Worley/Histories of the CPGB

Reflections on Recent British Communist Party History

A review essay by Matthew Worley

The social structure and the state continually evolve out of the
life-process of definite individuals, but individuals not as they
may appear in their own or other people's imagination but
rather as they really are, that is, as they work, produce
materially, and act under definite material limitations,
presuppositions, and conditions independent of their will.
Karl Marxl

We must stop talking hot air and build a body of Marxist

ideas that mean something to the British working class. That
implies studying our own working class movement and its
history about which far too little is known.
John Saville2

The historical legacy of the Communist Party of Great Britain (CPGB)

has come under increased attention since the Party's disintegration in
1991. The cessation of the cold war, the collapse of the Soviet Union,
and the opening of relevant archives in both Russia and the UK, has
enabled historians to formulate ever more incisive accounts of
Communist and Communist Party experience.3 Consequently, our
understanding of the inner workings of the Party, the relationship
between the CPGB and the Communist International (Comintern), and
the divergent 'grass roots' activity of Communists in various parts of
Britain has undoubtedly benefited from the expanding historiography.
In particular, the vibrant cultural life of the CPGB has at last been
recognised, while the motivations and objectives that shaped Party
policy at any given time are now more readily understood. Most
importantly, recent research has uncovered a far more variable history
of the CPGB than had hitherto been presented.
Prior to the unlocking of the CPGB and Comintern archives, and
prior to the dissolution of cold-war orthodoxies, Communist Party
history generally fell into four categories. First, there were Party
histories written from a distinctly partisan perspective, such as the
'official' CPGB history written by James Klugmann and Noreen
Branson,4 and Henry Pelling's hostile analysis of the Party from its
formation in 1920 to its bruised post- Hungary existence in 1958. While
the broad though somewhat selective accounts of Klugmann and
Branson offer a valid introduction to the CPGB, Pelling's work now

1 From Marx, The German Ideology in McLellan 1977.

2 Quoted by Peter Fryer in Widgery 1976.
3 In particular, the opening of the CPGB archive - housed at the Museum of
Labour History in Manchester - and the Russian Centre for the Preservation and
Study of Contemporary Historical Documents in Moscow, has benefited
interested historians and scholars.
4 See Klugmann 1968 and 1969, Branson 1985 and 1997.

24:1
Historical MaterlaUsm
reads as a relic of a bygone age, with its incredulous overtures to 'un-
English' reds under the bed.5 Second, CPGB history would unfurl in the
various memoirs (and the odd hagiography) of Party and ex-Party
members. These, too, fell into distinctly 'pro' and 'anti' camps, with
loyal comrades offering anecdotal or choice recollections of Party life;
and fallen ex-comrades ruing the error of their ways.6 Third, the
CPGB's history tended to be used against the Party by the non-CPGB
Left. These accounts generally sought political advantage rather than
historical integrity, and suffered as a consequence. Moreover, the broad
argument made in such critiques, that every move the CPGB made was
determined by Stalin or the USSR, is simply unsustainable, and such
analyses invariably failed to consider indigenous socio-economic
political forces.7
Finally, independent 'left' historians (some of whom had had
contact with the CPGB) examined the role of the British Party in afar
broader context. L.J. Macfarlane reconsidered the Party's conception
and development to 1929; Roderick Martin looked at the CPGB and the
trade unions; Stuart MacIntyre chronicled the history of the British
proletarian autodidacts who formed the basis of the fledgling CPGB;
Hwyel Francis necessarily focused on the Party with regard to Welsh
miners in the Spanish Civil War and the South Wales Miners'
Federation; Richard Croucher detailed the history of the National
Unemployed Workers' Committee Movement; Sue Bruley examined the
role of women in the CPGB; Raphael Samuel and Stephen Jones
unveiled the cultural and sporting world of British Communism; and
Kevin Morgan wrote arguably the finest CPGB history in relation to the
Party's struggle against 'fascism and war' between 1935 and 1941.8
These more objective and thorough analyses of the CPGB did much
to address the deficiencies in Communist Party history delineated by
Eric Hobsbawm and Perry Anderson in 1969 and 1981 respectively.9

5 See Pelling 1958 and Wood 1959. For a recent restatement of Pelling's general
conclusions see Laybourn and Murphy 1999.
6 The following are only a selection of the numerous published memoirs. For the
'loyal' autobiography see Gallacher 1948, Hannington 1967, Horner 1960,
Hardy 1956, Pollitt 1940 and Stewart 1967. For the 'rueful' see Darke 1952,
McCarthy 1953, and Utley 1949. Three more balanced ex-Party accounts are
Hyde 1950, McShane 1978 and Murphy 1941. The recent publication of Molly
Murphy's autobiography gives us a rare glimpse of Communist activity from a
'rank-and-file' perspective. Molly's juxtaposition of 'grass roots' activity and
'insider' knowledge - her marriage to Jack Murphy allowed Molly to meet the
revolutionary elite (including Lenin), while her work in the Women's Social and
Political Union and in the Spanish Civil War placed Molly at the forefront of 'the
struggle' - constitutes a unique insight into tfie inter-war socialist movement that
is invaluable to any labour historian. See Murphy 1998.
7 See Black 1970, Woodhouse and Pearce 1975, Dewar 1976. Also Bornstein
and Richardson 1986, and Groves 1974.
8 Macfarlane 1966, Martin 1969, Macintyre 1980, Francis 1984, Francis and
Smith 1980, Croucher 1987, Bruley 1986, Jones 1986, Morgan 1989.
Publications such as History Workshop, Socialist History, and the North West
Labour History Group Bulletin also contributed significant articles and insights.
9 Hobsbawm 1973 and 1984, and Anderson 1981. In 1978 and 1979, Monty
Johnstone and Peter Latham conducted a similar debate in the pages of the Party
journal, Our History. See Our History 3 and 4.
zlfz
 Worley/Histories of the CPGB
Both Hobsbawm and Anderson noted that Communist Party history
was overwhelmingly conducted 'from above'; that the study of a
relatively small Party, such as the CPGB, could often distort the role
played by Communists in a particular dispute or period; and that a
'satisfactory' history of any Communist Party necessitated certain key
requirements. These included an analysis of Party membership,
influence and policy; an understanding of the indigenous Communist
movement's position in relation to national political, social and
economic structures and forces; and an objective appreciation of the
relationship between national and international Communist hierarchies.
With the 'opening of the books' at the turn of the decade, it became
possible to venture even further into the 'lost world of British
Communism', and the type of research pioneered by MacIntyre,
Francis, Morgan et al. was extended. Initially, attention focused on
personalities and turning points in the history of the British Party. The
intra-Party debate surrounding the CPGB's decision to oppose the
Second World War was published, while Mike Squires's biography of
the Communist MP Shapurji Saklatvala contained a reassessment of the
Party's infamous 'class against class' line of 1928-1935.10 An updated
Party history was also constructed by Willie Thompson, and Harry
Pollitt and Rajani Palme Dutt became the subjects of definitive
biographies based upon recently recovered correspondence and
leadership minutes. II Finally, the new archival material prompted the
publication of Opening the Books; Essays on the Social and Cultural
History of the British Communist Party, in which previous studies were
(slightly) revised and fresh areas of research designated.12 Such work,
which utilised the archives to varying extents, reopened potent areas of
debate and sparked an interest in the CPGB that has led to the
burgeoning number of publications referred to below.
Neither the above synopsis nor this article claim to be a definitive
survey of works on or concerning the CPGB. Rather, it is an attempt to
assess whether more recent investigations into the myriad totality of
British Communism appease the very cogent concerns raised by
Hobsbawm and Anderson, and whether our understanding of
Communism in Britain has been extended as a result. Not all of the
studies discussed below submit to the broad paradigm determined by
Hobsbawm and Anderson. Indeed, some still succumb to the crippling
deficiencies of cold-war conformity and political point scoring. It will be
argued however, that recent additions to the history of the CPGB have
enabled a Party that traditionally boasted an influence that belied its

