*In Defense Of Whimsy- In Honor Of Ms. Beatrix Potter

Click on title to link to YouTube's film clip of "Miss Potter" trailer for the film.

DVD REVIEW

March Is Women’s History Month

Miss Potter, starring Rene Zellweger, Mansfield Studios, 2007

Frankly, in the mist of time back to the days of my childhood, I was both fearful and delighted by the stories and illustrations of the famous English children's' book writer and illustrator who is the subject of this film, Ms. Beatrix Potter. Perhaps it was fear of the size of the animals in the editions that I would receive from a great aunt. Or because that aunt was poor but thoughtful it might have been the black and white illustrations in the editions that I received. (I was rather startled to see in this film that her work during her lifetime, at her fervent request to her publishers, was done in multi-colors.) Be that as it may be there are a couple of points that I want to make about this very interesting and well-acted film (particularly by Rene Zellweger as Ms. Potter) which on the face of it would seem outside the parameters of the kind of thing that would interest me and the kinds of subjects that I tend to write about in this space.

I am not sure how faithfully the creators of this film were to the biography of Ms. Potter's life, however, for my purpose that is neither here nor there. The story line here concerns (aside from the various romantic interests which a commercial film seemingly cannot do without even with accomplished middle class educated women like Ms. Potter or Ms. Jane Austen) the public flowering of the her story telling and illustrative talents under the guidance of a member of her publishing company (and eventual doom-struck lover) in early 20th century England.

That, of course, is a feat worthy of recognition in and of itself as this is the height of the Victorian period in that country. Her pluck and fortitude as she runs up against the ill wishes of her middle class but very class conscious parents (particularly dear Mrs. Potter) is one of the themes that drive this film. Another is the fate of a thirty-two year old unmarried woman who, moreover, is not concerned about being married if it interferes with her chances for artistic success. Fair enough, but Mother England (to speak nothing of Mother Potter) does not approve.
Finally, this film is a nice look at the fate of the creative artist who is in searching for her self-expression faces at least some condescension for being, merely, a children's' book writer (especially when she could be a ...wife and mother).

Those are the interesting themes presented in this film. The way that Ms. Potter struggles and perseveres to become an independent person with her own resources and navigate her own course through life is another in a now long series of female "uplift" films. This one is a worthy addition to that genre. As to the downside of Ms. Potter's story. The period under discussion was one of great social turmoil in England. This is, after all, the heyday of the women's suffragette movement led by the like of Sylvia Pankhurst (and her sister and mother) and of the emergence of a British Labor party led by Keri Hardie as well as other social experiments. There is no sense in this film that Ms. Potter was aware of such movements or much interested in them.

No one expects an artist, a creative artist to boot, per se to devote their talents for the greater good of their society in a political way. However it helps. Ms. Potter did begin to display a little of that consciousness toward the end of the movie, after she broke from her family and set on her own course, and set up independently in the country and attempted to preserve her Lake District surroundings. But rather than belabor that point let me end with this thought. When we fight for and get a more just society than we have now then maybe there will be time and space enough for a thousand thousand Beatrix Potters to flourish. Until then watch this film and do not be afraid to read her little books with those little animal drawings.

*From The Archives Of The “Revolutionary History” Journal- Guest Book Reviews

Markin comment:

This is an excellent documentary source for today’s militants to “discover” the work of our forbears, whether we agree with their programs or not. Mainly not, but that does not negate the value of such work done under the pressure of revolutionary times. Hopefully we will do better when our time comes.
******
Reviews

Francis King and George Matthews (eds.), About Turn: The British Communist Party and the Second World War: The Verbatim Record of the Central Committee Meetings of 25 September and 2-3 October 1939, Lawrence and Wishart, London, 1990, pp.318, £34.95


