For the last 46 years the Communist Party has played a part in left-wing politics in Britain out of all proportion to its membership and electoral support. Other left-wing Socialist groups, organizations, campaigns and journals have come and gone. But the continued existence of the Communist Party, despite very considerable fluctuations in fortunes and policies and notwithstanding periodic calls on it from Labour circles to disband, has at no time been seriously in question. Though one or two more or less unsatisfactory short histories and profiles have appeared, it is only now that we have a fully documented study of a prolonged period of the party’s history. Dr. L. J. Macfarlane’s The British Communist Party: Its Origin and Development until 1929footnote1 now painstakingly relates the events of the crucial early years of the Party’s life. His chronicle provides an extremely useful record of its internal debates and public pronouncements in this period, an understanding of which is essential for a proper assessment of its subsequent development and role.
Himself a member of the party from 1942–48 he declares his intention in his introduction to approach the subject ‘from the point of view of an informed British socialist of the 1920’s, accepting the broad principles of Marxism, sympathetic to the aims of the Communist Party but aware of its shortcomings’. In happy contrast to Henry Pelling’s hastily assembled study of the party’s history—where its members are viewed as a band of British citizens sacrificing themselves in the service of a foreign dictatorshipfootnote2—Macfarlane sees them ‘as part of the British working-class movement, pursuing a policy which in many ways commended itself to left-wing Socialists in the nineteen twenties’.
Sticking very closely to the documentary record, however, he never really succeeds in bringing alive the events (often stirring) and the personalities (many of them very colourful) in the story. Whilst his book was obviously not intended to be on the same plane as the various memoirs of participants, in conjunction with which it should be read, he names in his preface a number of leaders and rank-and-file members of the Party in the 1920’s with whom he had long discussions and consultations. His questions to them must have been of a fairly dry, factual nature. My own recollections of talking to some of these people are principally of racy descriptions of incidents and people, full of verve, conveying something of the spirit of the times and the atmosphere in the Party and the Comintern amidst the great controversies. Discussions with Labour Party members of the time as to how they reacted to the Communist Party in these different periods, whether and at what times they thought of joining the Party, and what were the considerations that prevented them, could have provided material for a sociological consideration of why—though Communists were sometimes the acknowledged and respected leaders of hundreds of thousands of workers as in the National Minority Movement and the Unemployed Workers’ Movement—the membership of the party in these years never went above the peak of 10,700. (This was the total reached immediately after the General Strike; the average party membership was about 5,000 over the whole decade—nearly seven times smaller than it is today). In the absence of such an approach, designed to show what made the members of the party ‘tick’ and accounting for the ebb and flow of their fortunes among the British workers at grass roots level, Macfarlane’s history, for all its merits and concern for factual detail, remains one-dimensional and incapable of doing full justice to its subject.
The major weakness of Macfarlane’s book is certainly its failure to place the history of the Communist Party in the context of the history of the British working class as a whole in the 1920’s, to relate it to the history and development of the other organizations of the Labour movement, above all the Labour Party, and to the political, economic
It is strange that in the ‘hectic six years’ that his publishers tell us he spent as a member of the Communist Party, Macfarlane should have been so little influenced by a Marxist approach to history, the fruitfulness of which is particularly evident in the field of labour history where such a large proportion of the serious work in Britain in recent years has been by Marxists or those very considerably influenced by Marxism. Macfarlane’s book is methodologically analogous with contemporary academic ‘Sovietology’—a study of the Communist Party of the Soviet Union at the summit in isolation from Soviet society—but without its political bias. This, more than individual errors of fact correctly indicated by some other reviewers but in general of a secondary character, represents the real limitation of the book in rendering a truthful account of its subject.