Revolutionary Lives: Sylvia Pankhurst Suffragette, Socialist and Scourge of Empire

By Katherine Connelly, Pluto Press, 2013, 148pp

Reviewer: Joseph Adams

 

Katharine Connelly, a writer and a member of Counterfire, a centrist organisation in Britain has written a useful and informative account on the life of Sylvia Pankhurst, a suffragette and principled reformer who fought for women’s rights and socialism. It has serious political weaknesses which I will comment on.

Sylvia Pankhurst was born in 1882 to a bourgeois middle class family. The family would be very active in the campaign for women’s suffrage. The 1880’s, as Frederick Engels remarked, was a revolutionary period amongst the working class in Britain. It was the birth of the new ‘unionism’. “A year after the match women, the gas workers struck swiftly followed by the great dock strike which galvanised hundreds of thousands of workers into activity and a wave of strike action across the country”. [1]

Pankhurst was always interested in art which she used to highlight the suffragette movement. “Sylvia’s vocation from a very early childhood was art”. [2] The Pankhurst’s were progressive petit bourgeois reformers and both Richard and Emmeline Pankhurst entertained socialists and a variety of left leaning reformers. “The house was a centre for many gatherings of socialists, Fabians, anarchists, suffragists, free thinkers, radicals, and humanitarians of all schools”. [3]

In 1906 the Labour Representation Committee led to the formation of the Labour Party. From the very beginning Sylvia would turn out to be the best of the Pankhurst’s politically with her advocation of socialism, her mother and sisters although calling for votes for women were prepared to form reactionary political alliances. “On the 10th of October 1903 Emmeline invited local women to her house where they formed the Women Social and Political Union WSPU to campaign for votes for women”. [4] Many young women workers joined the WSPU and the campaign started with prison sentences because of militancy by the suffragettes. Connelly comments about the links with the suffragette campaign and the labour movement in Britain. “The early suffragette in London was thus heavily influenced by the traditions of the Labour movement”. [5] There was a clear difference between Sylvia and her sisters and mother over the direction of the campaign. Connelly shows how Sylvia wished the campaign to be directed in a more political direction involving socialists and the working class movement. “Sylvia’s resistance to the WSPU’s political trajectory was also reflected in her personal life. Sylvia fell in love with the Labour leader Keir Hardie”. [6]

Sylvia was marginalised through this period and Connelly shows that opposition to the direction of the WSPU was carried out by individual actions. “Throughout this period Sylvia’s opposition to the WSPU leadership took a very individual form abandoning the honorary secretary’s position on her own terms or refusing to sign the pledge over her relationship with Hardie”. [7]

The period from 1910 through to 1914 was the period in Britain of great class battles involving a very militant and emerging working class. Connelly shows these developments in connection with the struggle of suffragettes and the role of working class women. In 1910 was the great dock strike but the WSPU leadership took a reactionary view and failed to appreciate the importance of the working class movement. “Instead of denouncing the employers who had plunged working-class families into intolerable poverty, Votes for women blamed the workers fighting back for the increased burden the strike imposed on their wives”. [8]

Sylvia on the other hand supported the great unrest in 1912 and 1913 where there were great mass mobilisations of workers in strike movements around the country. Connelly comments on Sylvia’s role. “Sylvia argued for a return to demonstrations to win back public support”. [9] The suffragette movement carried out arson attacks, breaking shop windows and when arrested to engage in hunger strikes in prison. More and more Connelly shows how Sylvia Pankhurst with her socialist views identified with the working class movement and particularly with working class women from the east end of London. The Dublin lockout of 1913 led by James Larkin and James Connolly showed the fighting spirit of the working class but they were cruelly betrayed by the emerging bureaucracy led by Ben Tillet a Dockers leader and hundreds of Dublin workers and their families were left to starve and face defeat. Sylvia now fought back against the reactionary leadership led by her mother and sister Emmeline and Christabel Pankhurst. In 1914 the Women’s Dreadnought was launched and in 1916 a new movement led by Sylvia Pankhurst was formed. “The women’s hall became a centre for industrial unrest strikes especially for women and some them lasting a few days were breaking out on all sides of us”. [10]

Connelly also shows Sylvia Pankhurst’s opposition to imperialist war. In 1914 the first imperialist war started and true to form most of the opportunist leaders of social democracy flocked to support the war. “Some sections of the Labour and women’s movement became militarily pro war including Ben Tillet and Willie Thorne “. [11]

Sylvia Pankhurst’s political views would move towards communism and a split with her sisters and mother on the direction of the suffragette movement. The Bolshevik revolution of 1917 led by Vladimir Ilyich Lenin and Leon Trotsky ignited a spark in the working class movement in Britain. Sylvia, as Connelly shows, became closer and closer to the emerging communist movement in Britain with all of its weaknesses. Sylvia’s movement was now called The Workers Suffragette Federation and worked closely with the British Socialist Party and others who would be the nucleus of the Communist Party of Great Britain. “In this period the WSF worked closely with the British Socialist party particularly those members who saw the relevance of the February revolution for the revolutionary anti-war propaganda in Britain”. [12]

