Remembering Walter Ayles

 by Alex Kempshall

 

TRADE unionists and labour movement activists came together last Sunday to honour the life of Walter Ayles, one of Bristol's conscientious objectors during World War One. The event, organised by Bristol's Remembering the Real World War One group, culminated with the unveiling of a Blue plaque in the St Andrews district of Bristol. Relatives of Bristol conscientious objectors were also present, one of whom unveiled the plaque.

Roger Balls set the scene by reminding those gathered that a few days before the start of the war Bristol dockers had held an open meeting addressed by Ernest Bevin (national organiser Dockers Union) and Ben Tillett (general secretary National Transport Workers Federation), which took the position to oppose the war.

Colin Thomas, author of recently published biography of Walter Ayles, Slaughter No Remedy, gave a brief résumé of Walter's life.

It wasn't only his opposition to war that was significant to the people of Bristol. In 1910 Ayles took up the job of Bristol full-time secretary of the Independent Labour Party.  Shortly after he published [Bristol’s Next Step], which argued that transport, gas and water “must not be entrusted to private individuals any longer, but must be placed in the hands of the people themselves”.

In April 1916 he was arrested for distributing Repeal the Act – a pamphlet calling for the repeal of the Military Service Act under which conscription was introduced.

The unveiling of the plaque, on 17th April, took place on the centenary of the day that Ayles was first arrested. There was poetry, song and excerpts, spoken by an actor, from a statement that Ayles made to Bristol Magistrates.

“If I believed in the efficacy of slaughter to remedy evils, I would long ago have advocated the killing of those who, year after year, have been responsible for the sweated, the starved and the slummed. I know however in my heart of hearts that slaughter being wrong is no remedy.”

He was sentenced by to 61 days in prison.

On his release from prison Ayles was conscripted. Like many others he applied for conscientious objector status at a Military Service Tribunal, where he pointed out: “Because horrible outrages and ghastly crimes have been committed by others that is no reason why I too should kill and destroy… I can only help to prevent them by a refusal to join in war. Hate cannot be destroyed by hate. It can only be transformed by love.”

His application was refused and he was handed over to the military. Refusing to wear uniform, he was court-martialled and served 112 days in prison with hard labour. On release he was conscripted again and imprisoned again. Overall he was imprisoned from April 1916 to February 1919. Whilst still in prison Ayles attempted to stand for Parliament in the 1918 election.

He later headed the “No War Movement” and became a Labour MP for Bristol North. In later years he became MP for Hayes and Harlington.

The current MP for Hayes and Harlington in West London, the Shadow Chancellor, John McDonnell, had previously sent a letter of support: “It is an honour to represent the constituency that Walter once served with such distinction.”

John McDonnell went on to describe Walter Ayles as “a courageous socialist and peace campaigner, who made such a contribution to our community”.

Bristol Radical History Group has recently published a biography of Walter Ayles – Slaughter No Remedy by Colin Thomas, price £2.50. Available online at www.brh.org.uk or from Hydra Bookshop, 34 Old Market Street, Bristol, BS2 0EZ.

The Establishment and all that...

REVIEW: The Establishment and how they get away with it by Owen Jones. Penguin Books, 2015, paperback 360 pages. £8.99.

ISBN-10: 0141974990; ISBN-13: 978-0141974996

By Ray Jones

THIS CAN be a useful book. Although much of its content will be recognised by regular New Worker readers it is an excellent quick reference source for information about many of the major struggles of the recent past. It would also be an ideal book to put in the way of political people who still have a soft spot for the status quo.

It is a blistering attack on the “Establishment”, interesting and well written. The author writes with righteous indignation on the corruption and short comings of the media, Parliament, police and bankers – with lots of hard facts and interviews to back up and enliven his case.

But the theory behind his arguments is essentially weak.

His idea that there have been different “Establishments” since the Second World War hardly survives his own description of it – slippery, changing according to circumstances, ready to adapt where it believes necessary and possible. Where is the need to divide it up?

It is rather misleading to do so. The division in the ruling class between radical free-trade non-interventionists and Keynesian social democrats is a natural one but at bottom it only one of degree, as the author himself strongly points out. It is their state and they will use it when and where they wish – they have to.

The author rightly thinks that one of the main problems for progress is that people do not see an alternative to the present system. From that position you might think he would examine some of the many successful attempts to build an alternative (that is socialism!) in the Soviet Union, German Democratic Republic, Yugoslavia, Cuba, China or Democratic Korea.

This not an easy area because this is where the ruling class ideological assault is arguably strongest, but if the working class thinks that all previous attempts to move forward have been disasters it is an enormous anchor on their struggles – so it must be tackled.

The author has a concept of gradually expanding democracy in which democracy is not tied to class. Like many others before him he thinks that democracy and participation can be gradually extended until we are in a new society.

Again he refuses to learn from history – the English Revolution, the French Revolution, the Russian Revolution, Cuba and Chile all show that the ruling class (a far better term than “Establishment”) will always fight to keep its dominance.

Owen Jones does not, I think, claim to be a Marxist and sadly this is all too evident in this book. A back bone of Marxism–Leninism might have turned this work from a useful and very readable reference work into a brilliant revolutionary document (although I doubt that Penguin would have published it!). Still, if it stirs people’s anger against the status quo then they may look about for more satisfying explanations and solutions.

Hail Caesar!

Film Review

By Caroline Colebrook

Directors: Ethan Coen, Joel Coen Writers: Joel Coen , Ethan Coen.

