Ella Rule
Tom Sankey: This is Tom Sankey with the British Left Oral History Project. It is 3:16 on the 16th of June 2025. Can you please say your full name for the recording?
Ella Rule: I'm known as Ella Rule.
Sankey: Thank you very much. So, what was your first introduction to leftist politics?
Rule: My First introduction was through reading Red Star Over China by Edgar Snow, which sort of smashed a lot of the prejudices that I had been brought up with. The sort of, you know, general feeling that English people were superior to other people. Other people were in a mess because they weren't as good as English people. That really just woke me up.
Sankey: And how did this compare to your parents and your family's beliefs?
Rule: My father was a dentist, my mother was a doctor, so we were sort of middle class professional setup. And I suppose those prejudices were pretty common with that class of person at that time. You grow up believing they were immutable truths. even though your day-to-day experience, time and time again. exceptions or what you thought of as exceptions rather than challenged your immutable truths.
Sankey: So you didn't grow up in a particularly political household?
Rule:No definitely not.
Sankey: So were you particularly aware of the national political scene in your adolescence?
Rule: I was totally unaware. Completely and totally ignorant and, and lacking in any interest. I think I wasn't interested because it was something that I couldn't understand, didn't think I'd be able to understand, so I just took no notice.
Sankey: So it wasn't until Red Star then that you started paying attention?
Rule: That’s right.
Sankey: When did you first get involved in politics personally?
Rule: It would have be about 1968-69. I met… I was a, I’d just started work as a law lecturer and I met Harpal Brah and his wife at a law teachers conference and they set me on a path, you know, started off with arguments and discussions, and what they said to me seemed to make sense and help to make sense of things that I’d been quietly worried about without ever hoping I’d understand, but they did in fact introduce me to these ideas which absolutely married up with my experiences of life.
Sankey: I feel like you just, what did you do for work in the 90s? You were in law?
Rule: Yeah I was a, I taught law at what was, at that time, the Ealing Technical College, and then it later became the Ealing College of Higher Education, then it became the Polytechnic of West London, then it became Thames Valley University, and now it's the University of West London.
Sankey: Were you much involved with the trade unions at this time?
Rule: I wasn't hugely involved, but I was co-opted into the local branch of the NATFHE, the National Association of Teachers in Further and Higher Education and I acted as a branch treasurer, as I recall. And I, I, in a sort of nice way, I did my union duty as it were. I don't know if you've heard of John Hendy, but his father Jack Hendy was a lecturer at the college as well. He had been in the electrical trade union and was thrown out for some communist scandal that they had, I do remember but, so he was sort of faintly progressive and got me into union activity.
Sankey: So were very many of your co-workers involved in leftist activism?
Rule: Absolutely not.
Sankey: Absolutely not… Did this have an impact on your interpersonal relationships?
Rule: Well at one time it did because…
Rule: In those days, racism was ubiquitous and again you know these seem to be eternal truths. I mean I once, at the university in London, I was walking down a corridor in front of a couple of law lecturers who were going on about how thick African students were, you know, you wouldn't hear it these days, but then taken for granted. And I did have a bit of a ding-dong with my fellow law staff because, you know, it was suggested to me that foreign applicants for jobs in, you know, teaching jobs for us, were less desirable than English applicants and I sort of said it was racist. And these were days before the Race Relations Act, and I got victimized as a result of accusing them all.
Sankey: So it was mainly race politics that was your kind of gateway to the left?
Rule: It was my baptism of fire, yes. It was re as well. I mean my lawyers didn't speak to me for about three years but that was good because I made friends with accountants and economists and other people who didn't feel that I'd personally affronted them
Sankey: Aside from Red Star and Harpal, were there any writers or politicians or activists that you felt were especially inspiring to you at the time?
Rule: No, I don't think so. I remember going to lecture by Tony Benn and being quite sort of excited that oh, I’m going to hear the great Tony Benn. And what was the thrust of what he was saying, he was heavily into work at that time, and he actually said that we need to open the books of companies to the workers so they can understand when they need to be made redundant. I'm afraid the scales fell, clanking, off my eyes, and it was never the same again, as they say.