In the last year or two of his life Trotsky had several metaphors for the Communist International of Stalin and Dimitrov. He called it a corpse; but the Kremlin was to require this corpse to display a few more twitches of life before finally ordering its dissolution in 1943. Trotsky also called it a cesspit – a dunghill, to use the most direct English rendering. With this cloacal image Trotsky conveyed his profound disgust at the terminal degeneration of the body he had helped to found in 1919, at its ‘doglike servility’, at its transformation into a docile instrument of the Soviet bureaucracy, which in the autumn of 1939 sold it to Hitler “along with oil and manganese”. [1] This book shows in detail – word for word – what went on in the leadership of one section of that dunghill in belated response to the German-Soviet pact and the outbreak of the Second World War.

On 2 September 1939, the day before Britain’s declaration of war on Germany, the Central Committee of the Communist Party of Great Britain issued a manifesto urging a “struggle on two fronts”: for a “military victory over Fascism” and for the removal of the Chamberlain government. [2] General Secretary Harry Pollitt was set to work to write a pamphlet, How to Win the War, which came out on 14 September and was hailed by Rajani Palme Dutt, before he knew better and before the pamphlet was withdrawn, as “being one of the finest things that [Pollitt] had produced, so clearly and simply presented”. It was William Gallacher, Communist MP for West Fife, who revealed this statement of Dutt’s to the CC, no doubt to Dutt’s embarrassment; and it is not the least juicy plum in this 50-year-old pudding of a book.

But on 14 September something else happened: the Daily Worker received a press telegram from the Soviet Union saying it was a robber war on both sides. Pollitt suppressed this telegram because it was against the line of the 2 September manifesto. However, at the next day’s meeting of the party’s Political Bureau, Dutt, ever responsive to his master’s voice, said the line would have to be revised. Indeed, Stalin had already given orders to that effect, in a private chat with Dimitrov on 7 September; Dimitrov had handed the word down to the Comintern Secretariat, which had approved his theses on 9 September, instructing the Communist Parties of France, Britain, Belgium and the USA in particular that they must immediately correct their political line. Monty Johnstone points out in his Introduction to About Turn that neither the Executive Committee of the Comintern (which had not held a plenary meeting for four years) nor its Presidium (of which Pollitt was a full and Gallacher a candidate member) was in any way involved in this policy switch. Dimitrov had then briefed D.F. Springhall, the CPGB’s representative at Comintern headquarters. Springhall got back from Moscow on the evening of 24 September with the theses in his head; they were to follow him in a more tangible form soon afterwards.

Waiting for Springhall must have been a trying time for the leading British Stalinists. But the week that followed his brief report must have been agonising. The CC stood adjourned for a week, and in the meantime the Daily Worker’s line on the war was totally unclear. It published material so fence-sitting and so confused that much damage was done to the party’s credibility, even amongst its own members. This resulted from sharp differences between the three-man secretariat (Dutt, Springhall and William Rust) to whom Pollitt had voluntarily relinquished his responsibilities as General Secretary, and the rest of the Political Bureau (Pollitt, Gallacher, J.R. Campbell, Emile Burns and Ted Bramley).

When the CC resumed on 2 October, Dutt complained bitterly of this “complete incoherence worse either than the old line or the new”, told his comrades that “the duty of a Communist is not to disagree but to accept”, and, in a thinly veiled reference to Pollitt, warned that anyone who deserted now would be branded for his political life. Gallacher complained of the “rotten”, “dirty”, “unscrupulous”, and “opportunist” factional methods used by Dutt and his supporters, those “three ruthless revolutionaries”. They had shown “mean despicable disloyalty” and it was impossible for him to work with them. Campbell, ardent defender of the Moscow Trials and pitiless scourge of Trotskyism, said the CPGB would soon be indistinguishable from “the filthy rabble of Trotskyists”. The shipbuilding worker Finlay Hart objected to Dutt’s telling them to “accept or else”. Maurice Cornforth, philosopher-to-be, said he agreed with something he had once heard Pollitt say: the Soviet Union could do no wrong. “This is what we have to stick to”, he observed, adding that the new line didn’t mean cooperation with the Trotskyists, whose line, he was certain, would be “based on anti-Soviet slanders”. Rust said Gallacher saw himself as a kind of elder statesman who attended meetings when he felt like it, while Campbell was presenting British imperialism as a man-eating tiger turned vegetarian. Burns said Dutt’s opening statement had been “peculiarly low and dastardly”. Dutt and his supporters had used “the most vile factional methods”; they wanted as many as possible to vote against the theses so that the could be “represented as the real nucleus of the Comintern to carry the line forward in the British party”. They were attempting to clear themselves with Moscow by explaining how pure they were. Springhall said no comrade who had a conversation with Comrade Dimitrov could fail to learn something from him, and accused Campbell of thinking that the Soviet Union was only concerned to save its own skin.

