Revive the Chartist herif

Scan page 8

Left-wing Chartists were linked internationally with such militants os Marx and lingels IN justification of their opposition to the adoption of Peter Tatchell as the David Harris Labuur parliamentary candidate for Bermondsey looks at the a lot has been said about the need for a "traditional" real tradition Labour candidate by oppon- Tahsose anndidnto he annon. ents of the Labour Party's objective of securing for of Bermondworkers by hand and brain the full fruits of their industry on the basis of 'the common ownership of the means of production, distribution and exchange • But what are the best traditions of the labour movement in Bermondsey? Let us look at the movement there during the Chartist period (1838-48) when the struggle of the working class for the right to vote in Can our elections to the House of Commons (the Charter demanded manhood suffrage, etc.) was in a vital formative stage.

In April 1848 the Chartist leader Robert Wild stated what he saw as the objectives of the movement in words which still have a urning relevance today. 'It was' he said (Manchester and Salford Advertiser, April 22 1848), "not political mower alone that thev Atenem a47. pazue faut : pazuem control of the national resources, for what good would a vote do a man if he was locked out from the factory and the land."

At the time he said this Wild was living at Mottram, but earlier he had been active in Bermondsey.

When the Bermondsey Chartist "locality" (branch) met at the Hors Tavern, Crucifix Lane, on September 26, 1842 /Northern Star. October 1. 1842). to Wild, "late member of this locality, and now in Chester Castle for speaking the truth"

And at the meeting of the -Chartist • Metropolitan Delegate Committee held OHN HARRIS on January 8, 1843 (Northern Star, January 14, 1843) a Bermondsey delegate raised the case of Wild, "late an active member of the Bermondsey locality, now an imprisoned victim, and pressed upon the delegates the propriety of raising a subscription in their several localities to assist his wife and family."

Robert Wild had been imprisoned for his role in the near-General Strike of August 1842 which erupted during a severe crisis when there was widespread distress and unemployment and the employers sought to impose more and more wage-cuts.

At his trial soon afterwards the judge Lord Abinger said before sentencing him to two years in prison (Hansard, Third Series, vol.66, col. 1059): "It seems seene has and a delegate to sit at Manchester, at which about three hundred were present. The question of the Charter was there discussed, and put to the delegates; and the great majority were for making the Charter a national question.

Illegal "Why I know not what is to become of the constitution of England, if the people are to be allowed to hold illegal meetings, appoint delegates, and exercise the right of legislating - if not for the nation at large, at least for the portion of it that is willing to submit to them.

The body to which Wild had been elected, the Great Delegate Trades' Conference, which declared its aim to be to maintain and spread the strike until the Charter was granted, i.e. until the working class had political power, was central organ of working class struggle and power composed of delegates of the striking workers, or as a similar body in Russia at St. Petersburg in 1905 in which Leon Trotsky was prominent was later to be described, a soviet. The 1842 insurrectionary strike was in a sense Britain's *1905"

Release

Nearly three years after his release from prison Wild was elected on march 29, 1847, a member of the society closely associated with Karl Marx and Frederick Engels, the Society of Fraternal Democrats, the international workers' association founded in September 1845 which on 13 December 1847, elected a Russian secretary in addition to its secretaries for Britain, Germany, France, Poland, Switzerland, Scandinavia and Hungary. The Society not only advocated the Charter, all its British members being members of the National Charter Association (many Fraternal Democrats however called for the vote not only as the Charter demanded for all men but also for women), beyond this it maintained that "the earth with all its natural productions is the common property of all" and affirmed that the existing state of society was "essentially unjust" (Northern Star, January 16, 1847).

So whilst its British secretary Julian Harney welcomed the February 1848 revolution in France he advised the new government that if the rich conih against the old right-wing Southwark Council

Scan page 9

age.

farch 29 meeting of the WELL CAD of the I8JUS and 184US do laciety. At this a Chartist of the Fraternal Demo- At the same time these all they can to ensure that tho was still living in Ber- crats: doseph , Chapman, Bermondsey Chartists in 1983 Peter Tatchell is sandsey, John Gathard of a delegate from the Ber- were active the bad effects elected as their Labour MP I Page's Walk (Northern mondsey locality to the of capitalism were showing with a massive majority!

