đŸ Archived View for library.inu.red âș file âș guy-a-aldred-the-two-nations.gmi captured on 2023-01-29 at 10:27:19. Gemini links have been rewritten to link to archived content
âĄïž Next capture (2024-06-20)
-=-=-=-=-=-=-
Title: The Two Nations Author: Guy A. Aldred Date: 1963 Language: en Topics: May Day, history Source: Original text from http://www.revoltlib.com/?id=10892, 2021.
NOTE: This is one of the four speeches which Guy Aldred recorded on
tape. It was not the first to be recorded, though it is the first to be
printed. The other three speeches are being transcribed and printed. The
publication date will be announced shortly. Donors and Subscribers will
receive these pamphlets as they appear. Please order extra copies, and
help the circulation.
Printed and published in United Kingdom by The Strickland Press, Glasgow
C. 1.
GUY A. ALDRED
THE TWO NATIONS
A May-Day Message
The text of a Speech delivered on May 5^(th) 1963 in Central Halls
Glasgow.
First Published 1968
f Photo: Guy Aldred, November, 1962
We do change the world. One generation merges into another. The hopes of
yesterdayâs heroes and martyrs become the inspiring slogans of the
martyrs and heroes of today, and by them are passed on to the heroes and
martyrs that will be tomorrow. An unchanging yet changeless logic of
development.
âThe Word; January 1961
This speech was recorded at Guy A. Aldredâs home address on the
afternoon of Friday, 3^(rd) May, 1963. It had been his intention to
speak in person at the May Day meeting which would be held in the
Central Halls on the following Sunday; but his doctor, and his close
associates, prevailed upon him to make a recording instead.
Commenting on this, Guy Aldred said: âI am opposed to doing so, as it
seems to me that a recorded speech lacks the verve and originality of a
speech spoken direct from the platform. I feel this very much as a
restriction, because I believe in extemporary speechânot in prepared
speeches. I am afraid, however, that my strength may not permit me to
speak with the vigour and the continuity that is necessary to the
successful meeting. So I have prepared this recorded speech as a
possible alternative to the original speech. In any case, I will attend
the meeting, and if I am unable to speak I will hear it played to the
audience. I will then answer questions as they arise. The audience can
depend upon my reply to questions.â
In the event that is what happened. Guy Aldred sat on the platform while
the speech was relayed; then he answered questions and replied to
discussion.
He delivered several more public speeches, both by tape and in person,
before he died on the 16^(th) October, 1963.
This speech has been transcribed from the tape by Ben Mullin who has
also written an Introduction.
JOHN TAYLOR CALDWELL.
This speech, recorded by âGuy Aldred close to the end of his life,
represents a contribution to the general discussion on the fundamental
problem facing the working class movement, namely, that of unity. That
there is need for such discussion goes without question. Unless the
conscious elements within the working class movement make some attempt
to come to a general understanding, we will make no progress.
Guy Aldred was an uncompromising Anti-Parliamentarian, and this speech
does reflect the Anti-Parliamentary position. Anti-Parliamentarism has
been systematically misunderstood by the whole left-wing movement. We.
of the left-wing movement,â are broken into innumerable sects and
groups. Each group conducts a hate campaign against comrades in other
groups, at times our activity of slander against our comrades exceeds
our activity against the system. It does not matter now how this has
come about. it is a fact and it is a fact that must be overcome. This
short speech sets out to tackle this problem of division within the
working class movement.
When we come to consider that, regardless of what group or party we
belong to, we are members of the working class movement and that the
working class movement has a tremendous history stretching back as far
as we can go, we get some perspective of our own position in relation to
the working class struggle. We should realise that our group is but a
dot against this greater background. Groups and parties have passed
away, and will pass away, but the struggle will go on. Our loyalty
should not be to the group. right or wrong. our loyalty should lie with
the working class movement and with the overall struggle of the workers.
The working class struggle has passed through every chapter in history,
it has adopted many names and causes, it has been used by power-seeking
groups, but it does represent a continuous history of struggle. There
are many similarities between the early Christians in their âstruggle
against the ruling hierarchy of their time and the present day socialist
movement in their struggle against current State and Monopoly
Capitalism.