10 King and Matthews 1990, Squires 1990 and 1993.

II Thompson 1993, Callaghan 1993, and Morgan 1993.
\2 Andrews, Fishman and Morgan 1995. The essays included an investigation
into the Party's relationship with the London Jewish community by Henry
Srebrink; Andy Croft's overview of writers in the CPGB; and an analysis of the
Party's response to the cultural overhaul of the sixties by Mike Waite. Important
essays by John Callaghan, on the CPGB's anti-colonial policy, and by HaKim Adi
on 'West Africans and the Communist Party in the 1950s' were also included.
Historical MaterlaUsm
relatively small number, to at last gain the historical recognition that its
dedicated membership struggled so hard to deserve.

The centre and peripheryl3

Any investigation into British Communism must necessarily include an

analysis of the relationship between the CPGB and the Soviet Union,
and, prior to 1943, the CPGB and the Communist International. As a
section of the Comintern (Third International), the CPGB was part of a
world Communist Party, bound to the decisions of the International
Executive (ECCI) by the principles of democratic centralism. Somewhat
inevitably, therefore, such an arrangement has led many historians,
particularly those writing in the cold-war period, to assume that the
national sections of the International were mere 'puppets of Comintern';
and the Comintern itself a tool of the Soviet state and subsequently
Stalin.14 With the opening of the archives in Moscow (and Manchester)
however, such assumptions have been challenged and fundamentally
revised. The limitations of Comintern/Soviet control have been
recognised, while access to the minutes of intra-Party/intra-Comintern
debates have given a more multifaceted appearance to those so often
dismissed as 'Stalin's men'.
Crucially, such a reassessment has not led historians to dismiss the
centrality of either the Comintern or the Soviet Union to the
Communist perspective. For members of the Communist movement
aligned with the Comintern, the defence and example of the Soviet
Union was an integral part of their worldview, and the influence of the
USSR undoubtedly impinged on all aspects of Communist Party life.
With regard to the CPGB, Soviet songs were regularly sung at Party
socials for instance, while the Party as a whole remained loyal to the
theoretical formulations sanctioned by the ECCI and deferential to the
'achievements' of the first workers' state. Furthermore, the authority of
the Comintern - in terms of an ideological cement that regularly
prevented its national sections from disintegrating into fragments - is
also recognised by historians whose general analysis favours a more
flexible account of the national-international dynamic.15
Nor, too, has the historical reassessment of the mechanisms of
Party-Comintern-Soviet interplay sought to deny Stalin's usurpation,
and eventual suffocation, of the Comintern apparatus. Rather,
historians such as Kevin McDermott, Jeremy Agnew and Andrew

13 This heading is taken from Narinsky and Rojahn (eds.) 1996.

14 See, for example, Borkanau 1953, Hallas 1985, and Pelling 1958.
15 The Portuguese and Dutch Parties are but two examples of where Comintern
authority prevented fragmentation (see the relevant essays in Rees and Thorpe
1998). For such an argument in relation to the CPGB, see Morgan 1993b. Of
course, Com intern intervention could, and did, sometimes engender divisions
within its sections. However, Comintern, and indeed Soviet, authority often gave
the movement a unity that contrasted with other sections of the revolutionary
Left.
 Worley/Histories of the CPGB
Thorpe have persuasively argued that neither Soviet nor Comintern
influence should be seen as total.16 In particular, they demonstrate that
the transition from theory to practice precludes any simplistic notions of
automatism. Thus, while the Comintern was consulted and kept up to
date with events and decisions in the various national sections, it
regularly allowed initiatives and manipulations of 'the line' to be
undertaken, and was simply unable to execute the omnipotent role
generally ascribed to itY
Andrew Thorpe's work is particularly instructive in this respect. In
an essay devoted specifically to the extent of Comintern 'control' over
the CPGB,18 Thorpe details the various limitations that obstructed the
International's hold over the British Party. Most obviously, Britain's
geographical position and political system placed the Party beyond the
immediate reach of Moscow. Not only were CPGB members protected
by their British passports when visiting the USSR, but the Party's
legality gave it a flexibility and an independence that contrasted with, for
example, the Polish Communist Party. The CPGB leadership was not
required to flee to Moscow, and the overworked Anglo-American
Secretariat that counselled the British comrades' work was unable to
construct a completely omnipotent 'advisory' apparatus.19 While the
Comintern and the USSR undoubtedly had a defining influence on the
CPGB therefore, a number of other influences (pressure from the rank
and file, intra-Party differences, indigenous conditions and political
structures) were similarly important.
Thorpe has also contested the 'traditional' assertion that the policies
pursued by the CPGB were imposed by Moscow and subsequently alien
to the British Party.20Again, it must be remembered that the CPGB was
a loyal section of the Comintern and an unflinching defender of the
USSR. However, such loyalty was complimented by the 'revolutionary
pragmatism' recognised by Nina Fishman (see below), and the
specifically British socio-economic and political conditions from which
the CPGB, in a large part, emerged. As such, the process of
'Bolshevisation' or '::ltalinisation' undertaken by the CPGB from the
1920s onwards, can be seen to contain particularly British
characteristics.

16 McDermott and Agnew 1996, McDermott 1998, Thorpe 1998, Rees and
Thorpe 1998.
17 For a discussion of such developments with regard to other national Parties,
see Narinsky and Rojahn (eds.) 1996, Saarela and Rentola (eds.) 1998, Rees
and Thorpe 1998.
18 Thorpe 1998. .
19 In 1932, the Anglo-American Secretariat employed just 12 members of staff.
Similarly, ECCI advisors in Britain did not always find themselves siding with the
Comintern. For example, in 1927, when the. TUC threatened to expel those
trades councils affiliated or associated with the Communist-led Minority
Movement, the CPGB and the ECCI drew contrasting conclusions from the
ultimatum. The CPGB determined to accept the resolution 'under protest', while
the ECCI resolved to launch a campaign in opposition to the TUC offensive. The
ECCI representative based in Britain, Petrovsky, supported the CPGB.
20 Dewar 1976 and Pelling 1958.

