[twc]

[10] PASSING THE BUCK —   WHAT WENT WRONG WITH   THE SAVE THE SEAMEN FUND The Australasian Seamen’s Journal of 25th October 1935 carried the following correspondence between William Orr, Secretary of the Miner’s Federation, and Bill Clarke, as Journal editor Correspondence

Seamans Journal, 25 Oct 1935, p. 9, wrote:

  THE MINER’S SECRETARY OBJECTSOctober 2nd, 1935.  The Editor,  “Seamen’s Journal”.Dear Comrade,In your last issue (page a suggestion is made that the Miners’ Federation was insincere in their offer of support to the Seamen’s Union during the recent strike.  The statement referred to reads:— “The £250 alleged to have been received from the Miners’ Union never turned up.  Neither did the £50 alleged to come from the Printing Trades’ Union, although the meetings in Sydney were told by members of the strike committee that the money had been received. “That much of the promised support came from individuals, and not from or with the knowledge of the members of the Unions concerned.”We must deprecate this suggestion of an absence of sincerity and honesty against my organisation.  The facts are that on August 17th following an appeal by your NSW strike committee, my executive met in Newcastle and decided to recommend a donation of £250 for support of the Seamen.  On the following day, Sunday, August 18th, I attended a series of meetings on the South Coast [of NSW] and at the same time secured endorsement of our Southern Councilors for our recommendation.On Monday, August 19th, I notified your NSW Branch of our recommendation, and that approval of all our Councillors was being sought by wire.  On the same day I had to proceed to Lithgow [NSW] with a strike involving all of our members at the State [Coal] mine, and was unable to return until the end of that week.As soon as possible, August 26th, 1935, I wrote to C. Herbert, NSW Secretary of the Seamen’s Union, and explained the delay and that our recommendation had been unanimously endorsed, and even though the strike had been called off our letter stated:— “If you still require assistance, I am sure our Central Council will assist from the grant which had been agreed upon.”This offer was endorsed by my Council, and by the members voting on the Minutes.In reply, I received from your NSW Branch a letter dated August 29th and signed C. Herbert, Secretary, which, inter alia, said:— “On your (Miners’ Union) letter being placed before our stop-work meeting of Tuesday, 27th instant, I was directed to, on behalf of the members assembled, express our appreciation of the solid backing and assistance rendered by yourself on behalf of your members through the support pledged at the meeting of the Trades and Labour Council, 8th instant. “With regard to the offer by your organisation to our members to the extent of £250, I am glad to inform you that the dispute being called off on Saturday last, renders now no necessity for financial offer.”This offer by my organisation was made at a time when the members of my Union were supporting disputes at Mt. Coolon, Queensland; Leadville, NSW; Lithgow, NSW; Ayrfield, NSW; and unemployed struggles at Wallsend and on the South Coast, NSW, all of which were keeping our officers very busy.I hope you will publish this reply, since there is an ever-growing need to eliminate suspicion and defeatism from the ranks of the trade union movement and inspire confidence and solidarity in the workers’ struggles against capitalism.   Fraternally,     William Orr     General  Secretary

 ↩ [Table of Contents] THE 1935 SEAMEN’S STRIKE — Installment 10

[twc]

T H E   1 9 3 5   A U S T R A L I A N   S E A M E N’ S   S T R I K E¹W. J. Clarke [1] INTRODUCTIONThe following work was intended to be part of a larger [history],² but publication [in 1981] of “The Seamen’s Union of Australia 1872–1972: A History”³ makes it incumbent on me to publish this extract from the larger work.⁴I chose to do this because I believe that much of the material in this “History” is not only laced with deliberate departures from the facts of actual history, but contains errors based upon ignorance of many significant details of the subject matter.It is imperative that readers should have an opportunity to ascertain the truth of that part of their⁵ history this extract relates to.Illness and other misfortunes⁶ have delayed my complete history and, in these circumstances, I have chosen the chapter on “The 1935 Seamen’s Strike” for two reasons:It is probably the most important point in the history of the union.It is that part of the work by Fitzpatrick and Cahill which contains the most errors, intentional or otherwise.W.J.C ↩ [Table of Contents] Editor’s NotesFootnotes are linked to the text.¹ The original title was the “The 1935 Seamen’s Strike”, but I have added the adjective “Australian” because the chapter has been lifted from its intended context within a projected work on the Australian Seamen’s Union and to avoid possible misunderstanding because it is being published on a British website. ↩ [Back]² I have transcribed the author’s own photocopy of his original typewriter script prepared during the 1980s.  The text is complete.  It contains minor typing errors, which I have minimally edited, solely for readability, in order to do justice to the author’s content.  Where I felt it necessary to amend his text, for more than readability, I have gone further than standard, but silent, book editorial practice, and have placed my alterations inside square brackets, as [here].  These may be checked by future historians against the original, to be deposited in the archives of the SPGB. ↩ [Back]³ Brian Fitzpatrick and Rowan Cahill, “The Seamen’s Union of Australia 1872–1972: A History”, [Seamen's Union of Australia, Sydney, 1981].  Clearly the publication of this work forced Bill Clarke’s hand. ↩ [Back]⁴ The remaining chapters are incomplete, and are distributed, non-systematically, among numerous folders and boxes.  It would take considerable effort to compile them into a completed work.The author considered this chapter to be the most important.  It should eventually be supplemented with a transcript of “The Crooks Exposed”, and Bill Casey’s report to the union of the First Red Trade Union International (in the Tom Walsh papers at the National Archives in Canberra).  Originals, or photocopies, to be deposited for safekeeping with the SPGB. ↩ [Back]⁵ Clearly Bill Clarke intended this chapter to be read by members of the Seamen’s Union of Australia. ↩ [Back]⁶ Bill Clarke, born in 1899, wrote this work during the 1980s.  His gentle life-long companion, Marie, born in 1906, died suddenly while he was writing it in 1983.  They had been deeply close over six decades, and he suffered her loss deeply.  Debilitating illness hampered his writing as he approached his 90th year.  He died in 1989. ↩ [Back] ↩ [Table of Contents] THE 1935 SEAMEN’S STRIKE — Installment 1

[twc]

                        [2]  PRELUDE TO DISASTER*The most disastrous strike in the history of the Australian Seamen’s Union occurred in the year 1935.An ominous overture to the strike was the ‘Returned Soldiers Preference Act’¹ introduced by the [State] Premier of New South Wales, Bertram Stevens.This Act, on top of the ‘Transport Workers Act’², introduced by the Federal Government for the purpose of crushing the Waterside Workers’ Union in 1928, signalled further threats to the union movement.  [The] government was intent on increasing its efforts to hamstring Australian workers.It was in this period that the Communist Party, [its] Militant Minority Movement (MMM)³ and other subsidized [affiliates]⁴ were outpouring pernicious propaganda against the trade unions and trade-union officials in order to gain control [of the unions].As far as the Seamen’s Union was concerned, these groups were allied to Tom Walsh⁵ and all sorts of [similar] reactionaries, who were intent on sabotaging any attempt by the seamen to maintain their conditions in the face of a worsening economic [climate] and deteriorating industrial [circumstances].[The Seamen’s Union] had previously defeated the combined opposition of these [Communist] cliques and the Intra-State shipowners, when the shipowners attempted to set up a scab seaman’s union in the Intra-State coastal trade.The [Federal] government had combined with the shipowners in an attempt to smash the Seamen’s Union, and was engaged in a barrage of abuse against the Union’s Federal Secretary, Jacob Johnson⁶.  The government had already jailed Johnson twice, and it had issued writs against the present writer⁷; for claiming compensation for the parents of a seaman who had been lost overboard during a collision [at sea].The nature of the abuse hurled at the Union by both the shipowners and the Communists sounded so similar that it could have spewed out of the same mouth.Meanwhile, the calumnious Communist Party slander sheet was pouring its blessings on the strike-breaking tactics of the [West]† Coast American shipowners against Vancouver longshoremen‡.  This too, was an attempt [by the Communist Party] to discredit the officials of the Seamen’s Union of Australia and its members.It was in this [poisonous] atmosphere that the “Murada” Dispute unfolded. [First “Murada” Report]The [first] report in The Australasian Seamen’s Journal of the “Murada” dispute appeared in the August 1935 issue.

