Fran Broady, 1938-2014

May 23, 2014 at 7:08 pm (AWL, Feminism, good people, history, Marxism, posted by JD, RIP, socialism, trotskyism, women)

I didn’t know Fran Broady, though I’m sure our paths must have crossed once or twice, as we were both members of the I-CL (International-Communist League, forerunner of the AWL) in the mid-1970s. I certainly knew her by repute, and was aware of the respect she seemed to inspire in many comrades. She was one of a number of working class autodidacts who joined the Trotskyist and semi-Trotskyist movement in the UK in the 1970s, but are all too rare in the ranks of what passes for the far-left today. Comrades like Fran, and the contribution they made, deserve to be remembered. We republish an appreciation by the AWL’s Martin Thomas, followed by extracts from an article by Fran on Eleanor Marx:

Fran Broady, who was a leading member of our organisation in the 1970s, died on 18 May at the age of 75.

Fran met us in 1970, when we were an opposition tendency in IS (forerunner of, but very much more open than, today’s SWP). The IS/SWP expelled our tendency in December 1971, because of our campaign against the switch of line to “No to the Common Market” from advocating European workers’ unity. Fran chose our small expelled group without hesitation.

I remember a conversation with a student member of another left group in 1972, when we were labouring to get a circulation for our new, small, primitively-produced newspaper.

He liked the paper because it combined activist reporting with more theoretical articles, obviously (he said) by well-read writers. The article he pointed to was one by Fran (“Slaves of the slaves”, Workers’ Fight 11, 23/07/72).

“In the family, the man is the boss and the woman the worker… We have a long struggle ahead of us to establish our rights as human beings. Laws alone will never do that. We will have to do it ourselves…

“It is not enough to confine ourselves to fighting for women’s rights. We must take up our place in the working class and fight on all fronts, the economic, the political, and the ideological”.

Yet Fran’s formal education had been limited. She was working in a factory when she first met us; she later worked in other jobs, including for many years for Manchester City Council in a women’s hostel.

I remember her telling me about her first laborious effort to read the Communist Manifesto. The unfamiliar word “proletarians” was in the first section heading. Fran looked it up in a dictionary: “Someone who owns nothing but their children”.

She quickly educated herself in Marxism. Characteristic, also, was her first excursion to sell a socialist newspaper (Socialist Worker, it would have been). She sold some copies at a factory gate, but had one left as she travelled home. So she buttonholed the bus driver and sold it to him.

She was active in the lively women’s movement of the early 1970s, and part of setting up one of the first women’s refuges in Britain, in Manchester in 1972.

Her leaning was to ebullient polemic rather than subtle tactics. In 1976, this made her part of a dispute inside the women’s fraction of our organisation (then called I-CL), with Fran and Marian Mound regarding the others (Pat Longman, Michelle Ryan, Juliet Ash) as tending to political self-effacement in the name of movement-building, and the others regarding Fran and Marian as abstractly declamatory.

The dispute was transcended (with no dead-end aftermath) by the “transitional slogan” of a working-class-based women’s movement.

Fran’s domestic life was not smooth. Her husband Dave Broady, for whom I wrote an obituary in Solidarity just last month, was an angry, unsettled character.

Eventually Fran drifted out of activity. But her ideas, and her special admiration for Frederick Engels above other Marxist writers, didn’t change. She was active in the union; read our paper; donated money from time to time.

Her last years, after retiring from work, were difficult. Her health was poor: hypothyroidism, diabetes, arthritis. Her son David died suddenly in 2012, at the age of 47. Her ex-husband Dave was jailed for manslaughter in 2008, and then died in unclear circumstances. Relations with her daughters Karen and Rachel were not easy.

In January 2014, Fran collapsed at home and was taken to hospital and diagnosed with pneumonia. At first she mended well: she was interested and pleased when I took her a copy of our new book of cartoons from the US socialist press, 1930s to 1950s. But after the pneumonia was cured, she remained weak and declined towards death.

We send our condolences to Fran’s family and friends, and especially to her daughter Karen who works with AWL in Manchester.