The early communist organisations in Britain suffered from syndicalism and ultra-leftism which commentators like Brian Pearce and Michael Woodhouse have identified. Connelly to her credit identifies these strands in the emerging Communist movement in Britain. “However the different strands of discontent failed to come together. They were profoundly influenced by syndicalism which argues that the working class is won to revolutionary change through industrial action alone”. [13]

Woodhouse and Pearce show that the patient work of Lenin and Trotsky over the unity negotiations in the communist Unity convention of 1920-21 was important in trying to persuade both syndicalist and ultra-leftists like Sylvia Pankhurst that work in Parliament and the Labour party was crucial to win sections of workers to communism. “The British Communist party remained for its first year or two of existence little more than an amalgamated and enlarged version of the propagandist sects which had preceded. It took the moral pressure of Lenin himself to bring about the fusion of the various sects into a single party in the first place”. [14]

Pearce and Woodhouse identify this ultra-leftism which found its expression in Pankhurst and Willie Gallagher. “The persistent leftism of the West European Communist parties in this period found its supreme expression in the so called March action 1921 in Germany”. [15]

In his book Left Wing Communism an Infantile disorder Lenin pays particular attention to Lefts like Pankhurst in Britain, Bordiga in Italy, and Wynkoop in Holland. Lenin addressed their opposition to parliament and work in social democratic organisations. “ It undoubtedly follows that the British Communist party should participate in parliamentary action , that they should from within parliament help the masses of the workers to see the results of a Henderson and Snowden government in practice”.[16]

Lenin further comments “For revolution is impossible without a change in the views of the majority of the working class and this change is brought about by the political experience of the masses”. [17]

Connelly shows that Pankhurst like many of the ultra-lefts failed to understand the Marxist method, its flexibility and its understanding of the changing nature of society. Pankhurst would remain an idealist with fixed unchanging views who failed to understand the dialectical method. “But in 1919 Sylvia like many of others involved in the negotiations believed compromising ideologically by forging a party with those whom she disagreed with was too high a price to pay”. [18]

Lenin unlike Pankhurst had prepared ideologically for the Bolshevik revolution during the dark period of reaction by studying and understanding the dialectical method. During 1908 he prepared the party for revolution. Connelly appreciates Lenin’s method with comments about Pankhurst’s weaknesses. “However Sylvia allowed her fetishation of soviets to obstruct her from others in a revolutionary party”. [19]

In 1920 Pankhurst together with JT Murphy and Willie Gallagher travelled to Moscow to attend the Congress of the Third International. Lenin hoped to convince and change the minds of the Ultra Lefts on this question, but due to their extreme sectarianism Lenin was unable to change Pankhurst’s mind and in 1921 Pankhurst was expelled. Connelly gives the details.“In September 1921 Sylvia was summoned to a meeting where she refused to hand over control of the Dreadnought and was immediately expelled from the Communist party”. [20]

Pankhurst for the rest of her life would remain outside the revolutionary movement, although she continued to oppose fascism during the Second World War. She spoke at platforms both denouncing Fascism and the emergence of Stalinism. She remained an armchair critic and adopted what she thought were anti-imperialist positions. Connelly correctly comments about Pankhurst’s perceived anti-imperialism which consisted of speaking against wars and imperialism but failed to fight in the working class movement against imperialism in Britain. As many Marxists have said ‘The main enemy is at home’. “She thought that underdeveloped countries where there was no social democracy would be more revolutionary than the working class in Western Europe”. [21] This of course was pure idealist nonsense; it means of course that you yourself in practice would continue to remain an armchair critic. Criticising Pankhurst Connelly comments “However she suggested no ways in which British workers could support Indian workers”. [22]

For the rest of her life Sylvia Pankhurst campaigned for bourgeois nationalism which she claimed was anti-imperialism. She also campaigned for independence for emerging nations in Africa and would be a fervent supporter for Ethiopian Independence and a supporter of Haile Selassie, a bourgeois nationalist who would later refer to himself as Emperor and rule Ethiopia after Ethiopia gained Independence. Pankhurst moved to Ethiopia in 1956 and died there in 1960. Connelly comments “Some Historians have failed to understand how Sylvia a republican could have worked so willingly with the Emperor of Ethiopia”. [23]

Katharine Connelly has made an important contribution to our study of this period but as a centrist she tends to make a few idealist assumptions about this period. The book in the series of Revolutionary Lives is welcome in that it sheds a light on potential historical figures who have contributed to the revolutionary tradition. Sylvia Pankhurst made a useful contribution in her fight against oppression, and her principled struggle in the working class movement. She attempted to play a significant role in the development of communism in Britain but remained a petit bourgeois middle class reformer. In the end she supported reactionary bourgeois nationalism instead of striving to fight in the workers and communist movement in Britain. She departed to have a more comfortable life in Ethiopia.