The early Christian movement was destroyed by the Deification of Jesus.
It was destroyed when it turned its discussion to Theology and
Mysticism. It was destroyed by fragmentation as a result of theoretical
differences between this or that individual who then created his own
little sect. It was finally destroyed when it was adopted by the ruling
hierarchy and absorbed into the ruling class culture. All this has
happened to the socialist movement.
The fact that the early Christian movement was destroyed did not mean
that the working class movement had ended, indeed, it went on to blaze
even more dramatic episodes across the pages of history. It is not my
job here to retell the brilliant episodes in the history of the working
class movement, but it is essential to stress that there is a connecting
link between all the chapters in history, between all groups, they all
represent an expression of the overall working class movement. The
working class struggle encircles the globe. As I have already pointed
out, its history goes back to earliest times. Against this broad
background our group, or our party, is really a tiny fragment of the
whole picture. This is essentially the Anti-Parliamentary position.
Anti-Parliamentarism is not a mania about the British Parliament. The
term was first used to emphasise the difference between the traditional
socialist struggle and the breakaway groups who became orthodox and
concentrated their efforts and their resources on getting into
Parliament. Many of the groups who went over to Parliamentarism became
so involved in that activity they lost sight of the struggle. They
became so involved in becoming respectable, in becoming accepted by the
ruling class; in electioneering; in raising funds; in becoming âfitâ to
govern, that they created a breed of people who know nothing of the
original cause of the struggle. The final development in this line of
thought is to be found in the fact that the Labour Party now employs
professional advertising agencies to sugar their palliative pills.
Anti-Parliamentarism is in reality the whole struggle of the working
class movement. It believes in keeping the cause of the struggle well to
the forefront of our activity. It is determined that we do not
substitute the struggle between groups, for power or popularity, for the
real struggle for working class emancipation. Anti-Parliamentarism does
not confine its activity to one particular sphere or one particular
area. The working class will fight on every front, this gives rise to
the various groups. But we must be loyal to our comrades, it does not
matter what faction they belong to. We must be loyal to our comrades in
industry, we must be loyal to our comrades who work at the political
level, we must be loyal to our comrades who concentrate on propaganda
and we must be loyal to our comrades who are imprisoned or executed, who
are ill-treated at the hands of the Capitalist State.
This is the message of this speech, which I ask you to read fairly with
an open mind. Do not approach it from a sectarian position with a view
to finding faults. You will find faults. Guy Aldred recorded this speech
at the end of his life during a period of great suffering. It is
remarkable that he still grappled with working class problems and was
not overcome with personal anguish. I ask the reader to be as
impersonal, and as impartial, in his consideration of this speech. And I
further urge him to make its subject-matter a topic for discussion in
his own group or party, or in any circumstance where such an important
matter may be considered.
BEN MULLIN.
Glasgow, 1967.
May Day is an expression of pure nature worship. Its celebration
connects up, naturally. with the class struggle and the economic
interpretation of history; Without doubt. its traditions are those of
working class struggle and celebration. They support the call of Spring
to those who toil, they relate the harmony of nature to the toil and
suffering of those who dwell on the Earth and suggest the need for
escape. Hence the May month is one of inspiration to break free from
bondage. âSlavery gives way to freedom. and a new atmosphere comes into
the lives of the people. Much of the inspiration is mystical--but it is
also a very real and true harmony that makes for battle and the struggle
for justice. Finally, the tendency towards social freedom is
established.
Thus May begins a new dance for the slaves, the dance of the
apprentices. The old fashioned dance of a half-hearted and a half-witted
sense of joy gives way to a true joyous exaltation inâ social freedom.
Men and women become adult in an atmosphere of true youth, and so the
new social system is born. The very name of the month suggests the
purpose of the month. May is so called from the goddess Maia. The name
under which the Earth was worshipped at this season of the year. The
first of the month has always been an important date in the religion of
nature-worship. The famous 17^(th) century poet, Spenser, salutes May as
the sovereign month of manâs happiness. the âfairest maid of all the
year.â It is characteristic of the enthusiasm with which the arrival of
the month was welcomed. Yet the symbolism seems to have been a little
overworked, and man, dwelling in slavery, must have found the joy
extremely transient.