Sankey: Yeah. So what group swere you a part of in the 1980s and 90s?
Rule: The group that we formed in 1970 was the Association of Communist Workers. And that carried on probably through most of the time that you were interested in, except that in '97 we joined Arthur Scargill’s party, the Socialist Labour Party. We were slung out of the Socialist Labour Party and then we formed the Communist Party of Great Britain (Marxist-Leninist) in 2004.
Sankey: Sure. Sorry, do you mind moving your hand a bit away from there? Thank you very much.
Sankey: So did you feel that the Association of Communist Workers was aligned with your racial politics?
Rule: Oh, yes. In fact, you know, it was with the organization behind me that I was able to maintain a fight in spite of the victimization I was subjected to as a result.
Sankey: Did you notice much of a tension between the Association and the wider racial equity movement?
Rule: I don't think so. I mean, we participated in the campaign against racist laws and we went on antiracist marches and all that sort of thing. So as far as it was purely a racial thing, fighting against racism, then I don’t think we had too much problem in joining with other people. Our problem was basically people who were sycophantic about the Labour Party and people who were into black nationalism who wanted to, you know, who were racist from the other direction. But that's it.
Sankey: So you didn’t face much, did you face much stigma for identifying as communists at time, within the racial equity movement?
Rule: No, no, no, I don’t think so.
Sankey: So what was the community like in the Association of Communist Workers? Was it a large group at the time?
Rule: Tiny. Tiny. You know, I'd often joke that every time we bought, attracted somebody new we bought a new teapot so there’s enough tea to go around. And somebody would leave. It was a minute. And if you saw that film, Life of Brian, we all went to see that and we were absolutely falling about because it was exactly the situation we found ourselves in.
Sankey: [referring to lapel microphone] Sorry, can you flip there? (Rule: Oh, sorry.) No worries.
Rule: I mean, we did meet with other groups, especially the, what you would call the Maoist groups at that time, a bit different from the Maoist groups today. And we were trying to form a party but people, it was a time were people were very you know, with the revisionism in the Soviet Union, with Stalin having been denounced, and such a huge and important party as the Communist Party of the Soviet Union (Bolshevik) having basically succumbed to the grossest anti-Marxist ideas. Those of us who actually agreed with the Chinese criticisms of the Soviet party tended to be very paranoid and worried about people worming themselves in like they'd wormed themselves into the Communist Party of the Soviet Union to peddle un-communist politics. And so, you know, you have the difference over the slightest thing and that's it, you couldn't speak to them ever again.
Rule: And I think one line that people found unacceptable that we were putting forward was the idea that the British working class had been bought off with the super profits that were coming from abroad. Quite a nice life was provided for the average worker and the workers' leaders were provided with more than a nice life, huge salaries and large cars and all the rest of it. And that was a problem for us. That would be interpreted by is the saying that we were writing off the British working class, but we weren’t, we were just saying that this was the problem that we've got to face and deal with.
Sankey: So, did your group take, was your group more interested in political education or taking in people who had already reached their.
Rule: No, we were interested in [laughs] anybody really but realistically we did follow the Leninist principle for party building is that you aim your propaganda first at the advanced workers, but by advanced workers we’re not talking about people who were hugely educated in Marxism or anything, ee were talking about people who were prepared off their bums and go out and do something, either go on strike or go on a demonstration, just do, you know, who were active rather than passive, and then to work to try to convince them. We’d face a barrage of people who hadn’t been sort of sucked up by Trotskyite and revisionist groups and been turned into fundamentally anti-communists, believing that they were doing the right thing. So, we put a lot of emphasis on the fight against opportunism, and everyone said we were sectarian, sectarian, sectarian because we were always pointing how other people’s policies were actually unhelpful at the very least, and sometimes worse.
Rule: So did you come into direct conflict with Trotskyists much in your time? Or was it more conflict over potential recruits.
