 (published on tape by the Socialist History Society).
[vii] File HO 45/24467/264 contains a reference to file HO 45/24467/262, which is now missing. Also, Miss Nunn of the Home Office estimated that between January 1945 and February 1946, a total of 230 trade unions or trade councils, including 62 branches of the Amalgamated Engineering Union, sent resolutions calling for Ede to take action against fascism, which is clearly a much larger quantity than the number that have survived, see Miss Nunn, marginal notes, in Home Office file, 15 February 1946, HO 45/25399/18
[viii] HO 45/24469/356; HO 45/24467/240.
[ix] 'Hounslow Trades Council Plans Anti-Fascist Move', Middlesex Independent, 7 February 1948; '15,000 are Asked to Watch Fascists', Daily Herald, 4 February 1948.
[x] J. Jacobs, London Trades Council, to J. Chuter Ede, Home Secretary, 29 April 1946, HO 45/24468/298; Ede to Jacobs, 15 May 1946, HO 45/24468/298; Jacobs to Ede, 5 June 1946, HO 45/24468/298; Ede to Jacobs, 22 June 1946, HO 45/24468/298; Jacobs to Ede, 1 July 1946, HO 45/24468/298; Ede to Jacobs, 30 July 1946, HO 45/24468/298.
[xi] The following section is based in part on my own unpublished work, Anti-fascism in 1970s Britain (London: Searchlight Educational Trust, 2005 forthcoming). It also connects to previous accounts that have appeared including D. Renton, ‘Can the Oppressed Unite? Women and anti-fascism in Britain 1977-1982’, in C. Barker (ed.), Alternative Futures and Popular Protests 2000 (Manchester: 2000); D. Renton, ‘Anti-fascism in the North West 1976-1982', North West Labour History 27 (2002), pp. 17-28; D. Renton, 'The Anti-Nazi League', The Historical Encyclopedia of World Fascism (New York: ABC-CLIO, 2004); and D. Renton, This Rough Game: Fascism and Anti-Fascism (Stroud: Sutton Publishing, 2001).
[xii] B. Dunn, 'No to NF, Morning Star, 15 November 1978.
[xiii] F. Wheen, 'The National Front's reptilian aspects', New Statesman, 22 September 1978.
[xiv] John Rose, Solidarity Forever: One Hundred Years of Kings Cross ASLEF (London: Kings Cross ASLEF, 1986), pp. 49, 73.
[xv] SKAN, summer 1978.
[xvi] The same year also witnessed the launching of a parallel anti-racist organisation, All London Teachers Against Racism and Fascism (ALTARF). For their activity, see All London Teachers Against Racism and Fascism, Challenging Racism (London: ALTARF, 1978).
[xvii] ANL leaflet, 'NF = No Future for Education', undated.
[xviii] ANL, 'Emergency Appeal', leaflet, spring 1978?.
[xix] See the leaflets produced by national unions, ASTMS, Stop Racism at Work! (London: Community Relations Group, 1976); General and Municipal Workers' Union, Race Relations at Work (London: GMWU, 1976?); Trades Union Congress, Trade Unions and Race Relations (London: Trades Union Congress, 1977?).
[xx] ANL News Letter, February 1979.
[xxi] Thurlow, Fascism in Britain, p. 256.
[xxii] J. Fenton, 'An Evening with Robert Relf', New Statesman, 9 July 1976.
[xxiii] K. Laybourn and D. Murphy, Under the Red Flag (Sutton: Stroud, 1999), p. 138.
[xxiv] N. Harris and J. Palmer (ed), World Crisis: Essays in Revolutionary Socialism (London: Hutchinson and Co., 1971), pp. 27, 34.
[xxv] B. Lee to Ede, 17 April 1947, 45/24468/340; A. Poole to Ede, 28 June 1947, HO 45/24468/340; M. Ross to Ede, 7 August 1947, 45/24468/340.
[xxvi] L. J. Orman to Home Secretary, 28 October 1946, HO 45/24468/340; A. Cohen to Ede, 19 August 1947, HO 45/24470/457.
[xxvii] 'Fascism: Ignore or Ban?', Challenge, 8 May 1948; 'Mosley Books in Library "An Insult"', Daily Worker, 14 June 1948.
[xxviii] 'LCC and Fascist Meetings', Times, 6 April 1948; 'A Workers Notebook', Daily Worker, 6 April 1948; London News, November 1947.
S. Salomon, Anti-Semitism and
Fascism in Post-War Britain: The Work of the Jewish Defence Committee (London,
1950), p. 5.
[xxx] S Jeffreys, 'The Communist Party and the Rank and File', International Socialism 2/10 (1980), pp. 1-23.
[xxxi] Labour Weekly, 'The Fight for our Freedoms', no date, January 1978?
[xxxii] Unity Against Fascism 1 (1976); Copsey, History of Anti-Fascism, pp. 148-9.
[xxxiii] 'In defence of the Anti-Nazis', New Statesman, 6 October 1978.
[xxxiv] Leveller, May 1979.
[xxxv] 'I'm not going to work on Maggie's Farm', in D. Widgery, Preserving Disorder: Selected Essays 1968-1988 (London: Pluto, 1989), pp. 171-6.
[xxxvi] P. Hain (ed), The Crisis and Future of the Left: the Debate of the Decade (London: Pluto, 1980), p. 7.
[xxxvii] 'The Great Moving Right Show' (1978), reprinted in S. Hall, The Hard Road to Renewal: Thatcherism and the Crisis of the Left (London: Verso, 1988), pp. 39-56, 40, 42.
[xxxviii] P. Anderson, 'Origins of the Present Crisis', New Left Review 23, also in P. Anderson and R. Blackburn (eds), Towards Socialism (London, 1965), pp. 11-52; and T. Nairn, 'The English Working-Class', New Left Review 24 (1964), pp. 43-57.