G. A. ALDRED.
Glasgow, May Day, 1963.
It is fifty-nine years since I mounted the public platform on May Day,
in London, as an avowed socialist. I called myself a Social Democrat,
but the Social Democratic definition was very temporary. I used more
often the term--Socialist, and I thought as a socialist and I considered
that I belonged to the great socialist movement. I did not differentiate
between Social Democrats, Communists or Anarchists. Indeed, at that time
I did not know very much about Anarchism. It is true that at that very
moment I was not actually a member of â the Social Democratic
Federation. I did not join that organisation till a few months later,
but I was very active in its ranks and very active among its comrades
and I looked upon the S.D.F. as a great socialist body. In a way I dare
say it was, particularly in London, where it seemed to have most root.
The Social Democrats differed from the I.L.P. and from the Labour Party.
despite what the members of , either of these parties would have you
believe to-day, and despite the fact that -some of the Social Democrats
of that time became leading members of the Labour Party. They differed
in this great respect, the chief characteristic of the Social Democrats
was their proletarian language, their proletarian bearing and their
proletarian association. I was a strong total abstainer and non-smoker,
but I look back with amusement to the fact that the Social Democrats
always met above public houses and usually had a drink of beer on the
table at their branch meetings. The I.L.P. usually met in very careful
coffee rooms, what we now term and what we termed in some places
then-cafes. Their fare was always tea or coffee and cakes, not so that
of the Social Democrats. I. of course, only took lemonade, but at the
same time the proletarian atmosphere of the Social Democrats pleased me
much more than the respectable atmosphere of the I.L.P. meeting. I think
this difference between assumed intellectuality and a bogus
respectability, and the fustian. rustic attitude of the Social
Democrats, represented the difference between socialism, whether
correctly understood or not, and the respectable parliamentarism of the
other factions.
I very soon broke with parliamentarism and began my activities as an
anti-parliamentarian. My sympathies were with those who stood for
direct-action, though I did not always agree with their protest. I
remember speaking once for an S.D.F. branch in Regents Park. It was
about the time of some direct-action activity, an act of assassination
in Europe, by some alleged anarchist. It does not matter now whether the
person was actually an anarchist or not he claimed to be. His act
represented a protest by the very poor, the very downtrodden, against
those who are established in wealth and in high position. I do not
agree, and I did not agree, when a person sets himself up as prosecutor,
jury and public executioner, as obviously the man who engaged in
political assassination sets himself up to occupy all three positions in
one person. To me, that savours of dictatorship. I remember this
meeting, because the speaker before me went out of his way to denounce
the Anarchist. He never analysed the position that made for this
protest. He never analysed the economic condition that pervaded the
misery of the man who was guilty of the act. He never analysed the
position of the people who were responsible for judging him, nor the
journalists who condemned him merely for the sake of their bread and
butter. He merely went all out to denounce this representative of the
poor who had been guilty of this action. While I did not sympathise with
this action, I sympathised still less with the cant and the humbug of
the condemnation, and when I mounted the S.D.F. platform I said so
plainly and directly.
The result was a furor, and a great antagonism to me for daring to
express this point of view. Nevertheless, I thought that an explanation
of why a person commits an get of direct action was due. Also, I thought
the action was less reprehensible than it seemed to be, though it was
reprehensible. because the poor who are guilty of such acts of
condemnation, by direct action, by assassination, were after all
defenders of their own rights, protesting against some great injustice.
Their enemies took the chance of using an entire state machinery. an
economic power to destroy them, and smilingly went their way feeling how
good they were, because they had killed nobody. Nevertheless. the
evidence is there of the existence of this method of killing and
crushing the lives of the people. When war comes they rejoice in the
thousands they send to their deaths. Such humbug I do not understand and
such humbug, as a socialist, I condemn.