Rule: There wasn’t a conflict over recruits, there was a conflict over ideas. You know, every Trotskyite basically joins in with the ruling class. They say well capitalism may be awful and you might be suffering under capitalism, but believe me, communism is much worse. And Trotskyites would follow that line, and therefore we would be countering that line. When it came actually to physical fighting, we had one occasion in the women's movement, they were very keen to suppress our voice for some reason, I’m not quite sure what it was, but they certainly didn’t like the idea of men and women supporting each other in the fight against sexism and all that kind of thing. They wanted, well they were, it was a student movement, there was a lot of nonsense going on. A lot of diversionary stuff, and they tried to expel us from a meeting which led to a certain amount of physical.
Rule: And then the only other occasion I remember where it came to this physical. It was actually some other little group trying to prevent, Maoist or Marxist-Leninist group, trying to stop us from holding a meeting, I can't even remember what the issue was. But by and large, we were rather fierce so people left us alone.
Sankey: So with the feminist stuff, How did your group and yourself interact with the feminist movement as a whole?
Rule: Well, this is a little bit before your time, it was the 1970s. But a movement did grow up around the strike of the Dagenham ford workers, the women demanding equal pay with men of equivalent skill or training. And a whole women's movement arouse about that, and what we wanted to go into that movement and explain the Marxist analysis of why women are oppressed and the Marxist solution. So, you know, against these people saying, you know, the men are the enemy, you've got to kick the men out of the bed, you’ve all got to become lesbians and all the rest of it, we were there trying to impart some sanity. But as I say they were there trying to prevent us from being heard.
Sankey: Right. So did your commitment to socialist, communist politics, how the rest of your life? I mean, we've gone over your work briefly, but I'd love to hear more about that.
Rule: Well it makes you unpromotable, largely unpromotable anyway, I managed to get that principal lecturer but they definitely wouldn't have allowed me to move into management, but I think I had bad tick against me as a result of the struggle against racism really early on. And I think, you know, I was told at the time I wouldn't get a promotion ever again, and I think that that carried on throughout my career, so there was no question of my moving into the larger salary brackets, which is probably just as well
Sankey: And did it affect your home life much?
Rule: Well yes, I suppose it did because I was married at the time, and you know, when I discovered Marxism… When you first discover Marxism, you think you've got the answer to everything and you're so keen to go around to tell everyone this is what, and then you find that other people simply don't agree. And it comes as quite a surprise and I wasn't actually able to get my husband involved, you know, he was prepared to tolerate my going out and doing that sort of thing but he didn't really relate to it. And so, our interests diverged and to that extent, you know, divorce eventually became inevitable.
Sankey: How did the rest of your family react to your involvement?
Rule: They all thought I was mad.
Sankey: Okay. How about your friends outside of the movement?
Rule: I didn't have any friends outside the movement. I have, I suppose I have the Spanish family I've always got on very well with them, my actual relations again, they just regarded it as a rather amusing eccentricity.
Sankey: Has this changed since the 80s and 90s, your relationship with people outside the movement?
Rule: I don’t think so, I don’t know, how would it change? I’m so, I’m so stuck inside the movement that they're probably a little bit unaware.
Sankey: So what was your relation, what was your relationship to mainstream politics?
Rule: Well we were extremely hostile to the Labour Party. And that is, that was our organisation saying well, the Labour Party is the vehicle for introducing class collaboration, acceptance of the capitalist system, living with the capitalist system in the working class. Because it wasn't just the Labour Party, you had all the Trotskyite groups and revisionist groups sort of acting as satellites around the Labour Party telling everybody to vote Labour, It's not as bad as the Tories, the Tories are the bigger enemy. It was never capitalism as the enemy, the Tories are the enemy, the Labour Party is the working-class party, and the fact that the policies were indistinguishable from the Tories seem to have escaped them.
Sankey: So, I'd like to go over the ’84-’85 strikes. How did your party, how did your group, sorry, how did it impact them?
Rule: Well, it kept us very busy. [laughs] We organized meetings in Southhall. In Southhall we had connections with the Indian Workers Association and therefore we actually had some mass influence among the Indian workers at that particular time. And so, we were able to organize pretty large meetings, you know, in support of the miners, raising money for them to some extent, inviting miners from the Kent coalfield to come along and speak and things of that nature. So yes, it was exciting times.
