You are on page 1of 8

Why is the British working class more class conscious

that the American?
By Gerry Downing

In the current debate about the lack of revolutionary consciousness in the British
working class (and this equally applies to the European and Antipodean working
class) it is useful to contrast the class consciousness of the British and American
working class. Following Trotsky’s advice the slogan ‘build a Labor party’ has long
been accepted in America and various attempts have been made to break the trade
unions from the Democrats and build a workers’ party. Few serious socialist would
disagree with this tactic, though, of course, how it should be put into practice is
controversial; should American unionists try to build a reformist party or should
revolutionaries use the slogan as a transitional demand in a conjunctional way to
allow the character of the party to be determined in struggle? We would argue the
latter, however, as the break with the lib-lab orientation of the trade unions to the
Liberal party happened in Britain more that a hundred years ago the task now is to
build a revolutionary socialist party to intervene in the existing labour movement and
not seek to build our own, new labour movement, a left, real or old version of the
Labour party. Moreover even if appropriate this would require a real movement in the
working class to succeed, attempts by so-called revolutionaries to don the cloths of
reformism in order to gain electoral support presumable with the intention of
revealing their nakedness on the eve of the revolution are totally misguided, why
should anyone believe them then? We will examine the development of class
consciousness in the two nations up to WWII to make the point that those who cannot
defend existing gains will never make new ones. The essay is adapted from two Open
University essays.

Trade unions were illegal in Britain under the Combination Acts for the first quarter
of the nineteenth century. E.P. Thompson’s The Making of the English Working Class
postulates that in this period the working class through its struggles became class
conscious; that is they became aware of their own separate interests as a class and the
need to fight collectively for that. The overwhelmingly presence of artisans and the
working class in the mass demonstrations in 1831-32 in the struggle for the Great
Reform Act testifies to this as does Chartism (1839-48), the world’s first truly national
mass working class movement which fought for political rights such as adult male
suffrage and annual parliaments. However much its detractors might point to the
continued popularity of rural nostalgia and liberal radicalism in some of its
propaganda it lent a political orientation and mass struggle to Robert Owen’s utopian
socialism and feminism and looked forward to a new world. This was the movement
that Marx and Engels addressed in their 1848 Communist Manifesto. It had weapons
of mass propaganda to assist it in changing attitudes, the mass-produced leaflet and
pamphlet and the radical press like the Northern Star and the Poor Man’s Guardian.
In America at the start of that century ‘The possession of some property by almost all
white male adults meant that not only few, if any, were poor, but that equally few
were rich…’ though this very much changed with the mass Irish, Germans and
Chinese immigration at mid-century and the emergence of the robber barons at the
end of the century. The native working class and trade unions were patronised during

1
the Civil War, though the new immigrants suffered cruel exploitation from the forties,
the Irish and Chinese on the 1860s railway construction for example. Post war the
anti-Irish nativist Know Nothings (1854-56) first used the tactic of divide and rule
which was to become so detrimental to American trade union organisation. Ira
Katznelson in Working class formation… (Studies, p.173) theorises that ‘In the United
States… a split consciousness came to divide the working class: as labourers in their
work place and as ethnic or residents of this or that territory in their residential
community. In England, by contrast, there was no equivalent divided consciousness,
nor was class seen as a category of social understanding limited to the realm of work
and labour’. She maintains that ‘the differences between these states’ organisation and
public policy’ made for ‘the key difference in class formation’ between Britain and
America (ibid. p.175). James Holt’s article demonstrates that trade unions were not
defeated by lack of militancy but suggests that ‘technical changes (in American
industry) had undermined the importance of member’s skills which remained critical
in the technically less advanced steel mills of Britain’ (Trade Unionism… Offprints 2,
p.15). However these are only partial explanations; the central factor governing
changing attitudes to trade unions between Britain and America was surely the fate of
crucial industrial disputes and why they were won in Britain and lost in America.