245
Historical Materialism
Very generally, such a process of centralisation and
bureaucratisation was not confined to the CPGB, but was evident in the
Labour Party, the Trades Union Congress (TUC) and Conservative
Party through exactly the same period. More specifically, the CPGB's
particular take on Bolshevism regularly led to the Party clashing with
Comintern representatives in Moscow and Britain. During the early
1930s, both Harry Pollitt and Wal Hannington entered into protracted
arguments with the Red International Labour Union (RILU, the trade-
union wing of the International) over industrial and unemployment
policy. While Hannington argued against the establishment of 'all-in'
unemployed councils in Britain, and actively denied their formation,
Pollitt criticised the militant trade-union policy of the RILU chief
Losovsky to the extent that he believed there to be 'a definite campaign
against me at RILU headquarters'.21 For Pollitt, the 'correct' response
to practical political strategy was always to ask 'what we would do if we
were our lads', as opposed to merely analysing events through
'microscopes or letters from afar'.22 Evidently, therefore, the {>artydid
resist certain 'orders from Moscow' and, as discussed below,
endeavoured to apply the Comintern's directives pragmatically to suit
indigenous conditions.
In relation to the adoption of Party policy, ECCI resolutions were
very rarely affirmed without a detailed discussion on the part of the
CPGB. A prolonged debate preceded any change of line, and differing
interpretations of policy continued to be evident - practically and
ideologically - even after formal Party acceptance. Furthermore, British
comrades regularly contributed to Comintern discussions on the 'British
situation', either as representatives on the Executive of the Comintern,
or as delegates to a Comintern Presidium/Congress/Conference.23
Finally, as Kevin McDermott has demonstrated, Comintern directives
were more flexible than has hitherto been recognised.24 Even the
International's resolutions on 'Bolshevisation' (to which European
Communists contributed) were extremely general and fraught with such
tensions as those between Lenin's recognition of 'national specificities'
and the supposedly universal nature of the Bolshevik model.
The decision-making process that existed between the CPGB and
the Comintern therefore, should be seen neither as a fixed, or one-way,
entity. Rather, the perspective and directives of the Comintern and the
CPGB were under constant revision as the International and/or the
CPGB sought to reconcile the perceived 'objective situation' with the
most effective political strategy. Indeed, such a perspective is supported
by two recent analyses of the CPGB in the 'Comintern years': the
present writer's research into the CPGB between 1927 and 1932, and

21 For Hannington see Croucher 1987. For Pollitt, 'Letter to Jimmy Shields 18
March 1932', in the National Museum of Labour History.
22 Quoted in Morgan 1993, p. 80.
23 Thorpe 1998.
24 McDermott 1998. See also Worley 1998.

246
 Worley/Histories of the CPGB
Nina Fishman's study of Communist activity within the British trade-
union movement from 1933 to 1945.
'Traditional' accounts of the CPGB during the so-called 'Third
Period' (1928-1935) portray the Party as blindly following a
'Stalinised' Comintern down an erroneous path of sectarianism and
solidifying ideological dogma.25 Consequently, it is argued, Party
membership collapsed, Communist influence within the wider labour
movement was severally curtailed, and the CPGB became a wholly
'Stalinist' political entity. While it is true that CPGB membership did
decline between 1927 and 1930 (from 11,127 in December 1926 to
2,555 in November 1930), and sectarianism engendered by the Party's
'New Line' ('class against class') did compound the already antagonistic
relationship between the CPGB and the labour-socialist mainstream, it
would be misleading to simply correlate the Party's fortunes to the line
of the Communist International. Moreover, such an interpretation
neglects the variegated history of the Party across the 'Third Period',
during which CPGB membership also increased (from 2,555 in
November 1930 to 9,000 in January 1932). International and Party
policy continually evolved, and the Party spearheaded the influential
unemployment movement of 1928-1933. Simultaneously, the Party's
separation from the labour mainstream facilitated the development of an
indigenous Communist culture in Britain that centred upon the CPGB.26
While space does not allow a thorough discussion of these
developments, certain relevant factors can be highlighted in relation to
my general argument. Principally, a materialist analysis of the
Communist experience must consider the socio-economic, political and
cultural environment in which the CPGB was operating. In particular,
an assessment of Communist influence across the 'Third Period' must
consider the structural changes affecting Britain's industrial base
between the wars, thereby recognising that a Party with support centred
primarily in the old staple industries of coal, steel and textiles, was
radically affected by the literal disintegration of these industries and the
communities on which they were based. The South Wales coalfields for
example, were decimated by the industrial decline of the inter-war
period. Between 1921 and 1936, 241 mines closed down and a
workforce that had numbered 271,161 in 1920 fell to 126,233 in the
same periodP Thus, to assess any apparent decline in CPGB support
and influence, we must consider how the environment in which the
Party functioned shaped working-class perceptions, actions and
objectives. So, in the case of Mardy in South Wales for example, a Party
centre was dislocated, fear of victimisation impinged on political
activity, the 'space' of Communist activity shifted from the workplace to

25 See Pelling 1958, Dewar 1976, Darlington 1998, Beckett 1995.

26 Worley 1998.
27 Francis and Smith 1980. pp.32-35. For similar reports from Scotland and
Yorkshire, see The Report of the Scottish District Party, July 1930 and Sheffield
Statement on Membership, 23 July 1930 in the National Museum of Läbour
History. Also Campbell 1996.
247
Historical Materialism
the street or dole queue, and political perspectives were negatively offset
by the effects of unemployment.
Similarly, the Party's adoption of the more militant 'class against
class' line must be considered beyond the 'traditional' perspective of the
emergent battle between Stalin and Bukharin. Most obviously, the
theoretical basis of the 'Third Period' was developed prior to the
collapse of the duumvirate, as was the policy of 'class against class'.28
Moreover, there were British precedents for the 'left turn' of 1928. The
disappointing climax to the General Strike, and the continued suffering
of the miners, encouraged Communist hostility towards the existing
leadership of the TUC and Labour Party. Conversely, such hostility was
reciprocated, as Labour and union leaders turned their attention
towards 'disruptive elements' inside the labour movement. The TUC
general council subsequently denounced affiliation to the National
Minority Movement (NMM), a Communist-organised pressure group
inside the trade unions, while individual union bureaucracies took
varied measures to expel or limit Communist influence within their
ranks. Furthermore, TUC recognition of those trades councils affiliated
to the NMM was withdrawn, and the Labour Party stepped up its own
campaign against Communist 'infiltration' by expelling local parties
associated with the CPGB. Finally, the TUC's withdrawal from the
Anglo-Russian Trade Union Unity Committee, and the onset of a
period of 'industrial peace' - symbolised by the Mond-Turner talks held
between employers and union representatives from January 1928 -
convinced many Communists of the 'rapprochement' of social
democracy and capitalism. Consequently, the more militant line adopted
by the CPGB from 1928 was not only embraced by wide sections of the
Party membership, but it correlated to, and was ratified by, British
determinants in accordance with theoretical realignments developed
within the Comintern. This.is not to say that Comintern or CPGB policy
was 'correct', rather that changes in policy and perspectives were not
merely the consequence of political power play within the USSR.
As for the experience of the CPGB on the ground, Party members at
a national and regional level were able to adapt prevailing Comintern
policy to suit British conditions. The Comintern Executive regularly
backed the more flexible approach of leaders such as Harry Pollitt
against those in the CPGB (and the Comintern) who wished to pursue a
more rigid interpretation of the International 'line'. This was clearly
apparent in the Comintern's approach toward the establishment of
Communist-led (independent) trade unions during the 'Third Period'.
The notion of 'Red' trade unions was adopted by the Comintern in
accordance with the perceived 'social-fascist' character of the
'reformist' (or social-democratic) trade unions in a supposedly
revolutionary period. However, in contrast to generally held opinion,
the Comintern never abandoned the policy of work within the already