Seamens Journal (26 Aug 1935) p. 5, wrote:

MELBOURNEDuring the month [of August] the repercussions of the “Murada” dispute made themselves felt in Melbourne.In order that members may become acquainted with the circumstances surrounding the dispute, the following information is given:On June 23rd the “Murada” was [berthed] in Port Kembla [near Sydney, NSW].  The watches were set at 2 am.  The time on the board [for departure] was 4.30 am.  [However,] the ship did not leave [Port] Kembla until 10 am.The firemen [consequently] claimed overtime for all work done before 7 am, and deferred sailing for the delay.  The claim was lodged, but no reply was received.When the vessel arrived in Melbourne, nearly a month later, the matter was still in doubt.  On the company being approached [by the crew], the claim was rejected.[So] the men declined to leave Melbourne [keeping the ship tied up in port] until their claim was acknowledged.  [Whereupon] they were instantly dismissed, logged, fined five shillings, given “bad” discharges, and denied repatriation to their home-ports.Deciding to prosecute, the men returned to Sydney.  The Melbourne Branch [of the Union] decided that, if the company wanted the ship manning [to sail the “Murada” out of port], the company would have to bring the [ship’s] crew back from Sydney.[Meanwhile the crew, having arrived] in Sydney, placed the case in the hands of the [Union’s] General Secretary⁶.  Before the case could be dealt with by the Court, one of the crewmen was rejected [for employment] by the engineer of the “Zealandia”.Scenting in this [refusal of work] an indication that the “Murada” men were being selected for victimisation, [Union] members in Sydney refused to offer [for work] until this [work] ban was lifted.  Later, there was another case of rejection [of a “Murada” crewman] by the engineer of the “Mildura”.This strengthened the [general] belief that the “Murada” men were being singled out for persecution, and in a very short time many vessels became involved.[Union] Executive MeetsA special meeting [of Union members held] in Melbourne instructed the General Secretary to convene a meeting of the Union Executive in view of the seriousness of the situation.  The Executive met in Sydney, and simultaneously the Chief Judge of the Arbitration Court convened a compulsory conference [with the Union Executive and the shipowners].A special meeting of the Union [members] held in Sydney, before we [the Executive] left to attend the [compulsory] conference, instructed us to obtain the best possible terms and to report back to [the members in] Sydney.We attended the conference and, risking any ridiculous allegations suggesting secret agreements, etc., we revealed the [conference rulings] to nobody until the [pre-arranged] meeting of the members [in the Sydney Town Hall].We reported [to them] that the owners had agreed [1] to lift the ban on all “Murada” men and [2] that if the ships were manned they would select crewmen without victimisation or discrimination, regardless of the discharges⁸, whether “V.G.”, “G” or indifferent.  That meant that all men would face the line-up on equal terms.As this meant the lifting of the [shipowners’] ban from the “Murada” men, the Executive recommended [to Union members] that the terms be accepted.  After a lively meeting lasting over two sessions, the recommendation was adopted and the dispute was ended.Lying TacticsSeveral outstanding matters were [then] dealt with by the Executive, the first being in reference to the crew of the “Mungana”.It was stated [to the Union members] from the platform by one of the Strike Committee that the crew of the “Mungana” had been sentenced to 30 days’ imprisonment for coming out with [i.e. in support of] the other ships’ crews.  Although this statement had a profound effect on the meeting, upon going [further] into the matter, the Executive discovered that the statement was a lie.(It is deplorable that such [Communist] tactics are used during a period of strike [merely with the intention of inflaming the situation], and members must keep this in mind for future occasions.)Within a couple of days after the resumption [of work] several members of the “Murada” crew were selected at the pick-ups.Owing to the dispute and my absence in Sydney, the “Journal” is late this month.  In the circumstances, I ask members to excuse the delay.

 [Second “Murada” Report]More on the “Murada” Dispute[Here follows another clipping from the “Seamen’s Journal”⁹ reiterating the theme “things to remember”.]

Seamens Journal (prob. 26 Aug 1935) wrote:

THE “MURADA” DISPUTEThings to RememberThe following pertinent points ought to be borne in mind by members when discussing the recent “Murada” dispute:—There was no extension [of the strike to other vessels] until the [work] ban was placed upon the “Murada” men.The victimisation of the “Murada” men led to the extension, and it was at this point that the remainder of the ships were brought into the dispute.The cardinal point was, therefore, the lifting of the ban from the “Murada” men and any others who received “bad” discharges during the dispute.  This cardinal point was conceded by the owners at the conference with the Union Executive.The £250, alleged to have been received from the Miners’ Union, never turned up.  Neither did the £50 alleged to have come from the Printing Trades’ Union, although meetings in Sydney were told by members of the strike committee that the money had been received.That much of the promised support came from individuals and not from [those Unions] or with the knowledge [and approval] of the members of the Unions concerned.The statement made by the leader of the strike committee at the meeting at which the dispute was called off, i.e., “That the crew of the “Mungana” had been sentenced to thirty days’ jail in Port Kembla”, was an absolute lie.That a thing¹⁰ Dwhich had actually scabbed TWICE in recent years was in the Town Hall meeting in Sydney and was voting for “strike”.  What was the motive?That the strike committee cost £100.Consider these points and ask yourselves if the Executive officers acted wisely in the stand they took in Sydney during the dispute.

 ↩ [Table of Contents] Editor’s Notes* Readers have no choice but to read the added text in [square brackets] as if the brackets weren’t present.Bracketed text, [such as this], explains context and terminology assumed as understood by seamen readers in 1935.Italic text, such as this, was underlined by W.J.C for this history.↩ [Back]† West Coast.  Clarke mistakenly wrote “East Coast”, but he was probably thinking from an Australian perspective of the East Coast of the Pacific Ocean [which, of course  is the West Coast of the USA]. ↩ [Back]‡ Vancouver longshoremen.  Clarke mistakenly wrote “Vancouver Longshoremen’s Union”, which is the name of the scab Union. See Installment 7 (below).  [There is evidence from his mistypings and these two errors that Clarke was unwell when he wrote the preliminary text to this Installment.] ↩ [Back]¹ The ‘Returned Soldiers Preference Act 1920’ stipulated that absolute preference of employment must be given to competent returned soldiers. The Sydney Morning Herald of 4 July 1934 reports on the renewal of the Act:

SMH 4 July 1934 wrote:

Returned Soldiers Preference Act —Government IntentionsThe government intends to take action to see that the spirit of the Returned Soldiers Preference Act is observed. … The government, said the Premier, intended to amend the Preferences to Returned Soldiers Act and set up a board with powers to police the provisions of the Act.  It would see that its spirit was complied with.  With its appointment many of the existing difficulties would be overcome.

↩ [Back]² The ‘Transport Workers Act 1928’ required stevedoring companies to engage wharf labourers under a license, referred to contemptuously by the men as the “dog collar”, as a means of breaking the Waterside Workers’ Federation through forced employment of non-union and scab-union labour. ↩ [Back]³ Militant Minority Movement.Most accounts overflow with tendentious Communist adulation, such as http://www.anu.edu.au/polsci/marx/interventions/minority.htm.Seamen’s Union “historian” Brian Fitzpatrick describes them with pride, while unconsciously writing a damning indictment of this disreputable anti-working-class organisation [“The Seamen’s Union of Australia”, page 72, footnote]. “Created in 1928, the Militant Minority Movement (M.M.M.) was the Australian section of the Red International of Labour Unions (developed by the Communist International as an organisation with the aim of appealing to militant trade unionists). It operates within the trade unions and in work places, pursuing a policy of rank and file organisation based on industry not craft, and election of work place committees.  It expounded the policy of the Communist Party and sought to get “revolutionary policies adopted by large sections of workers”, recruited for the Party, and promoted strike offensives as a prelude to a general strike.  In addition to its official organ, The Red Leader, the M.M.M. roneoed numerous job sheets and bulletins written by workers on particular jobs. Members of the M.M.M. put themselves forward as alternative union leaders, took vanguard roles in struggles, and generally gained reputations for militancy and courage.”This says it all, especially the last sentence!  The M.M.M. was clueless, unprincipled and disruptive of the workplace, for its own vainglorious ends of gaining “reputations for militancy and courage”.  Instead of putting working class concerns first, they put their own ambitions first.  So naturally they turned out to be no more than anti-working-class union-wrecking thugs — self-styled Red Leaders over the working class.  They were anti-revolutionary, and must remain forever throughout subsequent history as beneath contempt, and most adequately damned as servants of the disgusting Soviet Union. ↩ [Back]⁴ W.J.C’s original text for “affiliates” reads “cockroach incubuses”.  An adequate description, but moderated here because it anticipates W.J.C’s forthcoming evidence. ↩ [Back]⁵ Tom Walsh.  See the typical Wikipedia account on such folks at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tom_Walsh_(trade_unionist). ↩ [Back]⁶ General Secretary = Federal Secretary [i.e. Jacob Johnson].  Johnson has been written out of radical history by its standard bearers, the Communists.  He lacks a Wikipedia entry. ↩ [Back]⁷ W.J.C [i.e. Bill Clarke] ↩ [Back]⁸ A reminder that text in italics was underlined by W.J.C for this history. ↩ [Back]⁹ Probably also from the August 1935 issue, as the next quotation [to come] is from the 25 September 1935 issue, a month after the previous one. ↩ [Back]¹⁰ “Thing”.  Contemptuous reference to a strike-breaker, or “scab”. ↩ [Back] ↩ [Table of Contents] THE 1935 AUSTRALIAN SEAMEN’S STRIKE — Installment 2