The central factor governing changing attitudes to trade unions between Britain
and America was surely the fate of crucial industrial disputes and why they were
won in Britain and lost in America

The Bryant and Mays match girls (1888) and the struggle for the Dockers’ Tanner
(1889) disputes were won because a more mature working class had learned the value
of solidarity and painful historical lessons on the nature of the state how to fight it.
The British lost most of their illusions in the state after the Peterloo massacre in 1819.
In the US the Homestead Strike near Pittsburgh in 1892 and other similar disputes like
the 1894 strike by the American Railway Union against the Pullman Palace Car
Company near Chicago were lost because Carnegie and other magnates commanded
huge recourses compared to their British counterparts, national unions were of
necessity widely dispersed and the strikers were naive about the nature of the state
and its attitude to the strikers. This crucial struggle against Carnegie’s steel mill was
enormously violent but had huge public and even establishment press support. The
armed strikers seemed to have won when they forced the surrender of the two hundred
Pinkerton agents only to concede to the deployment of state troopers in the belief that
they had come to support them. Clive Emsley’s Police and Industrial disputes…
(Studies, pp. 112-131) points to the reasons for this; local deputy sheriffs often
sympathised with strikers whom they knew and to whom they might be related. The
egalitarianism of the Constitution and the universal male franchise led to false
expectations of the benefits of citizenship and state impartiality.

We will see how craft unionism affected the developments in both countries and why
in Britain the unskilled organized successfully in the big industrial conflicts of the
1890s and why the American attempts largely failed. We will view the organisation of
the unskilled as the vital step in developing class consciousness and therefore the key
to understanding why the British trade unions successfully built the Labour party and
why similar efforts in the US failed.

2
We will view the organisation of the unskilled as the vital step in developing class
consciousness and therefore the key to understanding why the British trade
unions successfully built the Labour party and why similar efforts in the US
failed.

The vicious repression used in the post-Russian Revolution Red Scare in America
holds the key to understanding why the paths of the two movements diverged so
sharply at this point; the British movement also suffered post war reaction but
survived in far better shape because of its past gains and because it could fight more
successfully on both the industrial and political fronts.

Britain’s New Model Unions were craft dominated from the demise of Chartism at the
end of the 1840s to the revival of the movement by the mobilisation of the unskilled at
the start of the successful strike wave of 1889-92. US labour had revived after the
civil war but it was localised; these unionists were typified by the Irish Catholic-
dominated Molly Maguires based in the Schuylkill County, Pennsylvania and other
coal mines. They wrecked instant and bloody retribution against mine owners and
their agents who had treated them badly. The Mollys were crushed and ten leaders
hanged in 1877. The US strike wave of 1889-92, almost contemporaneous with the
British, ended in crushing defeats. These events highlighted and exasperated the
differences between the two movements. Royden Harrison identifies three big
differences. Complementing the British unions he lists the Co-Operative movement,
Labour Churches, socialist Sunday schools and working men’s clubs as constituent
parts of the labour movement. The lack of such auxiliary institutions in America
meant setbacks and defeats were far more costly to it. The second difference
identified by Harrison is that the British TUC ‘survived all the struggles between the
old trade unionists, representing a privileged stratum of skilled workers and the bold
new unionists enrolled under Kier Hardy for the eight hour day and the Socialist
Commonwealth’. The American movement did not develop a single, integrated
leading centre which encompassed all the diverse strands within the trade unions until
after WWII.

The Taff Vale judgement of 1901, which made striking effective illegal, whilst
depressing the level of strikes, did not deal a crushing blow to the British trade unions
but turned them towards political solutions. The unions flocked to join the Labour
Representation Committee and the 1906 general election saw 54 Labour MPs
returned. They founded the Labour party, the third difference identified by Harrison.
Campbell-Bannerman, the new Liberal Prime minister, was obliged by the pledges
given by his MPs during the campaign and mass pressure to enact the TUC’s own
Trade Disputes Bill. This ensured that trade unions could not be sued for damages
caused during a strike, which immunity lasted until 1971. In the US there was no such
legal protection; a hostile judiciary handed out injunctions against them at will. Strike
breaking agencies like the Pinkertons were supplemented by company police forces
and by state and federal troopers who could and did shoot to kill if the unions looked
like succeeding. The American labour movement’s political achievements peaked in
1912. Although Eugene V. Debs also got almost a million votes for the Socialist party
in 1920 whilst in jail for opposing the war, it was from a much bigger electorate. But

3
to what extent he could be said to represent the movement is questionable, following
his departure from the Industrial Workers of the World (IWW, 1905 – c1925) in 1908
and his rejection of, and by, the AFL.