Bermondsey Labour Party are anxious to lay the groundwork for the election campaign before the date of the by-election is set.

Mass leafleting of the constituency and canvassing has already begun and will continue throughout January. If you would like to help the details are as follows.

Sunday 16 January at 11am. Meet For the Chartists, extra-parliamentary action was the only way - even to win the vote! doubt continue to witchhunt Tatchell as they have done for the last 12 months in an attempt to frighten workers with the prospect of a foreign, Marxist and possibly gay MP.

Bermondsey CLP, since its shift to the left, have already begun to rebuild a moribund Labour Party on the basis of campaigning to mobilise the local community against hospital closures, and against the property speculators and inued to fail to provide mployment for the masses : "must do what perhaps : would have been well to tave done within 24 hours if the proclamation of the lepublic - take possession all banks, railroads, mines, fisheries and gas rarks, and all closed facpries and workshops, in be name of the nation." Northern Star, March 25, 4848).

But let us return to the aunt 0 manntino tha RIVERSIDE LABOUR SuPPoRTi DUR RE DELI Ye fo TOUARAn AnCE profiteers.

On the basis of the work carried out over the last couple of years - Tatchell has personaliy • visited 20,000 of his constituents * the Labour Party will now have to convince its Labour supporters that it is O'Grady himself and the old right wing council that he led which is responsible for their plight The evidence for this case is nverwhelming and with three mass leaflets Star, July 31, 1847) -earlier he lived at 5 Grange Walk (Northern Star, September 5, 1846) - was proposed as a member. For some time Gathard was the "sub-secretary" (secretary) of the Bermondsey Chartist locality meeting at the King of Prussia (Northern Star, December 16, 1843).

At the December 13 meeting two other leading Bermondsey •Chartists maro alontad as mamhort planned before the by-election date is announced, the working class of Bermondsey will be left in no doubt about the betrayals of the right wing. But will this be enough to pull out Labour supporters on polling day?

Labour's past record in the borough was certainly a factor, last November, in the very low turn-out in the by-election at Peckham, to the south of Bermondsey.

Peter Tatchell argues Chartist Metropolitan Committee, and John Millward, the locality's "sub-treasurer" (treasurer) who was also a delegate to the Metropolitan Committee (Northern Star, March 6 and November 20, 1847).

The Bermondsey Chartist William Dunnage of 11 Webb Street (Northern Star, September 5, 1846) was already active in the Fraternal Democrats in 1846. that it will be necessary to link these local issues to national issue if Labour supporters are to be convinced. He points out that ever with a left wing council in Southwark, prospects for tackling local problems are severely hampered by a Tory government hellbent on further cutting public expenditure.

Throughout

• But if the concerns of the working class in Bermondsey • are likely to be the local issues, for Labour Party activists throughout the country, this by election will, as Tatchell pointed out in his speech at Peckham LPYS have crucial importance.

A resounding win for Labour will weaken the right wing counter-offensive within the Labour Party. It will make it that much harder for the rightwing to obstruct the endorsement of left wing candidates selected by local CLPs and reinforce the right of CLPs to choose their own candidates without interference.

A victory for Tatchell could also lay the basis for a long-overdue fresh offensive by the left in the leadup to the next General Election to extend the democratic gain and fight for Party control of the themselves in a devastating! way. Capitalism was then however still comparatively young. Now it is in a dangerous state of decay. It is now more than ever urgent that the objectives struggled for by Bermondsey Chartists like Robert Wild, objectives reaffirmed in the Labour Party's Constitution, should at last be carried into practice. Let the descendants of the Bermondsey Chartists Election manifesto.

Bermondsey CLP welcomes active support from Labour Party members throughout London (for details, see box). The campaign is already underway and it is essential that Labour Party. activists respond to the call if we are to combat the enormous propaganda campaign which the ruling class will direct at Bermondsey and get a large Labour vote for Peter Tatchell.

SPEAKING to a meeting of folk.