[twc]

            [3]  REFLECTIONS ON THE “MURADA” DISPUTE*[The Union Interpretation]The Australian union movement as a whole was not wholeheartedly behind the “Murada” Dispute.The officials of the Waterside Worker’s Union displayed an emphatic reluctance towards supporting the seamen during the dispute.The officers of the Australian Council of Trade Unions¹ (ACTU) firmly intimated their unwillingness to be bulldozed into any attitude towards assisting or supporting the seamen.The Federal government had been hostile all along toward the Seamen’s Union.  It disapproved of any disruption to the coastal sea trade, which it automatically blamed on the Union.  The government had made it clear that it was willing to invoke the notorious “Dog Collar Act”² against the Union, and impose job licensing provisions on the men.What made the seamen’s position precarious was the huge army of still jobless workers, including many seamen, who were anxious to get back onto the payroll.This was an unpropitious situation for the Union, and ripe for exploitation by any group hostile to it.Out of this predicament, emerged the workers’ Messiah, Joe Keenan³ — the dashing hero of the Reds, of the Communist Party, of the Militant Minority Movement — bombastically challenging the [Federal Attorney-General], Robert Menzies,⁴ to industrially handcuff the seamen.Such “militant” bravado played directly into the hands of a willing Federal government, delivering it, on an open platter, the handcuffs it had been looking for!The Executive of the Seamen’s Union, immediately recognized that handcuffing of the seamen was precisely the likely result Keenan’s daring bluster would achieve, and we now tried desperately to prevent this [from happening] by exposing the unscrupulous side of Keenan’s posing and pandering dupes [i.e. double-crossing]. [The MMM Interpretation and the “Historians”]Labour historians Fitzpatrick⁵ and Cahill⁶ had but to read with care the Seamen’s Journal and other verified historical sources to draw their own conclusions about the industrial situation confronting the Union, and the dangerous anti-Union antics employed by Keenan and the MMM.But, wishing not to offend their paymaster [i.e. erstwhile supporter of Keenan and the MMM during the 1935 strike and then leader of the Seamen’s Union, Elliot V. Elliot] who commissioned them to write the Union’s official history, these commissioned “labour historians” preferred not to risk their own pay packets.Yet, what a small financial sacrifice that would have been compared to the enormous financial costs imposed upon the Seamen’s Union by those former red “leaders” of the MMM [Orr⁷ and Keenan] whom the “labour historians” now eulogize by slandering the Union Executive in their paid-for “History of the Seamen’s Union”.Nowhere do these “historians” offer proof of the allegations they slur upon the targets of their slander.  Instead, like Keenan [before them] and Elliott [now, in the 1980s], they make scapegoats out of the Union’s Executive, Johnson, Casey and Clarke.Fortunately, one of us [Clarke] is alive [in his 80s] and is still able to rebut such paltry charges and the political subterfuges on which they are based. [Union Predictions]Quite early in the unfolding industrial dispute, we [Johnson, Casey and Clarke] foretold the course it would take once the Communist Party and its affiliates intervened in it politically.  History has confirmed our predictions, and repudiated the tactics of the Communist Party and its subsidised affiliates.Prediction.  We recognized, as a cold hard fact, the state of indifference shown towards the seamen’s dispute by other unions and the ACTU alike.  It was therefore completely obvious to us that the MMM’s [Orr’s and Keenan’s] fantasy reliance on much-vaunted promises of assistance forthcoming from other unions, whose financial support was supposed “to sustain us in the big battle”, was bound to come crashing down to reality, and the imaginary money would never turn up.Result.  That’s exactly what happened (or failed to happen)⁸.Prediction.  We treated all guarantees of support, when they came from [political bodies outside of the Union], such as the Communist Party and its affiliate, the MMM, as sheer hogwash.Result.  Their guarantees of support turned out to be guarantees of treachery against the Union and its loyal members.Prediction.  We saw through the claims made by the Communist Party and its affiliates as the same hollow claims they served up during the Australian Wharfies [wharf labourers] strike and the Timber Workers strike, as typical of their discredited tactic of political hijacking industrial disputes for their own ends.  We therefore concluded that any MMM-incited dispute would end like Napoleon’s campaigns — in defeat and disaster.Result.  Unfortunately, just as we predicted, defeat and disaster inevitably followed in their wake — for the dispute and for the Union. [Humiliation]The two plastic heroes of the MMM [Orr and Keenan] miscalculated the situation extremely badly.  They also underestimated their reluctant followers once the members had become disillusioned with their erstwhile leaders.When Orr eventually called a meeting of his “red army”, his army turned against him, and ruthlessly cast aside both Orr and Keenan.  While Orr shamefacedly cooked up excuses to placate the Melbourne mob, Keenan hurried back to NSW to pacify the Sydney mob.Even at this late stage, the leaders of the MMM shamelessly kept on promising the seamen that “something would be forthcoming — later on”.  That “something” could be nothing more than a rehash of their former tripe:  a repetition of promises, broken and never realized, because they were totally unrealizable.Needless to say, the masters of the MMM persisted in blaming the Union and slandering Johnson, Casey and Clarke, until it became part of their standard history — just as their hired “historians” have found it — to cover their own pathetic failures to deliver on any of their fantasy promises and blatant untruths. ↩ [Table of Contents] Editor’s Notes* I have heavily edited the present installment, which contains only text from the 1980s.  I have expanded the text with necessary explanation that conforms to memories of vivid discussions with Clarke over many years, and readers may consult the originals when they are lodged with the SPGB.  So as not to impede the flow of this 1980s text by cluttering it up with numerous brackets, I have mainly removed the brackets for this installment. ↩ [Back]¹ Australian Council of Trade Unions.  The ACTU was founded in 1927 as a federation of most Australian trade unions.  [Its British counterpart is the TUC.] ↩ [Back]² “Dog Collar Act”.  Contemptuous reference to the ‘Transport Workers Act 1928’, which required stevedoring companies to employ only licensed wharf labourers, in an attempt to break the Waterside Worker’s Federation.  If extended to seamen, it would require seamen to obtain a license in order to obtain work, i.e. a dog collar. ↩ [Back]³ Joe Keenan.  Prominent leader of the Communist MMM.  Leader of the “Murada” strike committee. ↩ [Back]⁴ Robert Menzies, [later, Sir].  The challenge thrown down to him by Keenan — to handcuff the Union — was made on the Sydney Domain in the immediate aftermath of the “Murada” dispute.  [Longest serving Prime Minister of Australia.]  As a young man, was capable legal representative for the Seamen’s Union in industrial disputation.  See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Robert_Menzies. ↩ [Back]⁵ Brian Fitzpatrick.  Radical historian, and co-author with Rowan Cahill of the centenary history “The Seamen’s Union of Australia”.  See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Brian_Fitzpatrick_(Australian_author).  Commissioned by Elliot V. Elliot to write this official history of the Union.  He completed the period 1872–1939.  Died before completing the full history (see note 6, below). ↩ [Back]⁶ Rowan Cahill.  Radical historian, and co-author with Brian Fitzpatrick of the centenary history “The Seamen’s Union of Australia”.  See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rowan_Cahill.  Commissioned by Elliot to write the concluding part (1940–1972) of this official history of the Union.  He finished the work begun by Brian Fitzpatrick (see note 5, above). ↩ [Back]⁷ William Orr.  General Secretary, Miners’ Federation.  Prominent leader of the Communist MMM. ↩ [Back]⁸ See “Second “Murada” Report” in Installment 2 (above).  [The false allegations of money to support the seamen being received by the Union were presumably made by Keenan or one of his underlings. The MMM was not averse to concocting inflammatory allegations, designed to incite the mob, such as the supposed jailing of an entire ship’s crew that came out in sympathy with the “Murada” men.] ↩ [Back] ↩ [Table of Contents] THE 1935 AUSTRALIAN SEAMEN’S STRIKE — Installment 3

[twc]

                        [4]  AFTER THE SETTLEMENT*As far as the Union was concerned, the “Murada” dispute had been settled.  But it soon became apparent that this dispute was merely the prelude to a looming disaster.A new phase in the Union’s history was brewing — the rise of scab unions.  Both here and abroad, scab seamen’s unions impacted negatively upon the Australian Seamen’s Union, while getting the blessing and support of the Communists and its Militant Minority Movement. [The Communists Oppose Unionism]The Seamen’s Journal of 25 September 1935 recounts intrusive anti-Union activity during the lull before the impending storm. 

