Against the Cold War

Against the Cold War Against the Cold War The History and Political Traditions of Pro-Sovietism in the British Labour Party 1945-89 Darren G Lilleker I.B. Tauris Publishers LONDON • NEW YORK Published in 2004 by Tauris Academic Studies. an imprint of I.B. Tauris & Co Ltd 6 Salem Road, London W2 4BU 175 Fifth Avenue, New York NY 10010 www..ibtauris.com In the United States of America and in Canada distributed by St Martins Press, 175 Fifth Avenue, New York NY 10010 Copyright © Darren G Lilleker, 2004 The right of Darren Lilleker to be identified as the author of this work has been asserted by the author in accordance with the Copyright, Designs and Patents Act 1988. All rights reserved. Except for brief quotations in a review, this book, or any part thereof, may not be reproduced, stored in or introduced into a retrieval system, or transmitted, in any form or by any means, electronic, mechanical, photocopying, recording or otherwise, without the prior writ- ten permission of the publisher. International Library of Political Studies 11 ISBN 1 85043 471 9 EAN 978 1 85043 471 9 A full CIP record for this book is available from the British Library A full CIP record for this book is available from the Library of Congress Library of Congress catalog card: available Printed and bound in Great Britain by MPG Books Ltd, Bodmin from camera-ready copy edited and supplied by the author Contents Acknowledgements vi Introduction 1 1. Building a Pro-Soviet Fifth Column 19 2. From Emancipatory Revolution to Grand Alliance 42 3. Konni Zilliacus and Labour’s Adversarial Voices from the Left 68 4. Victory for Socialism 109 5. Beneath Détente 137 6. Raising the Stakes 172 7. The perspectives of pro-Sovietism 209 Conclusion 222 Appendix: Biographical Detail 233 Notes 240 Bibliography 272 Index 289 ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS his research would not have been possible without the scholarship offered to me by Barnsley College. I would like to acknowledge the Tdebt of gratitude to the college and the staff on the BA Humanities degree course: David Bills, Sian Edwards, Robert Fletcher, David Kiernan, Tony Hooper, Martin McMahon, Michael McMahon, Graham Mustin and Paul Wild. All of whom were immensely supportive to me throughout my studies and during my time as a postgraduate and lecturer at the college. I would also so like to offer my thanks to Keith Brock of the International Unit. I also owe a debt of gratitude to my supervisors, Julian Birch and Michael Kenny, for all their help and support throughout my research and writing. There are also many others within the department who were supportive during my time in the Department of Politics at the University of Sheffield, particularly Ian Bache, Stephen George, Steve Ludlam, Pat Seyd, Martin J Smith and Paul Whiteley. I would also like to thank the office staff; Sarah Cooke, Sue Kelk, Katie Middleton, Christine Whitaker and Rob Collins who are fantastic on a daily basis. Within the field of Labour and Communist history I found a great deal of support and made many friends along the way, this made my research both enjoyable and rewarding. Ray Challinor and Archie Potts both gave vast amounts of advice and information over several telephone con- versations, I thank them very much. This study also benefited from the help and encouragement of many people beyond academia, not all of whom I can mention here. The archi- vists at the Museum of Labour History, the Modern Records Centre and King’s College London were enormously helpful. Those who agreed to be interviewed were all thanked individually, however I would like to reiterate my heartfelt thanks as much of this work relies upon their accuracy of recollection and willing participation. Sadly since being interviewed Frank vii Allaun, John Platts-Mills and Jan Zilliacus have passed away, I trust I serve their memories in telling one small part of their stories. Finally, and on a personal note, I would like to thanks my colleagues within the Political Studies Association Postgraduate Network for their friendship and support, Ralph Negrine for giving me my first full-time post and to Simon Cross and James Stanyer for making me welcome at Leicester, my friends in Wakefield for keeping me grounded in the real world, to Sue Lindley at Bournemouth University and Chris Jeapes for their help with preparing the manuscript, and finally Teresa, to whom I owe the greatest debts of all. This book is dedicated to the memories of Gladys Mabel Price, Arritza bin Rashid and Jack ‘Stig’ Webster, all of whom were influential figures in my life. Darren G Lilleker, Poole, March 2004. INTRODUCTION Pro-Sovietism and the British Labour Party he British Parliamentary Labour party (PLP) is traditionally described as a coalition of left-wing traditions and ideologies. Wright described Tthis coalition as fragile because the leadership was often torn between the policy outcomes imposed by