The Early History of the Communist Party of Great Britain, 1920–9

1958 ◽  
Vol 8 ◽  
pp. 41-57 ◽  
Author(s):  
Henry Pelling

THE Communist Party of Great Britain, like the Communist Parties of most other European countries, was founded shortly after the Russian Bolshevik revolution. It was unique among the Communist Parties of the major countries in being the result of an amalgamation of small revolutionary groups rather than a product of the schism of a large existing organization. The British Labour Party did not split as a result of the Russian revolution: the Communist Party grew up out of elements which for the most part had had a separate existence on the Labour Party's left wing.

Author(s):  
Mart Kuldkepp

Abstract: The couriers of revolution: Estonian Bolshevik émigrés in Copenhagen 1918–1921   The history of the early twentieth-century Estonian left-wing radicalism has remained a relatively neglected field in the post-1991 period; not least due to its previous institutional role as the most favoured, but also the most highly politicised subject of historical research in Soviet Estonia. This state of affairs resulted in voluminous scholarship in “party history” produced over the decades following World War II, but its findings and conclusions are almost entirely untrustworthy and thoroughly biased in favour of Soviet-style Communism. In the last five years, however, the history of the Estonian left has attracted new attention on part of both younger scholars and senior academics – a highly positive development in light of the major role that left-wing ideas and movements have played in Estonian history from the 1905 Russian revolution onwards. Nevertheless, this newer research has the somewhat thankless task of having to re-examine the fundamentals without being able to rely on previous scholarship, which perhaps understandably limits its ability to generalise or to draw overarching conclusions. The present article is a contribution to this burgeoning field in Estonian historical research, engaging with the little-studied history of Estonian left-wing radicalism in Western Europe (rather than in Estonia or in Soviet Russia). I am particularly focusing on four individuals among émigré Estonians in Copenhagen, Denmark: August Lossmann (1890–?), Oskar Lenk (1890–1919), Johannes Rumessen (1888–?) and Harald Triikman (1892–1964). The primary period of study is 1918–22, although reference will be made to both earlier and later years where appropriate. The study makes use of both Estonian and foreign archival materials, contemporary newspapers and, occasionally, published scholarship. While my focus is on tracing and contextualising the activities and involvement of these four young men in both Danish and Estonian radical leftist circles, I will also propose some preliminary hypotheses relating to the radicalisation process of left-wing Estonian émigrés more generally, which in the future can hopefully be tested on a broader range of comparable subjects. Firstly, I would suggest that the Bolshevik Russian revolution (the October Revolution) was likely a pivotal moment in the development of their views: having been the supporters of Socialist Russian revolution, the Estonian émigrés tended to distance themselves from the more sceptical Social Democratic parties of their countries of residence in its aftermath, instead moving closer to Left Socialist or Communist parties that fully embraced the new revolution. Furthermore, their distance from and relative ignorance of Estonian affairs probably left them more open to contemporary Bolshevik propaganda, which among other things depicted the Estonian War of Independence (1918–19) as a struggle between an alliance of foreign capital and the Estonian bourgeoisie on the one hand, and the Estonian proletariat on the other. In the case of Lossmann, Lenk, Rumessen and Triikman, they were all connected to one Estonian Socialist (or Bolshevik) Group, established in 1918 and affiliated with the Danish Socialist Labour Party – the first openly Bolshevik party in Denmark. This Estonian group was headed by the remarkably well-respected Socialist Oskar Lenk, who in early 1919 was expulsed from Denmark due to his involvement in Bolshevik activities (among other things, working from the Copenhagen bureau of ROSTA, the Soviet Russian news propaganda agency). Later, he was active in Russia as a fairly prominent activist of the Estonian Communist Party, before being killed in a battle against the Whites in the autumn of the same year. Lenk’s influence in 1918 was likely of formative importance for his comrades in Copenhagen, at least one of whom (Johannes Rumessen) also became involved in the underground transport and intelligence network of the Estonian Communist Party in 1919–20.