Peckham Labour Party Young Socialists on the day to the undemocratic London that the Organisation Dockland Development Sub-committee of the Corporation and its plans Labour Party NEC agreed for the Bermondsey riverto endorse his candidature side and Surrey Docks. for the Bermondsey by-election, Peter Tatchell only accountable to Michael outlined the basis of the Heseltine. It has stolen local party's campaign. planning powers from the Southwark councillors and "We want to revive a plan drawn up 60 years elected to represent. the ago by Dr. Salter, the pre- nterests of local people war Labour MP,, to trans- ina stolen 264 acres o form Bermondsey into a riverside land. 'Garden City' of new industrial estates and low-rise been Vice-Chair of this houses surrounded by Corporation, it has worked gardens and tree-lined hand in glove with the streets. Tory government and propWe want to see all dere- erty speculators to carve up lict land and buildings Bermondsey for the rich taken into public owner- and squeeze out local ship to stop property specu- people lation which is forcing up prices and preventing Kuwaiti scheme to build Surrey Docks and riverside the equivalent of 14 Centresites being used for the point office blocks on Hay's benefit of local people. Wharf. It has backed the building of luxury flats on Sites Corbett's Wharf which will sell for up to £170,000 each.

So long as these sites are pushing plans for three privately owned and on the yacht marinas in Surrey property market, South- Docks and forcing , 516 wark Council will be outbid industrial jobs out of the by the developers. If the price of land in North area.

Southwark was not so arti- profiteering and want to ficially inflated, the Council see the LDDC abolished. could afford to build a lot more low-rise houses with Docks should be developed gardens and new industrial for the benefit of the local units to create local jobs.

community. That means We want the Council to mix of low-rise counci refuse planning permission houses with gardens, light for any further office development as it is largely speculative, does not create local jobs and many of the offices already built. still remain unlet.

The developers are using North Southwark as an overspill from the City of London. Rampant office development is destroying the local communities in Waterloo, Elephant and Castle and Borough High Street. Balfour Street, SE17.

We also want the Council to stop building flats and exclusively build low-rise Union Street, SE 1. housing with gardens.

Bermondsey has too many Sunday 30 January flats and too few houses. It Lower Road, SE16. is not the right environment for families and elderly industry, extension of the We are strongly opposed Jubilee Line and a good sized shopping centre.

Ultimately none of these policies will succeed without a Labour government that is prepared to It is an unelected body challenge the power and privilege of capitalism.

The problem with successive Labour governments is that they have failed to do that.

It is not enough to have good ideas if you don't have the will and determination Since Bob Mellish has to carry through the Rance companies, the drug industries and so on.

We wil be making these points to people in the course of our election campaign. t has supported th Crucial What happens in this election will be crucial to the future of the left in the Labour Party. If we win Now the Corporation is with a big majority it will be La slap in the face for those who said that the policies we are fighting on can't win mass support.

The result in BermondWe are opposed to this sey could also be important for the next General Election. If we can win a The riverside and Surrey massive majority in Bermondsey it will show that we can win an election on socialist policies while if we do badly the press will feed on that.

Sunday 23 January at at 11 am. Meet at 133

Scan page 10

Socialst Organser no l49 anagr, AZ A98S PORE JO.

P-obie= aLc Policies German workers with arms, 1918 - would they have been safer leaving the guns under the control of the generals? —The Battle of AlgiersAS THE Campaign for Nuclear Disarmament has gathered support, CND members have been discussing what kind/s of alternative defence strategies should be developed, and whether we should concern ourselves with defence at all.

The recent Labour Party political broadcast talked of transferring resources saved from nuclear disarmament to building up conventional weapons.

But two. important questions have to be answered when we are talking of alternative defence. Firstly, what are we defending, and secondly, under whose control is the defence?

The vast majority of Bntish peopie gain nothing from Britain's colonies and imperialist interests overseas, and have no reason to support the British Navy against the oppressed and exploited people of the third world. North Sea Oil belongs to multinational companies, many of them American, and certainly not British workers. We have no need, therefore, of a Navy to defend that.

Martin Thomas reviews Gillo Pontecorvo's classic film 'The Battle of Algiers' now showing at the Gate Cinema in Bloomsbury THE leaders of the French army speak at length. Colonel Mathieu of the paras explains his scientific methods of counter-revolutionary warfare; and tells journalists who criticise torture that if they want France to retain Algeria, then they must accept the necessary methods.