Seamens Journal, Sept 1935, p. 3, wrote:

MELBOURNEFollowing the cessation of the dispute, the manning of the ships in Melbourne was carried out with little friction.In one or two cases, argument arose over the re-engagement of some members of the ships’ crews but as all men, who [during the strike] came out of ships in Melbourne and [presented] at the pick-up, were re-engaged, there was no hitch.Both in Sydney and Melbourne members of the “Murada” crew were picked up. Harbour Trust[Editor:  I omit a brief progress report to the membership about unionising employees of the Geelong Harbour Trust¹ then subject to a pending Arbitration Court ruling …  and now pick up the main theme.]Once again [while we were helping to unionise the Geelong Harbour Trust employees] I have to draw members’ attention to the nefarious interferences by outsiders² who are now insidiously preaching [to the Trust employees], to use their own words, that “the Union is of comparatively little use”.³This re-echoing of the sentiments, [normally only] expressed by avowed enemies of the Union, would sound strange coming from people who claim to be concerned about organising workers but, knowing the sources from which the sentiments emanate, we simply pass it over with the remark, “It is another vile attempt to disrupt the organisation”.⁴These same enemies of the Union slyly justify the refusal of some [Trust employees] to join the struggle for better conditions.  We can almost hear the Trust Commissioners chuckling with delight at the support they get from these people [i.e. the Communist MMM].Later, as if making an effort to recover themselves, they [now] suavely suggest that those [Trust employees] not in the Union ought to join up.  With such two-facedness they can front up to anything.It has also been stated [i.e. spread about by the Communist MMM] that the Stop-work meetings of the [Melbourne] Branch [of the Seamen’s Union] vetoed decisions of the Trust employees.  This is untrue, but it will serve [as intended by them] as [yet] another excuse for any [Trust employee] who doesn’t want to join up [to the Union].The whisperings which are being circulated throughout the Trust are too numerous to mention here, so WE CHALLENGE THE WRITER OF THE ARTICLE referred to, to make the same lying statements at the next meeting of the Melbourne Harbour Trust.W. J. Clarke

 [Some Union Theory]Following its destabilizing intrusion into the “Murada” dispute, I now considered it urgent to use the columns of the Seamen’s Journal to disabuse Union members of the political myths associated with the Communist Party and its subsidiaries like the MMM.  At the same time, I wanted to expose the hypocrisy of those state and federal politicians who were using the communist bogey against the workers.I found all the evidence I needed in the publications of the Communist Party itself and its subsidiaries.This “theoretical” article begins on page 3 of the 25 September 1935 issue of the Seamen’s Journal.

Seamans Journal, 25 Sept. 1935, wrote:

THIS LEADERSHIP⁵Trade Unions are born out of the conditions brought about by the development of capitalism.Prior to the rise of the system [of capitalism], handicraft [labour] was the general mode of manufacture, and tools of trade were owned by the craftsman himself.  The products belonged to him and he did not have to sell his labour power to an employer.With the industrial revolution, brought about by circumstances which we need not examine in this article, factories and workshops sprang up and workers were herded together.  It did not take long for the workers to realise that they were being exploited by the owners of the machinery of production, and attempts were made to better their position.Individually they were helpless in the struggle against the employers, but gradually the idea of unity dawned upon them, and [the workers] began to combine to further their interests in the everyday struggle.  In spite of repressive measures, including severe persecution, these combinations grew into the powerful Trade Unions of today.That the power of these Unions is not always exerted in the right direction does not alter the fact that they do possess a fair amount of power which, judiciously used, can serve as a strong weapon in the hands of the workers.This has been recognised by both the friends and the enemies of the working class.The strength of any combination of working men and women is determined by the degree of class consciousness they manifest, because only class understanding can, in the final analysis, bring about the most beneficial results in the class struggle. Fields for PropagandaNumbers of workers organised together provide a ready field for propaganda; consequently we find all sorts of people attaching themselves to the Trade Unions.As Unions cover industries or callings in which all manner of workers are engaged, they necessarily include individuals with various political and industrial outlooks.  While we cannot object to any member of a Union expressing his opinions, there is nothing to prevent us from opposing those opinions if we consider that they conflict with the interests of the workers.If people holding ideas inimical to the interests of the combination translate those ideas into action with disastrous results to the workers, we would be lacking in our duties were we to let such actions go unchallenged or unexposed.Just because people call themselves revolutionaries, Communists, Socialists, or any other radically-sounding name, that is no reason why we should withhold our criticism, and it is because of the claims for the Minority Movement and the Communist Party that this article is being written.

[Editor:  The groundwork for the rest of the article on This Leadership has been laid.  A damning critique/exposé of inept and devious Communist Party “leadership” practice is about to follow.  This is a good place to split Clarke’s article, before the onslaught.] ↩ [Table of Contents] Editor’s Notes* Articles from the Seamen’s Journal of 1935 are transcribed verbatim, with the exception of the editorial practice of placing inside [square brackets] any changes I felt necessary to make in order to clarify the original text where its assumed 1935 seamen’s context might be unclear to modern readers.  Excerpts in italics as here were underlined by the author, and represent his 1980s emphasis of his original 1935 text. ↩ [Back]¹ Geelong Harbor Trust.  Formed 1905.  Manages the port of Geelong and smaller harbours west of Melbourne, Victoria. ↩ [Back]² The MMM [Militant Minority Movement]. ↩ [Back]³ The MMM initially opposed the unionization of Geelong Harbour Trust employees. ↩ [Back]⁴ The MMM’s explicit strategy was to destabilize and discredit unions before taking them over. ↩ [Back]⁵ The title This Leadership is ironic, as will become evident in installment 5 (to follow).  The article’s “theoretical” introduction and its summing up (in installment 5) represents perhaps the only occasion on which Clarke ever used the pages of the Seamen’s Journal to discuss socialism, and then as theory, and not as political propaganda, which of course was blatant Communist practice. ↩ [Back] ↩ [Table of Contents] THE 1935 AUSTRALIAN SEAMEN’S STRIKE — Installment 4

[twc]

                  [5]  OUT OF THEIR OWN MOUTHS* [Editor:  This is the continuation of Clarke’s report on the topic of This Leadership — to be understood as “This is What Their Supposed ‘Leadership’ Turns Out to be Like in Practice” — that I split in two because of its length.  The original article appeared in the “Australasian Seamen’s Journal” of 25 September 1935, starting page 3.] 