I-CL National Committee, 1975: Fran is second from left at the front (with scarf)

* Karen Broady adds: Fran’s funeral will be on Friday 30 May at Manchester Crematorium, Barlow Moor Road, M21 7GZ at 3.30pm in the New Chapel.

Fran on Eleanor Marx

Eleanor Marx was born into the workshop and armoury of scientific socialism on the 16 January 1855.

Her father Karl Manx was immersed in the economic research for his great work, Capital. Volume 1 of Capital, which appeared in 1867, was to be decisive in transforming socialism from a moral ideal to a theory based on the most exact analysis of capitalist society and the contradictions driving towards its overthrow.

Meanwhile, the Marx family was plagued by illness and abject poverty. They had been forced into exile in Britain after Karl Marx’s active participation in the German revolution of 1848, and Marx was keeping his family through journalistic work supplemented by help from his friend and comrade, Friedrich Engels.

Eleanor was the Marx’s sixth child. They had already lost two sons and a daughter and were left with three girls, Jenny, Laura and Eleanor.

Eleanor Marx, more notably then either of her sisters, was to grow into a dedicated fighter for socialism. She organised and led the unskilled workers of the East End of London, and was for decades one of the foremost fighters in the British labour movement for the cause of working class socialist internationalism.

One of the first international issues which engaged her attention was Ireland. She was 12 years old at the time. Two Fenians, Thomas Kelly and Timothy Deasey, had been arrested for their part in the March uprising of 1867 against British rule in Ireland. They were rescued from a prison van in Manchester, and in the incident a policeman was accidentally shot. Kelly and Deasey escaped, but a manhunt was begun which ended in the arrest of over 30 Irishmen.

Three of these men—William Allen, Michael O’Brien and Michael Larkin — were publicly hanged on 23 November — the “Manchester Martyrs”.

This atrocity awakened in Eleanor a passionate interest in the “Irish Question”, and from then on her political sympathies were strongly with the Fenians.

When she was 16 she went to France. It was the time of the heroic rising of the Paris Commune, the first proletarians to seize power.

During the rising, despite the weakness of conscious socialist organisation in Paris, the Communards carried out policies of a socialist nature: they abolished rents, confiscated the means of production, abolished the standing army and state bureaucracy, and had all social affairs managed directly by workers and their elected representatives.

The Commune lasted from 18 March to 28 May. It was drowned in the blood of the workers of Paris.

The Communards, Marx wrote, “had been starved [during the Prussian siege of Paris, before the Commune was proclaimed] for six months into submission by internal treachery rather than by the external enemy. History has no like example of a like greatness. The first proletarians to seize power, they were storming heaven: the most glorious deed of our party.”

This period of revolution was to have a great effect on Eleanor, both politically and personally. Refugees flooded into London from Paris to escape the slaughter there: Paris lost 120,000 of its workers at this time. But there was not much support for them. “The saddest of all is the fact that in England the workers, with a few exceptions, were as bitterly hostile to the Commune as the ruling class,” she recalled later. “While all the world was against the Commune, one great organisation stood by the revolution, holding aloft the red flag: the International Working Men’s Association. The Communards bore hunger and misery and privation, disappointment and the agony of hope deferred without faltering or falling. All honour to their memory.”

Among the refugees, Eleanor Marx met Prosper-Olivier Lissagaray. She was ‘engaged’ to him for nine years (despite her father’s resolute disapproval) and translated his History of the Commune into English.

Eleanor’s political work began in earnest in 1881.

During the 30 years before 1879, British capitalism had monopolised the world market. Britain was known as the “workshop of the world”, and the British working class movement settled down to seeking minor reforms, losing the revolutionary edge that had marked its struggles in the ’30s and ’40s, in the great days of the Chartist Movement to win the vote for the working class.

In these decades, reformism entrenched itself, growing on the crumbs tossed from the tables of the ruling class, at the expense of workers in other countries, and primarily in Britain’s vast colonial empire.

But in 1879 there was a severe trade depression, with repercussions which reverberated throughout the working class. The next decade saw a growth in communist ideas.