The leaders of the nationalist FLN behave more in line with the Fords which one of them, Amar Ali, carried as a tattoo: "Shut up".

About the longest speech from any of them is Ben M'hidi's explanation to Ali - who wants above all Does this mean that there is nothing worth defending? No. British workers have a right to defend material interests and political rights (such as they are under the existing system).

But the present military apparatus is not much use for that.

The British state uses it against British workers to break strikes and to repress people in other countries -like Ireland - with conventional weapons.

Control

A real alternative defence strategy therefore, cannot be for conventional weapons instead of nuclear, but must be based on removing the capitalist state's monopoly of viol ence. We must ensure that our defence is under our control.

Defence against whom?

The current campaign being waged by the British state and NATO is just a forewarning of the kind of opposition that would be mounted in the event of a Labour government seriously attempting to get to use guns - of why the FLN is calling a general strike and suspending armed actions for the duration.

revolution is difficult; to keep it going is harder; but your problems really begin only after you have won.

Terse

Moreover, the french win militarily. Sweeping again and again through the narrow streets of the Muslim district of Algiers, smashing down doors, searching, beating, arresting, and torturing, they finally destroy the FLN's command structure.

But among the Muslims fear and sullen resentment has turned to bitter fury and conscious revolt. Terse but passionate like the FLN ver rid of nuclear weapons. The example of the threats from the United States to destabilise Italy and France, just a few years ago, if the Communist Parties in those countries were to win in their elections, are a clear example of what could be expected.

So 'defence' is more likely to be needed against British equivalents of Chile's General Pinochet, the current allies of Britain, or against people who are rather than the USSR.

In the unlikely event of the USSR invading Britain, we would have no need to defend these factories and means of production from nationalisation. But like the Polish workers we would need to fight against bureaucratic tyranny and ensure that nationalised property is brought under our democratic control.

In 1968 fraternisation by Czech •workers with Russian troops forced the Kremlin to replace the forces in Czechoslovakia because of the effect it was having. And it wasn't nuclear weapons that held back the USSR from invading Poland. Clearly, though, fraternisation alone is insufficient.. We need military means to defend our rights against leaders it portrays, this shows why and how.

The parallels from the film for Northern Ireland are plain enough, though the scale and proportions of the Algerian war were different - up to one million people were killed (3,000 European civilians, 17,000 French troops, the rest Muslims), and maybe 3,000 Muslims died under torture during the Battle of Algiers alone. In colonial Algeria, the one million settlers had an average income per head 30 times that of the nine million Muslims, many of whom lived on the edge of starvation.

Algerian nationalism first developed in the 1920s. In 1945 the Setif massacre - when anything up to 45,000 Muslims were slaughtered by settlers on the rampage in revenge for the capitalist. class or against Stalinist bureaucracies.

We need a workers' militia. Such a militia would need to be democratically controlled to ensure that criminal and fascist elements could not undermine its operation.

Militias

Such militias were used successtully by Cuba against American-backed insurgents, and militias (though not workers' militias) form part of the defence preparations of Sweden, Switzerland and Yugoslavia. Britain, too, in the Second World War had its own militia - the home guard which arose out of a popular and spontaneous response to the news of the German parachute landings in Holland in May 1940.

An article by Michael Randle gives some interesting details about the Home Guard. It "frequently employed democratic procedures in the early phase, such as election of officers, and took some months for the War Office to bring it under control.

"It continued thereafter have a radical thrust and a Muslim riot - set events moving towards the launching of a war of independence by the FLN in 1954, just a few months after the defeat of French imperialism in Vietnam.

"Battle of Algiers' was made in 1966, four years after Algeria's independence, by the Italian Marxist Gillo Pontecorvo together with Saadi Yacef, former FLN leader in Algiers, who plays his own part in it.

Bombs

It is concentrated on the years 1956-7 and the city of Algiers. On June 19, 1956 two FLN leaders were guillotined. The execution rallied thousands of Muslims to the FLN and was the signal for serious FLN military operations to start in Algiers. was strongly influenced by the thinking of the socialist and. Spanish Civil War veteran Tom Wintringham who established an unauthorised Home Guard Training School at Osterley Park - a school which the authorities tried to close down but were later forced to accept."