Harry Pollitt showed himself as reluctant as Campbell to depart from the Popular Front line of the Comintern’s 1935 Seventh Congress. In politics, he said, there was neither friendship nor loyalty. He told Dutt: “You won’t intimidate me ... I was in this movement practically before you were born.” He had never heard a report so bankrupt and devoid of explanation as Springhall’s. Springhall had had no responsibility for drafting the theses: he was just a messenger boy (“what Strang was for Chamberlain”). “I was never an office boy”, said Pollitt. “If there is one thing that is clear it is that the fight against Fascism has disappeared and Fascism has now, because of its non-aggression pact with the Soviet Union, taken on a progressive role.” Soviet policy had antagonised important sections of the working class movement. The new line was in essence a betrayal of the labour movement’s struggle against Fascism – a word, he added bitterly, it was becoming unfashionable to mention. He himself wanted to “smash the Fascist bastards once and for all”.

So much for the first day of the resumed meeting. Little that was new was added on the second, final, day. John Gollan, Ted Bramley, Idris Cox and Peter Kerrigan expressed support for the new line, though Bramley wanted to know why there had been so little consultation by the Comintern (a point later re-emphasised by Gallacher); and Kerrigan (“I have always justified the Soviet Union in every action that the Soviet Union has taken”) said he had been flabbergasted when the Red Army marched into Poland. “If ... Comrade Pollitt is not convinced of the correctness of the line we will have to consider arranging for him to have a talk in Moscow”, suggested Cox, in words that still have a rather sinister ring 51 years later. Jimmy Shields, long a party functionary, said that “when the Soviet Union makes a move we should support it, whether it [such support] is considered to be mechanical or not”. The railway worker William Cowe said the Comintern was his “guiding light”. When the vote was taken, only Pollitt, Campbell and Gallacher voted against the new line – though Pollitt later asked, successfully, that Gallacher’s vote be recorded as being in favour.

Here is our closest, most intimate picture of the Stalinist method as it was used in Britain by these fearless fighters for Socialism, these battle-hardened cadres, these veterans of the Lenin School, these tenth-rate bureaucrats whom we watch here jockeying for the privilege of being recognised as Stalin’s trusted lieutenants in Britain. The picture I was given, when I joined the Young Communist League in 1942, and for the next 14 years, was of a party that had always been truly monolithic, where deep friendship and mutual loyalty had always prevailed. Pollitt and Dutt, we were given to understand, went together like Sohrab and Rustam, or port and nuts. The picture that emerges from this book is totally different, and helps to explain why Pollitt would never enter the Daily Worker building so long as Rust was its editor. (Perhaps it also helps to explain why Dutt left his private papers not to the CPGB, as one would have expected, but to the British Library.)