28 See Draper 1972 and Kozlov and Weitz 1989.

2lt8
 Worley/Histories of the CPGB
existing 'reformist' unions, and consistently maintained a malleable
policy in relation to the formation of new unions.29 Thus, when Harry
Pollitt argued that conditions were unfavourable to the formation of a
'Red' miners' union in Britain in 1930, the Comintern backed Pollitt
over the heads of more hard-line comrades in the CPGB, and against
the recommendation of the RILU representative in Britain at the time.30
Similarly, in the midst of the industrial struggle itself, Communists were
able to adapt Party policy in accord with their own understanding of the
Comintern line. During the 'Third Period', this was evident in the
sectarian approach adopted by many of the local comrades, as well as in
Pollitt's pragmatic moderation of Party policy between 1930-32.31 As
Andrew Thorpe has thus concluded, while the CPGB saw itself as a
loyal section of the Comintern, it was largely the master of its own
fate.32
Such a perspective is further supported by Nina Fishman in her
analysis of Communist influence in the British trade-union movement
between 1933 and 1945. By focusing on a particular realm of
Communist activity, and by combining a broad historical overview with
intricate case studies of the Party's factory work, Fishman reveals the
complexities of Communist theory and practice. As such, the Party
adopted an increasingly flexible approach to its industrial work during
the 1930s, forging what Fishman calls a 'revolutionary pragmatism' to
balance the potentially conflicting notions of rank-and-file-ism and
trade-union-loyalism that shaped the British Communist perspective.
The Party, under the leadership of Harry Pollitt, constructed and
then consolidated a formidable presence within the British trade-union
movement throughout the 1930-40s. Communists such as Joe Scott
and George Crane in the AEU, Bert Papworth among the London
Busmen, and Mick and Jock Kane in the Nottingham Miners'
Association, became key figures within their respective workplaces and
trade union. Through a combination of organisation on the factory floor
and an astute approach to collective bargaining at a local and national
level, Communists led and articulated the grievances of workers across
the country. Moreover, Fishman demonstrates that 'the variety of ways
in which Party members approached the "economic struggle" was due
to widely differing local, regional and corporate trade-union cultures;
different collective bargaining conventions; and the vicissitudes of

29 Thus, only 'at the high tide of strikes, only when the political struggle is very
acute, when considerable sections of the proletariat have already grasped the
social-fascist character of the reformist trade-union bureaucracy, and when these
masses are actively supporting the formation of a new trade union', should a
'red' union be established. See ECCI 1929.
30 Asimilar situation had occurred in late 1928, when sections of the CPGB and
the RILU pressed for the establishment of a 'Red' Seaman's union. Pollitt
resisted, and while he was criticised by the Comintern for not accepting the need
for the new union, the implementation of such a policy was not enforced.
31 See for example, the Dawdon colliery and Austins' motors disputes of 1929.
Martin 1969 and Morgan 1993.
32 Thorpe 1998.
Historical Materialism
economic forces and shopfloor morale'.33 Such an acknowledgement of
the multifaceted nature of British Communism is central to the
deconstruction of the traditional conception of Communist activity as
mere Moscow diktat. While the Comintern constructed the theoretical
paradigm within which the Party functioned, it was the Communists at
a shopfloor and leadership level who interpreted and executed policy in
the face of the actual class struggle.34 In so doing, the CPGB was able
to both extend its own sphere of influence and contribute to the revival
of British trade unionism in the 1930s.
Although it is possible to contest some of Fishman's assertions,35 her
work undoubtedly portrays the CPGB as a part of the society in which it
emerged and functioned. But, while Fishman's concentration on history
'from below' counters the traditionally top-heavy approach to the Party
applied by many previous writers, such an approach neglects the
deliberations of the Party leadership and the machinations of Party
decision-making. Even so, Fishman has given us an original and
credible insight into the world of British labour between 1933-45, and
radically realigned our conceptions of Communist activity within both
the trade-union movement and the workplace.
Conversely, where historians attempt to deny the more variegated
history outlined above, a far too rigid - or mono-dimensional -
interpretation of the Communist experience is presented. Thus, Ralph
Darlington's biography of Jack Murphy succumbs to the stifling
limitations outlined by Hobsbawm and Anderson, as objective analysis is
clouded by preconception. Writing within the 'theoretical tradition of
the Socialist Workers Party', Darlington has chosen a biographical
subject who relates to the rank-and-file perspective of the SWP.
Murphy was an active trade unionist, a leading member of the Shop
Stewards' and Workers' Committee Movement during the Great War,
and author of the influential pamphlet The Workers' Committee: An
Outline of its Principles and Structure (1917). As such, Darlington
adeptly details and analyses the formation and intricacies of Murphy's
political thought and, by focusing on the 'political trajectory' of his