Clearly therefore the concept of a workers' militia is not totally alien to 'the British character" as some have suggested. But are there any recent grounds for believing that a workers militia could be developed?

Fascist

Over the last few years fascist organisations like the NF and British Movement have diverted their attention from marches to attacks on individual members of the black communities. Petrol bomb attacks like those in Deptford and elsewhere, together with a refusal by the police to do anything about them, have led black communities in many areas to develop their own self defence organisations, training their members in martial arts.

And at the recent trial of the Bradford 12, the jury On August 10, 1956, right wing settlers, with the cooperation of the police. bombed 8 rue de Thebes, in the Muslim district, killing 70 people. In retaliation Yacef organised bombings in European cafes and the battle escalated into war between the FLN on one side, the settlers and the army on the other.

Un January 7, 1957, the army was given full powers in Algiers. Between then and October 8 - when Amar Ali was cornered and blown to pieces by a French army bomb - the 'Battle of Algiers' raged.

The French won that battle. After October 1957 the FLN's military action was mostly confined to the countryside, where the French army tried to combat it by moving over a million peasants to barbed wire encampments.

1777. 73;

fi effectively decided that the black community had a right to organise its own self-defence including the production and use of petrol bombs.

The last ten years has also seen the growth of strong arm hit squads like the SPG, the use of CS gas in Toxteth, and reports that some police forces have plastic bullets.

As confrontations with the state escalate, especially with the Tebbit laws, these strong state methods will be brought into use against workers.

Just as the mass picket and flying picket were rediscovered during the miners' strike in 1972, so this time round workers will need to develop their own workers' defence squads if they are not to get their heads broken.

Both the above forms of defence squads are small examples of the sort of force which, organised and democratically controlled by the mass labour movement, could defend our interests against a foreign oppressor - and against the British bosses and their military machine.

What are the objections to such a strategy? The main one is that it would The army became concerned that weak, vacillating French governments would 'sell them out' by negotiating with the FLN. In May 1958 they helped to organise a coup in Algeria, to bring De Gaulle to power in Paris.

Machine

But the FLN was reorganising. On December 11 1960, as De Gaulle visited Algeria, thousands of Muslims poured into the streets of Algiers waving flags and shouting FLN slogans. This mass revolt could not be defeated as the FLN's 1956 terror campaign had been.

The army and the settlers became more and more aware that De Gaulle was in fact going to negotiate independence for Algeria.

1n Annil 10A1 tha arma ... army lead to anarchy - people using their weapons to commit crimes, shoot eachother, etc.

. It would be best, of course, if weapons of death were scrapped completely.

But in the meantime, why suppose that the generals and colonels are uniquely qualified to wield armed force. Why is it safer for the guns to be under their control rather than ours?

The argument about 'anarchy' stems from a middle class elitist view of the working class as being just a bunch of riff-raft incapable of self-discipline, whose only political role is to support middle class politicians at elections and on demonstrations, etc.

And what the opposition to the idea of a militia comes down to, politically, is a desire to keep the working class unarmed while the capitalist state iu armed to the teeth.

There is no way we can control the capitalist state's war machine. It must be broken up and replaced, for as long as it exists, it will be used against us and to fight imperialist wars around the world which may escalate to nuclear destruction. attempted another coup in Algiers; and after its failure, many of the para colonels - from whom Mathieu in the film is constructed as a composite figure - joined the diehard fascist OAS, which slaughtered some thousands of Muslims in a campaign of terror in the months before independence in July 1962.

But, as Pontecorvo put it in an interview, "we tried to present the paratroopers as normal — not maniacs, sadists, exceptional cases, let's call them products of rational, supercivilised France - because we meant our condemnation to reach beyond them to the political machine itself.

"It becomes a historical condemnation of the men behind the paras - of colonialism itself."

Scan page 11

Socialist Organiser no.115 January 13 1983 Page 11

----- pull-quotes -----

I NEDE KEMISES WILL DE

SERVICES NUI

challenge against the multi- nationals, banks and insur-

Arthur Arthur Bough loo debate

Bough looks at a in CND