Seamens Journal, 25 Sept. 1935, wrote:

THIS LEADERSHIP (Continuation)Out of Their Own MouthsEvery dispute that occurs brings an invasion of outsiders who interfere in the internal affairs of the Unions.  Nobody objects to interference, even when unsought, if it has no detrimental effects on the organisation.But the history of the Minority Movement and the Communist Party is a record of self-admitted errors inflicting incalculable harm on Trade Unions.This can be proved by excerpts from the communist publications, and we recommend a close study of the following to members.Speaking of the part it played in the Timber Workers’ strike in 1930, the Communist Party newspaper “Worker’s Weekly” (10 Jan 1930) said “The Minority Report disclosed many errors (of the M.M.) in the conduct of the Timber dispute”.Coal Lockout.  The “Worker’s Weekly” (10 Jan 1930): “The C.C.¹ and the members in the area were unable to respond in the manner demanded by the conditions.  The Minority Report does contain INACCURACIES”.And while we were all being told that the Communist Party was the one revolutionary party leading the workers to victory, the “Worker’s Weekly” let the cat out of the bag with the following: “The Whole Party Has Been Off the Revolutionary Line”.In the “Worker’s Weekly” for May 1st 1931 [May Day], we were told: “The Minority Movement in the Bradford strike² simply duplicated the work of the Communist Party, and consequently was unable to fulfil its function.  In America similar errors were made”.And, while boasting of their leadership of the masses, the following lamentable admission was made on 27/11/1931: “We have FAILED IN EVERY INSTANCE to put our theories into practice”.Two months afterwards, in the January 18th 1932 issue, we find this brazen confession of inefficiency, to say nothing of the stupidity contained in the par[agraph]: “The work of the [Communist] Party in the Trade Unions, the Minority Movement, and the Unemployed Movement is conducted in an aimless, unorganized fashion, and the fractions generally are extremely inefficient and badly organised”.Another confession contained in the “Worker’s Weekly” for January 29th 1932, in which the seamen are specially referred to, reads thus: “We are organisationally incapable of supplying leadership in the struggles — Seamen, railway men, etc.”Similar admissions were being made in England, and they give us an insight into the idiotic intrigues carried on by the Communists against Trade Unions.Here is a political peach [sic] from the “Daily Worker”, January 25th 1932: “We have brought forward demands which have been worked out in the Party rooms by a few Communists, and many times BY COMMUNISTS WHO HAVE NOT THE FAINTEST CONTACT OR KNOWLEDGE OF THE INDUSTRY in which the strikes are taking place”. “WE SET UP RANK AND FILE COMMITTEES, WHICH ARE COMPOSED OF OURSELVES, DESTITUTE OF REPRESENTATIVE AUTHORITY, AND WHICH ONLY SUCCEED IN DEGRADING THE CONCEPTION OF WHAT A RANK AND FILE STRIKE COMMITTEE OUGHT TO BE”. “We are slow to learn from our mistakes, and there is a rich experience to learn from”.We most heartily concur with the last sentence, but we ask readers to ponder specially over this whole quotation.Similar hypocritical confessions were made in connection with the Fellmongerers’ Strike, 1933; the Lithgow [NSW] State [Coal] Mine Dispute, 1932, etc.And finally, speaking with regard to the Communist Party and Minority Movement, Losovsky,³ R.I.L.U., of Russia, said: “Our Party and the Minority Movement are not INSIDE the struggle, but come into it from outside”. … “Many functionaries of the Minority Movement vote for resolutions [which purport to be for democratic] independent leadership, but do not wish to put this into practice. THIS IS THE WORST FORM OF CREEPING OPPORTUNISM IN PRACTICE”.     (Emphasis ours [W.J.C].)So there we get it, right from the fountainhead. ConclusionFrom out of their own mouths these self-styled leaders of the workers are condemned.  We have not gone outside of their own publications for this indictment of their activities.Yet these individuals claim to be revolutionaries;  they profess to have the interests of the working class at heart.They have muddled up everything they touched and disrupted every movement they get into, whether they enter legitimately or by the back door;  whether they enter openly as Communists or surreptitiously sneak in under some other pseudonym.Knowing them as we do, and having experienced their malicious and lying tactics, we name them for what they are — MIS-LEADERS OF THE WORKING CLASS.Readers may ask:  Why then, in face of this anti-working-class record, does the government take action against them [since they do the Government’s dirty work, leaving its own hands clean]?  We do not know.We do know the Government is no friend of the workers, but apparently the Government wants a scapegoat.  If the Government is taking action against the Communist Party because it believes the Communist Party is revolutionary, the Government is making a mistake.THE COMMUNIST PARTY IS NOT REVOLUTIONARY and THE MINORITY MOVEMENT DOES NOT LEAD the workers.The workers must fight the everyday struggle in which we strive for the most we can get.⁴   In the political struggle, we want the world for the workers, and this can be achieved by the workers organising for the conquest of political power which will give them control of the State forces.  With this power and these forces, we can determine how we shall live our lives without dictation or domination from the capitalist class.We ask members to read again the list of quotations from the “Worker’s Weekly” concerning the minority Movement, and judge for yourselves whether this is the sort of “leadership” you desire.  Whatever you want will not come through leaders — it all depends on intelligent action by yourselves expressed through those who happen to be your [democratically elected] mouth-pieces at the time.W.J.C

 ↩ [Table of Contents] Editor’s Notes* The article argues against all working class leadership, but its title refers ironically to the insidiously damaging Communist mis-leadership variety — If This is Their Kind of ‘Leadership’ They can Stick It!  It is a defence of Union affairs being controlled by the Union itself, i.e. democratically by all members of the Union.  Its penultimate paragraph hints more generally at the democratic Object of the SPGB. ↩ [Back]¹ C.C.  to come. ↩ [Back]² Bradford strike.  to come. ↩ [Back]³ A. Losovsky.  General Secretary of the R.I.L.U. [Red International of Labour Unions] or Profintern. ↩ [Back]⁴ From here to the end of the paragraph, Clarke states the SPGB case, as adhered to by the [World] Socialist Party of Australia, of which Johnson, Casey and Clarke were life-long members.  It is the only instance of a hint of the Party case intruding into Clarke’s Union journalism; and if this situation of exposing deliberate Communist sabotage of the Seamen’s Union didn’t warrant Clarke’s countering the corrosive case of the Communist leadership that fueled the sabotage, then nothing ever would. ↩ [Back] ↩ [Table of Contents] THE 1935 AUSTRALIAN SEAMEN’S STRIKE — Installment 5

[twc]

    [7] THE “AORANGI” LETTER —       VANCOUVER LONGSHOREMEN’S STRIKE [Throughout this time, the Minority Movement attempted to embroil the Seamen’s Union of Australia in a Canadian local lock-out–strike, which it soon became apparent involved a company-formed Union fighting the Shipping Federation that formed, and effectively controlled, it.][The General Secretary of the Seamen’s Union of Australia, Jacob Johnson, explained the situation in the “Seamen’s Journal” [August 1935] as follows:]

Seamans Journal, Jacob Johnson wrote:

      Vancouver Longshoremen’s Strike     The “Aorangi” Crew and     [the  Communist] “Marine Worker” On June 17 we received from the crew of the “Aorangi”—this vessel being then at Vancouver—the following cable ¹:—“JOHNSON, [AND] HERBERT, SEAMEN’S UNION, SYDNEY.— SECTIONAL STRIKE [HAS BEEN] DECLARED BY VANCOUVER LONGSHOREMEN [STOP] THEIR MEMBERS [ARE] WORKING SHIPS EVERYWHERE ELSE [STOP] NO OTHER UNIONS [ARE] TAKING ACTION [TO] SUPPORT [THE] LONGSHOREMEN’S UNION [STOP] NON-UNION LONGSHOREMEN LABOUR [IS] WORKING [THE] ‘AORANGI’ [STOP] ‘AORANGI’ CREW [IN] ALL DEPARTMENTS [HAVE] DECIDED TO CARRY ON ALL DUTIES PENDING IMMEDIATE ADVICE AND INSTRUCTIONS FROM YOU [STOP] ALL OTHER MARINE UNIONS, SYDNEY, [ARE] ALSO RECEIVING THIS COMMUNICATION FOR ADVICE AND INSTRUCTION.—SANDERSON, [AND] BROWN, [SHIP’S] DELEGATES.” [Joint Response]Upon receipt of this information, we immediately communicated with the Secretaries of the Marine Stewards’ and the Cooks’ Unions, for the purpose of considering a joint reply.Mr Moate, of the Marine Stewards’ Union, informed us that he had already replied [to the “Aorangi” crew], advising his members not to be involved in the dispute.After giving the matter mature consideration, Mr Herbert (Sydney Branch [of the Seamen’s Union]), Mr Tudehope (Cooks’ Union), and myself [Jacob Johnson] decided to send the following joint reply:— “[IN] VIEW OF [THE] VAGUE NATURE OF [THE] DISPUTE [IT IS] DIFFICULT TO ADVISE WHETHER [THIS] SECTIONAL STRIKE SHOULD BE SUPPORTED [STOP] SUGGEST YOU INTERVIEW EXECUTIVE [OF] LONGSHOREMEN WITH OBJECT [OF] RENDERING ASSISTANCE WITHOUT AFFECTING YOUR LEGAL POSITION REGARDING SHIP’S ARTICLES AND MONEYS ALREADY EARNED.” [Seamen’s Union Special Meeting]At the [Seamen’s Union] New South Wales Branch, June Stop-work Meeting,² members decided that a special meeting of the Branch should be convened upon the return [to Sydney] of the “Aorangi” to hear a report from the crew relative to the Vancouver Longshoremen’s dispute.  This meeting was held on July 16, at which the report from the crew of the “Aorangi” was tendered. [A Company Union]Up to the time of this report, we had no reliable source of information beyond that which was contained in the cable¹.Rumour had it that the Vancouver Longshoremen’s Union, then on strike, was an Employers’ Union.  Doubt which existed on this point is now entirely dispelled, and we are indebted to the crew of the “Aorangi” for this information.To publish the whole of their typewritten report would by far exceed my allotted space in the “Journal”; hence we publish and confine our remarks to that portion of the report [that relates to the Vancouver Longshoremen’s Union] in order that members may fairly judge the action of the crew of the “Aorangi” and the [caustic] attitude of the [Communist newspaper] the “Marine Worker” towards me, bearing in mind the judgement hinges on the question of ³whether or not the Vancouver Longshoremen’s Union is a bona-fide Union, in keeping with Trades Union movement traditions,or merely a body formed and sustained by the employers, who for twelve long years have engaged in anti-working-class activities almost unparalleled in the history of the Trade Union movement. The Crew’s Report[Here follows the section of the crew’s report that deals with the Vancouver Longshoremen’s Union.]

