Uncovering the Fingerprint of Communism on the British Coalminers' Strike

British coalminers' union accepted communist funds

A dirty secret of the cold war has come to light recently, as a study by Dr Norman LaPorte and Stefan Berger have revealled that Britain's National Union of Mineworkers accepted funds from East Germany in the midst of its 1984-85 coalminer's strike.

The revelation casts further light on a key page of cold war history.

The strike was considered a key ideological confrontation of the cold war. The British coal industry had been nationalized since 1946, when the Labour Party government of Clement Attlee passed the Coal Industry Nationalization Act. Coal mining in Britain would henceforth be managed by the National Coal Board until its privatization by the Thatcher government in 1987.

The strike began when the Thatcher government moved to close coal pits that were unprofitable, and had become a liability to the government. (The Tories had already attempted once to do this in 1981, but abandoned these plans in the face of a strike.)

The government's plan to close 20 pits -- at the cost of 20,000 jobs -- spurned the NUM to begin strike action.

But the Thatcher government was prepared for the strike. The conversion of many British power plants to oil, as well as pre-strike stockpiling of coal, allowed the government to ride the strike out and outlast NUM strikers.

If not for the financial intervention of the communist German Democratic Republic, one wonders how long the NUM could have held out.

The ferrying of these funds to NUM was seemingly an international affair.

"The documents talk about the possibility of using a 'go-between' from the French communist union CGT [General Confederation of Labour] who would deliver the money straight from Eastern Europe to representatives of the NUM," Berger explains. "They also allege that the East German FDGB union {Free German Trade Union Federation) helped the miners by providing free holidays for the families and children of British miners in the German Democratic Republic."

"The FDGB, the documents say, also co-ordinated the shipping of food parcels, clothing and so on to British miners," Berger continues.

The East German communists saw the coalminers' strike as a choice opportunity in the ideological struggle between communism and capitalism.

"The communists perceived the NUM as an ally in the international class struggle against capitalism - hence the close interest in the strike," Berger added.

Nor was the coalminers' strike the only time NUM associated with east European communists.

"Relations between the NUM and east European communism had been good since the 1960s," Berger explains. "It was among the first major trade union federations to call for the recognition of the GDR."

"However it was by no means the only union with a cosy relationship with East European communism," Berger continues. "By the late 1970s, 24 of 44 members of the general council of the Trades Union Congress represented unions which had 'fraternal relations' with East European communist unions."

"It was, above all, the anti-capitalism of left-of-centre British trade unionists which made them believe that East European communism was on the right path," Berger concludes. "The British Left ignored massive human rights abuses and the lack of basic freedoms behind the Iron Curtain because they believed that the basic development in the direction of socialism was right."

It was this same willful ignorance of the atrocities of communism that had turned George Orwell -- who helped popularize coalminers as a left-wing political cause celibre with The Road to Wigan Pier -- away from his admiration for socialism and led to the clear anti-communist attitude expressed in Animal Farm.

(Orwell, it could be said, may have been history's first neo-conservative.)

The revelations regarding the 1984-85 coalminers' strike could, in time, lead to deeper investigation of the 1974 coalminers' strike, in which NUM managed to bring down the Conservative government of sir Edward Heath.

With intrepid historians such as Stefan Berger and Dr Norman LaPorte exploring these issues, one can only wonder how many more such episodes could be revealled.

This Week in Political Irrelevance...

Canadian Communist Party apparently still exists

It's been said that old communists don't die, they just fantasize about a communist future.

Such was the case with the Communist Party of Canada this past week, as they met on the University of Alberta campus "to discuss a communist future".

Apparently, the fact that communism has no future has been entirely lost on them.

"[The Alberta election] will be an important testing ground," said Communist party leader Miguel Figeuroa. "Defeating the Tories in Alberta would go a long way to defeating them across the country, which would be in the best interest of the vast majority."

It seems that the historical tradition of the leaders of parties supported by the vast minority claiming to represent the vast majority remain intact.

He declined to comment on whether or not he'll be holding his breath until such a defeat occurs (although one can certainly hope he will).

"The re-election of the Harper Tories, especially if they get a majority, would be extremely detrimental to the future of our country, for our sovereignty, for preservation of the environment," Figueroa announced. "They’re representing the interests of Big Oil and Big Capital, not the long term interests of our country or our globe."

Figueroa also failed to comment on the Communist Party's links to big hammer and big sickle.

It all turns out to be fairly heady stuff. Just listening to Figueroa, one would think that communism wasn't a momentous disaster in virtually every country in which it was imposed, and that some of the most egregious violations of human rights weren't perpetrated by communist regimes.

Then, one remembers that they were.

Of course, old communists like Figueroa like to try and soften their message by speaking about their brand of "social democracy". Then, they say things like this: "You can’t have genuine political democracy when the economy is profoundly undemocratic. Capitalism runs rampant; globalization is increasing disparities between the rich and poor. ... Rights working people had fought for decades to win—trade union rights, social programs like healthcare and education—are all coming under attack."

"The idea of counter-posing the individual to the needs of the community as a whole has been brought to its zenith under capitalism," he continued. "You get ahead at the expense of others; it’s a cutthroat society, law of the jungle. Is humanity doomed always to have such attitudes? We don’t think so. But of course, it’s not going to happen overnight."

At the end of the day, individuals like Figueroa are still talking about communism, while pretending that a miraculous transformation of human nature will somehow make this glorious wonderland possible, and indulging in the fantasy that, by golly, if only they could get Mixed Member Plurality voting in place, maybe they could even get their foot in the political door.

Meanwhile, Figueroa, elected as Communist Party glorious leader in 1992, has continually been reelected to the position. Whether one should consider this a statement on the health of the communist movement in Canada, or a lack of aforementioned democracy within the Communist Party (gee, who'd've thunk that?), one may judge for oneself.

When people like Figueroa simply refuse to accept their irrelevance (although it's hardly as if their acceptance of this fact matters), one thing is for certain: at least they keep things interesting -- even if it's only by making amusing spectacles of themselves.

Then again, considering that Figueroa and his so-called "round table" discussion barely managed to warrant mention in a University newspaper, it seems the Canadian Communist Party isn't even relevant enough to do that properly.