What also emerges, to an extraordinary degree, is the degree of criticism of, and even hostility to, the Soviet Union and the Comintern expressed in unguarded moments by people who, in public and for their own good reasons, were prepared to swallow those doubts and even forget later that they had ever entertained them. Dutt reports and reprobates this, in a striking passage where he speaks of “anti-International tendencies, a contemptuous attitude to the International, the kind of thing that began already from the time of the [Moscow] trials, talk of collapse of the International, talk of the Soviet Union following its interests”. These were “a reflection of enemy outlooks”. Even Rust, according to Gallacher, had complained that the CPGB was becoming the “propaganda department of the Soviet foreign office”.

And here surely is the key to the whole debate. For the British propaganda department of Stalin’s Foreign Office is precisely what they had by now become, after 15 years’ Stalinisation of their party. As T.A. Jackson had so presciently warned in 1924: “Our job is only to carry out all instructions at the double, and to stand to attention until the next order comes.” [3] The depth of the CPGB leaders’ uneasiness about their rôle, here revealed so poignantly and at the same time so farcically, shows Trotsky’s wisdom in advising his supporters, in the following June, to devote more attention to the rank and file of the Communist parties: “On the day that Moscow makes a half turn towards the democracies as a half friend, there will be a new explosion in the ranks of the CP. We must be ready to gain from it. I consider the possibilities in the CP very good despite the transitory radicalness of the CP, which cannot be for long.” [4]

Trotsky, not for the first time, was here over-optimistic about the immediate possibilities; but about Stalinism’s inherent volatility and instability he was absolutely right in the long term. The era of ‘explosions– is of course long over; Stalinism and its organisations are now decomposing before our eyes. Those who seek to profit politically from this process urgently need to learn a lot more about Stalinism’s past. This book makes a useful starting-points. [5]

Peter Fryer

Notes

1. Manifesto of the Fourth International on the Imperialist War and the Proletarian World Revolution, Writings of Leon Trotsky 1939-40, New York, Pathfinder Press, 1973, p.210.

2. The full text of this manifesto appears in 1939: The Communist Party of Great Britain and the War, ed. John Attfield and Stephen Williams, Lawrence and Wishart, 1984, pp.147-52.

3. Communist Review, Volume IV (1923-24), p.539.

4. Discussions with Trotsky: 12-15 June 1940, Writings of Leon Trotsky 1939-40, p.254. Trotsky was of course referring to the CPUSA, but his advice no doubt had more general application in the 1939-41 period.

5. Unfortunately the editing of this book is far from flawless. There are many fairly obvious mishearings or errors of transcription. The word ‘not’ should clearly come before the words ‘playing its part’ in line 19 on p.68; the word ‘decision’ in the bottom line of p.85 should, I imagine, be ‘discipline’; ‘work’ in line 8 of p.148 should undoubtedly be ‘war’; ‘Dutt’ in line 18 of p.150 seems to be an error for some other name; ‘loosen’ in line 34 of p.148 should perhaps be ‘lessen’; the word ‘Springhall’ should appear in bold type at the beginning of line 3 of p.188; ‘principal questions’ in line 27 of p.188 should probably be ‘principled questions’; ‘clearly’ in line 4 of p.202 should certainly be ‘clearer’; ‘Cox’ in line 6 of p.250 should plainly be ‘Kerrigan’; ‘don’t’ in line 19 of p.266 should surely have been deleted; lines 16-21 on p.292 seem to have strayed in from later in that section. There are similar errors elsewhere, not to mention a number of misprints. Nor are the Biographical Notes wholly reliable: eg Jim Roche ceased to be a CPGB full-timer in 1956, not 1957. To cap it all, the indexes are a disgrace: these lazily compiled and forbidding strings of page numbers virtually unrelieved by sub-headings are of little use to the serious student. For Lawrence and Wishart to charge £34.95 for such a shoddily edited book surpasses mere effrontery.

************

From The HistoMat Blog- New Film: The Labour Leader's Speech -Long Live The Tongue In The Cheek!

Thursday, March 10, 2011
New Film: The Labour Leader's Speech

...From the makers of the award-winning The King's Speech...

