With the experience of 1926’s General Strike still fresh, Charles Ashleigh speaks to specific issues in organizing London’s vast territory and population.

‘The Problem of London’ by Charles Ashleigh from The Daily Worker. Vol. 4 No. 25. February 11, 1927.

To the revolutionist, and especially to the National Minority Movement of Great Britain, London presents problems which do not exist in any other part of the country.

These problems arise out of the great size of the city, with its seven millions of population, and the residential distribution of its workers.

In the earlier days, London was not often mentioned as an industrial centre. It was prominent, in working-class politics, as the political centre of the country; but, when it came to a consideration of industry, one heard more of South Wales, as a mining area, of Glasgow and the whole Clyde, for its engineering and shipbuilding, or of Manchester, and near-by towns, as a textile centre.

Yet, London is one of the greatest industrial areas in Britain. The only reason why we do not think of it as such, is because it is mixed, in its industrial nature—not confined to any one specific industry—and also because its industrial character is often overshadowed by its importance as a financial, commercial and political centre. Yet, a visit to the great East End of London, with its miles of dingy streets, will convince any observer of the immensity of its proletarian population. The docks of London—the greatest port of Britain—alone provide employment for thousands of dockers; and it is a particularly suitable place for propagandist approach to seamen—a class which has been more misled, perhaps, by reformist trade union leaders, than any other—who, in their thousands, are to be found in the dock-yards district of the city.

In London, again, there reside and work more railroad employees than in any other city in the country. The great passenger and freight stations, like King’s Cross, Euston, St. Pancreas, and others, employ thousands of railway workers of all types and grades. Among these members of the National Union of Railwaymen, there is an urgent need of a properly organized campaign, in order to enlighten them on the character and actions of their leaders, Thomas, Cramp and others. Here, alone, is the opportunity for a considerable and valuable task, for the London organization of the National Minority Movement.

General manufacturing is also widely spread in London. A visit to the East End will reveal the surprising number of factories—of chemical products, furniture, clothing, and other goods—whose gigantic buildings overshadow the neighboring streets of small and unhygienic houses.

Engineering is an industry which has greatly grown in London, during the last ten years. There are suburbs, notably Chiswick and other western sections, where engineering works, including large automobile factories, have appeared in large numbers.

The task of providing adequate organizational expression for the great trade-unionist population of London has been poorly performed, so far. One of the obstacles is the fact that the workers live so far from the scene of their daily labors. For is instance, it not uncommon for workers in London to have to travel six or seven kilometres, by train or tramway, to their work. When a worker has finished for the day, therefore, he usually desires to leave at once for his home; and it is difficult to get him to remain in the neighborhood for a trade unions or other meeting. The result of this is that many workers are organized in trade unions according to residential area, rather than according to the place where they work. The drawback of this system may instantly be observed. A worker belongs, perhaps, to a branch of his union where there is no other member working in the same firm.

London Divisions.

This same evil applies partly in the case of the trades and labor councils. London is divided into a number of boroughs, for the purposes of civic administration. The labor councils, local bodies to which are affiliated the local trade union branches, follow the same divisions. Thus, each borough in London has its own labor council. Often, the militant worker, who is elected by his trade union branch as delegate to a labor council, must travel for an hour or two hours, to and from the meetings of that body.

Besides the various labor councils in the boroughs, there is also the London Trades Council. This body is supposed to function for all London, but, for a long time, it has been only imperfectly representative of the London trade union movement, because of poor affiliation. Of late, however, the London Trades Council has increased its affiliations, and its activities. Whereas only local branches of trade unions affiliate with the borough trades (or labor) councils, bodies representing the entire London membership of unions—such as district committees—affiliate to the London Trades Council.

Building Up Councils.

The London trade-unionist militants, organized in the National Minority Movement, seek to make the London Trades Council a really powerful body, properly representative of the whole London trade-union movement. This can be done by seeing that every London trade union body is affiliated, as well as the borough trades and labor councils. Also, it is necessary to increase the activities and stimulate the militancy of the London Trades Council, so that the organized workers of the metropolis will look to it as the fighting representative body for the entire trade-union movement of the city.

To Modify Organization.

In order to cope with these tasks, the Minority Movement in London has been recently compelled to modify its organizational structure. The London District Committee has formed a number of borough sub-committees, formed of local comrades, which will undertake the general propagandist activities of the Minority Movement in each borough, and also direct the activities of the Minority Movement members who are delegates to the various labor councils. Yet, care had to be exercised not to interfere with the industrial sections of the minority movement, which carry on agitational and educational work within specific unions throughout the whole London district. The co-ordination of the two aspects of the work—industrial and local is now going on successfully.

Must Be Adaptable.

The intricate and difficult problem of London and the special provisions made by the Minority Movement to deal with it—show that the revolutionary working-class movement must always possess a certain capacity for adaptation, a very necessary flexibility which, while in no way modifying the steadfastness of its principles, enables it to cope with the special problems which arise in huge, congested areas, where a variety of industries are situated, rather than one predominant one.

The creation of a well-organized London district committee, and of the local sub-committees, is the answer of the Minority Movement to the fatalistic despair of many disheartened militants, who were discouraged by the immensity of the task confronting us. And, already, it is apparent that the new methods are practical, and that progress will be made.

The Daily Worker began in 1924 and was published in New York City by the Communist Party US and its predecessor organizations. Among the most long-lasting and important left publications in US history, it had a circulation of 35,000 at its peak. The Daily Worker came from The Ohio Socialist, published by the Left Wing-dominated Socialist Party of Ohio in Cleveland from 1917 to November 1919, when it became became The Toiler, paper of the Communist Labor Party. In December 1921 the above-ground Workers Party of America merged the Toiler with the paper Workers Council to found The Worker, which became The Daily Worker beginning January 13, 1924.

PDF of full issue: https://www.marxists.org/history/usa/pubs/dailyworker/1927/1927-ny/v04-n025-NY-feb-11-1927-DW-LOC.pdf