I remember that before I spoke as a Social Democrat in favour of May
Day, on May Day itself-that the previous May Day I spoke as a boy
preacher. My concept of Christianity did not bother very much about
whether Jesus was god or not, indeed it resented the idea, My approach
historically towards this theological question was that of Unitarianism,
although the first Unitarians were aristocrats and too respectable for
my liking. I felt that original Christianity represented the revolt of
the slaves and that it represented the uprising of the masses against
the masters. From that point of view I viewed May Day before I became an
actual socialist. There was a great deal of mystical error in my
approach and I donât suppose I said much about the immediate class
struggle, but I do remember that I spoke historically about the struggle
of the common people and I co-related that speech to the struggles of
the peasants and to the struggle of some of the historic events of the
great reformation and to the renaissance period.
Subsequently, I found myself mixing among the anarchists. Here I found a
note that gives birth to tonightâs speech, and that has played a part in
my thinking ever since. I found myself among a small group of
sectarians, mostly non-English speaking, in the East End of London. Many
of their ideas I agreed with and much of their courage I admired, but
their great anti-Marxism, their severe criticism of the materialistic
conception of history, I did not understand. These people were more
anti-Marxist than they were anti-capitalistic. They certainly preached
direct action, but even direct action can be reformist and tends to lead
to trade unionism, just as trade unions tend to become the basis of
parliamentarism. This fact in both stages of its development was well
illustrated in the case of John Turner of the Shop Assistantsâ Union. He
organised the shop assistants and rendered them a great deal of service.
As a member. he became the leader of his union and as the leader of his
union he had to support parliamentarism and the idea of representatives
of the shop assistants sitting in Parliament. It is true that he refused
to stand himself and could easily have got a seat. but he did support
parliamentarism because the economic interests of his union compelled
him to do so. That seems to me to point to the fact that. within class
society, you have the workers themselves divided economically because
there are different economic interests. The workers serve under the
social system of capitalism and are controlled by it. Inevitably,
politically, they were controlled by the division into nations; and you
had born a patriotism that found working class support, and it found
this working class support down to the very period of the first world
war. That division seemed to me to be fatal to the working class
struggle.
During the years since then. I have still realised that the method of
anti-parliamentarism-even when it boycotted the ballot box. a natural
thing to do, or when it made some such protest at the ballot box like
those I have made on several occasions. criticised by my comrades and
ridiculed by the capitalist press-never acted as a definite
anti-parliamentary activity but acted purely and simply as a
parliamentary activity. Even although anti-parliamentarism has tended to
destroy a great deal of the call of parliamentarism and the actions of
the parliamentarians has brought home. again and again. the great truth
of anti-parliamentanism. The right to vote means the right not to vote.
Not voting under capitalism is, after all, taking a part just as much as
voting under capitalism. In the end it has to accept. on certain
occasions, the conclusions supported by the parliamentary state. Hence,
you have parliamentarism still triumphant even although it is destroyed
by the voice of the people and is not supported outside parliament by
the people. except at times of elections. My puzzle has been how this
should be overcome.
When I first became a socialist there was a body in existence which
still exists (somewhat different from what it was then. in my opinion)
called the Socialist Party of Great Britain. That was a very small party
and it certainly has not grown as a party. That party believed in pure
parliamentarism. It rejoiced in being a Marxist party, but its Marxism
really consisted in supporting the theories and the publications of Karl
Kautsky. In 1904, I remember three pamphlets published by Kautskv and
translated from the German. in which Kautsky puts forward his particular
views on social democracy and in which the S.P.G.B. praised him as being
a Marxist. Lenin afterwards destroyed the Marxist claims of Kautsky and
pointed out that Kautsky was really anti-Marx and in many respects
anti-socialistic. He was a reformist and certainly not a revolutionary.
Ignoring this fact, the S.P.G.B. still pretends to be a Marxist party.
still speaks in a narrow little sectarian way and will still not bring
the workers anywhere near their social emancipation.
About the same time as the S.P.G.B. was born in Britain. the S.L.P. was
imported from America. Its great founder was Daniel De Leon, who was in
many respects a great propanandist. He hated the anarchists because in
many ways he supported the same ideas and preached the same ideas. He
claimed to be a Marxist and the S.P.G.B. ridiculed his alleged Marxism.