33 Fishman 1995.
34 This distance between the Party's theoretical alignment with the Comintern
and its practical activity was evident following the Party's notorious decision to
oppose Britain's entry into the war against Nazi Germany. Initially, the Party had
articulated the typically Bolshevik policy of a 'war on two fronts' - against
fascism abroad and capitalism at home. On Moscow's orders the Party changed
its line to one of oprosition to the war. However, as Fishman shows, while this
remained the officia Party line until June 1941, many Communists were able to
downplay the Party's stance on the war, and Party influence and support
remained relatively unaffected. Indeed, the Party's membership increased
between September 1939 and March 1940.
35 My,rersonal opinion is that Fishman offers a too-determinist account of Harry
Pollitt s and Johnny Campbell's command of the CPGB, and pre-empts the close
relationship the two Party leaders forged in the 1930s. By not considering the
leadership deliberations of the Party, our understanding of intra- Party concerns
and debate is limited. I do however, concur with the general argument put
forward throughout the book.
250
 Worley/Histories of the CPGB
subject, raises questions of theoretical development and influence.
Problems occur however, once his attention is turned to the CPGB.
Between 1920 and 1932, Murphy became a prominent figure within
both the British Communist Party and the Communist International.
Indeed, Murphy represented the CPGB at numerous Comintern
congresses and was actually stationed in Moscow as a member of the
ECCI between 1926 and 1928. He eventually left the Party in 1932,
after an acrimonious political dispute with his comrades on the Central
Committee. From Darlington's perspective, Murphy's political
development was smothered in accordance with Communist
'degeneration' under Stalin. Thus, the CPGB is portrayed as the Party
that became 'a completely loyal devotee to the Russian Stalinist
leadership before any other'36 and the actions, policies and results of
CPGB activity are attributed almost entirely to Stalinist manoeuvrings.
Indigenous factors are abstracted, political and personal initiative
dismissed, and the evolution of international Communism reduced to a
one-dimensional scrimmage of political power-play.
By attempting to portray Murphy as a sincere radical waylaid by
inflexible Stalinist orthodoxy, however, Darlington's thesis is undone by
his own subject. For Murphy was a maverick figure within the CPGB, a
leading Party member who found himself regularly in opposition to the
prevailing line of both the CPGB and the CI. (Or, as Ellen Wilkinson
once remarked, 'all out of step but Jack'.) Even as a member of the
ECCI, Murphy freely developed arguments at odds with official
Comintern policy. In 1927-28 for example, at the onset of the 'class
against class' period which pitted the Communist Party against labour-
socialist organisations such as the Labour Party and 'reformist' trade
unions, Murphy raised the possibility of a Workers' Federation that
united Communists and left-wing Labour supporters. Such a policy was
overruled, but Murphy retained his position in Moscow and within the
CPGB hierarchy. As outlined above, Communist politics in the 1920s
were far more flexible and multi-dimensional than Darlington suggests,
and by placing his. subject against a rigid equation of Stalin =
Comintern = CPGB, Darlington forges far too static an interpretation
of the CPGB.
Overall therefore, recent research into the dynamics of Communist
decision-making, and more specifically, the relationship between the
Comintern and the CPGB, has suggested that we fundamentally revise
'traditional' conceptions of Communist automatism and cohesion. As
such, we may concur with Kevin Morgan, that, although the parameters
of Communist Party autonomy were limited, to ignore the variations
and tensions that existed within those parameters is to write 'far too
crude' a history of both British and international CommunismY

36 Darlington 1998, p. 140.

37 Morgan 1998a, p. 206.
Historical Materialism
A secret history of the twentieth century

The realisation of the definitive Communist Party history proposed by

Hobsbawm and Anderson would require an enormous body of work.
Perhaps understandably, therefore, historians seeking to broaden our
perspective of the Communist experience have focused on specific
facets of Party activity which can be affixed to our overall conception of
the CPGB. In the 1980s, Hywel Francis and Stuart MacIntyre both
examined the role of local Communists within the South Wales mining
community, while MacIntyre also detailed the autodidactical traditions
of the British labour movement adopted and transformed by the CPGB.
Similarly, Raphael Samuel and the History Workshop journal delved into
the 'lost world' of regional Communist activity, from which seminal
articles on the Party's cultural and industrial life emerged.38
More recently, the emergence of wide-ranging Party documents has
prompted historians to investigate the breadth of Communist activity,
thus giving credence to the conception of British Communism as a total
and varied experience. Phil Cohen's collection of 'interviews' with
various Party members' children for example, has demonstrated just
how far the commitment of CPGB members extended. While Cohen
himself was named after the Communist MP Phil Piratin, all the
interviewees featured in the book recall childhoods in which they lived
and breathed Communism. May Day marches, demonstrations and the
Young Communist League were all an integral part of their upbringing,
and the overriding image is captured by Cohen when he concludes that
'a picture emerges of parents driven by compassion and idealism who
strove to build a better world for all but who could be absent and distant
from their own children in the cause of the greater good'. 39
Recent research has also focused on Communist activity in more
marginalised political spaces. Marc Wadsworth's biography of Shapurji
Saklatvala is primarily significant for its analysis of the Communist MP
in relation to his race and his struggle against British imperialism, an
approach that allows Wadsworth to consider Saklatvala's life from an
important though rarely explored perspective. Despite his CPGB
membership, Saklatvala was voted to parliament as the Labour Party
candidate for North Battersea in 1922, and then again in 1924.40 From
his seat in the Commons, Saklatvala tirelessly raised the issue of India's
subjugation to British rule, and the struggle for India's independence
became the principal - though not exclusive - feature of Saklatvala's
political career. The value of Wadsworth's study lies in its evaluation of
Saklatvala's position, as a Parsi Indian, in the political climate of

38 For example Samuel 1985, Samuel 1986, Samuel 1987, Samuel, MacColI and
Cosgrove 1984, and Hinton 1980.
39 Cohen 1997, p. 188.
40 Saklatvala lost to the Liberal H. Hogbin in the 1923 election. Standing as a
Communist in 1929, following the Labour Party's suppression of Labour-
sponsored Communists and the CPGB's offensive against the Labour Party,
Saklatvala lost his sear to Labour's W.S. Sanders.
:lS:I
 Worley/Histories of the CPGB
imperial Britain in the early twentieth century. Not only is the general
prejudice of rival election candidates and the capitalist press discussed
in relation to Saklatvala's prominent political position, but the CPGB's
utilisation and marginalisation of Saklatvala is similarly explored. From
such a perspective, Wadsworth is able to highlight problems that 'still
bedevil relationships between Black activists and the British left' such as
the failure to deal with race as a theoretical issue, the tendency to utilise
black issues according the 'exigencies of the moment', and the role of
black activists within predominantly white organisations.41 While being
limited as a definitive biography, therefore, Wadsworth's concentration
on a particular component of Saklatvala's life raises important issues
and leads us towards a potentially rewarding area of historical study.
Similarly, the CPGB's contribution to Marxist theory has
traditionally been ignored (or belittled) by observers of the British Party.
The relatively small size of the CPGB corresponded to its
marginalisation within the international Communist movement, and the
theoretical pronunciations that emerged from the Party were
subsequently given short shrift at home and abroad. For Edwin Roberts,
however, the writings of John Lewis, J.D. Bernal, J.B.S. Haldane and
Maurice Cornforth have been unfairly neglected.42 In contrast to
received opinion, Roberts convincingly suggests that a distinct strand of
'Anglo-Marxism' did exist prior to the emergence of the so-called 'New
Left' in the late 1950s. Forged from a combination of Fabian
Liberalism, Ethical Socialism and militant Labourism, Roberts suggests
that, while Anglo-Marxism was guided by encroaching Soviet Marxist
orthodoxy, it was never overwhelmed by it. Thus, Roberts details the
empiricism, rationalism, moralism and anti-historicism that
characterised a peculiarly British Marxist perspective throughout even
the most obviously 'Stalinist' years, and rightly acknowledges the
importance Communists such as Bernal and Haldane engendered
within their respective fields of physics and biology.
Although Roberts' analysis of his subjects' Marxist theory can be
challenged, and his forays into the history of the CPGB are often
inflexible and reductionist, the central argument of The Anglo-Marxists
is a valid and persuasive one. Again, the history of the CPGB is
necessarily recovered from the imposed orthodoxies of cold-war
polarisation, post-Stalin revisionism, and historical rigidity. Just as the
activity of Communists within the workplace and the community (see
below) was far more varied than has hitherto been acknowledged, so
Roberts demonstrates how the work of Party intellectuals was similarly
complex and multifaceted.
It is our understanding of the cultural world of the CPGB however,
that has most notably benefited from the unveiled Party archive. The
development of a specifically British Communist culture both preceded
and emanated from the Party's adoption of a more independent position