The Knights of Labor (1869 – c1900), claiming 702,000 members in 1886 and the
IWW, who claimed 100,000 members in 1923, were really militant trade unions.
However they were fundamentally different from the British labour movement. The
Knights and the IWW were anarcho-syndicalist politically, that is they held to those
theories of the rights of the individual peculiar to the nobility-dominated rural
societies of Italy, Spain and Russia and the anti-political syndicalist ideas developed
in France, which sought to overthrow capitalism by strikes and sabotage and replace it
with trade union structures. They sought only localised workers’ control of factories
and regions with no real idea of what the Co-operative Commonwealth might be or
how it might function, especially after the IWW split with their most political
members led by Daniel DeLeon and Debs in 1908. Charges of unamericanism were
commonly used against them. Both were ultra-left critics of Samuel Gompers’s AFL
(1886) and scorned the task of fighting within the AFL. This thoroughly confusing
and directionless half-way ideology was mediated through rural populism. It directed
much of its work at black Southern share croppers, the ‘timber beasts’ of the logging
camps of the Northwest and Southern Appalachians and the increasingly marginalised
small farmers of the Midwest. It inevitably folded before severe repression. It was
typified by William J Bryan, whose famous ‘Cross of Gold’ speech to the Democratic
Convention of 1896 was the purest of demagogic humbuggery.

The British Labour party was always reformist, it sought a ‘brotherhood of man’
socialism which blurred if not eliminated class lines. Its strongest influence was the
old Methodist egalitarianism that reduced the class struggle to moral issues. But it
was, and still is, a living contradiction, a bourgeois-workers party in Lenin’s famous
analysis, capitalist at the top but uniquely built by and organically tied to the trade
unions and so susceptible to pressure from its working class base. The Knights and
the IWW had organized women, blacks and the unskilled and were egalitarian in
outlook. Gompers’s AFL increasing allowed discrimination against women, blacks
and the unskilled and became the bastion of elitist craft unionism.

Serious WWI labour shortages enormously increased the bargaining power of the
British trade unions. War-time collaboration by the likes of Henderson, the first
Labour cabinet member, was bought at the price of increased participation of the trade
unions in the production processes, which became far more centrally controlled and
planned. The extremely high British death rates in the trenches killed off the high
spirited patriotic enthusiasm with which Britons went to war. The length of
involvement meant that this advantage had sufficient time to be institutionalised in the
structures of the unions, enhancing the power of the shop floor relative to the top trade
union bureaucracy. Pre-war American labour was far more migratory, being composed
largely of immigrants who often sought to earn enough to return home and buy a plot
or others who sought to buy property in the US; the spirit of individualism lived on
based on perceived prospects of upward mobility still seen as greater than anywhere
else in the world at the time (the American dream) so many were not interested in
strikes which might only benefit them in the long term whereas self-help for the

4
British working class meant ‘the friendly society, the trade union and the co-op’,
according to Harrison. US Labour was subjected to far greater and more rapid
technological changes and it entered war-time production at a lower level of
organisation and with the craft-dominated AFL far more hostile than the TUC to
organising the unskilled on an industrial basis. See Harry Quelch’s Evidence to the
Royal Commission on Labour, 1892. This makes it clear that many employers
accepted the closed shop even then; this strength was undreamt of in America.