Daniel De Leonâs criticisms of the social system were excellent very
often. and he must have had played a tremendous part as a socialist
educator of the people. but nevertheless he has built no organisation,
his organisation is in its death throes and all that remains is the
classical education left behind by his pamphlets. There is no doubt
about the sincerity, no doubt about the vigour of Daniel De Leon, but at
the same time there is no doubt about the failure of his propaganda. We
have today the spectacle of a few groups of S.P.G.B. supporters and a
few groups of S.L.P. supporters attacking each other, sometimes
slandering each other but each claiming to be the true Marxist party.
Actually it does not matter what Marx taught. It is absurd for any party
to claim to be the true Marxist party, we do not know what Marx would
have done on a certain occasion, we can only speak in the terms of his
general education, his general concept and his general knowledge. What
specifically Marx would have done on this particular occasion or that
particular occasion it is absolutely impossible to say.
In addition to these two socialist groups we have the anarchists,
divided into individualists and communists. Let us take the communists
as being the true expression of anarchism for, alter all, that does
represent the working class approach. The Communist Anarchists spend
more time hating Marx and admiring Bakunin than they do in preaching
actual socialism or trying to organise the working class. Their one cry
is direct action, but direct action cannot represent the action of all
the people or cannot represent affective action on the part of a
minority that will effect all the people and bring all the people into
action against the system, it is, after all, very indirect action and a
failure. Now that means we have three left wing groups divided into
sectarian organisations thoroughly opposed to a united working class
movement.
Against this we have brought into existence by the Russian Revolution.
the Communist Party. This party is a âyes-manâ party. It sometimes tells
the truth, it sometimes does not tell the truth. It does not function
really and truly as a party in Britain, arising out of British
conditions or the economic conditions of the workers here. It functions
purely and simply as a satellite of the Russian Revolution, and whoever
happens to be in power in the Kremlin. the Communist Party hails and
supports that particular individual, or that particular group, as being
the last word. In turn, it has supported Lenin who, after all, is
outstanding. It has supported Trotsky, a lesser man to bruit. It has
supported Stalin who, after the triumph of the revolution and after the
successful activity of Lenin, turned his attention to destroying his own
group for the sake of power. The Communist Party today supports
Khurschov, who represents an entirely different policy from that of
Stalin and, to my mind, really represents the struggle towards peace and
communism. However, it is not because Khruschov may be right, it is not
because his policy tends to be the policy towards freedom with the
minimum of suffering, it is purely and simply because he is in power in
the Kremlin that the Communist Party in this country supports him. That
is a âyes-manâ policy and it can no more be tolerated than a âyes-manâ
policy under Stalin, who, after all, destroyed his own comrades and
certainly was responsible for bogus trials.
Now we have the Labour Party. The Labour Party represents
parliamentarism arising from the ranks of the working class, carrying on
the traditions of the great struggle for parliamentary representation
and, really the trader and the merchant style, for the control of
finance so that there should be no absolute monarchy. At the same time,
this parliamentarism represents, not the organisation of the working
class, for the working class can have no power under the parliamentary
system, but merely a control of the working class elements by the state
system of capitalism. It never intends to get beyond that system, it
never intends to inaugurate-âreally and trulyâsocialism, its aim is
purely and simply to organise the nationalisation of industry and of
credit, etc., at the very highest. This is not socialism, this does not
give emancipation to the working class. Unless you have emancipation
coming from and directed by and controlled by the workshops, you have no
emancipation of the working class.
The point is, what can we do? This May Day I want to direct my thoughts
to the question of what can we do to emancipate the people from the
thralldom of economic partisanship, economic domination and political
subsideriness to the interest of the capitalist state. That is the
problem before all of us today. Let us analyse what we are. The
capitalist state speaks about freedom of the press and freedom of
speech, this claim is not quite correct but it makes a show of believing
in it and its laws seem to suggest it on certain occasions. But why is
the capitalist class able to talk about freedom of speech and freedom of
the press, yet at the same time speak about sedition, speak about
treason and shoot and execute people from time to time for alleged
offences of treasonâvery often high class patriotism ââand also imprison
them for offences of freedom of speech which goes too far. I he
explanation is quite simple, it is because we live under a capitalist
state and because the capitalist class constitute the political
expression of the nation. Therefore, we have got to see what we can do
to bring about the control of the political expression of the working
class movement by the working class movement. We have to define
accurately and impartially and scientifically the working class
movement, we have to define directly and scientifically the working
class nation and we have to understand exactly what socialism stands
for.
I think that the key to the solution of this problem of working class
organisation for genuine and effective social action is to be found in a
statement made by Lord Beaconsfield. He defined the two nations that
existed within every so-called nation. He defined the struggle between
these two nations as the real struggle. He spoke of the nation of the
rich and the nation of the poor, and I think that in our approach to the
question we have to bear in mind this definition. The nation of the rich
and the nation of the poor, and from this angle we must create our
concept of loyalty and disloyalty. The nation of the rich being in
power, has a right to impose upon us from the standpoint of power and
from the standpoint of power only, its definition of sedition and its
definition of treason. We must elevate the nation of the poor to the
position of the nation of the rich, we must make it the supreme nation
and we must define sedition and treason as offences against the unity of
the nation of the poor as distinct from the nation of the rich. This is
a true political expression of the class struggle, one to be remembered
and one to be put into effect.
In the international field today we have loyalty to sects ânot loyalty
to nations, loyalty to parties--not loyalty to class, but it is the
class loyalty we have to consider. The working class must create its own
nationhood. It must accept the fact that so long as we live under the
capitalist system we are divided into economic classes or subdivisions.
We are carpenters. we are joiners, we are electricians, we are
labourers, we are motor drivers, etc., and we think in the terms of our
own particular trade or industry, particularly in times of threatened
unemployment. This is why among compositors we deprive women of the
right to act as compositors or linotype setters, even though they are
quite capable of doing such work. It is a restriction on labour supply
because of the economic condition. All this must be wiped outâbut it has
to be accepted at the moment. Above all this class distinction and craft
division or industrial division within the nation of. the poor, we have
overhead the one great economic fact that there is a nation of the poor
that lives in insecurity, lives in misery, lives by selling its labour
power--by whatever shape or form it does soâand does not live as the
possessor of the wealth or the right to control wealth. Against them is
the other class who live on their backs, who live as the controllers of
wealth produced by the poor and who constitute the nation of the rich
and the governing class in society. Between these two nations there
exists an interminable conflict, a conflict that can only be ended by
the triumph of the poor and the utter defeat of the rich. Our business
is to ring about an end to this division, and an end to this struggle
within the working class movement, and bring about a unity which will
utterly defeat the ruling class movement.
This unity is defeated by the faction of schism[1] as well as heresy,[2]
and by schism much more than by heresy. The schism consists in all these
political parties fighting against each other in the name of labour. The
schism consists in the economic struggle which again divides the workers
on the industrial field, thinking it is right for one section of the
workers to go without whilst another section should occupy a position of
superior control of wealth and superior share of wealth. The schism
consists in the distinction between the skilled and the unskilled
worker, forgetting that there is no such thing as skilled and unskilled
workers but that there is only such an institution as the worker. In
this great struggle, particularly in its political expression and in the
tendency towards careerism created by the economic division, you have
this question arising of who splits the vote, who divides the worker?
It is assumed that the majority movement is the right movement of the
working class and that in the majority movement there is no such thing
as schism, no such thing as treachery. It is assumed that the only
people who have no right to exist are those who belong to the smaller
groups and sects and that they play no useful part in the struggle. This
is sheer nonsense, pure sectarianism of the worst description. Sometimes
the smaller groups are useless, and they act in a useless fashion and
they do tend to destroy the unity of the working class, but let us
remember that when they do, in the main, except from some standpoint of
vanity, they do so from a sincere belief in the cause of the struggle.