...Starring Oscar winner Colin Firth as Ed Miliband...

...Charlie Sheen as George Osbourne...

...Teri Hatcher, Rachel Weisz and Scarlett Johansson in Ed Miliband's dreams...

...and Ralph Miliband spinning in his grave

Comes the eagerly awaited... THE LABOUR LEADER'S SPEECH


The incredible story of the quiet man who found himself accidentally becoming leader of the Labour Party instead of his brother and was accordingly expected as the alleged official 'leader of the Opposition' to give voice to the hopes of millions on the TUC backed mass 'march for the alternative' on 26 March in London...will Ed make it to the march? Will he actually speak on the demo?

'I can't wait to hear Ed speak...the excitement and anticipation is unbearable'
Nobody
Labels: Ed Miliband, New Labour


posted by Snowball @ 12:46 PM

*From The Archives Of The “Revolutionary History” Journal- Book Reviews

Markin comment:

This is an excellent documentary source for today’s militants to “discover” the work of our forbears, whether we agree with their programs or not. Mainly not, but that does not negate the value of such work done under the pressure of revolutionary times. Hopefully we will do better when our time comes.

Reviews

Mark Shipway, Anti-Parliamentary Communism, MacMillan, Basingstoke 1988, pp.239, £29.50.

The October Revolution drew on an international scale towards Bolshevism a wide range of radical groups and individuals. Despite their initial attraction to Bolshevism, some of them either adopted or continued with an orientation that was virulently hostile to working within bourgeois parliaments and reformist trade unions, and rejected any form of joint work with reformist parties. This book concerns itself with the groups of such a persuasion in Britain in the period of 1917 to 1945.

Along with organisations of a similar outlook, the Workers Socialist Federation, of which Sylvia Pankhurst was a leader, formed in 1920 the Communist Party (British Section of the Third International) prior to the formation of the official CP, and attempted to win the Communist movement internationally to an anti-parliamentary strategy. Expelled from the Third International along with other such groups in various countries, it aligned itself with the Communist Workers International in 1921, only to fade away in the mid-1920s. Other anti-parliamentary groups, including one around the colourful Glasgow-based Anarchist Guy Aldred, formed in 1921 the Anti-Parliamentary Communist Federation. This group lasted through the Second World War, which it actively opposed, although not without fissures, Aldred splitting off in 1933 to form the United Socialist Movement.

Having left the Third International, Pankhurst’s group rapidly reconsidered its previously positive attitude towards Bolshevism. The New Economic Policy, of 1921 confirmed its opinion that the Soviet Union was now in fact capitalist with a new, ‘Communist’ ruling class. The Communists’ United Front tactic was seen as a rank capitulation to reformism. Grave doubts arose over Leninist norms of organisation. Aldred, whilst always critical of the Third International’s tactics, waited until the mid-1920s before considering the Soviet Union to be capitalist, and then he dabbled with Trotsky’s degenerated workers’ state theory in 1934.

Despite his sympathy towards the book’s subject, Shipway does not fail to draw attention to the more questionable aspects of the movement. During the first months of the Spanish Civil War in 1936 both the APCF and the USM made no criticisms of the Republican government. Shipway criticises Aldred for opening the pages of his journal during the Second World War to priests, parliamentary pacifists and the highly dubious Duke of Bedford, yet he approves of the anti-parliamentarians’ pacifist opposition to the war. He points to their failure to carry out a theoretical re-evaluation of the October Revolution – did it merely usher in capitalism? – yet considers this omission as justifiable. He does not comment on the APCF’s preference for Rosa Luxemburg’s crude under-consumptionist crisis theory as against the superior concepts expressed by Council Communist Paul Mattick.