The American Constitution was designed to supply a permanent defence for
individual liberty against popular enthusiasm and personal dictatorship. The splitting
of the sovereignty did not especially interfere with the purpose of a conservative party
but to a party of social and industrial reforms it offers a disheartening obstacle. In the
US not one but fifty separate campaigns must be waged to enact progressive
legislation and then the President may veto it or the ‘nine old men’ of the Supreme
Court (state or federal) may just find it unconstitutional. The late entry of the US to
the war in 1917 and its relatively rapid conclusion meant that anti-German hysteria
and anti-union propaganda (the enemy within, fifth columnists, etc) were combined
under the banner of patriotism and there was not the great slaughter of American
soldiers to enable wider layers of the population to see through this and at least
sympathise with American labour – always a minority, unlike in Britain. Anti-Kaiser
hysteria quickly became anti-Bolshevik against labour and all immigrants in the post-
war strike wave. The biggest of these massive confrontations was the Battle of Blair
Mountain in 1921 in the southern West Virginia coalfields where up to 15,000 miners
and strike-breakers fought with guns for ten day in the largest battle since the Civil
War. This was US labour’s biggest ever confrontation. Both the police chief and the
mayor of the little rail town of Matewan in Mingo County were killed fighting on the
side of the miners.

Immigration tailed off due to war-time disruption from 1914 and post war isolationist
legislation encouraged blacks from the south to migrate northwards in increasing
numbers, about a million by 1930. They sought work in the northern factories, mines
and mills, leading to charges of undercutting pay rates won by white workers. Worse;
when walkouts left the factories and mines idle, blacks were recruited as strike
breakers, leading to the worst race riots in US history in the Red Scare year of 1919.
‘The scale of the (race) violence deserves emphasis: in both Tulsa and East St Louis
black sections of the city were virtually eliminated’ (Jenkins, p.206). The revived Ku
Klux Klan, who were ‘between four and eight million strong by 1924’ led these riots
(Jenkins, p.211). As well as southern bigots many of the new movement were urban
Protestant white workers from the mid-west and up to Maine. Lynchings of blacks
were down from over a hundred a year at the start of the century but was still running
at between fifty and sixty in these years (Time Line of African American History,
1901-1925). The Klan supported Prohibition and motherhood, opposed divorce,
Catholics, Jews, blacks and all immigrants. This could not but have a crippling effect
on the trade unions. It destroyed the electoral prospects of the US Socialist party.

Post war saw big set-backs for British labour; after the 1919 humiliation one disaster
after another followed culminating in the defeat of the General Strike in 1926 and the
fiasco of the Ramsey McDonald 1929 government, who sold out the movement so

5
spectacularly in the formation of the National Government of 1931. Wage and welfare
cuts to preserve the gold standard and the split in the Labour party left the movement
on its knees until it revived after 1936. In the US the Great Depression following the
Crash of 1929 ushered in Roosevelt’s New Deal politics (1933-37). This revived the
America Labour movement primarily because the National Labour Relations Act of
1935 decreed that employers had to allow collective bargaining. The Teamsters union
successfully fought two long strikes in 1934 led by Trotskyists in Minneapolis which
eventually unionised truckers throughout America. ‘Within the framework of the…AF
of L our Local (574) has evolved methods of organisation and forms of activity which
go far beyond the traditional craft-union methods and ideas’ proclaimed the Daily
Strike Bulletin of 18 August 1934 (James P Cannon, Notebook of an Agitator, p.90).
Significantly these methods involved the mobilisation of the wives of the strikers and
whole communities, learned from recent strikes in the coalfields. The Flint strike
against General Motors in 1936-7 led by the UAW was the turning point in organising
the unskilled across craft lines in the US; a half a million work days were lost that
year in sit-down strikes. Union membership in America almost doubled between 1936
and 1937 (Documents 2, pp.49-52). Here is the strongest confirmation of the fact that
the class consciousness of the working class is international in essence, reflection the
global character of world capitalism and the formation of a world working class
divided, however, in national sections. The conflicts and interrelationships within this
contradiction have to be mediated and successfully overcome by an internationalist,
revolutionary socialist party, a world party of socialist revolution. This must be a
reforged Fourth International in this writers view.

So we see that encouraged by the revival of the American movement and the heroic
resistance to Franco in Spain in 1936 the famous Battle of Cable Street took place.
This was the most important successful confrontation between the British labour
movement and the state pre-war. Up to 300,000 anti-fascists prevented 10,000 police
from opening a path for 3,000 fascists to enter the East End to attack the Jewish shops
and homes in the area (Price and Sullivan, Workers News, March-April 1994). How
far from the US race riots of 1919!

