From London Socialist Historians Group Newsletter #59 (Autumn 2016)
Australia’s Minority Movement
The Expropriators are
Expropriated and other writings on Marxism
Tom O’Lincoln
Interventions
Inc, (Carlton South, Vic., Australia), 2016
ISBN 9780994537805
The
present collection contains a number of short pieces, including outlines of
various aspects of Marxist theory. There are three essays providing an
introduction to Marx’s economic theory, putting the arguments in clear and
accessible language; O’Lincoln reminds us that “you and I create wealth by
working every day …. share traders just shuffle it around” and that “what
distinguishes Karl Marx’s economic theory is that the centre of the analysis is the production process”.
A
piece on dialectics only scratches the surfaces, but reminds us that Marx bases
“the dialectic on the activity, the labour and above all the class struggles of
real human beings”. A critical account of the theory of base and superstructure
argues that by taking human labour as a starting-point we can go beyond the
false alternative of determinism and voluntarism. A more polemical piece on
wage labour under Stalinism argues that in his analysis Tony Cliff “ignores the
class struggle altogether”.
But
I think the piece that will of greatest interest to socialist historians is the
account of the Australian Minority Movement [ http://www.anu.edu.au/polsci/marx/interventions/minority.htm
], which allows us to make comparisons between the achievements and limitations
of this strategy in Britain
and Australia.
The Australian “Minority Movement” was launched in 1931, becoming the
Australian section of the Red International of Labour Unions.
The
Communist Party, which played a key role in the movement, accepted the Moscow line of the “Third Period”, which described social
democrats as “social fascists”, an almost insuperable barrier to united front
work. But in the particular circumstances of Australia
it proved to be not so much of an obstacle. The MM began to organise among
unemployed working on public works projects at starvation wages. It bypassed
union officials and stressed rank-and-file control, and won several strikes
despite the workers having little real bargaining power. An even more effective
intervention was made in the Wonthaggi miners’ strike of 1934. As one striker
reported:
“On
the broad committee leading the strike there are sixty activists, and in the
various propaganda, relief, and other activities over 200 men and women are
working hard … Wonthaggi is a town at war – on active service against the
boss.”
Though
obstacles were placed to bus and rail travel, strikers hired cars to send a
delegation to Melbourne, which addressed at
least a dozen meetings, including one of a thousand and another of 1500, and
raised considerable financial support. The strike ended in victory – victimised
workers were reinstated, attacks on wages and conditions were abandoned, and
pit committees were recognised. A number of similar victories were won by sugar
workers.
The example spread; the MM paper even reported “Bush
Workers’ Committees Rally Country Toilers – Rabbit Trappers Organise At Last”.
Shortage of rabbit pie would not bring down capitalism, but the MM influence spread
through major industries, notably playing a central role in building railway
shop committees. O’Lincoln summarises: “Wherever they were active, MM members
called for shop committees; wherever these were formed, they sought to work
within them and win leadership.”
The
publication of workplace bulletins, with active involvement of local members,
was stressed. A Kurri Kurri miner described the process:
“All
this information is brought to the meeting and discussed, and comrades are
selected to write and edit the articles and produce material on general
campaigns. Other comrades are elected to draw up headings or print the papers,
thus developing a real collective interest in the paper.”
Given
the widespread distrust of unions the MM argued that non-members should be
drawn into strike committees. And in areas where it did not have support the MM
intervened from the outside by issuing leaflets.
The
MM developed a programme for women workers, including equal pay for equal work,
equal unemployment relief and and fighting dismissals of married women. It
demanded that women should be represented on all strike committees and that
where women were a majority of those employed in an industry, women should be
in a majority on the strike committee. Strikers’ wives were organised into
women’s auxiliaries.
The
British experience was an important source of inspiration for the MM and
provided an organisational model. But because of the Communist Party’s position
there was some confusion as to whether the MM was a militant reform movement or
a part of the revolutionary movement; Yet perhaps half the members of the MM
were not Communist party members.
The
Communist party had to warn its more zealous members not to write articles for
rank-and-file bulletins which began “Do you know there is a Social Fascist
Dictatorship running your union?” and urging workers to “Roll up to your next
meeting and show the Fascists where they get off”. And there were real
weaknesses in the MM. O’Lincoln notes “It may of course be true that some MM
groups demanded unrealistic levels of activity, but there is ample evidence
that the general run of MM members were, if anything, rather slack”.
By
1935, with the advent of the Popular Front, the MM came to an end. As O’Lincoln
sums up: “The concept of a rank and file movement across industry lines, broader than the Communist Party’s own
membership but organising workers on a class-wide basis, had been abandoned in
favour of organisation within individual industries.” Yet as he concludes, the MM rebuilt trade
unionism in some areas and vastly strengthened it in others, and won a number
of epic struggles. It should not be forgotten.
Ian Birchall