Not many people at this time in Britain had thought about independent working class politics, and there was no socialist movement to speak of, unlike in Germany and France. The ideas of socialism were kept alive in a few Working Men’s Clubs. And German Social Democratic exiles were in touch with some of the old revolutionaries of the 1840s, who had kept their socialist ideas.

But after 1879 the labour movement was on the upturn; the major organisation in the revival of socialism in Britain was the Democratic Federation.

The DF was founded by Henry Hyndman in 1881. Within three years it evolved from being a Radical movement to adopting generally Marxist positions. In 1883 it adopted the name Social Democratic Federation, following the German Social Democratic Party.

Soon after it was founded, Eleanor Marx joined the DF. At that time the organisation was concerned mainly with the Irish Question, campaigning vigorously in defence of the oppressed nation.

It was also at this time that Eleanor’s path crossed with that of Edward Aveling. She lived and
worked wh him until her death in 1898.

Frederick Engels, who became Eleanor’s chief political guide after her father’s death in 1883, was very wary in his assessment of the SDF. He welcomed it, but was concerned that many of the people who turned towards Marxism were of bourgeois origin. They needed, Engels said, to turn themselves outwards, to implant themselves into the working class, if they were not to remain a sect.

To understand Engels’ and Eleanor’s perspective, we must look at the historical development of socialist ideas.

Since the French revolution of 1789-99, socialist sects had existed, especially in France. At their best they embodied a fiery revolutionary courage and hostility to capitalism. All of them, however, failed to see a link between the daily organisation and struggle of the working class within capitalism and the realisation of the future socialist society based on their ideals.

As industry and the working class expanded, these sects took on a more and more negative role. They were usually indifferent or even hostile to trade union struggle. Instead, they confined themselves to endless discussions on the details of the future socialist society, or in building up conspiratorial organisation for an eventual armed uprising (when they had accumulated enough men and guns).

From 1850 onwards, the guiding idea of Marx’s and Engels’ was the liquidation of the era of sects and the building of a broad working class movement. That perspective did not mean indifference to theory: on the contrary, Marx and Engels laboured for the utmost theoretical precision. But they wanted their theory to be “not a dogma but a guide to action”. The theory would be assimilated by the workers as a result of their experience, not as a result of incessant lecturing by an ‘enlightened’ few.

In Germany, socialist organisation developed as the working class developed, from the 1860s onwards. The trade union movement in Germany was a direct product of the socialist movement. In Britain, the working class had developed from the end of the 18th century, long before scientific socialism. Its early more or less confused rebellions, such as the Luddite riots, were defeated.

By the 1880s a sizeable trade union movement had developed, but it was a bourgeois-minded, non-socialist movement, confined mostly to skilled workers. In the late 1880s the unskilled workers began to unionise on a large scale. For Eleanor, the touchstone was always this mass movement of the working class. Groups like the SDF would play the role of valuable educating influences, or that of mere sects, depending on how they related to that working class movement.

The SDF was, despite everything, the first, the pioneering Marxist organisation in Britain, and in its time it contributed to the education of thousands of socialists. Later, having changed its name to the British Socialist Party, and having disposed of its old leadership, around Hyndman, it was the major component of the British Communist Party when it was formed.

Engels was very hostile to Hyndman, describing him as “a pretty unscrupulous careerist”, Engels observed of the SDF: “In every sect everything turns to scandal-mongering. ”

The SDF’s policy towards the working class was sectarian too. Though its members were active in the unions, and some of them came to be TU leaders, the SDF leaders tended to see the trade unions as a diversion from the political class struggle. One of the many able workers who joined, and left, the SDF, Tom Mann said of it: “the SDF antagonised the trade unionists without drawing any considerable percentage to socialism.”

But the first big clash between Eleanor and Hyndman came over internationalism. In spite of his support for some colonial struggles, Hyndman had strong nationalist tendencies (he ended up as a chauvinist during the First World War).

