Good day Hivers and Book Clubbers,
Back with another review. I'll remain in the area of non-fiction also for this review. Haven't read much fiction lately. I've noticed that it comes and goes in waves. Anyways, today's book is very close to the last one in subject matter. The title is 'Harry Pollitt; a Biography', written by John Mahon.
Written in 1976, Mahon's goal was to keep the memory of Pollitt (1890-1960) alive for a later generation. Mahon knew Pollitt personally, and it can be gleaned from his writing that he is an ardent leftist/socialist/communist himself. The story proper amounts to about 475 pages, and I feel like it drags on somewhat. I've picked out a couple of themes, and will allow myself to speak more about the political side of things than I usually do.
Poverty and its discontents
A biography most often is written in a chronological fashion, which means that the early life of the subject is first tackled. Great Britain was the first country to go through the Industrial Revolution. The exact starting point is somewhat disputed; it's hard to put an exact year on a complex process. Some put it as early as 1770 for England, some as late as 1820.
It could thus be argued that the Industrial Revolution had been underway in Britain for a century when Pollitt was born in 1890. It is often hailed today as a Revolution for the better; that it gave the world untold riches and unequalled technological possibilities.
But how much of this was available to the common man, especially in the cities where the factories dominated the landscape. What is striking about this book is its bleak description of the state of the English working class. The houses often did not consist of more than 2 rooms, working weeks consisted of 60 hours or more per week, for pay that could barely feed the families. Essential amenities like plumbing were often missing, which constituted a massive health risk.
Child labor was the order of the day; Pollitt went to work in a factory at age 13 for almost no wages. Work in the factories was back-breaking, hours were bad, and the surroundings very unhealthy. Further education was simply not affordable to the vast majority of the working class, even when the children in question had the smarts; upwards (and downward) mobility were very limited. If you were born in the industrial slums, you were bound to stay there.
It makes for quite the contrast of our standard image of the late Victorian era, as presented in most books, movies and TV series. I'm thinking of how shows like Downton Abbey portray this era of British history. The gains from the Industrial Revolution were not shared equally; some people at the top were making millions, while millions of working people made very little at all. This inequity, in its basis, would shape Pollitt's political trajectory.
Unionize or go home
What separates British socialism from that of other countries? It would be the prominence of the Trade Unions. Britain in the early 1900s was a country of strikes. You wouldn't say that today; when you think of a country in Western Europe that strikes a lot, your mind would (rightfully so) probably go towards France. And yet, the Trade Unions would constantly lead strikes; for better working conditions, for better wages (or for protesting a reduction), in solidarity with other professions that got into trouble, etc.
This also fed into politics. It was impossible to become a member of the Labor Party without being part of a trade union. This effectively meant that there was no place for any bourgeois or upper-class people in the party.
Yet this was something that Labour would compromise on, and with it we end up at that classic contradiction in Socialist thought that I've talked about before: Evolution vs. Revolution. The Labour party went the way of Evolution, conforming to the democratic process and being able to push out the Liberal party to become one of 2 major parties in the country (alongside the Tories).
Many people on the Left would decry this conformity as a betrayal that would not end well; Labour was to be swallowed by capitalist interests, and sold its soul to the (capitalist) Devil. Pollitt was of this conviction; an ardent Communist, he kept to the idea that things would only change for the better in a definitive fashion through Revolution.
His vehicle, along his tireless work in the Unions, was that of the Communist Party (CP), where he was the General Secretary (i.e. leader) for almost 30 years (1929-1960, with a short interruption). Electoral success would evade the Communists throughout his life, however. Though not for lack of trying; Pollitt can definitely be described as an energetic leader, who fought for his cause.
Conclusion
This book, same as my last review, was clearly written by a leftist sympathiser. And where the book on Browder did a good job of describing the interplay between communism in the US and the antics of Stalin in the Soviet Union, this book completely lacks that vision.
Which is a shame. The book misses the mark on European geopolitics. Its description of the Spanish Civil War is flat-out wrong; the author seems to overcompensate through his leftist sympathies, and the story suffers for it. The same tends to be true for Hitler and WWII. 'Appeasement' has in hindsight become a dirty word in British historiography, but once again Mahon pushes it towards new levels.
Would I recommend this book? The unfortunate truth is that I wouldn't. As mentioned at the start, it tends to drag on a bit. Reading about 20 different strikes in a row can become a grind. The book is a labor of love, no doubt about it, but I can understand why it has gone out of print, and I had to come along a downloadable PDF to even read it. I'll be back with more reviews in the future. I'll see you then,
-Pieter Nijmeijer
(Top image from https://www.npg.org.uk/collections/search/portrait/mw43589/Harry-Pollitt?LinkID=mp52530&role=sit&rNo=1)