One cannot judge the political validity of anti-parliamentary Communism by its failure as a movement; the entire history of Socialism appears to be a sad array of failures both heroic and ignoble. But the refusal of the anti-parliamentarians to work within trade unions or to countenance United Front work helped to keep the bulk of the working class under the influence of reformism. The problem was not the tactics of the Third International, but their application. Yet however much the anti-parliamentarian Communists were wrong, the main problem with the left in Britain has generally been opportunism, not ultra-leftism. Those who have touted left-speaking union bureaucrats or tried to apply United Front tactics regardless of their relevance to the situation should think twice before passing judgement.

Apart from its absurdly high price, the main problem with this book is the absence of oral evidence. Admittedly there can't be many survivors around, yet some interviews would have given an idea of the ‘feel’ of the movement. All the same, Anti-Parliamentary Communism sheds a welcome light upon a little-known corner of the labour movement in Britain.

Paul Flewers

THE EARLY FIGHT FOR A WOMEN'S RIGHT TO VOTE

BOOK REVIEW

THE WOMEN’S SUFFRAGE MOVEMENT, E. SYLVIA PANKHURST, 1931

MARCH IS WOMAN’S HISTORY MONTH.

I have written previously about Sylvia Pankhurst in reviewing a biography of her life by Patricia Romero. For those not familiar with her life this autobiography, although written in 1931, only takes us through her fight for the vote for women in England and her pacifist opposition to Britain’s participation in World War I. Thus, the reader is deprived of her take on her experiences as she moved leftward with Lenin and the Communist International after the Bolshevik Revolution of 1917 and her descent in the 1920’s into radical mysticism that ultimately led to her becoming, in essence, a publicity flak for Halie Selassie in Ethiopia. A rather sad ending for someone who in the pre-World War I period stood for votes for women, including working class women, and at least a formal opposition to British imperialist war designs.

The case of Sylvia Pankhurst, and her conflict with her mother Emmeline and older sister Christabel at various stages in the women’s suffrage fight, is almost a chemically pure case of the limits of bourgeois feminism. There is very little overlap between those politics and the socialist fight for women’s rights and social equality. It is hard to believe now what all the fuss was about but at the turn of the 20th century the fight for women’s suffrage in England, as in the United States, was a key issue that especially agitated middle and upper class women. The Pankhursts, mother and daughters, were in the forefront of the struggle with their Women’s Social and Political Union.

Although, for the most part, Sylvia was a cog in her mother and older sister’s machine, when the issue rose to the level of parliamentary action Sylvia proved far more radical, at least in form, than they were. While Emmeline and Christabel were ultimately concerned about votes for middle and upper class women of property, leaving the vast bulk of women disenfranchised, Sylvia in 1912 went on her own in order to fight for the vote in the working class districts of London’s East End. Thus, on even an entirely supportable democratic demand like the right to vote the class line, if somewhat blunted in this case, rather than the sex line proved decisive. The treacherous subordination of their movement by the elder Pankhursts on behalf of British participation in World War I and continued participation by the faltering Provisional Government in Russia further drew that line between socialism and bourgeois feminism.

The Pankhurst-led fight for the vote also brings up a couple of other issues around tactics and program. At one point the Pankhursts, including Sylvia, were involved in a campaign of private and governmental property smashing, civil disobedience and hunger strikes in order to publicize the fight for the vote. These are tactics associated with more militant types of politics. Nevertheless their campaigns, whether fruitful or not, while courageous and in Victorian England bound to stir trouble do not necessarily lead to radical conclusions. The case of Gandhi in India and Martin Luther King in the United States demonstrate that militant tactics absent any overriding strategy for fundamental social change are not enough.

On program two items stick out. First, the male-exclusionist nature of the Women’s Political and Social Union not only further demonstrates the limits of bourgeois feminism but also made no sense around the fight on a democratic issue by limiting the appeal that the organization made to men (some 20 per cent who were also excluded from the vote). Secondly, Sylvia made real progress in program by having her East End organization support universal suffrage and linking it to war- related issues. It is that move by her to the left and toward some form of socialist solution to women’s issues and the war question that militants can honor today. That she could not move forward politically says something about the British left milieu of the time as well as about her own limitations. Understanding those limitations going in one can nevertheless profit from reading this book.