When Eleanor proposed sending an SDF delegation to the Roubaix Congress of the French Workers’ Party, Hyndman dismissed the proposal as a ‘family manoeuvre’. Eleanor’s sister Laura, and her brother-in-law Paul Lafargue, were prominent members of the French Workers’ Party.

In December 1884 things came to the point of a break. There was a 10 to 8 vote of no confidence in Hyndman on the executive of the SDF. But because Hyndman personally owned the SDF’s paper, he was able to keep control of the organisation and it was the executive majority who left the SDF with 500 of the SDF’s I,500 members.

The breakaway organisation, whose most prominent member was the poet and designer William Morris, was called the Socialist League. In its first Manifesto, the Socialist League took a stand on the bloody war being waged by British colonialism in the Sudan. Its paper, the Commonweal, carried a series by Eleanor under the title ‘Record of the Revolutionary International Movement’.

But the Socialist League never progressed very far. Its membership was drawn mainly from clerical workers and the lumpenproletariat. Its very loose internal organisation opened the doors of the organisation to all kinds of political influences. A group of anarchists entered, and it wasn’t long before the SL was caught up in internal strife, and then taken over by the anarchists.

Eleanor, arguing strongly against the anarchists, was on the losing side.

More and more, she extended her activity to the broad labour movement. Her next big battle was for free speech.

Socialists in the East End used to hold outdoor meetings, which were regularly harassed by the police. When Eleanor spoke to a crowd of 7,000 at Dod Street, Poplar, the police charged the crowd and arrested many people.

Eleanor went to court as a witness, where she annoyed the magistrate by refusing to promise to keep away from future meetings. The police in the courtroom manhandled her, and there was a violent scene when William Morris of the Socialist League went to her aid.

The next time the ‘fight for free speech’ mounted a demonstration there was a crowd of 60,000—with no arrests!

Then the Law and Liberty League, which had organised these free speech demonstrations, defied a police ban by calling a mass meeting in Trafalgar Square under the slogan ‘Home Rule for Ireland — and for London’. (They were demanding democratic local government for London). This was a different affair: police and soldiers charged the crowd, and a bystander, Alfred Linnel, was trampled by the cavalry and killed.

A 120,000-strong procession followed his coffin to Tower Hamlets cemetery, bearing the green flag in solidarity with the Irish struggle.

The Trafalgar Square experience scared off some of the ‘big names’. George Bernard Shaw became convinced that the workers could not take on the state, Ernest Rhys editor of the Everyman series of books, wrote the next day: “The Fabians for me!”

But Eleanor Marx remained a leader of the most militant wing of the movement.

In 1888 the Socialist League split and by 1889 it had effectively ceased to exist.

Meanwhile, the workers on strike at the Gas, Light & Coke Co in East Ham were celebrating victory.

The gas workers had tried in the past to organise themselves and failed; 1889 was the first decisive victory, with the establishment of the Gas Workers and General Labourers’ Union.

Eleanor had helped and led the strike, and was centrally involved in the new union, one of the most important of the growing unskilled workers’ organisations. She drew up the founding Address and rules of the union, working closely with Will Thorne, a major leader of the union, whom she taught to read and write.

As a member of the union executive, Eleanor took special responsibility for two of its branches, which were composed entirely of women workers. She was also mainly responsible (as she had been in the Socialist League) for the movement’s international connections. In 1889 she had been deeply involved in organising the first congress of the ‘Second International’, an international union of socialist parties and workers’ organisations.

The life of a union official in those days, especially in the new, unskilled unions, was very different from the life of such a person today. Eleanor was ceaselessly active, building the union and helping strikes; meanwhile she scraped a living as a typist.

The Gas Workers’ union fought for an eight hour day. While Eleanor was heavily involved in strikes for this demand, she, and more so her companion Edward Aveling, also tried to create a general class movement for an eight hour day by law. The Legal Eight Hours and International Labour League organised huge demonstrations around this demand.

Eleanor’s main work was in the East End, then the main working class area of London and the centre of the new movement of unskilled trade unionism. Racialism existed in East London in those days, too— mainly directed against Jewish immigrants. Eleanor campaigned against anti-semitism, openly proclaiming her own Jewish ancestry, and learning Yiddish to help her organise among the Jewish working women of Whitechapel.