41 Wadsworth 1998, pp. 109-to.

42 Roberts, 1997.
253
Historical MaterlaUsm
during the 'Third Period'. As the CPGB sought to infuse indigenous
working class culture with Bolshevik rigour, so its objectives and
perceptions contrasted with the more moderate, liberal approach of
those such as Tom Groom, the chairman of the Clarion Cyclists and
original secretary of the British Workers' Sports Federation (BWSF).
Similarly, Communist criticism of the National Labour College (NLC)
syllabus, and the reciprocal anti-Communism of the college secretary
J.P.M. Millar, had severally debased the Party's involvement in the
workers' education movement prior to the adoption of 'class against
class'. The more independent line in the 'Third Period' therefore
contextualised these divisions, and encouraged Party members such as
Tom Thomas, Jimmy Miller, Walter Tapsell and George Sinfield to
develop a more revolutionary approach to workers' culture.
Thomas and Miller pioneered the Workers' Theatre Movement
(WTM), while Tapsell and Sinfield steered the BWSF in an overtly
political direction, fusing critiques of 'capitalist sport' with the
organisation of workers' sports days, football leagues and sports clubs.
Crucially, however, the fastidiousness of the CPGB's approach to
education, and the particular focus of Party culture (on, say, football,
rambling, cycling) all had British precedents. Overall, therefore, the
cultural world of the CPGB evolved as a peculiar synthesis of national
and international forces, wherein indigenous cultural forms were
politicised and interpreted through a Marxist-Leninist paradigmY .
While Communist involvement in the WTM, BWSF, and the
Workers' Film Movement received detailed attention in the mid-
eighties, recent research has assessed the Party's influence across an
ever wider range of cultural spheres.44 In particular, the work of Andy
Croft has done much to excavate the notable literary herita'ge of the
CPGB. Both Red Letter Days and Crofts's contribution to Opening the
Books recover the work of such writers as Jack Lindsay, Sylvia
Townsend Warner and Patrick Hamilton, and Croft rightly emphasises
the central role the Party appointed to cultural activity throughout much
of its history.45 Through its utilisation of worker correspondents in the
Daily Worker, its focus on education, and its conception of culture as an
integral component of the class struggle, the Party encouraged its
members to educate and express 'themselves. Subsequently, as Croft
acknowledges, the Party did not simply attract writers to 'the cause',
rather the totality of the Communist perspective engendered Party
members to become writers themselves.
In a more recent collection of essays, also edited by Croft, the
radical graphic art of 'the three Jameses' (Boswell, Holland and Fitton)
that embellished such influential inter-war publications as the Left
Review is assessed; the varied Communist sympathies of classical

43 This was itself variable, and depended on the class relations, cultural traditions
and the social composition of a particular region.
44 Samuel, MacColl & Cosgrove 1984, Jones 1985, 1986 and 1987, Chambers
1989, Hagenkamp 1986.
45 Croft 1990 and 1995.
 Worley/Histories of the (PGB
composers, including Michael Tippett, Edward Clark, Elisabeth Lutyens
and Alan Bush, are uncovered; Communist involvement in the
burgeoning jazz scene of the mid-thirties and forties is analysed; and
Hamish Henderson recalls how local Communists transformed the
original Edinburgh Festival between 1951 and 1954.46 Space does not
allow a thorough review of the myriad arenas of Communist activity
discussed in A Weapon in the Struggle, although it is possible to outline
certain characteristics of CPGB-inspired or -initiated cultural activity.
First, certain tensions existed between the Party's (evolving) official
'line' on cultural activity and the actual cultural work instigated by Party
members themselves. As Croft makes clear, the parallel conception of
culture within the CPGB as both a 'weapon in the struggle', and as the
summation of the 'enriched and democratic human culture' of
socialism, often conflictedY Consequently, the Party appeared to
sometimes 'pull in different directions', condemning the 'reformist'
nature of, say, Eugene O'Neill at one time, while instigating broad left-
wing journals (Our Time) at another.48 The result of such apparent
contradictions was similarly paradoxical. In a positive sense, the Party
endeavoured to carve out its own distinct cultural space. During the
'class against class' period, the CPGB sought to rid its cultural
initiatives of all social-democratic traits. The Workers' Theatre
Movement for example, cultivated an agit-prop style that extracted itself
from such 'bourgeois conventions' as theatre and stage, preferring to
perform on the street in the midst of industrial conflict. Conversely,
cultural activity could be limited by the enforcement of ideological
parameters. In accordance with Zhdanov's restrictive pronunciations on
art in the late 1940s, the Party's room for manoeuvre within the
burgeoning cultural realm of the British Left (which the CPGB had
helped develop) was severally hampered, and the Party suffered as a
consequence.
Even so, it is also clear that, while theoretical orthodoxy affected the
Party's cultural development on certain occasions, rank-and-file
Communists throughout Britain instigated a wide variety of cultural
activities. The Workers' Theatre Movement was primarily the product
of Tom Thomas's perseverance in Hackney and Jimmy Miller's initiative
in Manchester in the late 1920s. Workers' sports clubs - which
affiliated to the British Workers' Sports Federation - appeared
throughout Britain in the same period, organising rambling excursions,
football leagues, cycling clubs, swimming galas, and even a baseball
team in the Rhondda.49 Similarly, as Kevin Morgan demonstrates in A
Weapon in the Struggle, 'there was hardly a jazz band without a
Communist faction by the early forties',so while it took the dedication
and often personal sacrifice of Communists such as Randall Swingler to

46 Radford 1998, Hanlon and Waite 1998, Morgan 1998a, and Henderson 1998.
47 Croft 1998, p. 1.
48 For criticism of O'Neill see Sunday Worker 4 July 1926.
49 See Worley 1998.
so Morgan 1998a, pp. 123-141.
:ISS
Historical Materialism
develop influential journals in the mould of Left Review, Our Time, and
Seven. Secondly therefore, the cultural world of British Communism did
not merely reflect cultural developments within the Soviet Union. The
Party's cultural perspective was forged from a combination of local
cultural forces and Communist enthusiasm, and developed to
correspond with indigenous events, disputes and traditions.
Finally, the CPGB consistently encouraged cultural activity and took
its development very seriously. A glance at any copy of the Daily Worker
will reveal a plethora of activity organised by Communists across the
country, ranging from concerts for the unemployed to Esperanto clubs
to bazaars, jumble sales and sports events. The arts in particular, were
perceived as a medium through which Communist ideas could be
disseminated. Thus, Andy Croft refers to the Party's cultural committee,
the inclusion of Sean ü'Casey on the editorial board of the Daily
Worker: not to mention the formation of the Party's Historians' Group
and such organisations as the Workers' Music Association, Workers'
Film Society and the Unity Theatre. Furthermore, these organisations
played a large part in the day-to-day experience of the CPGB member,
and it is for that very reason that the cultural world of the Party
demands further research.
What the work of Andy Croft and Edwin Roberts clearly
demonstrates therefore, is that, to adequately assess the extent,
influence and accomplishments (both positive and negative) of
Communism in Britain, the cultural and intellectual realm of the CPGB
must be recognised and assessed. By approaching the history of the
CPGB or, indeed, any Communist Party solely from the perspective of
the Party line or the Party leadership (or the USSR) is to deflect
attention away from the diverse reality of the Communist experience.
To understand British Communism, historians must place the Party
within a British as well as international context, and delve into the
communities and workshops in which Communists endeavoured to
serve 'the cause'.