AN ENGLISH RADICAL WOMAN-SYLVIA PANKHURST

AN ENGLISH RADICAL WOMAN-SYLVIA PANKHURST

BOOK REVIEW

SYLVIA PANKHURST; POTRAIT OF A RADICAL, PATRICA W. ROMERO, YALE UNIVERSITY PRESS, NEW HAVEN, 1990

MARCH IS WOMEN’S HISTORY MONTH

More than one commentator has noted that one of the reasons for the failure of the Communist Party of Great Britain to take root in the early part of the 20th century was the sterile political life of the pre-World War I British left. Between doctrinaire hairsplitting on one side and the cretin-like reformist strategy of the likes of the Fabian Society on the other there was little room to encourage serious revolutionary struggle, although the British working class was one of the most class-conscious in Europe. There is merit to that argument and the politics of Sylvia Pankhurst, a vocal woman’s suffragette, pacifist, ersatz communist and advocate for other causes add ammunition to that thesis.

The biography under review chronicles Ms. Pankhurst’s life adequately, if not particularly sympathically. The sections of the book that deal with her work in obtaining the vote for women and particularly working class women, her opposition to World War I and her chaotic association with the early Communist International highlight the positive aspects of her fight for social justice, as she understood it. Her later career as publicist for the feudal monarchy in Ethiopia stands as just another of a seemingly endless string of examples on the demise of radicals who are not firmly rooted theoretically as an anchor to their work.

It is hard to understand what all the hoopla was about now but at the turn of the 20th century the fight to gain votes for women in England (and the United States, as well) required a titanic struggle involving mass demonstrations, petitions, parliamentary action and civil disobedience. And at the center of the British fight were Sylvia’s upper middle class mother, older sister and herself. However, as has been noted in other fights for other democratic rights the question of enfranchisement of working class women drew a class line in the family, as in politics. Sylvia branched off to form her own working class organization in London’s East End. This break is the decisive point where her pro-working class politics kept getting pushed to the left both on the issue of the vote for women and in 1914 in opposition to Britain’s participation in World War I.

By most accounts Ms. Pankhurst was otherworldly, arrogant, persevering, personally disinterested and when necessary, obnoxious. Just the qualities that are necessary if one wants to change the world-as long as one has a philosophical anchor in order to fight effectively over the long haul. Ms. Pankhurst’s trials and tribulations, however, were guided by no such philosophy-she seems to have been the consummate pragmatist that British progressives (as well as American) have attempted to make into a world historic politcal virtue. This biography, as well as others on the period concerning the Bloomsbury literary scene and still others on the middle class fight for “English” socialism, demonstrates all the weak points of that British radicalism. This whole world is peopled with do-gooders and others who want social change but only if it does not interfere with high tea. And everyone, friend or foe, is ‘clubby’. It appears they all knew, or knew of, each other from high governmental officers to the literary set. This is the kind of society that can flourish at a time when you are the number one imperialist power, even if in decline. American radical readers take note.

The 1917 October Revolution in Russia was a decisive event in 20th century world history. In its wake it gain supporters from all over the world who were looking for the working class to rule. Ms. Pankhurst and her East End group got caught up in this wake and tried to win the Communist International franchise for England. Her efforts failed but not before becoming a footnote in Communist history as one of Lenin’s foils in his fight against those who did not want to fight reformist organizations, like the British Labor Party, for the loyalty of the working class and who were afraid to lost their ‘principles’ in parliamentary struggle, when necessary.

That Ms. Pankhurst could wield such influence and realistically hope to gain the franchise tells a lot about the British milieu of the time. Ms. Pankhurst could not or would not go all the way to communist commitment but her stops along the way give her as least an honorable mention for her early work. Read this book and see if you agree.