We can recall Ira Katznelson comments about the split consciousness of the US
working class. This was indeed the crucial difference between the movements which
led to all the other manifestations of differences, outlined above. It was the central
debilitating issue for the craft-orientated AFL and this dreadful backwardness
contributed to the growth of the Ku Klux Klan, and the huge race riots that destroyed
the post WWI strike wave in the US. The CIO’s industrial unionism was successful
pre WWII but by permission of the government in many ways and the movement was
quickly ‘re-Americanised’ after WWII; the British movement revived itself. War and
repression had destroyed the gains in class consciousness of the US working class
instrutionalised in the fusing of the AFL and CIO; it again failed to form a mass party
of labour, a US bourgeois-workers’ party that could fight for their independent calss
interests even in a distorted, reformist fashion. The bureaucrats, both craft and
unskilled, again became an appendage of the capitalist Democrats. The Socialist
Workers Parry lead by Cannon was far too disorientated even then (the war was not
over, they ridiculously kept insisting) to influence maters in a progressive direction.

6
Though there was anti-Irish and anti-Semitic racism in Britain in this period (these
were the main immigrants and the main focus of reaction) nevertheless, the Irish
tended to join unions as they settled and became the most TU militant leaders, so they
became an asset to rather than a dividing factor within them. The British labour
movement protected the Jews in 1936 and has always successfully fought racism
within its own ranks. This egalitarianism, inherited from earlier radicals like the
Diggers, Levellers and Chartists, has endured in the British body politic. In America
there is always a new ‘other’ (Muslims and Latino immigrants today) to bolster a
divisive patriotic/racist consensus, so detrimental to the American Labour movement.
Jack London was a racist as well as a (white!) socialist. His famous definition of a
scab in 1903 ends; ‘Esau was a traitor to himself, Judas Iscariot was a traitor to his
Lord, Benedict Arnold was a traitor to his country. A strike breaker is a traitor to his
god, his country, his family and the working class’. Note the quintessentially
American priorities; no serious British socialist see things in that way now would
have seen things in that way back then. We really do need to appreciate what the
British (and the European and Antipodean) working class has won historically in
order to advance and not allow our frustrations at Blair’s and Brown’s New Labour to
lead us into an adventure which writes them off.

Bibliography
Cannon, J. Notebook of an Agitator, Pioneer Publishers, 1958, New York.
Cronin, J, et al, Book 4, Social Class and Social Reform, OU 2001, Milton Keynes
Centralia Massacre, Wikipedia, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Centralia_Massacre_%28Washington%29
Accessed 25 August 2006.
Englander, D, (ed), Britain and America , Studies in Comparative History 1760, OU 1997, Milton
Keynes .
Jenkins, Philip, A History of the United States , Second Edition, Palgrave Macmillan, New York , 2003.
London Dock Strike, Encyclopedia Britannica Article, http://www.britannica.com/eb/article-9048835,
accessed 6 August 2006
Marwick, A, et al, Teaching Units 7 and 8 Book 4, Social Class and Social Reform, OU 2001, Milton
Keynes
Price, Richard and Sullivan Martin, The Battle of Cable Street : Myths and Realities, Workers News,
March-April 1994
Revell, Geoff, The Story of the Taff Vale Railway Strike, National Union of Rail, Maritime and
Transport Workers, Feb, 2006.
Thompson, E.P. The Making of the English Working Class, (OU set book 1980s) Penguin Books 1968 (first
pub. 1963, London
1896 at Vassar College, http://projects.vassar.edu/1896/crossofgold.html
http://www.whatnextjournal.co.uk/Pages/History/Cable.html, Accessed 25 August 2006. Accessed 26
August 2006 .
The Detroit News Rearview Mirror,
http://info.detnews.com/history/story/index.cfm?id=115&category=business, Accessed 26 August 2006.
Time Line of African American History, 1901-1925, http://lcweb2.loc.gov/ammem/aap/timelin3.html
Accessed 28 August 2006 .
Understanding Comparative History , Britain and America from 1760, Documents 21, OU 2002,
Milton Keynes

7
Understanding Comparative History , Britain and America from 1760, Offprints 2, OU 1997, Milton
Keynes

8