1965 ◽  
Vol 5 (1) ◽  
pp. 140-152 ◽  
Author(s):  
Richard W. Lyman

The purpose of this paper is to set forth, somewhat arbitrarily, a composite view of the British Labour Party's history between the Wars, to be labelled the orthodox Labour interpretation, and then to set against it a contrasting view which has been expressed by several left-wing writers within the Labour Party. This examination of conflicting opinions can scarcely be dignified with the title historiographical inquiry. In the first place, there are other more or less coherent interpretations of Labour Party history in this period besides the two sketched herein, most notably a Communist view, expressed in such works as Allen Hutt's The Post-War History of the British Working Class. Secondly, as Stephen Graubard has recently said in relation to the Fabian Society, much of the Labour Party history in this period is in fact autobiography. Finally, as will soon become distressingly apparent, the interpretations that most writers have given of Labour between the Wars have been influenced by, connected with, even in some cases identical to the same authors' views on Labour today. History used to be called “past politics”; in this case it cannot entirely escape becoming “present politics.”According to the orthodox view, the Labour Party was emerging from its infancy in the 1920s, having established its claim to be considered a major contestant for power as recently as 1918. As Francis Williams puts it:With the acceptance of the new constitution and the endorsement of the international policy contained in the Memorandum on War Aims and the domestic programme contained in Labour and the New Social Order, the Labour Party finally established itself. The formative years were ended. Now at last it was an adult party certain of its own purpose; aware also at last of what it must do to impress that purpose upon the nation.


Author(s):  
A. James McAdams

This chapter argues that the same factors that made the Bolshevik Revolution possible in Russia—above all, the catastrophe of World War I—had the opposite effect in Europe. There are four key cases discussed here: Germany, Hungary, Great Britain, and France. In different ways, communist leaders sought to present their ideas about the path to socialism as uniquely suited to move Europe forward. But for equally different reasons, each ended up accepting the Communist International's (Comintern) directives. The communist party in Germany advocated a mass-based conception of revolutionary action that contrasted sharply with Lenin's advocacy of a conspiratorial vanguard. Hungary's communist leaders attempted to transform their society according to a radically voluntarist conception of party rule during the short-lived Hungarian Soviet Republic. Well before the British Communist Party was even formed, the party's founders were overshadowed by the postwar popularity of the reform-minded Labour Party. Finally, France's communists seemed to have the greatest chance of establishing an independent identity.


Author(s):  
Jeremy Tranmer

The 1980s are often remembered as a period of divisions and splits in the Labour Party. However, it was not the only part of the British labour movement to experience this type of problem since the Communist Party of Great Britain (CPGB) was also concerned. Like the Labour Party, it was divided over how to react to the political successes of the Conservatives and the rapid decline of traditional industries. But its internal difficulties also resulted from a number of factors which were specific to the CPGB itself. This chapter contends that a greater understanding of these factors can be achieved by developing a modified version of Nina Fishman’s concept of ‘revolutionary pragmatism’ and applying it to British Communism in the 1980s. It will become apparent that during this decade the very framework within which most Communists acted was challenged and undermined but not successfully replaced.


2021 ◽  
pp. 154-178
Author(s):  
Emil Vorachek ◽  

The chapter is devoted to the history of the formation and activity of left-wing organizations in the Czechoslovak political opposition from the late 1980s to early 1990s. Those organizations were made up of diverse ideological currents from both inside and outside the ranks of the Communist Party of Czechoslovakia (СPCz). Attempts to develop alternative scenarios of social, political, and socio-economic changes in the country are examined. The left-wing had difficulties adaptating to the changing conditions provided by the leader of the revolution - the Civil Forum - towards the liberal transformational model. In general, during the period examined in the chapter, the forces of the left, for various reasons, failed to realize their vision for future development.


Red Britain ◽  
2019 ◽  
pp. 1-11
Author(s):  
Matthew Taunton

The introduction argues that the Russian Revolution should be understood as a fundamentally important precondition for mid-century British culture. It explains the range of intellectuals covered in the book, and the central importance of anti-Communists Arthur Koestler and George Orwell for its argument. It then outlines three key arguments that run through the book: first, that the effects of the Russian Revolution on British culture are best understood in terms of gradual sedimentation in a longue durée rather than as a catastrophic event; second, Red Britain emphasizes the ideological diversity on either side of the Cold War divide; third, that British responses to the Bolshevik Revolution should be understood not only as a clash of internationalist or cosmopolitan ideologies, but also as an episode within a longer history of nationally grounded Anglo-Russian cultural and political relations. The introduction ends with brief summaries of the book’s five chapters.


1956 ◽  
Vol 1 (3) ◽  
pp. 377-397 ◽  
Author(s):  
Chushichi Tsuzuki

The Socialist Labour Party and the Socialist Party of Great Britain came into existence as the result of the “impossibilist revolt” of 1900–1904. The “revolt” was a movement of a few hundred socialists within the Social Democratic Federation, itself a social revolutionary party with a membership of only a few thousands. The absence of widespread support for any of these revolutionary movements in a country whose political tradition has remained predominantly constitutional accounts for the fact that the crisis inside the S.D.F., and with it the origins of the S.L.P. and the S.P.G.B. themselves have been consigned to obscurity in the history of British Socialism.


Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document