FRANK BROEZE MILITANCY AND PRAGMATISM AN INTERNATIONAL PERSPECTIVE ON MARITIME LABOUR, 1870-1914* SUMMARY: The militancy of maritime workers led worldwide to strikes of great magnitude, visibility and impact. In many countries these strikes had vast repercus- sions for the industrial and political development of the labour movement. As this comparative overview of maritime labour and unionism in some ten countries shows, however, after the first wave of strikes two conflicting tendencies arose which became a permanent feature of the maritime scene. The men themselves never lost their potential for militant action and adherence to radical ideologies. By contrast, many union leaders became increasingly pragmatic and even accommoda- tionist. This article investigates the causes of this dichotomy and assesses the resulting tensions and conflicts. In many ports these led to break-away moves, spontaneous action and the replacement of moderate by radical leaders. In others the pragmatic tendency survived in power. This included a strong interest in alliances with adjacent unions and international unions. Introduction The historiography of trade unionism and the labour movement in general in recent years has grown at such a frenetic pace that it is doubtful whether any individual can still command or even oversee the whole field. Amongst the plethora of themes several vie for primacy on centre stage: the identity of the proletariat, and the extent and nature of its working-class conscious- ness and class-war strategies; the identification of chronologically distinct phases in the development of trade unionism and, in particular, the nature of the so-called "new unionism"; the influence of socialist ideology on the developing trade-union movement and, more generally, the relationship between the syndicalist and political wings of the labour movement; and, of more recent vintage, the nature of union leadership and reconstructions and social analyses of workers' lives both on the job and within the circles of their families and communities. The literature, moreover, is increasingly rich in case studies of individual occupation groups, their institutionalized unionism, and, to a lesser extent, their leaders. All these approaches are reflected in the broad perspectives and comparative analyses of the best * I should like to express my deep gratitude to the Alexander von Humboldt-Stiftung of Bonn, without whose generosity in supporting my research in Hamburg this paper could not possibly have been written. DownloadedInternational from https://www.cambridge.org/core Review of Social History,. IP address: XXXV 170.106.202.126I (1991), , ppon .27 165-20 Sep 20210 at 02:30:14, subject to the Cambridge Core terms of use, available at https://www.cambridge.org/core/terms. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0020859000110491 166 FRANK BROEZE recent syntheses. Somewhat surprisingly, however, there is an almost total lack of studies which deal systematically with the position and influence of individual occupational groups on the overall development of the labour movement at all levels and in all its diverse manifestations or which, in other words, attempt to relate the working and living experiences of the specific group to the external representation of its interests through its ideology, unions, leaders and broader political activity. Thus, for example, while there is a large number of studies dealing with the industrial sociology of coal miners and the development of both their militancy and their particular local and national trade unions, there was until very recently2 no analysis of the influence of coal miners and their leaders in general on the development of national labour movements or, for that matter, the evolution of labour ideology, party organization and politi- cal behaviour. In other words, few connections have been made between the experiences of the occupational group at the level of the working and living conditions of its members and its broader ideological, unionist and political significance. In consequence, usually, only a very rough cate- gorisation of workers (skilled, unskilled, or also "semi-skilled") is used and, in consequence, individual occupational groups appear as examples of such categories, not as individually distinct and integral elements of the labour movement. Second, only very few internationally comparative anal- yses of any such occupational group have been made;2 labour history, indeed, still suffers very much from the nationalist approach which, in principle, must be regarded as its very antithesis. But it is just because the working and living conditions of specific occupational groups in different countries could be so similar that it is both inviting and indispensable to adopt an international and comparative perspective in order to assess the structural role of the group within the overall historical pattern of devel- opments. There are many theoretical and historical-empirical problems involved in such an approach, such as the concurrent existence of sharply differing political cultures in countries which, geographically, economically and socially, were not all that far apart. Thus, for example, significant contrasts existed in the timing and manner of the entry of socialists into the 2 Gary Marks, Unions in Politics. Britain, Germany, and the United States in the Nine- teenth and Early Twentieth Centuries (Princeton, 1989), ch. 5. 2 See, e.g. James Holt, "Trade Unionism in the British and U.S. Steel Industries, 1880-1914", Labor History, 18 (1977), pp. 5-35; Jeffrey Haydu, "Employers, Unions and American Exceptionalism: Pre-World War I Open Shops in the Machine Trades in Comparative Perspective", International Review of Social History, XXXIII (1988), pp. 25-41; Marks, Unions in Politics; Andrew J. Taylor, Trade Unions and Politics. A Comparative Introduction (London, 1989); and, more directly related to the theme of this essay, Marina Cattaruzza, " 'Organisierter Konflikt' und 'Direkte Aktion'. Zwei Formen des Arbeiterkampfes am Beispiel der Werftarbeiterstreiks in Hamburg und Triest (1880-1914)", Archiv fur Sozialgeschichte, 20 (1980), pp. 325-355. Downloaded from https://www.cambridge.org/core. IP address: 170.106.202.126, on 27 Sep 2021 at 02:30:14, subject to the Cambridge Core terms of use, available at https://www.cambridge.org/core/terms. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0020859000110491 MARITIME LABOUR 1870-1914 167 national parliamentary political arenas of Great Britain, France, imperial Germany or also Australia and New Zealand and in the relationship be- tween the unionist and political wings of the labour movement of those countries. Similarly, there were significant contrasts in the political culture of the several national labour movements and concepts such as radicalism and syndicalism might, ideologically and in practice, historically as well as historiographically, mean very different things in different countries and at different times.3 A research agenda, which calls for the adoption of a broad and international industrial-sociological model based on the comparative study of one particular group of workers, cannot but be fraught with theoretical and practical problems, but I believe that such a methodology could provide valuable new insights into the specific processes of worker militancy and union activity and, more generally, into the ideological and political dialectics and struggles of the working class as a whole. The purpose of this article is to present such an international comparative analysis of the activity and impact of the particular group of workers which may be defined as maritime labour. As this concept may appear excessively broad, a brief definition and justification of its use may be given first. Maritime labour embraces, above all, the port workers involved in loading and unloading ships and the seamen who sail on them; besides them I also include the numerous semi-skilled and unskilled labourers employed in shipbuilding, repair and maintenance without whose jobs shipping could not be kept moving. The use of this aggregating term should, however, not be understood to mean that we are dealing with a homogeneous labour force which at all times acted as one body; both between and within the three major sections of workers conditions and experiences could vary significantly. Shipyard workers, even leaving highly-skilled engineers and boilermakers out of consideration, included many groups of specialised workers, such as plate makers and rivetters, as well as unskilled general labourers. Similarly, as Hobsbawm and many others after him have empha- sised, within the broad range of port transport workers (at least in the major general ports of the pre-Great War world economy) many specific job categories and specialisations existed.4 This can be observed both concur- 3 Cf. Marcel van der Linden, "The National Integration of European Working Classes (1871-1914). Exploring the Causal Configuration", International Review of Social Histo- ry, XXXIII (1988), pp. 285-311. 4 See, e.g., E. J. Hobsbawm, "National Unions on the Waterfront", in Labouring Men (London, 1964), pp. 204-230; John Lovell, Stevedores and Dockers. A Study of Trade Unionism in the Port of London, 1870-1914 (London, 1969); R. Bean, "Employers' Associations in the Port of Liverpool 1890-1914", International Review of Social History, XXI (1976), pp. 358-382; M. J. Daunton, "Inter-Union Relations on the Waterfront: Cardiff 1888-1914", International Review of Social History, XXII (1977), pp. 350-378; Michael Griittner,