Report of the Aorangi Crew wrote:

“The Longshoremen’s Union of Canada, Vancouver, B.C., was organised and launched by the Shipping Federation in 1923, and operated against the bona-fide Union of Water Transport Workers then on strike, called and operating throughout the whole of the United States and extended to Canada, affecting the Water Transport Industry at Victoria [B.C.], New Westminster, Vancouver, and several other ports in British Columbia.The Company Union (Vancouver Longshoremen’s Union of Canada) [has] continued in existence [solely] by privilege of the Shipping Federation having absolute monopoly of [allocating] the work, right up until June 4, 1935.Their [Union] office and despatch premises [were] being supplied and maintained by the Shipping Federation, and no new members [were] possible for admission to the Union without first the sanction of Federation officials.  In fact, [it was a] closed membership operating up to the date of lock-out, June 4, 1935.On the same premises and immediately underneath [the Union office], the Shipping Federation also operated and maintained [its own Industry] premises to handle and despatch labour, [both when] occasionally required in the Industry, and [also] when the membership of the Longshoremen’s Union [on the floor] above [them] fell short of [company] requirements.This [cosy] practice was mutual as between the Shipping Federation and the Longshoremen’s Union, and [it had been] indulged in right up to the time of the lock-out, notwithstanding the Longshoremen’s Union of Canada having entered into and secured a new arrangement of working conditions, rules, etc., in October, 1934 [affecting all Canadian longshoremen].The Union as a body in the early part of 1935 refused to assist, by strike action, the appeal by San Francisco and California Marine Workers then engaged in a general strike⁴ (and extending to all Pacific and North American Ports), directed against the shipping interests’ attempts to enforce Company control, and conditioned Union throughout the Pacific Coast.”

[An “Aorangi” Crewman’s Letter]In addition to the foregoing, “here is the strikers’ case as I understand it”, writes one of the “Aorangi” to one of his friends aboard the “Niagara” in a letter dated June 23, 1935: “In the 1923 Vancouver Longshoremen’s Strike, the bona-fide Trade Union [the Union of Water Transport Workers] was smashed and its members starved off the waterfront by a new [i.e. a strike-breaking, or “scab”] organisation formed for the purpose.  After completing its dirty work, [the scab organisation] entered into a compact with the Boss⁵ to close its [employment list] books, in order that, for the future, its [own]strike-breaking personnel would have the monopoly of all the work that was available. “Since November last, its [i.e. this scab Union’s] relations with the Boss have become strained; minor disputes arose, a lock-out followed, and then a strike (a local one). “[So] the Boss formed a new [i.e. another strike-breaking, or “scab”] organisation, a repetition of his 1923 tactics, and we [the Australian Unionists] are invited to participate in the resultant Donnybrook shoulder-to-shoulder with the strike-breakers of the previous conflict.” [Reply to Minority Movement Attacks on My Stance]What more striking illustration, what more evidence is required to show that this Vancouver Longshoremen’s Union, which has received the plaudits and the blessing of the [Minority Movement’s] “Marine Worker” in their issue of July 24, is purely a bogus strike-breaking body, launched, fostered, nursed and pampered by the Shipping interest in Vancouver since their strike-breaking tactics in 1923?Not being satisfied with their strike-breaking career, which defeated the bona-fide Waterside Workers’ Union in the 1923 struggle, this same body, for twelve long years, has collaborated with the employers on a closed-book policy, and by this method excluded the erstwhile stalwarts [of the original Union], and starved them off the waterfront, thus depriving them of a livelihood in an Industry which was, at one time, their legitimate calling.With all these facts at our disposal at the special Branch Meeting in Sydney on July 16, [at which the “ Aorangi” crew report was presented], when, in addition to what has been reported, the crew of the “Aorangi” stated that they had collected over $600 for the strikers, I [Jacob Johnson] expressed the view that I considered, in view of this body’s past revolting record, they had received all the support from the crew of the “Aorangi” I considered they deserved.I went on to further say, had I been aboard the “Aorangi” myself, it is doubtful whether, in the circumstances, I would have contributed so liberally to their financial assistance as was done by the crew.For these utterances I have been taken to task by an alleged Official Organ of so-called Militants, known as the “Marine Worker”.  In their issue of July 24, I am accused by one of its scribes on one page as making a “slimy attack” on the Vancouver Longshoremen’s Union, and on another page, “that I do not take working-class principles [sic] into consideration, or don’t know what I am talking about”.An old adage reminds us that “Birds of a feather flock together”.  The Minority Movement, through its alleged Official Organ, the “Marine Worker”, desperate to gain recognition somewhere, has selected to ally itself with this bogus Vancouver Longshoremen’s Union, which, for twelve long years, has violated every working-class principle.The history of the Vancouver Longshoremen’s Union is repugnant to and stinks in the nostrils of the average Trades Unionist.  The role played by the “Marine Worker”, in attempting to white-wash it, is more revolting, particularly when it is borne in mind that in the process of so doing a vile attempt is made to besmirch the character of others.Bereft of anything constructive, this Organ exists mainly on a policy of serif-glorification and vilification of its opponents.  Misrepresentation is the motto of the scribes.  With them, lying appears a virtue, truth a vice.⁶The emancipation of the working class is allegedly their objective, but wherever they tread their way a devastating trail of wreckage is left behind.  If a Union move is a success, and although they may never participate in it, they claim the kudos.  In case of failure, they attribute the failure to others.The Vancouver Longshoremen’s Union is a body of original strike breakers.  For twelve long years they have violated every working-class principle and, because of one minor skirmish with their erstwhile pets—the employers—they are now hailed by the mouthpiece of the so-called Militants, the “Marine Worker”, as martyrs to the cause.Is it the desire of the so-called Militants, by taking up the cudgels on their behalf, and the condemnation of others, through the columns of the “Marine Worker” and elsewhere, to mould the Trades Union movement in this country into similar anti-working-class activities as those indulged in for so many years by the Vancouver Longshoremen’s Union?  Should they succeed, we may see in the past of that body an image of our own future.Time alone will be the deciding factor; for the time being we leave them to it.  But, in conclusion, let us remind the “Marine Worker” and its supporters that it requires more than the vapourings of their distorted press to convince us that the history of twelve years of anti-working-class activities, such as indulged in by the Vancouver Longshoremen’s Union, can be absolved in the partaking of one minor skirmish with their former allies, the employers.  Jacob Johnson, General Secretary.