The larger groups, the groups that arise from the trade unionsâthe group
that arises from the economic interest within the struggleâthe groups
that find their expression in the Labour Party, also have their tendency
towards schism. Its members are moved not by a desire to serve the
people, not by a loyalty to abstract principles, but by a loyalty to
their own personal interests and their own status under capitalism.
Quite definitely, whilst they arise from the ranks of labour, whilst
their base is in the workshops, whilst their feet are in the mire of the
slums and the mire of suffering, they belongâso far as their heads are
concernedâ to the capitalist class and they think in terms of the
capitalist class. This is treasonâand this is the one treason we must
destroy. This treason can only be destroyed by establishing, somehow or
other, a fundamental nation of the poor to which all power should
belong. It should be our anti-parliamentary task, whether we are aroused
by anti-parliamentarism or not, to create this definite organised nation
of the poor, including all sections of the poor and creating free speech
among the poorâjust as the ruling class have established a nation of the
rich.
Now our nation of the poor should enjoy the same right of free speech,
governed by a loyalty to its own class interests and a loyalty to the
economic struggle of the workers, as the nation of the rich has a right
to create a state governed by its loyalty to the ruling class interests
of the rich. Once this is understood, we have then two definite nations
confronting each other throughout the world and standing for the great
struggle for working class emancipation and finally for a free world
everywhere.
We have another problemâthe problem of recognising the place that theory
and education has in this struggle. Education should be taken away from
the hands of the rich and placed in the hands of the poor. Only complete
working class organisationâtechnical as well as educational. technical
as well as prophetic, technical and scientific as well as visionaryâcan
bring this about.
In mv opinion the Russian Revolution has represented a tremendous change
in the history of the world, and also the great Chinese Revolution has
represented a tremendous change. I think when we come to analyse the
Russian Revolution we will discover the great importance of Lenin. Not
merely as a disciple of Marx, but as a practical disciple of Marx and as
a practical scientific socialist. It may be that history will place
Lenin in an even higher position than Marx is placed, because Marx,
after all, although he laid the basis of scientific socialism,
destroying utopian socialism, was but a kind of John the Baptist. Lenin
was far more probably the Christ of the movement than Marx. Because
Lenin did try to put into practical effect the ideas of Marxism, and the
idea of scientific socialism and created a state which, despite its
errorsâits terrible errorsâdid tend towards the new social order and
historically belonged to the social order of socialism. Stalin can pass
out of the picture. Trotsky, despite his brilliant writing, was a much
inferior man to Lenin and I do not think he would have hesitated to have
agreed to that himself.
In Khruschov, it seems to me, we have a man next great in importance to
that of Lenin, but certainly a man of our time who has made a stand
politically and diplomatically for the establishment of socialism.
Accepting defeat and moving forward to victory, moving with his times,
moving in front of his times, determined to save the world from
slaughter, determined to make the world possible for revolution. What I
have said about the âyes-menâ of the Russian Revolution. what I have
said disparaging these people who claim to be the disciples of Khruschov
and who now applaud Khruschov as they once applauded Stalin, is not
meant to represent any degradation of Khruschov. I have a tremendous
respect for Khruschov and a tremendous respect for the work he is
doingâthis is not a âyes-manâ respect. I am quite prepared to criticise
Khruschov, as I am quite prepared to criticise Marx, as I hope others
will be prepared to criticise me, and as I am prepared to criticise
myself. Nevertheless, the great debt that history owes, the great debt
that the working class owe as regard their future development. to the
work of Khruschovâto my mind can never be over-estimated. This May Day I
believe in mentioning this as a part of my tribute to the importance of
May Day.
There are two other things I want to say. First of all. I have drawn
attention already to the fact that this May Day should be celebrated
with particular energy and enthusiasm because it was on 5^(th) May that
Karl Marx was born. It is not merely a celebration of May, the vernal
month of working class emancipation. it is also a celebration of the
birth and the struggle in poverty of a very great pioneer of socialism,
a very great pioneer of libertyââKarl Marx.