Conclusion

As the cultural theorist Paul Virilio noted in 1980, the more information
we acquire the more we are aware of its incomplete, fragmentary
nature.51 This is certainly true with regard to the history of the CPGB:
the closer we look, the more manifold the Party's history appears.
Understandably therefore, research into the multiplexities of British
Communism has extended and diversified as a result of the recently
opened archives in Manchester and Moscow. Consequently, the
'traditional' interpretations of Communist Party development must be
revised, mono-dimensional depiction's of 'Moscow appendages'

51 Virilio 1991, p. 45.

256
 Worley/Histories of the CPGB
deconstructed, and rigid conceptions of what Communism was/is
amended.
Quite clearly, the studies discussed above have broadened the scope
of CPGB history. The work of Nina Fishman, Andrew Thorpe, Kevin
Morgan, Andy Croft and Ke~in McDermott in particular, has revealed
the intricacy of the Communist experience, the political variation within
the broad paradigm of 'Communism', and the indigenous
characteristics that forged a peculiarly British Communism. As such,
many of the considerations raised by Hobsbawm and Anderson have
been met by recent research. The crucial relationship between the
CPGB and the Comintern has been radically revised by Thorpe,
McDermott and Morgan. Nina Fishman, along with Stuart MacIntyre
and Alan Campbell, 52 have refocused the Party's history onto the Party
membership, thereby redressing the traditiqnally hierarchical perception
of Communism and placing the CPGB within the socio-political context
in which it functioned. Indeed, where a more 'traditional' approach is
maintained, as in Francis Beckett's salacious history of the Party, the
CPGB appears to be floating in a socio-political vacuum, and little is
added to our overall comprehension of British Communism. Finally,
Andy Croft has widened the historical basis of British Communism,
excavating the significant cultural influence of the CPGB.
Such research inevitably raises as many questions as it answers, and
fresh areas of debate have been aroused by all the studies discussed
above. While the need for further investigation remains however, 53 the
most recent research into the CPGB has augmented the Party's place
within the history of twentieth-century Britain. Despite its small (but
fluid) membership, the CPGB was an integral part of the British labour
movement and the role of the Party must necessarily be considered by
all those interested in labour history. With the availability of the
Comintern and Party archive, the 'lost world of British Communism'
has at last been recovered.

References

Anderson, Perry 1981, 'Communist Party History', People's History and

Socialist Theory edited by Raphael Samuel, London: Routledge &
Paul.
Andrews, Geoff, Nina Fishman, and Kevin Morgan 1995, Opening the
Books: Essays on the Social and Cultural History of the British
Communist Party, London: Pluto Press.
Beckett, Francis 1995, The Enemy Within. The Rise and Fall of the
British Communist Party, London: John Murray.
Black, Robert 1970, Stalinism in Britain, London: New Park.

52Campbell 1994 and 1997.

53 In particular, the emergence and early development of the CPGB needs to be
reconsidered, along with the Party's neglected post-Second World War history.
Historical MaterlaUsm
Borkenau, Franz 1953 [1939], European Communism: A History of the
Communist International, London: Faber.
Bornstein, Sam and Richardson, AI 1986, Against the Stream: A History
of the Trotskyist Movement in Britain, 1924-1928, Ilford: Socialist
Platform.
Branson, Noreen 1985, History of the Communist Party of Great Britain
Volume Three, 1927-41, London: Lawrence & Wishart.
Branson, Noreen 1997, History of the Communist Party of Great Britain
Volume Four, 1941-1951, London: Lawrence & Wishart.
Bruley, Sue 1986, Leninism, Stalinism and the Women's Movement in
Britain, 1920-1939, London: Garland Press.
Campbell, Alan 1999, 'The Social History of Political Conflict in the
Scots Coal Fields, 1910-1939', in Miners, Unions and Politics,
1910-47 edited by Alan Campbell, Nina Fishman and David
Howell, Aldershot: Scolaro
Callaghan, John 1993, Rajani Palme Dutt: A Study in British Stalinism,
London: Lawrence & Wishart.
Chambers, Colin 1989, The Story of Unity Theatre, London: Lawrence
& Wishart.
Cohen, Phil 1997, Children of the Revolution: Communist Childhood in
Cold War Britain, London: Lawrence & Wishart.
Croft, Andrew 1990, Red Letter Days: British Fiction in the 1930s,
London: Lawrence & Wishart.
Croft, Andrew 1998 (ed.), A Weapon in the Struggle. The Cultural
History of the Communist Party of Great Britain, London: Pluto
Press.
Croucher, Richard 1987, We Refuse to Starve in Silence: A History of
the National Unemployed Workers' Movement, 1920-1946,
London: Lawrence & Wishart.
Darke, Bob 1952, The Communist Technique in Britain, Middlesex:
Penguin.
Darlington, Ralph 1998, The Political Trajectory of f. T. Murphy,
Liverpool: Liverpool University Press.
Dewar, Hugo 1976, Communist Politics in Britain: The CPGB from its
Origins to the Second World War, London: Pluto Press.
Draper, Theodore 1972, 'The Strange Case of the Comintern', Survey,
Summer 1972: 91-137.
ECCI 1929, The World Situation and Economic Struggles. Theses of the
Tenth Plenum of the ECCI, London
Fishman, Nina 1995, The British Communist Party and the Trade
Unions, 1933-45, Aldershot: Scolaro
Francis, Hwyel 1984, Miners Against Fascism: Wales and the Spanish
Civil War, London: Lawrence & Wishart.
Francis, Hwyel and Smith, David 1980, The Fed: A History of the South
Wales Miners in the Twentieth Century, London: Lawrence &
Wishart.
 Worley/Histories of the CPGB
Fryer, Peter 1976, 'The Wortley Hall Conference' in The Left in Britain:
1956-1968, edited by David Widgery, Middlesex: Penguin.
Gallacher, William 1948, The Rolling of the Thunder, London:
Lawrence & Wishart.
Groves, Reg 1974, The Balham Group: How British Trotskyism Began,
London: Pluto Press.
Hallas, Duncan 1985, The Comintern, London: Bookmarks.
Hanlon, Richard and Mike Waite 1998, 'Notes From the Left:
Communism ands British Classical Music', in A Weapon in the
Struggle, edited by Andrew Croft, London: Pluto Press.
Hannington, Wal 1967, Never On Our Knees, London: Lawrence &
Wishart.
Hardy, George 1956, Those Stormy Years, London: Lawrence &
Wishart.
Henderson, Hamish 1998, 'The Edinburgh People's Festival, 1951-54',
A Weapon in the Struggle, edited by Andrew Croft, London: Pluto
Press.
Hinton, James 1980, 'Coventry Communism: A Study of Factory
Politics in the Second World War', History Workshop Journal 10:
90-118.
Hobsbawm, Eric [1969] 1973, 'Problems of Communist History' in
Revolutionaries, London: Phoenix.
Hobsbawm, Eric 1984, Worlds of Labour: Further Studies in the History
of Labour, London: Weidenfield.
Hogenkamp, Bert, 1986, Deadly Parallels: Film and the Left in Britain,
1929-39, London: Lawrence & Wishart.
Horner, Arthur 1969, Incorrigible Rebel, London: MacGibbon & Kee.
Hyde, Douglas 1950, I Believed, London: Reprint Society.
Jones, Stephen 1985, 'Sport, Politics and the Labour Movement: The
British Workers' Sports Federation, 1923-35', British Journal of
Sports History Vol. 2, 2: 154-178.
Jones, Stephen 1986, Workers at Play. A Social and Economic History
of Leisure, London: Routledge & Paul.
Jones, Stephen 1987, The British Labour Movement and Film, 1918-
1939, London: Routledge & Paul.
King, Francis and George Matthews 1990, About Turn: The Communist
Party and the Outbreak of the Second World War, London:
Lawrence & Wishart.
Klugmann, James 1968, History of the Communist Party of Great
Britain Volume One. Formation and Early Years 1920-24, London:
Lawrence & Wishart.
Klugmann, James 1969, History of the Communist Party of Great
Britain Volume Two. The General Strike 1925-1926, London:
Lawrence & Wishart.
Kozlov, N. and Weitz, E. D 1989, 'Reflections on the Origins of the
"Third Period": Bukharin, the Comintern, and the Political