 ↩ [Table of Contents] Editor’s Notes¹ Cable [= cablegram or telegram].  Referred to as a “lettergram" in installment 6. ↩ [Back]² Stop Work Meeting.  (Details to come). ↩ [Back]³ I have taken the liberty of explicitly listing the two points for “bearing in mind the judgement hinges on”.  The original text runs them on at the end of an already very long sentence. ↩ [Back]⁴ This allegation in the “Aorangi” Crew Report on the Longshoremen’s Union was printed in bold in the “Seamen’s Journal”.  It turned out to be false.  The “Seamen’s Journal” printed an immediate retraction and apology, two months later, in the issue 25 October 1935 issue, which appears in Installment 8 (below). ↩ [Back]⁵ Boss.  The Shipping Federation. ↩ [Back]⁶ These sentences are referenced in Installment 6 (above). ↩ [Back] ↩ [Table of Contents] THE 1935 AUSTRALIAN SEAMEN’S STRIKE — Installment 7

[twc]

            [8] ECHO OF VANCOUVER LONGSHORE DISPUTE[Meanwhile the Minority Movement, in its vicious assault upon the Seamen’s Union, stoops to blacken the reputation of the Union by resorting to personal accusations against its NSW Branch Secretary, Chris Herbert, together with two of its members, Bert Murray and T. Fleming, on a trumped-up charge of sabotaging the Vancouver Longshoremen’s Strike by secretly conspiring to prevent the crew of the “Niagara” from supporting the Strike.The Minority Movement purports to possess an incriminating letter from Herbert to the Vancouver Strike Committee, but cannot produce a copy.Bert Murray jumps to the defence of all three Unionists against the Minority Movement’s slurs.  He is being accused of the very thing that he, as a loyal Unionist, shuns.  Here is a man fighting to preserve his reputation, and that of the Union, for decency, against men who have no conception of decency.The “Seamen’s Journal” of 25 October 1935, starting on page 10, gives Bert Murray adequate space to defend his and his colleagues’ reputations, and that of the Union.  In so doing Murray challenges his accusers from the Minority Movement to make good their claims or leave the Union.Watch him at work.] 

Bert Murray, Seamens Journal, wrote:

Sydney, October, 1935, To the Members of the Seamen’s Union:The inspired, or rather conspired attack by the Sydney Militant Minority Movement, involving Member T. Fleming and the writer [i.e. Bert Murray], as well as impeaching the office and name of the Sydney Branch Secretary, Mr C. Herbert, occasioned when the latter received correspondence from the Vancouver Longshoremen’s Union, reflecting on and referring to both Member T. Fleming and the writer in most scurrilous terms and preferring charges generally (which could only be the result of misrepresentation by secret correspondence, directed by a person or persons connected with the Militant Minority Party), makes it imperative that the “subject” of this attack should be brought immediately under your notice. Return to SydneyOn the arrival of the M.V. “Aorangi” from Vancouver in July last, a special meeting of the Sydney Branch, which had been arranged prior to the arrival of the ship, was held on July 16 in the Mechanics’ Institute (two days before her departure [i.e. while she was still in port in Sydney after returning from Vancouver, and before departing for New Zealand?]).The official ship’s delegates tendered their reports, covering the history and conduct of the whole crew in relation to the Vancouver Longshoremen’s dispute and, as up to the time of arrival in Sydney, answered all questions therein which were directed to them by the meeting.These were supplemented by a general report rendered by T. Fleming, who had acted on the ship throughout as chairman of all mass meetings, and also represented the entire ship’s crew, including members of the Stewards’ and Cooks’ Unions.  This was further confirmed by the Assistant Secretary reading up to the meeting a lengthy, detailed typewritten report affecting the whole matter, which the writer had been commissioned to have ready for the use of the delegates, and which was also to be supplied to all Unions on arrival in New Zealand and Sydney.I accepted then and still do, all responsibility for the contents of this report, with the exception of one inaccuracy, wherein such report should have read, “Vancouver Longshoremen’s Union had responded with assistance in the early part of this year (1935), on the call of the San Francisco Marine Unions”, and avail myself of the opportunity to rectify the previous inaccurate statement.After a full and amicable general discussion, a resolution was moved by Member Keenan and amended by Assistant Branch Secretary A. E. McLaughlin, but the decision, after a further amendment moved by the General Secretary was, in substance, “that the action of the crew of the M.V. “Aorangi” in respect of the Vancouver Longshoremen’s dispute, be endorsed, and the crew complimented upon their conduct”. Bogus CorrespondenceUnlike members of the Union generally agreeing to loyally abide by and recognise decisions secured at properly constituted meetings, especially on matters affecting membership in the Union, the Militant Minority Party, being well represented at the meeting in name, but defeated by vote, immediately set into operation their outside political machinery and Party organisation, to “sabotage” both the decision and members of the Seamen’s Union, by directing to Vancouver such matters which later on resulted in the Sydney Branch Secretary receiving inspired correspondence from the Vancouver Strike Committee containing scurrilous accusations against Fleming and myself.This correspondence, which purported to be a reply to a letter allegedly sent by Mr Herbert [to] Vancouver, was read out, and became the subject of a lengthy debate at the Sydney Branch September Stop-work Meeting.Mr Herbert at the meeting emphatically denied ever having corresponded with this body; it is, therefore, quite obvious that a generally misleading report of the Sydney July Special Meeting had been supplied from Sydney by someone who was not at all particular about speaking the truth.When challenged at the September Stop-work Meeting, Member Kleppe, who was a member of the Minority Party as well as the Seamen’s Union, and a former member of the “Aorangi” crew, admitted being the instrument for conveying correspondence to the Vancouver Strike Committee.  When pressed to produce a copy of such correspondence, Kleppe stated that he could not supply a copy to the meeting.For the purpose of unearthing these unsavory tactics of the M.M., I moved a resolution indicating that the fullest investigations should be made.Member Keenan, scenting the danger of such investigations, which might expose the intriguing tactics of the M.M. and their underhand workings, moved an amendment purposely intended to sidetrack such investigations.However, in spite of his most elaborate appeal to members to support him in his amendment, the resolution was carried.The resolution provides for:—The Branch Secretary to write to Vancouver and request official information and copies of any correspondence received by them, which was allegedly signed by him.Promise, on receipt of same, to re-examine and institute an inquiry, and pass judgment where required.Copy of resolution to be forwarded to New Zealand Unions and all people named in Vancouver Longshoremen’s correspondence.Certified copies of all correspondence and resolutions affecting matters in name to be supplied by Branch Secretary to Fleming and Murray to assist, where necessary, in defending both their character and membership in the Seamen’s Union. A ChallengeIn the correspondence referred to, apart from the scurrilous remarks, the Vancouver Strike Committee charges Fleming and myself with having influenced the crew of the “Niagara” against participating in the Vancouver Longshoremen’s dispute.I here give an unqualified denial of ever having corresponded with the “Niagara” crew on the matter, and have also Fleming’s assurance and authority to say that he never corresponded with members of the ship’s crew.As regards myself I am prepared to voluntarily surrender my membership in the Seamen’s Union, if such charge is supported by the facts.I am now asking: Will the person, whether of the Militant Minority Party or merely members of this Union responsible for such accusations, come out into the open and sustain this charge? Will they also agree to my challenge to get out of the Seamen’s Union if they fail to prove the same?When the language contained in the letters of this inspired attack, together with the passionate expostulate ones of Member Keenan and others, along with the means at their disposal, such as political machinery, organisations and press, which they use to secure their own aims and objects (and especially between Seamen’s elections, in defeating by all or any means or methods, preferably by sabotage and misrepresentation, the decisions of members and elected officials of the Seamen’s Union) are considered, it is only consistent that the Militant Minority Party and its experienced or more timid sympathisers should be found voting against a resolution which has for its object, not only redress for Fleming, the [present] writer, and all concerned, but to force out and expose in the open the people who masquerade as members of the Seamen’s Union, but refuse to respect its rulings and decisions, preferring allegiance to the orders and instructions issued from outside bodies, whose aim and object seems to be to usurp the powers of members and elected officials of the Seamen’s Union.Space in the Journal will not permit a more comprehensive review, nor a discussion on the Vancouver Longshoremen’s dispute with the Shipping Federation of British Columbia.  [However,] the composition of this Union as a Shipping-controlled Association has already been explained in a previous issue of the Journal.Since I made my first report on this matter—and I am still of that opinion now—the crew of the “Aorangi” gave sufficient support to their cause when they responded to the Longshoremen’s appeal for financial assistance to the extent of over $600, and were accordingly eulogised and thanked by that body.As a matter of fact, now when one has had time off to give the Vancouver Longshoremen’s dispute mature and calm consideration, and taking into account this body’s past anti-Trade Unionist record, it might well be questioned perhaps whether the “Aorangi” crew did not make a mistake in even supporting them financially. For Majority ControlIn conclusion, pending replies and/or any information from Vancouver Longshoremen, now officially called for by the Seamen’s Union in the terms of the resolution carried at the September Stop-work Meeting, I am authorized by Member Fleming to express his absolute agreement, along with the writer, in declaring and demanding that the Seamen’s Union shall be ruled by its members and duly elected officials from within the Union, and shall not be subject to attempted rule by unauthorised Minorities or outside bodies masquerading under cover of membership of the Union,      Yours truly,          Bert J. Murray

 ↩ [Table of Contents] THE 1935 AUSTRALIAN SEAMEN’S STRIKE — Installment 8

[twc]