May Day. I believe my memory serves me rightly and I speak only from
memory at the moment without any notes, May Day really came into
importance about the year 1889. It was really established as a day of
labour by the French labour movement and it did not include or exclude
any particular branch. it was the movement of all the working class
factions. May Day used to be like that in Glasgow, but the Labour Party
with the connivance of various factions, some of whom later went to the
Communist Party, succeeded in destroying the universal aspect of May Day
and made it more and more just a parliamentary celebration. We have
evidence of that in the last meeting addressed in Queenâs Park by the
late Mr. Gaitskell when, obviously, the Labour Party platform was
captured and the whole spirit of May Day was destroyed by the interests
of one party, that claimed because it was the majority party to be the
party of the entire working class and very little protest was made
against this seizure and usurpation.
In any case, May Day, 1889, was established under the shadow of the May
Days that had more or less been celebrated in the past, but not with
universal acclamation, in various parts of the world but dissociated
from each other. In May Day, 1886, we had the demonstration in Chicago
for the Chicago martyrs. They were arrested for what took place and a
year later they were executed as the martyrs of the working class
movement. Their spirit overshadowed for a number of years the
celebration of May Day and, as you know, we had an outstanding governor
of Illinois who departed entirely from his class and proclaimed that
they were victims of a police frame-up and he brought about the release
of those still in prison, regretting that he could not give back the
lives of those who had already been executed. In the shadow of that
great tragedy, the working class May Day was celebrated and held for a
number of years. It came down to the time when we introduced the
recognition of the suffering of Ferrier in Spain, and then today we meet
under the shadow of the murder, by Franco, of Grimaud.[3]
Grimaud has been murdered for his loyalty to communism and to the
working class. His murder should be remembered by all of us and it
should unite the entire working class movement. Division by sectarian
grouping will destroy that possible stand that can overthrow this âman
of no mercy,â[4] this enemy of the working class, Franco. It is no use
telling me that we must be loyal to abstract principles of socialism,
after all I have walked the foolsâ parade in prison, I know what it is
like to be suffering imprisonment and, understanding that, I know how
important it is to have a united movement to bring about oneâs release.
Apart from the terrible, shocking and disgraceful execution of Grimaud,
we have the terrible suffering of Ambatielos in Greece and we witness
the scene in connection with the heroic defence of Tony Ambatielos by
his wife Betty. This should call us to strong protest against fascism,
which after all is the extreme and last word of reactionary capitalism.
This should call us to extreme unity and bring about a practical unity
as well as make for theoretical discussion and understanding. Therefore,
I am for a working class movement that should be open to a discussion of
all. But a working class movement should not just end in discussion, it
should try to take definite steps forward towards a complete unity of
its anti-parliamentary and parliamentary factions and bring about one
great working class movement for action and for working class
emancipation.
I say comradesâunite, rally round and think, above all think for
yourselves, and in thinking for yourselves we will develop a richness of
unity and a richness of understanding which will give power and classic
authority to the working class nation. The nation of the poor will soon
become the nation of the free in a richer and a freer world.
He served a total of eight years in prison for his beliefs, and, true
âto his principle, died in poverty.
Guy Aldred was a materialist in philosophy. He had no belief in the
supernatural. To him âthe mortal soul of Man is the only intelligent
lord of matter.â Yet many of his writings and speeches were imbued with
a spirituality that raised them .above the ephemeral utterances of most
political speakers. What he had to say had relevance, not merely to the
moment, but to the epoch. He edited many socialist papers, among them:
âHerald of Revolt,â âThe Spur,â âThe Commune,â âThe âCouncil,â âThe New
Spur,â and âThe Word.â His autobiography, âNo Traitorsâ Gait!â was
issued in supplements and was unfinished at the time of his death.
[1] A schism âis a division, or breach of unity among people of the same
beliefs.
[2] A heresy is a doctrine or set of principles at variance with the
accepted ideas of a group or sect.
[3] Julian Grimaud: A member of the Spanish Communist Party. He was
executed by Franco in May, 1963, for his part in the Civil War 25 years
earlier. The sentence of death was carried out despite world-wide
protests.
[4] âMan of No Mercy.â The Sunday Citizen description of the Spanish
dictator, Franco, 1n its report of the âjudicial murderâ of Julian
Grimaud.