She and Aveling also spoke and worked among the Radical clubs of London—which, though tied to the Liberal Party, included a large proportion of the most politically conscious workers.

Their aim was always to establish a theoretically and politically trained grouping of people within the mass movement, people capable of ensuring that the movement took a socialist direction. After the collapse of the Socialist League, they did not give up on the project of building a socialist party.

When Keir Hardy founded the Independent Labour Party in 1893 Eleanor was at the founding conference as an observer. Aveling attended as a delegate.

In contrast to earlier socialist movements, the ILP had its main base in the industrial north and in Scotland. Engels found this especially encouraging and wanted the SDF to fuse with the ILP. He was fed up with the self-contained sect-like approach of the SDF, and believed that the duty of Marxists was to assist every step forward in the ‘real labour movement’. He did not mean by this that Marxists should lose themselves within movements like the ILP, but that they should integrate themselves into it, helping its members forward to revolutionary conclusions.

The SDF, however, resolved to “preserve an attitude of benevolent neutrality towards the ILP”. Aveling and a few other Marxists got positions on the leading committee of the ILP, but they were left as a small minority by the SDF’s aloofness. Once again, as with the rise of trade unionism among unskilled workers, Hyndman’s group proclaimed itself to be the only custodian of the real interests of the working class, abstained from the actual struggle, isolated itself from most of the working class, and thus left the field clear for anti-Marxist forces, who were able to establish themselves as the leadership of the labour movement.

The ILP remained dominated by attitudes like those of its main leader, Keir Hardie, closer to Christian Socialism than to Marxism. Eleanor, Aveling, and their few comrades were not strong enough to stop this.

This sectarianism was a recurrent pattern to be repeated by the SDF at the time of the formation of the Labour Party, by the early Communist Party in its attitude to the Labour Party, and in Britain today by the SWP. It set up a specifically British ‘Marxist’ tradition of sectarianism, against which both Karl and Eleanor Marx fought unrelentingly.

After the mid-1890s the political outlook became bleaker for Marxists. The long depression ended and there was a new boom for British imperialism. Reformism became well established throughout the unions and in the ILP. The Eight Hours League faded away.

For Eleanor there was a special blow when Engels died in 1895. The Marxists lost a wealth of experience going back to the revolutions of 1848.

Eleanor and Aveling rejoined the SDF in 1897, as did the two other most prominent members of the SL, William Morris and Ernest Belforth Bax. As revolutionaries they saw the need to be inside a socialist organisation.

With the death of Eleanor in 1898 and that of Aveling, from septicemia, a few months later, the British labour movement lost two of its best Marxist leaders. Eleanor committed suicide. No-one knows for sure why, though her betrayal by Aveling is usually taken as the main precipitating cause of her death.

Aveling was an unpopular figure, and widely blamed for Eleanor’s suicide. Nevertheless, for the 14 years that they were together they did dedicate themselves utterly and whole-heartedly to the working class.

Throughout, they understood that a conscious Marxist leadership does not fall from the sky ready made, nor is it a spontaneous product of the labour movement: Scientific class consciousness is not automatically generated in the minds of workers in struggle. Marxists have to take their ideas into the working class and its labour movement and relate them to the struggles and experience of the working class.




  1. Fran Broady, 1938-2014 | OzHouse said,

    […] May 23 2014 by admin […]

  2. justiceforkevinandjenveybaylis said,

  3. Mike Killingworth said,

    Perhaps the reason there are so few feminist autodidacts nowadays is because women get a better deal from the education system than they did in the 1940s and 1950s.

    Thank you for mentioning the difficulties of FB’s private life, which it would have been so easy to gloss over. I presume alcohol abuse was involved, an issue that socialists, particularly “working-class autodidacts” have never fully got to grips with.

  4. Karen said,

    Fran may we ll have been a “working-class autodidact” but no, she was not an alcoholic, in fact she barely drank. Why on earth you would presume this baffles me. Not all political, working class people are drunks, funnily enough.