 

References

1-13 Katharine Connelly: Revolutionary Lives: Sylvia Pankhurst, Pluto Press, pages 6, 8, 9 , 18, 31, 37, 44, 53, 63, 68, 82,83, 92, 99, and 100.

14-15 Michael Woodhouse and Brian Pearce: A History Of Communism In Britain, Pluto Press, pages 158 and 159

16-17 V.I. Lenin: Left Wing Communism – An Infantile Disorder, Pluto Press, pages 104 and 105

18-23 Katharine Connelly: Revolutionary Lives: Sylvia Pankhurst, pages 101, 102, 115, 122, and 138

Advertisements

About RCIT Britain

What the RCIT stands for Revolutionary Communist International Tendency (RCIT) The Revolutionary Communist International Tendency (RCIT)is a revolutionary combat organisation fighting for the liberation of the working class and all oppressed. It has national sections in a number of countries. The working class is composed of all those (and their families) who are forced to sell their labor power as wage earners to the capitalists. The RCIT stands on the theory and practice of the revolutionary workers’ movement associated with the names of Marx, Engels, Lenin, and Trotsky. Capitalism endangers our lives and the future of humanity. Unemployment, war, environmental disasters, hunger, and exploitation are all part of everyday life under capitalism as are the imperialistic oppression of nations, the national oppression of migrants, and the oppression of women, young people, and homosexuals. Therefore, we want to eliminate capitalism. The liberation of the working class and all oppressed is possible only in a classless society without exploitation and oppression. Such a society can only be established internationally. Therefore, the RCIT is fighting for a socialist revolution at home and around the world. This revolution must be carried out and lead by the working class, for only this class has the collective power to bring down the ruling class and build a socialist society. The revolution cannot proceed peacefully because a ruling class never has nor ever will voluntarily surrender its power. By necessity, therefore, the road to liberation includes armed rebellion and civil war against the capitalists. The RCIT is fighting for the establishment of workers’ and peasants’ republics, where the oppressed organize themselves in councils democratically elected in rank-and-file meetings in factories, neighbourhoods, and schools. These councils, in turn, elect and control the government and all other statue authorities, and always retain the right to recall them. Authentic socialism and communism have nothing to do with the so-called “socialism” that ruled in the Soviet Union and Eastern Europe, and which continues to do so in China and Cuba, for example. In these countries, the proletariat was and is dominated and oppressed by a privileged party bureaucracy. Under capitalism, the RCIT supports all efforts to improve the living conditions of the workers and oppressed, while simultaneously striving to overthrow this system based on economic exploitation of the masses. Towards these ends, we work from within the trade unions where we advocate class struggle, socialism, and workers’ democracy. But trade unions and social democracy are controlled by a bureaucracy perniciously connected with the state and capital via status, high-paying jobs, and other privileges. Thus, the trade union bureaucracy is far from the interests and living conditions of its members, based as it is on the top, privileged layers of the working class – a labor aristocracy which has no real interest in replacing capitalism. Therefore, the true struggle for the liberation of the working class, the toppling of capitalism and the establishment of socialism, must be based on the broad mass of the proletariat rather than their “representative” from the upper trade union strata. We also fight for the expropriation of the big land owners as well as for the nationalisation of the land and its distribution to the poor and landless peasants. Towards this goal we struggle for the independent organisation of the rural workers. We support national liberation movements against oppression. We also support the anti-imperialist struggles of oppressed peoples against the great powers. Within these movements we advocate a revolutionary leadership as an alternative to nationalist or reformist forces. While the RCIT strives for unity of action with other organizations, we are acutely aware that the policies of social democrats and pseudo-revolutionary groups are dangerous, and ultimately represent an obstacle to the emancipation of the working class, peasants, and the otherwise oppressed. In wars between imperialist states we take a revolutionary defeatist position: we do not support either side, but rather advocate the transformation of the war into a civil war against the ruling class in each of the warring states. In wars between imperialist powers (or their stooges) and a semi-colonial countries we stand for the defeat of the former and the victory of the oppressed countries. As communists, we maintain that the struggle against national oppression and all types of social oppression (women, youth, sexual minorities etc.) must be lead by the working class, because only the latter is capable of fomenting a revolutionarily change in society . Therefore, we consistently support working class-based revolutionary movements of the socially oppressed, while opposing the leadership of petty-bourgeois forces (feminism, nationalism, Islamism, etc.), who ultimately dance to the tune of the capitalists, and strive to replace them with revolutionary communist leadership. Only with a revolutionary party fighting as its leadership can the working class be victorious in its struggle for liberation. The establishment of such a party and the execution of a successful revolution, as it was demonstrated by the Bolsheviks in Russia under Lenin and Trotsky remain the models for revolutionary parties and revolutions in the 21st century. For new, revolutionary workers' parties in all countries! For a 5th Workers International to be founded on a revolutionary program! Join the RCIT! No future without socialism! No socialism without revolution! No revolution without a revolutionary party!
This entry was posted in Allgemein. Bookmark the permalink.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s