Stars: Josh Brolin, George Clooney, Alden Ehrenreich Ralph Fiennes, Jonah Hill, Scarlett Johansson, Frances McDormand, Tilda Swinton and Channing Tatum, Hail, Caesar!

106 minutes

HAIL CAESAR! is a great comedy film for lefties and film buffs alike, set in a giant Hollywood film studio in the early 1950s. It follows a day in the life of the studio problem fixer, Eddie Mannix (played by Josh Brolin). He is clearly a man under serious stress, concerned over whether the studio’s biblical sword-and-sandals epic, [Hail Caesar!] and its restrained portrayal of the “Supreme being” is going to upset any religious community, he consults with Jewish, Muslim, Catholic and Greek Orthodox leaders.

The studio’s glamorous swimming star, DeeAnna Moran, played by Scarlett Johannson, is having problems fitting into her mermaid costume as her pregnancy advances. Mannix must find a way of enabling her to adopt her own baby so that the film-going public will never realise she is not a virgin.

And he has to appease film director Laurence Laurentz (could be either Noel Coward or Laurence Olivier), played by Ralph Fiennes, when the studio boss insists the lead role in a literary drama, Merrily we Dance is given to Hobie Doyle, played by Alden Ehrenreich. He is the star of cowboy films, could be Roy Rogers or Gene Autrey – great at performing tricks on the back of a horse or with a lasso but, as Laurence Laurentz puts it: “A dust actor; the man barely knows how to talk.”

And all the time Mannix has to ward off twin rival gossip columnists Thora and Thessaly Thacker, both played by Tilda Swinton.

Meanwhile Mannix is being tempted to quit tinsel town and go to work for Lockheed, the armaments company that was then testing H-bombs on Bikini Atoll in the South Pacific.

Mannix’s problems multiply when his lead actor in Hail Caesar!, Baird Whitlock played by George Clooney, is drugged and abducted by a strange group who call themselves “The Future” and are demanding a ransom.

The action goes lightly from one studio set to another and we see cowboy horse riding and rope tricks as well as great well-choreographed song-and-dance sets from a synchronised swimming water ballet to a bar-room full of American sailors about to set sail for the South Pacific (and the Bikini Atoll?).

The film is full of subtle and not-so-subtle references to classic Hollywood films and some cleverly crafted political jokes. To go into more detail would spoil it for viewers. Just have confidence in the writers. Even so, it is probably worth seeing more than once to make sure you catch all the jokes and nuances.

The Propaganda Game

Review

The Propaganda Game (2015)

98 minutes
Classification: 15

by Dermot Hudson

 

Spanish director and actor Álvaro Longoria has won critical acclaim for films about Fidel Castro and Ernesto "Che" Guevara  over the years. Last year he set out to investigate and explore the theme of the propaganda war against the Democratic People's Republic of Korea (DPRK). This film is a result of his visit to the DPRK arranged by the Korean Friendship Association (KFA) and the DPRK Committee For Cultural Relations.

  The primary strength of the film is that the fascinating footage of the DPRK, showing the carefree lives of working people in the DPRK and the fact that Alejandro Cao de Benos, the founder  and President of the KFA, plus officials of the DPRK Cultural Relations Committee and ordinary working people are able to put the case for the DPRK. They are able to point out that housing is free of charge and that the people of the DPRK do not pay taxes.

Some of the Koreans interviewed expressed surprise and dismay at some of the lies being peddled about the DPRK, such as the story about laws about hairstyles!

  Unfortunately, probably as a concession to capitalist commercial interests, the film does include some anti-DPRK material from various 'defectors' and so-called experts on the DPRK including Andrei Lankov, a Russian “liberal” academic who is professor of Korean Studies at Kookmin University in Seoul, the capital of the puppet south Korean regime, along with some prominent members of the so-called “human rights” gang.

            The audience is also treated to theatrical and plastic celebrity defector Yeomi Park, who also appears in the film. The DPRK has made a documentary exposing this unsavoury young lady and her background. Others have also taken apart her story.

  “Seeing is believing” as Koreans say and basically the reality of the DPRK disproved these ill-minded and hired slanderers. We saw Korean people at work and at play, relaxing or at wedding ceremonies. Longoria said that he saw no evidence of the black market capitalist economy that some so-called experts claim exists. Longoria, though, is clearly neither a socialist nor a communist because he seemed to be puzzled by how the DPRK's construction boom is funded. “Where is the money coming from?” he asked twice. Well we can tell him that is socialist planning, socialist ownership and  Juché that provides the wherewithal for all the construction.

  Regrettably and bizarrely Longoria appears to doubt that the Catholic church in Pyongyang is genuine and he also has a one-sided take on reunification, seeing it only as meaning south Korea absorbing the DPRK. He appeared to be totally ignorant of the DPRK proposals for a Confederal Republic and the inter-Korean agreements of 2000 and 2007. The possibility of the south Korean people rising up in a revolution against the puppet regime and reunifying with their brothers and sisters in the north also appears to have escaped his mind.

            Nevertheless, despite these shortcomings the DPRK and the KFA in the form of Alejandro Cao de Benos shine through in the film. The film contains a rare interview with Alejandro's parents for the first time. The no-nonsense, straight talking style of Alejandro in defending the DPRK is impressive. Some so-called friends of the DPRK have often shied away from such a robust defence of the DPRK but Alejandro was there in the film defending the DPRK, hammering the lies.

            If you are prepared to stomach some extreme anti-DPRK material and take some things with a pinch of salt then this is a very good film to watch. It is on a very limited UK release now.