        [9] PHOTOGRAPHS OF JOHNSON, CASEY and CLARKE The following photographs of Jacob Johnson, Bill Casey and Bill Clarke are reproduced from press photography, with written permission obtained from Fairfax Syndication ¹.They are taken from the Fairfax archive of glass plate negatives [picture] between 1890 and 1948. Bill Casey and Jacob Johnson, ca. 1925Fig. 1.  Mr Jacob Johnson speaking to a man during his deportation case, New South Wales, ca. 1925.[Bill Casey (in profile) is at the left, and Jacob Johnson is at the right.]Medium:  1 negative: glass, b&w; 8·3×10·8 cm.Photographer:  Unknown.  [Fairfax Syndication]Fairfax Number:  4718National Library of Australia identifier:  nla.pic-vn6296204  http://nla.gov.au/nla.pic-vn6296204 Jacob Johnson and Bill Clarke, ca. 1928Fig. 2.  Jacob Johnson with two other men, New South Wales, ca. 1928.[Jacob Johnson is in the centre, and Bill Clarke (hatless) is at the right.]Medium:  1 negative: glass, b&w; 8·3×10·8 cm.Photographer:  Unknown.  [Fairfax Syndication]Fairfax Number:  6736National Library of Australia identifier:  nla.pic-vn6247919  [http://nla.gov.au/nla.pic-vn6247919] ↩ [Table of Contents] Editor’s Notes¹ Fairfax Syndication.[http://www.fairfaxsyndication.com/C.aspx?VP3=CMS3&VF=FXJO50_1] ↩ [Back] ↩ [Table of Contents] THE 1935 SEAMEN’S STRIKE — Installment 9

[twc]

Fair Dinkum, Mate!Here is a link to a blog by a gentle Australian female artist, who normally writes and paints artistic matters:http://wotansdaughter.blogspot.com.auHer blog does not have a permalink, so look for the blog of Sunday, April 06, 2014. Her earlier blogs back to the Misogyny song of March 20, 2014 are also well worth a look.Richard WagnerThis lady is passionate about the work of the German composer Richard Wagner, and calls her blog after one of the finest heroines in all of human art, Brünnhilde, the daughter of Wotan.Richard Wagner was a revolutionary in the Dresden Uprising of 1849.  He was reading Hegel’s Phenomenolgy in the watch tower, while scouting on the lookout for the arrival of the counter-revolutionary troops.  His closest revolutionary companion was Bakunin, who earlier upon hearing Wagner conduct Beethoven’s Ninth Symphony, with its revolutionary cry “Alle Menschen werden Brüder" [All mankind will be brothers], observed that if all else vanishes in flames, this symphony must survive.Wagner composed the greatest artistic work ever to embody the spirit of a philosopher, and that philosopher was none other than the materialist Ludwig Feuerbach.Wagner’s embodiment of Feuerbach is, of course, The Ring, and it concludes in Feuerbachian fashion with Twilight of the Gods, the end of religious illusion.Its “hero”, Siegfried, heroic not traditionally but in a Feuerbachian liberatory art-supersedes-religion sense [giving us a closer glimpse of Feuerbach, and showing us where his only other serious protégé besides Marx was led] was based on none other than the young revolutionary Bakunin.We can consider Wagner and Bakunin as nearly-young-Hegelians.[Wagner’s own, often unpleasant, protégé was the anti-revolutionary Friedrich Nietzsche, who dwelled in his household through his formative years, and is familiar for pithy phrases, just like Proudhon, such as “God is Dead”.]One final observation of mine.  The year 1859 was the year that Darwin [Origin of Species], Wagner [Tristan and Isolde] and Marx [A Contribution towards a Critique of Political Economy] set the world irrevocably on a new course.  We are their heirs.  Let us do them justice!Yes, in Aussie slang, “Fair Dinkum”.  Australia has reintroduced knighthoods, legislates to allow people to be bigots, and now this.

[twc]

Moderator1, if it’s OK with you, I’ll place future instalments in the World Socialist Movement forum, so that they don’t clutter up proceedings here in the General Discussion forum.

[twc]

The 1935 Seamen’s StrikeW. J. ClarkeIntroductionThe following work was intended to be part of a larger [history]¹ but publication [in 1981] of “The Seamen’s Union of Australia 1872–1972: A History”² makes it incumbent on me to publish this extract from the larger work.³I chose to do this because I believe that much of the material in this “History” is not only laced with deliberate departures from the facts of actual history, but contains errors based upon ignorance of many significant details of the subject matter.It is imperative that readers should have an opportunity to ascertain the truth of that part of their⁴ history this extract relates to.Illness and other misfortunes⁵ have delayed my complete history and, in these circumstances, I have chosen the chapter on “The 1935 Seamen’s Strike” for two reasons:It is probably the most important point in the history of the union.It is that part of the work by Fitzpatrick and Cahill which contains the most errors, intentional or otherwise.W.J.C Editor’s Notes¹ I have transcribed the author’s own photocopy of his original typewriter script prepared during the 1980s.  The text is complete.  It contains minor typing errors, which I have minimally edited, solely for readability, in order to do justice to the author’s content.  Where I felt it necessary to amend his text, for more than readability, I have gone further than standard, but silent, book editorial practice, and have placed my alterations inside square brackets, as [here].  These may be checked by future historians against the original, to be deposited in the archives of the SPGB.² Brian Fitzpatrick and Rowan Cahill, “The Seamen’s Union of Australia 1872–1972: A History”, [Seamen's Union of Australia, Sydney, 1981].  Clearly the publication of this work forced Bill Clarke’s hand.³ The remaining chapters are incomplete, and are distributed, non-systematically, among numerous folders and boxes.  It would take considerable effort to compile them into a completed work.The author considered this chapter to be the most important.  It should eventually be supplemented with a transcript of “The Crooks Exposed”, and Bill Casey’s report to the union of the First Red Trade Union International (in the Tom Walsh papers at the National Archives in Canberra).  Originals, or photocopies, to be deposited for safekeeping with the SPGB.⁴ Clearly Bill Clarke intended this chapter to be read by members of the Seamen’s Union of Australia.⁵ Bill Clarke, born in 1899, wrote this work during the 1980s.  His gentle life-long companion, Marie, died suddenly while he was writing it in 1983.  They had been deeply close for over six decades, and he suffered her loss deeply.  Debilitating illness hampered his writing as he approached his 90th year. THE 1935 SEAMEN’S STRIKE — Installment 1

[twc]

alanjjohnstone wrote:

One point I might raise now is calling miniscule groups of socialists "political parties" actually honest or beneficial if they are not performing as political parties. Should we call ourselves socialist study groups.

Yes, for groups, like the Australians, which no longer perform as political parties.No, for groups, like the New Zealanders, who do perform as a political party.Resoundingly No, for the SPGB.  It is a functioning political party. The SPGB is the political party of world socialism.  It is Marx’s scientific party.Our shared Obj and DOP imply that an adhering group of sufficient size to function as a viable party of world socialism is a party of world socialism, and should be recognized, independent of size, to be a party of world socialism.

[twc]

Joining a Communist Manifesto reading group sounds fabulous.I have some comments to make, which bring in (1) our Obj and (2) our DOPThe Manifesto starts “The history of all hitherto existing society is the history of class struggles.”.By then, Marx hadn’t figured out what the class struggle was about.  [Maybe he had, but he doesn’t state it explicitly.  We, of the socialist party, can.]The socialist party knows what our Object tells us the class struggle is about:  ownership and control of the means of life [≡ the means and instruments of social reproduction].If society as a whole doesn’t own and control the means of living, which boils down to society not owning and controlling the means of its own living, then a class of society owns and controls them. Ownership and control is all that makes a social class.  The class doesn’t have to toil with a pick down a mine or smoke cigars in a boardroom. If a class of society owns and controls the means of life then that class of society robs and rules the rest of us.Until people comprehend that they are robbed and ruled by part of society, they have no need to change society.  As soon as they comprehend that they are robbed and ruled, well … [write on the dotted line.]The Immediate Demands are the cause of our modern woes, and most are being whittled away in the interests of private capital.This is where our DOP comes in as the only path for realizing our Obj.

[twc]

LBird wrote:

As for your [twc’s] assertion that "no serious developer writes GO TO's"… it makes me wonder if you live in our world.

If that ain’t endorsing the use of GOTOs by serious programmers, I don’t know what is.It might have been wiser to let sleeping dogs lie.

[Author]

Posts