Skip to main content

Red Square, 1919

One hundred years ago, on 31 January, 1919, Glasgow’s George Square witnessed tens of thousands of striking workers, many accompanied by their families, being baton-charged by police. Panicked officials read the Riot Act and the government later sent troops and tanks into the city. The Scottish historian Tom Devine says, “They thought a Bolshevik uprising was about to begin in Glasgow.”

Factory owners wanted to maintain the 47-hour working week, while workers wanted a 40-hour week so that everyone could get a job.

John Foster, an emeritus professor at the University of the West of Scotland. “The factory owners wanted them to do more work so there would be fewer jobs and they would have a permanent unemployed workforce at their beck and call.”

The workers went on strike on 27 January and asked the city’s lord provost to put their claim to the national government. On the 31st, they gathered in George Square, outside the city chambers, to hear his response. Without warning, police made "a savage, totally unexpected assault." The authorities decided to read the Riot Act, a formal process giving them rights to unleash martial law and as the sheriff began to read the act it was torn from his hands.

In London, the war cabinet met at 3pm. The Scottish secretary, Robert Munro, claimed a Scottish Bolshevik revolution had begun and it was decided to send in troops from barracks in Scotland and northern England – but not from Glasgow’s own Maryhill barracks because men there might have sided with their embattled neighbours. 

Fighting raged across Glasgow. In one skirmish, two policemen were stripped of their uniforms and let loose semi-naked. 

Then the troops arrived. Machine gun posts were placed in George Square. Soldiers were sent to protect power stations, and six tanks were stationed in the city’s Cattle Market. By Saturday, the city was under military control. “The city chambers is like an armed camp,” the Observer reported that Sunday. “The quadrangle is full of troops and equipment, including machine guns.” By Sunday, however, Glasgow had returned to calm.

Willie Gallacher suggested that “Had there been an experienced revolutionary leadership, instead of a march to Glasgow Green there would have been a march to the city’s Maryhill Barracks. There we could easily have persuaded the soldiers to come out, and Glasgow would have been in our hands.” But it was only wishful thinking on his part.

 “This was a widely supported trade union dispute but it was a reformist not a revolutionary gathering and it turned into anarchy only because of political nervousness in London and maladroit policing,” explained Foster.

The workers lost the strike for a shorter working week although better working hours were slowly introduced by employers. The revolution never materialized. It did not trigger the downfall of UK capitalism. In fact, the Battle of George Square was not so much an outburst of revolutionary fervour as the outcome of hostile policing and a loss of nerve by the cabinet.

According to Devine, “The experience of being harshly treated helps explain the election success of Red Clydesiders.” 

In 1922, the Independent Labour Party – won 10 out of 15 Glasgow constituencies. Shinwell, Kirkwood and others became MPs

And the events of January 31st acquired a mythical status in the city.


ajohnstone said…

The BBC account of the event

Popular posts from this blog

What do we mean by no leaders

"Where are the leaders and what are their demands?" will be the question puzzled professional politicians and media pundits will be asking when the Revolution comes. They will find it inconceivable that a socialist movement could survive without an elite at the top. This view will be shared by some at the bottom. Lenin and his Bolshevik cohorts argued that we couldn't expect the masses to become effective revolutionaries spontaneously, all on their own. To achieve liberation they needed the guidance of a "vanguard party" comprised of an expert political leadership with a clear programme. The Trotskyist/Leninist Left may remix the song over and over again all they want but the tune remains the same: leaders and the cadres of the vanguard can find the answer; the mass movements of the people cannot liberate themselves. The case for leadership is simple. Most working-class people are too busy to have opinions or engage in political action. There’s a need for some…

Lenin and the Myth of 1917

A myth pervades that 1917 was a 'socialist' revolution rather it was the continuation of the capitalist one. What justification is there, then, for terming the upheaval in Russia a Socialist Revolution? None whatever beyond the fact that the leaders in the November movement claim to be Marxian Socialists. M. Litvinoff practically admits this when he says:In seizing the reigns of power the Bolsheviks were obviously playing a game with high stake. Petrograd had shown itself entirely on their side. To what extent would the masses of the proletariat and the peasant army in the rest of the country support them?”This is a clear confession that the Bolsheviks themselves did not know the views of the mass when they took control. At a subsequent congress of the soviets the Bolsheviks had 390 out of a total of 676. It is worthy of note that none of the capitalist papers gave any description of the method of electing either the Soviets or the delegates to the Congress. And still more cu…

No More Propertyless

Socialism is the name given to that form of society in which there is no such thing as a propertyless class, but in which the whole community has become a working community owning the means of production—the land, factories, mills, mines, transport and all the means whereby wealth is created and distributed to the community. The first condition of success for Socialism is that its adherents should explain its aim and its essential characteristics clearly, so that they can be understood by every one. This has always been the primary purpose of the Socialist Party's promotion of its case for socialism. The idea of socialism is simple. Socialists believe that society is divided into two great classes that one of these classes, the wage-earning, the proletariat, is property-less the other, the capitalist, possesses the wealth of society and the proletariat in order to be able to live at all and exercise its faculties to any degree, must hire out their ability to work to the capitalis…