Sankey: Did you find that your group diverged from other leftists, similar leftist groups at the time?
Rule: Not particularly, not on the question of the strike, no.
Sankey: Not on the question of the strike, okay, The next question was about the fall of the Soviet Union was of course massive in the 1990s. How did your group react to that?
Rule: We, well, Harpal Brah wrote a book, and he wrote a book because I threatened to write it if he didn't, [laughs] on why the Soviet Union collapsed, and in a way that was very important book because it, it sort of made our mark on international communist movement. It was picked up the Belgian party, which were the Belgian Workers' Party, which was much more progressive in those days than it is now. Ludo Martens read it, and actually he had a lot of influence among a lot of people, and he recommended the book for reading around the movement and parties which knew it.
Rule: Now the whole purpose of writing the book was to explain that the fall of Soviet Union proved the criticism that the Chinese had made of the policy of the Communist Party of the Soviet Union were correct. This was now proved, we had the evidence, we knew, and the idea was that by explaining that we would give the international communist movement a chance to regroup, you know. Okay, people made a mistake, you can correct the mistake and come back. Now you got the proof you can, we can come back, we can all be a strong movement together again. It didn’t work like that. [laughs] The idea behind it and the important idea in that book was that the fall of the Soviet Union was not the failure of communism, it was the failure of the departure from communism, in particular market socialism. So, market socialism is really a total abortion. The whole point of having a revolution is to get rid of the vagaries of the market and the horrible things it does to people. And to have market socialism, it's basically to throw away your victory isn’t it?
Sankey: So you, did you have a lot of relationships with Communist parties and groups in other countries?
Rule: Well, yes, as a result of that, we used to go every year to Belgium to the seminar the PTB used to run, or the Workers' Party of Belgium used to run, and we met groups from everywhere. It was a very good way of meeting everybody and we had a huge advantage over most groups because every presentation we made was interesting. It actually dealt with actual things that were happening and, you know, So, yeah, those were good days.
Sankey: And you were involved with Indian leftists via Harpal?
Rule: Yeah, that's right. We basically, the Indian Workers’ Association of Great Britain, that part of it which was vaguely aligned with China, people like Joshi and Teja and Aftarjal, that, you know, sort of very large section of the Indian Workers Associaiton and we were working very, very closely for very many years.
Rule: It helped, I suppose, that in those days there was very little by way of entertainment for Indians available, and so when you held a meeting and you were having bhangra dancing or something, you know, you could always fill the hall. So that, that was our working-class constituency for very, very many years, but then it began to fall away. It was dealt quite a blow I think, by the Khalistan movement, which, you know, we were against this Khalistan movement. They issued death threats and all sorts. So, you know, this was how bad it was. And then people began to get television aerials which enabled them to get programs at home in the Indian language and it was never quite the same again And also, the Communist Party of India (Marxist) didn’t much like our politics. So, you know, they were more aligned with the peaceful road. So, one thing an another, that fizzled out a bit, we still maintain good relationships with one or two branches, but it wasn't like it was in the good old days.
Sankey: So moving on from international politics to social politics How did the changing social landscape of the 80s and 90s affect you and your movement?
Rule: Changing social landscape?
Sankey: For example, we’ve gone over feminism, but the gay rights movement, was there much of an overlap with your activism?
Rule: Yeah we were, I don't know, [unintelligible], I think. We said we have absolutely no interest in what people get up to in their private lives, in their beds, these are not political issues. And so, you know, we therefore didn’t want to drag it in, something that was, you know, divisive, it was unnecessary. You know, we wouldn't inquire about what people were up to, we'd neither knew nor care, and if we did know we didn't care. But of course, you know, at that time, the gay liberation movement was trying to impose itself as the thing that really mattered. Well, to us it wasn't the thing that really mattered. You can understand that people would not want to continue to be discriminated against in the way they had been and that, our policy was definitely that they shouldn't, that discrimination shouldn't continue. But, you know, going around waving pink flags or rainbow flags or whatever, just not our scene. And, you know, the ladies of the gay liberation movement were quite aggressive.
Sankey: Do you find you diverged much with other Marxist groups on that issue?