    • Mike Killingworth said,

      There are women (of all classes and political views) who, whilst themselves abstemious, have a self-destructive affection for men who drink abusively. Please read other peoples’ comments properly before commenting on the basis of what you think they’ve said.

  5. Fran Broady, 1938-2014 | SOCIALISM: the Informant said,

    […] By charliethechulo […]

  6. Karen Broady said,

    There was no alcohol involved in any of this. You presumptuous, arrogant, middle class prick. The reason many working class women abandon left wing politics is because it is dominated by irritating, irrelevant, nasty, little fools such as yourself.
    Perhaps you ought to consider how you respond to obituaries and in particular, how you respond to working class women. Perhaps before you put your digits to use, you ought to stop acting like your arrogance is a virtue.

  7. scatty2013Scatty said,

    Fran was a good friend of mine. We worked together for quite a long time.
    I spent many a happy hour putting the world to rights with her on night shifts. As a younger working class woman, I learned a lot from her about socialism and the role that working class women need to play in the movement if we want to change the world.

    I came here to comment that it was nice to see an acknowledgement of her place in the socialist movement but I’ve been distracted from that by the comments.

    I’m shocked at the tone of your comments Mike. Why would you ‘presume alcohol abuse was involved’? And why would you even suggest that alcohol abuse is something that ‘particularly ‘working-class autodidacts’ have to get to grips with. Alcohol abuse is something that everyone needs to get to grips with but that debate has no place in this discussion.

    Comments like that are precisely why working class feminists think twice before they get involved with the labour movement and socialist organisations.

    • Mike Killingworth said,

      I will reply to you, scatty2013scatty – it’s obvious that Karen thinks the world would be a better place if I dropped dead, so there’s not much point talking to her.

      It was Martin Thomas in the original article who described Fran’s husband (and I apologise for not realising that Karen was Fran’s daughter) as “an angry, unsettled character”. This is not unusually a way of saying that someone has an alcohol problem (or a drug problem) and I would even go so far as to say that a man who is angry and unsettled without having such a problem is in a worse case than one who has.

      I stand by my comment about the need for socialists to address the issue of addiction (whether to alcohol or any other drug) not least because I have had to do so myself. And yes, I do think that the more education an individual has had the more likely they are to seek help because addiction only persists in those whose lifestyle tolerates it.

      Perhaps you could do me a favour, Scatty, and find a way of explaining to Karen that abusive behaviour, whether on a comments column like this or anywhere else, is not an effective method of dealing with grief. When Karen does get around to addressing her grief she may well discover that she is not a socialist after all, but an anarchist – the difference* is in the heart: a socialist can contemplate exercising political power, an anarchist knows that it is political power itself that causes all the evils Marx accused capitalism of. Certainly if I had to exercise power (and live with the consequences of my actions) I might very well pick up a drink after nearly seventeen years…

      I *apart from the fact that I know of no socialist who takes or took Karen’s view of education

  8. Southpawpunch (@Southpawpunch) said,

    Mike, you are just compounding your errors and I make this point as someone unconnected – i.e. it is not just people who knew Fran Broady who would think such. Silence (or, even better an apology) would be best.

    • Mike Killingworth said,

      To whom should I apologise, SPP? Karen? Is she going to retract what she said about me? I doubt it.

      What is the difference between Martin Thomas’s original reference to Dave Broady’s nature and my expansion thereon? Oh of course, silly me, he’s in your ridiculous groupuscule and I’m not.

      • dagmar said,

        Are you deliberately being a bit dim, or have you never read any comments from SPP? He is in a groupulscule of one, and makes that known regularly here and elsewhere (and might also still be a member of ‘Left Unity’). He is not in the AWL (and certainly doesn’t want to be).

        Has the alcohol been getting tou you before you wrote that comment? 6.20pm is a bit early for the scotch.

      • Mike Killingworth said,

        Dagmar, try reading the last sentence of the last paragraph but one of my reply to scatty 🙂

      • dagmar said,

        You’re in denial. Of course it’s lucozade.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: