‘Direct Action’

Before April 1921 the Triple Alliance did not come in action for both matters of the nationalisation of the mines, and matters of wages and hours. The former were dealt with by organisations that represented Labour in a more general sense, and the latter by the individual unions. The matters, in which the Triple Alliance acted more or less collectively, were of a total different order. In April 1919 the Alliance urged the Parliamentary Committee of the TUC to convene a Special National Conference of the Trade Union Movement to decide what action, if any, should be taken in order to compel the Government to comply with the withdrawal of the conscription bill, the withdrawal of the British troops from Russia, the raising of the blockade, and the release of the conscientious objectors, who were in prison then. According to the Railway Review, the weekly of the NUR, this showed that the Triple Alliance recognised not merely its duty and its power, but also its discretion in exercising that power. While it may have very definite opinions upon the above-mentioned political questions, the Alliance was - the Railway Review pointed out - neither an industrial nor a political autocracy. There were - it added - other parties to the Labour movement interested in such questions, and they were entitled to be considered.

The other parties were not, however, that interested in such questions. The Parliamentary Committee arranged a meeting with Bonar Law, and were quite satisfied with his replies. They, therefore, refused to call a special Trades Union Congress to discuss these questions. Smillie and Williams both vehemently criticized the P.C. for this, and - although they were accused of propagating direct action for political goals, which they denied - they won the vote to refer this part of the Annual Report back.

The Triple Alliance was, however, far from united in taking action on these issues. In the Executive Committees of the affiliated bodies, especially Smillie and Williams were subject to severe criticism, for - although they did not ask the TUC to use 'Direct Action’ for political goals - it was publicly known that they were in favour of it. However, during the debate on the principle of Direct Action for political goals, on the 1919 Congress, they kept silence, and left the defense of this principle to Hodges and Bevin. They were opposed by J.H. Thomas, J.R. Glynes (Gasworkers) and E. Cathery (Sailors), so it was clear that the Alliance was far from unanimous on this subject.

The outcome of the 1919 Congress was not such that it was likely that the Labour movement - or a part thereof - ever would threaten the State with Direct Action for political purposes. But less than a year later, in July 1920, dockers - with the consent of Bevin — refused to load a ship called the Jolly George, that was awaiting a shipload of munitions for the Poles to support them in their war against Soviet Russia. A general conference of the Parliamentary Committee, the Executive of the Labour Party, and the members of the Parliamentary Labour Party warned the Government that the whole industrial power of the organized workers would be used to defeat the war, that - they felt - was being engineered against Soviet Russia. A Special Labour Conference, on 13 August 1920, gave its approval of this stand.  A 'Council of Action’ was set up to take control of the situation. The Government retired, as it said, not because of the threat of industrial but because of a victory the Polish won against Soviet Russia, The Labour movement had its own thoughts about it, and claimed this retreat as a victory. Williams regarded the formation of a Council of Action in 1920 as a result of 'the painstaking and ceaseless propaganda in favour of revolutionary direct action’ throughout 1919 on the part of the Triple Alliance. A look at the events of a year before, does not warrant this exaggerated conclusion.