the realities of governance and those prescribed by ideology.1 The debate between approaches frequently divided the party. The leadership adopted a largely pragmatic and consensual approach to government, while the left argued that ideology should guide the party. The intra-party debate thus centred upon what was possible; the leadership maintained the stance that radical socialist policies were untenable for Britain and unpopular with the electorate. The left, in con- trast, argued that socialist principles alone should determine policy and that, if the leadership showed determination in the pursuit of socialist goals, the electorate would respond favourably. Thorpe argued that similar divisions existed within the traditional constituency of the party, the working class.2 Britain has traditionally lacked a revolutionary socialist tradition and, therefore, any socialist political group- ing intent on securing electoral success has had to adopt a centre-left or social democratic position. The democratic socialist left largely rejected this as an illegitimate constraint; they were not about accepting the mood, they sought to steer the mood in a more socialist direction. The internal divisions in the British Labour party are amplified by the fact that the party was founded upon an alliance of autonomous or- ganisations. This factor led Shaw to conclude that Labour was “neither socialist nor… a party”.3 He described the party as a confederation of societies that had amalgamated only because they represented, to differing extents, working class interests. This has led political analysts to define Labour’s ideology not as socialism but ‘labourism’; a coalition of group interests some of which can be described as ideological but, in general, are nothing more than political objectives derived from the interests of a single class.4 We can therefore view Labour party policy as having emerged 2 AGAINST THE COLD WAR out of a loose collection of ideological traditions, restricted by a traditional non-radical tendency within the electorate and the party’s structure and also by the existence of a largely right-wing parliamentary opposition. From this analysis we can recognise that socialist achievements, such as the na- tionalisation programme and foundation of the Welfare state, could only have been achieved in a consensual political atmosphere.5 There is no easy way to characterise those parliamentarians who became known as the left-wing of the PLP. The left-wing traditions, which filtered into the ethos of the Labour party, included the influence of Marx- ism and Trotskyism, libertarianism, intellectual humanism, Christianity and internationalism. It would be misleading to discuss the existence of a left- wing ideology, or indeed one definite labourist ideology. Across the party there existed divisions over the objectives that should be pursued, which were often dependent upon the individual’s socialist ideals. Furthermore, each of the ideological concepts held had blurred boundaries and lacked definite objectives relevant to everyday politicking. Thus the left of the Labour party can be defined as a loose collective united only around broad objectives, that lacked a definitive ideological core.6 Historically high politics within the party has been viewed as a bat- tle between left and centre-right factions, for example the Bevinite-Bevanite divide within the 1945-50 government, or the Healey-Benn split of 1981. However, by no means were these factions organised or cohesive. In fact the ideological divisions within the party can be viewed as existing in minu- tiae within the left. The left-wing did have a broadly defined policy objec- tive; to improve the conditions of the party’s traditional constituency, the working class. The central tenets of the left-wing agenda were state owner- ship of the means of production and a non-aggressive foreign policy. The latter would determine what defence was necessary for Britain. However the proposed strategies for achieving this agenda differed vastly. There was no single philosophy that acted as a guide for left-wing activity and the broad objectives were not explicit and liable to flux. However, these two tenets were the broadly unifying ideological features of the left-wing agenda. THE LEFT AND PRO-SOVIETISM The attitude towards the Soviet Union was one issue that separated the left. Most Labour left-wingers were at best antipathetic to Soviet Com- munism. Despite this, opposition to the Cold War did emerge out of Bevanism; the left-wing philosophy that enjoyed support of the majority of the left. The Bevanite mission was to unravel Britain’s international ties that opposed the implementation of a socialist domestic policy.7 They particularly opposed Atlanticism; the support for the Anglo-American special relationship, and argued that Britain should establish a neutral Third Camp INTRODUCTION 3 in alliance with socialist European powers.

Load more