259
Historical MaterlaUsm
Economy of Weimar Germany', Journal of Contemporary History,
July 1989: 387-410.
Laybourn, Keith and Dylan Murphy 1999, Under the Red Flag: A
History of Communism in Britain, Gloucester: Sutton.
Macfarlane, L.J. 1966, The British Communist Party: Its Origins and
Development until 1929, London: McGibbon & Kee.
MacIntyre, Stuart 1980, A Proletarian Science: Marxism in Britain,
1917-1933, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
MacIntyre, Stuart 1980, Little Moscows: Communism and Working
Class Militancy in Inter- War Britain, London: Croom Helm.
Martin, Roderick 1969, Communism and the British Trade Unions,
1924-1933, Oxford: Oxford University Press.
McCarthy, Margaret 1953, Generation in Revolt, London: Heinmann.
McDermott, Kevin 1998, 'Bolshevisation from Above or Below? The
Comintern and European Communism in the 1920s' in
Communism, National and International edited by Tauno Saarela
and Kimmo Rentola, Helsinki: Societas Historica Finlandiae.
McDermott, Kevin and Jeremy Agnew 1996, The Comintern: A History
of International Communism from Lenin to Stalin, Basingstoke:
MacMillan.
McLellan, David (ed.) 1977, Karl Marx: Selected Writings, Oxford.
McShane, Harry 1978, No Mean Fighter, London: Pluto Press.
Morgan, Kevin 1989, Against Fascism and War. Ruptures and
Continuities in British Communist Politics, 1935-41, Manchester:
Manchester University Press.
Morgan, Kevin 1993a, Harry Pollitt, Manchester: Manchester
University Press.
Morgan, Kevin 1993b, 'The CPGB and the Comintern Archives',
Socialist History Autumn 1993: 9-29.
Morgan, Kevin 1998a, 'Harry Pollitt, the British Communist Party, and
International Communism', in Communism, National and
International edited by Tauno Saarela and Kimmo Rentola,
Helsinki: Societas Historica Finlandiae.
Morgan, Kevin 1998b, 'King Street Blues: Jazz and the Left in Britain
in the 1920s-1940s' in A Weapon in the Struggle, edited by Andrew
Croft, London: Pluto Press.
Murphy, Jack 1941, New Horizons, London: John Lane & Bodley Head.
Murphy Molly 1998, Molly Murphy: Suffragette and Socialist, Salford:
Institute of Social Research.
Narinsky, M. & J. Rojahn (eds.) 1996, Centre and Periphery: The
History of the Comintern in the Light of New Documents,
Amsterdam: International Institute of Social History.
Pelling, Henry 1958, The British Communist Party: A Historical Profile,
London: A. & C. Black.
Pollitt, Harry 1940, Serving My Time, London: Lawrence & Wishart.

260
 Worley/Histories of the CPGB

Radford, Robert 1998, 'To Disable the Enemy: The Graphic Art of the
Three Jameses', in A Weapon in the Struggle, edited by Andrew
Croft, London: Pluto Press.
Roberts, Edwin 1997, The Anglo-Marxists: A Study in Ideology and
Culture, Oxford: Rowman & Littlefield.
Saarela, Tauno and Kimmo Rentola (eds.) 1998, Communism,
National and International, Helsinki: Societas Historica Finlandiae.
Saklatvala, Sehri 1991, The Fifth Commandment. Biography of Shapurji
Saklatvala, Salford: Miranda Press.
Samuel, Raphael, Ewan MacColl & Stuart Cosgrove 1984, Theatres of
the Left, 1880-1935: Workers' Theatre Movements in Britain and
America, London: Routledge & Paul.
Samuel, Raphael 1985, 'The Lost World of British Communism', New
Left Review 154: 3-54.
Samuel, Raphael 1986, 'The Lost World of British Communism', New
Left Review 156:.63-113.
Samuel, Raphael 1987, 'The Lost World of British Communism', New
Left Review 165: 71-120.
Squires, Mike 1990, Saklatvala: A Political Biography, London:
Lawrence & Wishart.
Squires, Mike 1993, 'CPGB Membership during the Class Against
Class Years', Socialist History 3: 4-13.
Stewart, Bob 1967, Breaking The Fetters, London, Lawrence &
Wishart.
Thompson, Willie 1993, The Good Old Cause: British Communism,
1920-1991, London: Pluto Press.
Thorpe, Andrew and Rees, Tim (eds.) 1998, International Communism
and the Communist International, 1919-43, Manchester:
Manchester University Press.
Thorpe, Andrew 1998, 'Comintern "Control" of the Communist Party
of Great Britain, 1920-43', The English Historical Review 452:
637-662.
Utley, Freda 1949, Lost Illusion, London: Allen & Unwin.
Virilio, Paul 1991 [1980], The Aesthetics of Disappearance, New York:
Semiotext(e).
Wadsworth, Marc 1998, Comrade Sak: Shapurji Saklatvala MP: A
Political Biography, Leeds: Peepal Tree.
Widgery, David (ed.) 1976, The Left in Britain: 1956-1968, Middlesex:
Penguin.
Wood, Neal 1959, Communism and British Intellectuals, London:
Gollancz.
Woodhouse, Michael and Brian Pearce 1975, Essays on the History of
Communism in Britain, London: New Park.
Worley, Matthew 1998, Class Against Class. The Communist Party of
Great Britain in the Third Period, 1927-1932, Nottingham: PhD
Thesis.

261