Rule: No I don’t think so, not really.
Sankey: So, you went over how your group evolved from the Association of Communist Workers into what it is now. So, your community’s expanded, is that fair to say? (Rule: Sorry?) Has your party expanded?
Rule: Well, it's expanded, yes. I mean, basically, first of all we formed a very short-lived joint group with the Association of Indian Communists. And we, we sort of merged with them. Again, it wasn't a huge group, but it was much bigger than it was before, then very shortly Arthur Scargill came to us and said, "Join the Socialist Labour Party”, and we thought about it and we joined the Socialist Labor Party. And within the Socialist Labour Party, we put forward our political line, and an awful lot of people agreed with us. [laughs] So what would have happened in 1996 or so, whether it's ‘96 or ’97 I could be wrong. But personally, one of the things I was in charge of, if you like was, or had been for many years, was Korea, to find out what was going on in Korea to, you know, to use what was useful for us and all the rest of it so I was more or less up to date with Korea and so were our members because we produced a little news sheet which gave some information and so on.
Rule: So, when we were in the Socialist Labour Party, you know, we'd obviously propagate that among other things because we were there to convince people of our political. And there was a congress took place, and at this time the DPRK had developed a nuclear bomb, and we said well, you know, we put forward a resolution to the effect that they had every right to do so. And Arthur Scargill opposed that resolution because he was in favour of unilateral disarmament, so America could have as many bombs as they like, everyone else has got to unilaterally disarm; theoretically America should as well, of course, that's not going to happen. But anyway, we put the resolution at the congress, Arthur Scargill spoke against it, but much to his consternation, the resolution passed. What was amusing is that Arthur Scargill was so astonished that the congress went against him, he forgot to cast his union vote, block vote. [laughs]
Rule: So the resolution did pass. Anyway, he was outraged, and very shortly after that we just found ourselves effectively booted out, for, and the story was that we'd made ourselves ineligible for membership, so we hadn't even got an appeal. Not that we would have used it in the circumstances. But by that time we got, you know, we'd got, we’d been close to a lot of progressive people and a lot just came with us when we left, you know, they were shocked at the way we were thrown out without having done anything wrong, we’d always behaved ourselves very well, and, you know, we had the beginnings of a party. So that’s when we formed the CPGB-ML.
Sankey: Did any of your experiences in the 80s and 90s, sort of inform any later political decisions that you made?
Rule: I don’t know, I don’t think so. I mean, you're evolving, I suppose, as you go along you're becoming more experienced, becoming a bit wiser probably than you might have been when you were youthful and enthusiastic. I don't think the enthusiasms gone but tempered my, a bit of caution, I don't know.
Sankey: Were there any decisions you made early on in your political career that you would not make now or vice versa?
Rule: Yeah, for a short time, we went along with the Chinese Communist Party talking nonsense about how the Soviet Union was an imperialist power and more dangerous than, than America. I don't know us more than a few months to realize you couldn’t say that sort of thing, it’s just nonsense. So now we’re very critical of anyone who tries to suggest that. Even today, even today that Russia is capitalist, we wouldn't say that it was imperialist, and even today when China restored the market in a big way, we still wouldn't say it was imperialist, people just don't understand imperialism, you know its, just count the gunboats.
Sankey: Ok so we’re moving towards the end of interview a little bit early, that totally fine. Is there anything you want to add about your experiences in the 80s and 90s that we haven't yet got to?
Rule: Well, yeah, one thing I suppose that’s worth mentioning is that we were party to forming the Stalin Society with other members, other groups and that had meetings every single month. So, every single month somebody had to come up with something useful to say, an interesting lecture of one sort or another, so that was extremely educational for us. The other thing to note is that I suppose in 1979, we brought out the first issue of Lalkar, which was at that time the organ of the Indian Workers Association, but gradually, it really became our organ, and that’s still going, coming out every couple of months. So that's the oldest surviving anti-imperialist journal in Britain, only comes out once every two months, but still. And I think those are the two main things that I would want to mention.
Sankey: Brilliant, well thank you very much, Ella, for your co-operation.
Rule: Ok, thank you.